Agenda item

Land At Butt Lane Blackfordby Derby

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

Councillor S McKendrick, ward member, addressed the Committee. She highlighted that outline permission had been granted for development and she was speaking to them to emphasise the importance of having consideration for the views and comments of local residents who had maintained a range of concerns about the development. She stated that the number of affordable housing proposed was disappointingly low and that the additional land required for bungalows should not be an argument to limit the overall number given the percentage of larger properties proposed for the site and the land they too will take up, adding that in a village location there would always be an argument for a commuted sum to go to other 'higher demand' areas'. She expressed that all conditions laid out in the original outline permission for 81 properties should be fully discharged and that the green space and screening between the new development and the existing residents on Fenton Ave was essential for both new and existing residents to enjoy their own space with some privacy. She agreed that re-routing a footpath around the site made sense and would provide a more attractive route for walkers but asked the Committee to remember that those who lived in the village and used the footpath would need to walk much further if the route was not considered carefully.

Councillor S McKendrick highlighted that the access and egress onto Butt Lane and visibility along the boundary of the site needed to take account of visibility for both those on the road and those exiting onto the road from the development, as it was a matter of record that vehicles did speed along Butt Lane, didn't have due regard for road conditions and wouldn't take due care as they approached the entrance of the development. She expressed that the safety of everyone had to be paramount and that the drainage had to be considered at all stages of the development to ensure there was no wider impact than that already occurred to properties, in particular those closest to the development site.

Mr R Nettleton, objector, addressed the Committee. He stated that he could only re-enforce Councillor S McKendrick’s comments however he felt that the application may be void as officers had misinterpreted the law on the original application as there was no masterplan to accompany the application. He felt that too many issues had been left to determination by officers rather than public consultation including flooding, overflowing sewers, effects of past mining work and a full investigation of opencast and unrecorded landfill. He stated that eyewitness evidence had been ignored and that other issues included substandard roads, lack of footpaths, traffic speeds and overloading of local services. He highlighted that there had been a disregard for people’s property and work had already started on the site despite the conditions, adding that it gave the public little encouragement on the effectiveness of the conditions. He hoped that the Committee would reject the application so that further information could be obtained.

Mr I Pickering, agent, addressed the Committee. He advised that he had lived in the area for much of his life, he knew the site and he would ensure that a high quality scheme was put forward. He stated that in relation to drainage the site would include a tenuation pond that would hold the water as this would deal with flooding concerns, that there would be a good mix of homes within the site and that there was too much land for the number of housing proposed. He informed Committee that public consultation events had been held and that they had met with the Town Council. He highlighted that the site would include bungalows and the roads had met approval from the Highways Authority. He urged the Committee to permit the application.

The officer’s recommendation was moved by Councillor N Smith, seconded by Councillor D Harrison.

Councillor J G Coxon sought advice from officers on whether the application could be deferred to allow answers to be provided to the questions and points raised by the objector.

The Planning and Development Team Manager advised that in terms of issues raised there were detailed conditions on the outline approval that needed to be discharged before work could be started and would still be valid therefore, there was no reason to defer that application.

In response to a further question from Councillor J G Coxon, the Planning and Development Team Manager advised Members that the percentage of affordable housing was detailed in the report and there was a lower number on site and it was due to a need for bungalows, which the Council’s Affordable Housing Enabler had no objections to.

In response to questions from Councillor J Bridges, the Planning and Development Team Manager advised Members that:

-       In terms of the drainage, there was a condition on the outline permission that required a water drainage scheme to be permitted and that a note could be added that a temporary construction drainage scheme be included.

-       In terms of land contamination, there was a very detailed condition on the outline permission which would need to be complied with. The appeal notice stated that an assessment needed to be carried out before works commenced.

-       In terms of work already commencing, with the exception of some fencing and netting, it appeared when on the site visit that work had not started.

-       In terms of the Masterplan, there was a condition on the outline permission that a comprehensive plan be submitted including indicative details and officers were satisfied that the layout plan submitted covered what was required.

Councillor R Canny stated that she welcomed the landscaping that had been planned to protect merging into Woodville. She noted the concerns over where the section 106 monies would go in relation to education as it was noted previously that the local school was oversubscribed and whether that was still the case and if so, would the money be allocated to the other schools and would transport be provided. She welcomed the play area that would be included.

Councillor R Adams expressed his concerns over the reduced level of affordable housing as the authority now had a credible Local Plan that set out the percentage of housing required on developments and developers were ignoring it, therefore he could not support the application.

Councillor J Legrys stated that he echoed Councillor R Adams comments and that when the application came to Committee, there were concerns over flooding that was evident on the site visit. He felt strongly over issues that could arise over future flooding problems.

Councillor M Specht asked how much 15% for offsite affordable housing would be in money. He stated that he was happy to support the officer’s recommendation.

The Chairman advised Councillor M Specht that officers were unable to provide him with the amount at that time, but they would get an answer to him.

Councillor J Legrys requested a recorded vote.

RESOLVED THAT:

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