Agenda item

Land At North Close Blackfordby DE11 8AP Derby

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

Mrs K Brady, objector, addressed the meeting.  She expressed concerns in respect of access and egress, the blocking of drains, the loss of green space which is used by children although she appreciated that there was a football pitch nearby, the mix of social housing and the elderly, a perceived risk that antisocial behaviour would result from social housing being built, and the devaluing of properties.  She felt that bungalows would be more appropriate and more aesthetically pleasing.

Ms Y Sharma, applicant’s agent, addressed the meeting.  She stated that the proposals would have no impact on highway safety, as 2 parking spaces per home provision was proposed.  She added that the width of the road was sufficient for two cars to pass and there were no objections from the Highway Authority.  She advised that a number of amendments had been made to the design in consultation with the Council’s Urban Designer.  She highlighted that there were other green spaces within walking distance of the site, and that the design included gaps between properties to enable views to the church spire to be retained, and therefore the proposals would not result in a significant detrimental impact upon the amenities of local residents.  She added that the proposal was entirely comprised of affordable housing and would contribute to the social sustainability of the village.  She concluded that the proposals fully accorded with local and national planning policies and she respectfully requested that members approve the application in accordance with the officer’s recommendation.

Councillor M B Wyatt stated that he had listened to the concerns of local residents regarding the mix of social housing with the elderly, and his experience was that more complaints were being received from elderly residents who felt very vulnerable and did not like coming out into the local community.  He stated that he would not be supporting the proposals.

Councillor R Johnson expressed concerns regarding the width of the road and the impact of construction traffic.  He stated that an application for 9 bungalows would blend in with the rest of the community and therefore he would not be supporting the application.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration drew members’ attention to condition 7 relating to the construction traffic management plan.  He reminded members that an application for 9 bungalows was not before the committee for determination.

Councillor G Jones expressed doubts regarding the mix between social housing and the elderly occupiers, however he felt the development was needed in the village and on balance would support the application.

Councillor J Bridges stated that he was not opposed to development of the site in principle, however he felt that the dwellings should be bungalows and for that reason he would not be supporting the proposals.

Councillor J Legrys commented that more affordable housing was required, however the road was very narrow and the emergency services found it difficult if not impossible to access, adding that the coach driver had refused to reverse down the road, during the site visits.  He felt that the development should fit in with the existing housing mix and he expressed deep disappointment that negotiations had not taken place to achieve that mix.  He believed that a better scheme could have been put forward considering that the Council owned the land at the time.  He stated that he would not be supporting the proposals.

Councillor J Geary agreed with Cllr J Bridges, noting that many of the existing bungalows had alarm boxes on them.

Councillor M Specht reiterated the need to judge the application on its own merits.  He stated that none of the statutory consultees had raised any objections, social housing was desperately needed and there was a football ground nearby providing open space.  He noted that the coach driver had also hit the kerb elsewhere during the site visits. He made reference to his own experiences with antisocial behaviour and expressed incredulity at the suggestion that all social housing tenants were anti social.  He reminded members that the only reason this application was before the Planning Committee was that the land was under the Council’s ownership, otherwise the application would have been permitted under delegated powers.

Councillor J Clarke commented that the proposals would result in a limited increase in the number of residents and he was opposed to the grouping together of the elderly. He expressed confidence that nine homes would not be a major problem.

Councillor D J Stevenson stated that he felt ashamed at the suggestion that all youngsters in social housing were antisocial.  He reminded members that the width of the road would be the same whether bungalows or houses were built.

It was moved by Councillor M Specht, seconded by Councillor J Hoult and

RESOLVED THAT:

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