Agenda item

Land At 6 Queens Street Measham Swadlincote Derbys

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report to Members.

Councillor S Sheahan, Ward Member, addressed the meeting.  He stated that he was generally in favour of affordable housing, however this development had been badly designed and did not satisfy policies E3 and E4.  He added that there was an issue getting bin lorries into the site as it was too constrained.  He questioned where a bin store might be located and expressed concerns that residents may end up paying twice for this service.  He referred to the separation of 5.3m which was quite worrying and would cause Orchard House to be overshadowed.  He added that officers felt this would not be significant, however the residents of Orchard House had had a professional study undertaken which indicated otherwise.  He referred to the errors in the officer’s report and plans.  He concluded that the proposed development would be a blight upon neighbouring properties and a horribly cramped place to live.  He urged Members to refuse the application on the grounds that it did not comply with policies E3 and E4.

Mrs P Wheatcroft, objector, addressed the meeting.  She made reference to the site plan and the original outline application for 5 dwellings.  She added that the whole point of good design was to offer imaginative solutions.  She stated that the issues had not been addressed and planning officers had given inaccurate and inconsistent advice.  She expressed concerns that the proposals would cause overshadowing and overlooking, and felt that they were demonstrably overbearing.  She questioned whether permitting the application would set a precedent.  She highlighted numerous errors in the report, in particular that the parking provision for plot 4 was located within her own garden.  She stated that the plan was totally flawed.

Mr P Taylor, applicant’s agent, addressed the meeting.  He stated that at the April meeting, the reasons for deferring the application were the access and overlooking.  He added that there had been many changes to the scheme and the position of dwellings, and the issues in respect of the access had been addressed.  He commented that the applicant had made a significant effort to address the concerns raised by residents.  He stated that the parking arrangements were compliant with the design guide and there was no reason to refuse the application on highways grounds.  He added that drainage would me a matter for building regulations.  He acknowledged that there were unusual relationships between existing dwellings, and therefore there would be an impact, however he urged Members to make a subjective assessment of the impact upon neighbours.  He stated that the applicants had worked hard to satisfy the technical requirements and address the concerns expressed by neighbours.  He felt that there were no reasonable grounds to refuse the application.

Councillor G A Allman moved that the application be permitted in accordance with the recommendation of the Director of Services.  This was seconded by Councillor J G Coxon.

Councillor R Woodward stated that he supported social housing, however this was typical of outline applications where the number of dwellings was subsequently increased.  He added that he had seen the site and could not support the proposals.

Councillor T Neilson stated that he could not support this plan as there were still too many problems, even after an extremely long negotiation process.  He referred to the question he had raised at the previous meeting regarding the parking issues for the residents of 8 Queens Street.  He added that after hearing the representations made, he felt this would be a time bomb if approved, and he would be voting against the recommendation.

Councillor J Legrys stated that he could not vote for the recommendation and had been struck by the resident’s objection, particularly regarding the plans and the allocation of a parking space in their garden.  He stated that this was poor planning and he was disappointed that there had not been an opportunity to check the plans.  He added that he was aware there was an ongoing boundary dispute in respect of this application.  He expressed disappointment that the RSL had not taken the opportunity to discuss and consider Queensway House as part of these proposals, as it was currently vacant and in the ownership of the Council.  He stated that he was deeply concerned regarding social housing, as the number of dwellings per hectare was being increased, and the size of properties was reducing.  He felt that on planning grounds, this application was wrong and he could not support it.

Councillor A Bridges stated that during the debate on the previous application, a comment had been made that Measham was incredibly short of affordable housing, and so she felt this was an ideal area.  She added that boundary issues were between the applicant and the landowners.

Councillor T Neilson made a point of personal explanation, in that he had commented that the District was short of affordable housing and as such, this application would not have much impact on the shortfall.  He added that these proposals should not be compared to the previous scheme.

Councillor M Specht felt that the proposals constituted overdevelopment of the site, which was a ludicrous parcel of land.  He stated that he would not be supporting the proposals.

The Chairman then put the motion to permit the application to the vote and the motion was declared LOST.

Councillor T Neilson moved that the application be refused on the grounds that the proposals were not in accordance with policies E3 and E4, constituted overdevelopment of the site, had poor access and a poor relationship with surrounding properties.  This was seconded by Councillor R Johnson.

The motion was then put to the vote and was declared CARRIED.

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be refused on the grounds that the proposals were not in accordance with policies E3 and E4, constituted overdevelopment of the site, had poor access and a poor relationship with surrounding properties.