Agenda item

Land at Queens Street, Measham, Swadlincote, Derbys, DE12 7JE

The Planning and Development Team Manager presented the report to Members.

The Legal Advisor reminded Members that boundary disputes were not planning matters and therefore could not be considered a reason for refusal.

Councillor S Sheahan, neighbouring Ward Member addressed the Committee. He stated that the site would be over developed and as these were proposed starter homes there were issues around the highways safety as the roads were narrow, there were two blind bends and an inadequate turning circle. The access and private drive would not comply with the County Council’s 6Cs document.  He felt that the applicant should consider combining the development with the Queensway House site to make it more attractive. He urged the Committee to consider deferring the application if they felt the problems could be resolved, but if they could not then they should refuse the application.

Ms P Wheatcroft, objector, addressed the Committee. She advised the Members that a previous application for seven houses had been refused in 2013 as the proposal did not fit the site and the developer had not addressed the issues over the boundary which would be solved if the northern boundary was accurately shown on the plans. She highlighted that the location of the storage for the seven waste bins would have an adverse effect on the neighbouring properties and due to the narrow road the bin lorry would not be able to access them without reversing which would be dangerous. There was no suitable turning and the drive was not wide enough which would not be acceptable in relation to the County Councils 6Cs document.  She questioned the root protection of the trees and whose responsibility it would be. She felt that the development was a very poor design and not deliverable, and urged Members to refuse the application.

Mr S Mitchell, applicant, addressed the Committee.  He advised Members that permission had been granted for five dwellings but the site had been extended to accommodate eight dwellings and the application had now been reduced to seven dwellings. He informed Members that each property would have well adequate sized gardens and two car parking spaces each, and the landscaping would enhance the amenity of the area. He highlighted to Members that they had addressed all the concerns that had been raised by officers, including preserving neighbour’s privacy and amenity, the development would contribute to the area and there was a huge requirement for good quality housing at starter prices that the application would contribute towards.

The officer’s recommendation was moved by Councillor J Bridges and seconded by Councillor M Specht.

Councillor D Everitt stated that having seen the site it was difficult to visualise the development as it  was covered in natural growth. He was of the view that the site should be developed but expressed concerns over the large slope and that the district would be stuck if the site was developed and this later turned out to be a mistake. He stated that he could not support the development as he felt too much was being packed in for the site to be enjoyable.

Councillor J Legrys stated that he had a number of issues with the development. He felt that the previous application for the site with five dwellings met the 6C’s design guide, but the one before them did not. He felt that the applicant should have negotiated with the Council over the Queensway House site to provide a better development and that he was not happy with the access. He stated that the site would be over developed and that the applicant has missed an opportunity.

Councillor D Harrison stated that he had listened to what had been said and understood where speakers were coming from but was unsure of the legalities for working with Queensway House. He felt that the site was not the prettiest and questioned what preparation and safety measures were to be taken against the risk of flooding in relation to the slope. He highlighted that houses were needed and that it was with a heavy heart that he supported the application.

The Director of Services stated that developing the site with Queensway House included was a consideration and that the applicant was open to the idea, however they wanted to crystallise permission for the land that they owned.

Councillor M Specht stated that there would be an engineering solution for the slope of the site and whilst he would like to see a wider development, the site had deteriorated since the last site visit and it was time something was done with it.

The Director of Services stated that discussions had taken place with the applicant in respect of deferring the application so that further information could be obtained. The applicant was not willing to do this as all the required information and detail had been obtained and provided for within this application. He therefore explained that should the application be deferred we would have the same application before us next time and therefore advised that the matter should be decided upon at this committee.

Councillor R Canny stated that on this basis she could not support the application.

Councillor J Legrys requested a recorded vote.

Councillor J Bridges stated that he had reservations over the density, however there was no objection from the County Highways Authority and there was a need for housing.

A recorded vote having been requested, the voting was as follows:

For the motion:

Councillors J Bridges, J Clarke, J Cotterill, J G Coxon, D Harrison, J Hoult, G Jones, P Purver, N Smith, M Specht and D J Stevenson(11).

Against the motion:

Councillors R Adams, R Canny, D Everitt, R Johnson, J Legrys(5).

Abstentions:

None (0).

The motion was declared CARRIED. It was therefore

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be permitted in accordance with the recommendation of the Head of Planning and Regeneration.