Agenda item

Quarry Lane Snarestone Swadlincote Derby DE12 7DD

The Planning and Development Team Manager presented the report to members, highlighting that it was considered the proposal in respect of the transfer of the land, redbrick building and the contribution of £100,000 to Snarestone Primary School would not comply with the relevant policy tests in the NPPF and the CIL regulations, and therefore did not form a material consideration and should not be taken into account when determining the application. 

Mr A Large, applicant’s agent, addressed the meeting.  He advised that during initial discussion on the application, his clients had been made aware of the need for additional space at the Snarestone Primary School and the need for a new school room.  The application had been revised accordingly and the offer of the transfer of land, the redbrick building and the financial contribution had been agreed with school governors.  He made reference to the fallback position and examples where an alternative conversion had been taken as a material consideration.  He added that the removal of diffuse water pollution would provide a clear benefit to the River Mease and he considered this to be a material consideration.  He made reference to the level of services in the village and accepted the concerns in this respect.  However he felt that the offer of a school room shifted the balance.  He concluded that he believed this was one of the best applications he had put forward and asked members to support the proposals.

Councillor J Bridges felt that the application added to village life and to controlled growth in the area.  He commented that villages which were not sustainable could become so by allowing controlled development.  He stated that he understood and respected that the contribution to the school was not a material consideration, however expressed concerns that the education authority was not requesting a contribution.  He expressed support for the application.

Councillor J Legrys felt vehemently that the officer’s recommendation was wrong.  He made reference to another application nearby which was outside the limits to development and had been permitted under delegated powers.  He felt that this was contradictory.  He said that the site would be tidied up by the development and village services would benefit from increased trade.  He concluded that the application was appropriate for the village and he could not see why people should be prevented from living in the village.

Councillor J Clarke sought clarification on the position of Snarestone Parish Council.  The Head of Planning and Regeneration advised that the application had been unanimously approved by the Parish Council.

Councillor V Richichi expressed concerns in respect of inconsistency.  He felt that the reasons for refusal were weak and the application would have no adverse impact. He noted that the committee had been told that the village only had a two hourly bus service, but expressed his opinion that bus services were not good anywhere in the district.

It was moved by Councillor J Bridges, seconded by Councillor J Legrys and

Subject to a Section 106 Agreement, the application be permitted on the following grounds:

a) The application constituted a sustainable form of development

b) The application would improve the visual appearance of the site

c) The application would improve access to housing in the village

d) The application would support village vitality