Agenda item

Land At The Spittal Castle Donington Derby DE74 2NQ

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report to members.

Mr R Sizer, representing the Parish Council, addressed the committee.  He stated that Castle Donington Parish Council had always objected to proposals for development on this site as it formed a green corridor including Spittal Park between the industrial estate and the village rich with wildlife He explained that the main concern was access and egress to the site as this was via a very narrow lane, and the attempt to address this issue was nowhere near adequate, as the hill was very steep.  He advised that Spittal Park had a skate park and a multi use gym area, and the through walk to the centre of the village could get busy with the events held at the park.  He stated that the extra traffic generated by the development would be detrimental to the safety of pedestrians and the many unaccompanied youngsters using the park.  He added that the site was a designated area of sensitivity being on the edge of a conservation area and there was a history of subsidence on the site with the retaining walls collapsing, which he felt could be attributed to the run-off water from the top of hill.  He felt that the proposed white render would not allow the houses to blend into the hillside and would be an eyesore on the entrance of the conservation area.  He stated that there was a history of refused developments on this site.  He made reference to the proposed woodland walk which crossed land owned by the Parish Council and no permission had been sought to do so.

Mrs S Clarke, objector, addressed the meeting.  She spoke on behalf of local residents who objected to the proposed development as they felt the village had made its fair contribution to future homes.  She expressed concerns regarding flooding, as the proposed development was on a steeply sloping site which would increase the surface water running on to The Spittal, impacting upon the use of the playing fields.  She added that the lack of facilities had led to anti social behaviour in the past and the Parish Council had worked hard to make improvements.  She added that youngsters met opposite the development site and the area was currently shielded.  She expressed concerns that potential residents whose properties would face The Spittal would object to the noise which may lead to restrictions on the use of the facility.  She also expressed concerns regarding the access as The Spittal was narrow with limited lighting, and the proposed widening utilised land not in the ownership by the applicant.  She stated that the development site was the last remaining green area in the village providing a wildlife habitat, and the area had a sensitive eco system, the balance of which would be jeopardised.  She added that the village was surrounded by significant polluters and such green areas were needed to improve the health of local residents.  She concluded that residents were not opposed to good development, however they felt that this was tick box architecture with unsympathetic design and materials being used.

Mr L Wiggins, agent, addressed the committee.  He stated that whilst the site was located in a sensitive area, important landscape features would be retained to screen the development.  He added that the sensitive area designation was not being carried forward into the new Local Plan and so could be given little weight.  He added that there were no technical objections to the scheme.  He acknowledged the concerns of the Parish Council in respect of pedestrian safety, however the Highways Authority had raised no objections subject to the road being widened.  He added that there was extensive open space nearby and the officer’s report stated that the proposals would not give rise to a significant loss of amenity.

Mr C Twomey, architect addressed the committee.  He summarised that the development had been designed with sensitivity to the ecology, topography and character of the site.  He added that just 13 dwellings were proposed along with a new woodland walk providing residents with access to a community orchard.  He advised that the applicant hoped to connect the woodland walk to Campion Hill and would be pleased to discuss this further with the Parish Council.  He concluded that the proposal would create truly distinctive sustainable development with a strong sense of place. He pointed out that the scheme had been assessed by the Council’s Urban Designer, and awarded 12 green out of 12 under the Building for Life.   He urged members to support the officer recommendation.

Councillor R Canny – moved that the application be refused on the grounds that the development site was a greenfield site in a sensitive area, and the character and design was not appropriate for the site.  She also expressed concerns regarding ecology and drainage issues.  The motion was seconded by Councillor M B Wyatt.

Councillor R Canny stated that the officer’s recommendation to permit the application balanced the sustainability of the development and the presumption in favour of development with the issues raised, and she asked members to consider whether this balance was fair or correct.  She reiterated that the site was a Greenfield site and a designated area of sensitivity as it adjoined the conservation area, and Policy E1 protection was currently in place.  She added that when this lapsed this did not mean that the site was no longer a sensitive area to all those who used the park and lane.  She stated that Spittal Park was a meeting place for the whole of Castle Donington and outlined the various events which took place there.  She added that Spittal Lane in itself was a much loved semi-pedestrianised rural lane enjoyed by dog owners and walkers, providing a wealth of wildlife and encouraging an ecologically sound method of accessing the village.  She felt that the proposals would completely alter the character of the lane.  She highlighted the seven applications on the site which had already been refused, all of which were for single dwellings.  She added that she could not agree with the urban design assessment, as the integration of the site into the surrounding area did not visually respect the character of the area.  She stated that she appreciated that planning should not stifle innovation, however she referred to NPPF paragraph 58, which clearly stated that developments should respond to the local character and history and reflect the identity of the surroundings.  She also made reference to paragraph 66 of the NPPF which stated that the view of community should be taken into account and she highlighted that no one she had spoken to had anything positive to say about this development.  She stated that this very modern, minimalist design was not innovative, it was urban and was not suited to this area.  She added that the highly visible 3 and half story buildings would not blend in to the landscape.  She commented that the ecology issues had  supposedly been solved, however the loss of foraging ground for wildlife on the site had not been accounted for.  She added that the diverse wildlife had nowhere else to go as Spittal fields would not support it.  She stated that the site was the only green lung in the village which helped with pollution issues.  She expressed concerns regarding the white render.

The Chairman advised Councillor R Canny that she had spoken for 5 minutes in total.

Councillor G Jones stated that this was a low density proposal and he considered the architecture to be innovative.  He added that it met 12 of the green building for life criteria and his only concern was water run-off.  He concluded that on balance he would support the officer’s recommendation.

Councillor D Everitt stated that Castle Donington had contributed a great deal of development and he felt great sympathy with the residents.  He felt that another important part of the green space would be lost and that there was the possibility of flooding problems. He also felt what was important to the villagers should be valued, and he questioned why villages continued to be attacked from the inside.  He stated that this seemed wrong to him, especially in a village that had contributed to development needs so much.

Councillor D Harrison expressed concerns that any water problems would render damage to the construction unless it was really secured.  He also expressed concerns about the elevations and stated that he was not comfortable with this scale of development in that area.

Councillor N Smith stated that the design did not suit Castle Donington as it was out of character and that he would be voting against the proposals.

Councillor J Legrys expressed deep concerns about the design of the buildings in that location, particularly with the white render.  He also felt that the proposals simply wouldn’t work, and expressed concerns that it would not be possible for the dwellings to be constructed conventionally.

Councillor M Specht commented that the site was merely an overgrown and unkempt paddock, and he had been minded to support the officer’s recommendation; however having listened to the speakers and considering the design aspects, he felt he had to agree with the motion to refuse the application. 

The Chairman then put the motion to the vote.

It was moved by Councillor R Canny, seconded by Councillor M B Wyatt and

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be refused on the grounds that the development site was greenfield and in a sensitive area, and the character and design, together with the site’s prominence due to the topography, was not appropriate.