Agenda item

Land To Rear Of 112 Park Lane Castle Donington Derby

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report to Members.

Councillor A C Saffell, Ward Member, addressed the meeting.  He pointed out that room had been made for an extra dwelling by removing parking spaces and double garages.  He referred to the size of the proposed garages, which were the same size of those that had been under discussion by Members as they were too small to accommodate a car.  He added that the roads were very narrow and the houses were close together.  He stated that the development was over half a mile away from the bus station and people were forced to drive.  He pointed out that other 4 bedroomed houses elsewhere in the village had 4 cars.  He concluded that the whole estate was a disaster already and urged Members to refuse the application.

Councillor R Woodward moved that the application be refused and referred to comments he had made in the past about reserved matters and amended schemes.  He agreed with Councillor A C Saffell’s comments that garages had been taken out just to fit in an extra dwelling.

The motion was seconded by Councillor J Legrys.

Councillor J Bridges sought clarification on the density of the overall site and whether this was in line with national planning policy guidelines.

The Principal Planning Officer advised that the overall density was approximately 30 dwellings per hectare, which was a relatively low density scheme.

Councillor J Bridges sympathised with the comments made, however he pointed out that planning permission could be refused on the basis that the requisite density had not been achieved.

Councillor G Jones stated that having visited the site, he disagreed with the comments made and could see nothing wrong with the change in plans.

Councillor J Legrys stated that he supported the motion to refuse the application.  He commented that if people could not get their cars into garages, it exacerbated the highways issues.  He added that there would always be more cars than parking spaces.  He made reference to the current housing land supply situation and added that this change was not needed.  He requested that reports be written which reflected the current position rather than a cut and paste.  He asked if Leicestershire Fire and Rescue Service had been consulted on the proposals.

The Principal Planning Officer advised that it had not, although clarified that the relevant statutory consultee was the local Highway Authority who would, if necessary, consult with Leicestershire Fire and Rescue Service.

Councillor J Legrys expressed deep concern that his question could not be answered and he felt that it was appalling that the Council did not consult Leicestershire Fire and Rescue Service.  He commented that the application represented a reduction in parking spaces, and felt that once permission had been granted, further changes should not be made unless there were mitigating circumstances.

The Chairman commented that the houses on the estate were beautiful.  He pointed out that the overall number of houses on the site had been reduced, even taking into account this addition.  He could not see any reason to refuse the application.

Councillor T Neilson stated that he had noticed the narrowness of some of the roads when he had visited the site.  He commented that the houses were pretty, but also pretty impractical.  He added that it was a shame that the Council did not have a policy on garage sizes.  He felt that the application should be refused at is was squashing up the development.  He added that this part of the site was the furthest away from the village amenities and people would be expected to use cars.

Councillor D Howe commented on how beautiful the estate was and felt it was a credit to the developer.

The motion to refuse the application was put to the vote and declared LOST.

It was moved by Councillor J Bridges, seconded by Councillor G Jones and

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be permitted in accordance with the recommendation of the Director of Services.