Agenda item

Land North Of Butt Lane And East Of Hepworth Road Woodville/Blackfordby Swadlincote

The Planning and Development Team Manager presented the report to Members and read out a letter of objection from Andrew Bridgen MP:

Councillor S McKendrick, Ward Member, addressed the Committee. She informed Members that the village was a rural location and had a strong identity. She highlighted that the site was outside the Limits to Development and that the Greenfield space should be maintained to avoid urban sprawl. She raised concerns that there was no agreement to strengthen the infrastructure adding that the school would be oversubscribed and there was no capacity in any of the schools in Derbyshire therefore making the development unsustainable. She stated that the application was inappropriate and urged Members to refuse.

Mr M Ball, Town Councillor, addressed the Committee. He reminded Members that it was only three months since the last application was considered and it appeared that there were the same shortcomings, and stated that the village had no wish to be part of the South Derbyshire urban sprawl. He highlighted that:

-        the site was outside the Limits to Development,

-        the Council had its five year housing land supply,

-        91 dwellings would increase the size of the village by 25%,

-        The school was at full capacity

-        Residents of the development would be reliant on their cars, leading to an increase in traffic on a highway that was not fit for purpose,

-        The proposed access was inappropriate,

-        the sewers would not cope with the additional properties.

He urged the Committee to refuse the application.

Mr R Nettleton, objector, addressed the Committee. He expressed concerns that the location was unsustainable and over the impact that the development would have on the current drain and sewage system. He stated that the old system was over capacity and an additional hundred homes would add to the issue. He advised the Committee that the area had suffered from severe flooding seven or eight times a year and that the resident’s fears of raw sewage in their houses and gardens should be a material consideration for refusal.

Mr R Woolston, agent, addressed the Committee. He advised the Members that the officer conclusion that the site was sustainable was fair and that the development would include walking and cycling links to both villages. He highlighted that there was already development on 3 sides of the site therefore this would be infill. He stated that the land was low quality farm land and the housing land supply was minimal therefore the development was considered acceptable in principle. He added that there were no technical objections or material reasons for refusal and urged Members to support the application.

A motion to refuse the application on the grounds that the development would be outside the Limits to Development and unsustainable was moved by Councillor J G Coxon and seconded by Councillor J Legrys.

Councillor J G Coxon stated that he was concerned that the development would ruin the separation and that space was needed between the villages to give identity. He felt it would not be sustainable and highlighted that the other local authorities had raised concerns over the development.

Councillor J Legrys stated that the coalescence of the villages needed to be considered to ensure that they kept their separate identities, and that if the development was approved there would be no separation of the counties. He expressed his surprise that the application had an officer stamp of approval when there were urban design issues and other authorities opposed the application with concerns of overloading services. He felt that that the lack of area separation was a good ground to reject the application.

Councillor V Richichi stated that the motion to refuse was the right direction and that the Committee was considering public opinion. He reiterated that the report stated that the site was outside the Limits to Development and added that a 25% increase would change village life. He expressed that he would not be supporting the application.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration advised Members that the application was for outline permission and that any urban design issues would be dealt with at the next stage, that there was a shortage of evidence to show the impact the development would have on services and that the authority could not force NHS England to ask for Section 106 contributions, therefore the development would be sustainable without the contributions.

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be refused on the grounds that the development would be outside the Limits to Development and unsustainable.