Agenda item

Agenda item

A3 - 13/00697/OUTM

Residential development for up to 29 dwellings (Outline - access included)


Land Off Top Street Appleby Magna Swadlincote Derby


Residential development for up to 29 dwellings (Outline - access included)


Land Off Top Street, Appleby Magna, Swadlincote, Derby


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


Mr D Saunders, objector, addressed the Committee.  He commenced by stating that Councillor R Blunt supported the objections as the National Planning Policy Framework criteria had not been met, plus under the Village Design Statement, there were eleven planning guidelines that conflicted with the application.  He commented that it was a rural area with a lot of character with mainly agricultural land and he believed that all of the applications in the area should be considered together not separately due to the cumulative impact.  He stated that parking already had an impact on Top Street especially during school drop off and collection times.  He also confirmed to Members that the medical centre in the village was closing in May and the bus service was being reduced to only three trips per day; add to this the already full to capacity school and sustainability could be questioned.  He concluded with his concerns that another development was also proposed in close proximity to this site.


The Head of Regeneration and Planning informed Members that there was another application expected for Top Street but this was still at an early stage and no officer recommendation had been decided yet.


Ms J Hodson, agent, addressed the Committee.  She urged Members to follow the officer’s recommendation as the 29 dwellings would fit snugly into the built form of the area and would not harm the character of the village.  She stated that the developers were happy to accept the Section 106 contribution requests and work was being undertaken to address the flooding and Environment Agency concerns.  She concluded that the scheme was sustainable in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and asked Members to permit.


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


Councillor T Neilson questioned why officers had gone against the County Highway Authority’s recommendation regarding sustainability as the Doctors Surgery was due to close and the bus service was being reduced.  He commented that he could not support the application.


The Head of Regeneration and Planning explained that officers would normally follow County Highway Authority recommendations but that was generally on highway safety, on this occasion the concerns were on sustainability and officers were satisfied that the village was a sustainable location for the level of development proposed.


Councillor G Jones commented that he was in favour of the development but he was disappointed that there were no opportunities for self build units as he felt this was a perfect location.


Councillor A Bridges strongly disagreed with the amount of Section 106 contributions being requested.  She stated that Sir John Moore Primary School was already full to capacity; therefore she was appalled by the recommendation for no contributions.  She would have liked to have seen more contributions that were to be spent within the village.


Councillor J Bridges stated that he did support the application but he agreed with Councillor T Neilson on his views regarding the County Council Highways recommendation on sustainability.  He also agreed that any contributions should be spent within the village.


Councillor P Hyde asked why the report referred to contributions for the academy schools in the area when they were not funded by the Local Education Authority.  The Head of Regeneration and Planning responded that the Local Education Authority still collected contributions for the academies; therefore they had to be included.


Councillor R Johnson commented that he originally thought that this was an appropriate site but he now believed that the sustainability of it was an issue.  He felt that the poor bus service would contribute to more traffic on the highways and even though there was a local shop, it only opened until lunch time.  Therefore he did not believe it was sustainable and could not support the application.


Councillor J Hoult commented that if there were more houses the local shop may increase the opening hours.  He believed the area would not be sustainable unless more houses were built.


Councillor M Specht commented that when he first read the report he had major concerns due to Policy E1 but the visit to the site made a big difference and made him question why it was classed as a sensitive area.  He stated that sustainability was more than the transport links and included public houses, shops and medical units.  He added that as orders could now be made on the internet and delivered to an address he believed the development was sustainable.


The Chairman commented that the application was a difficult decision but it was important for the Committee to influence applications such as this.  If the decisions were not made by Committee then they would be made elsewhere and not necessarily in the best interest for the District. 




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

Supporting documents: