‘Cramped and compact’ homes plan thrown out
FRESH PLANS FOR 46 HOUSES REJECTED ON GROUNDS DEVELOPER TRYING TO ‘SQUEEZE’ DEVELOPMENT ON SITE
A HOUSING development described as “messy” and “jumbled” has been refused by planning chiefs.
Amos Group Ltd submitted the application for 46 homes to be built on land off Derby Road in Doveridge, close to historic pub the Cavendish Arms.
However, the plans were unanimously rejected by councillors at the Derbyshire Dales District Council planning meeting on December 14. This is because they and council planning officials felt housing on the site would be too “cramped” and “compact”.
They said this was because the developer was planning to build the same number of properties on a smaller area of the site which was initially approved in 2017.
Under the new plans, the developer sought to save a section of the site for future use, suspected by residents to be for further homes, while other changes to the site would also reduce the space left for 46 houses.
A representative for Amos Group told the meeting: “As you might expect, Amos Group strongly disagrees with the planning officers recommendation. Amos Group only became aware of officers’ concerns, including some consultee responses, when the report was published last week and it is disappointing we hadn’t been provided with an opportunity to discuss the proposals before the application came before members.”
He said the issues with the site would be “easily resolvable”, though council planning officers disagreed with this position.
The representative said the council could “avoid further delay” to the site being developed by having further discussions instead of refusing the application.
He said the new scheme could fit houses in a smaller area and have a better mix of house types, with more two and three-bed houses, more in line with council policy, and that the scheme was within the standards for house density – at 27 homes per hectare.
He said: “We believe we have designed a layout which is entirely appropriate for this location which is consistent with the plans approved at the outline stage and have satisfied the development planning policies.” Resident Richard Hewson-stoate told the meeting: “I accept that the development of this site will go ahead but I want it to be in keeping with the village and not a totally unsuitable proposal for the village which I have lived in for over 40 years.”
Another resident, John Williams had his statement read out at the meeting, which stated: “The application will change Doveridge much more than the recent new build sites in the village and I must stress to the committee that the proposed overcrowding, with urban-style dwellings on a very prominent site will be detrimental to the village.”
Sarah Arbon, a district council planning officer, said there was a “fundamental problem” with the site due to its layout and lack of open space, saying “it is not a high quality layout…the house types are a bit of a jumble”.
She wrote in a report recommending the plans should be refused that the scheme “would appear as a cramped, restless and urbanising extension of the village”.
Councillor Robert Archer asked if councillors would be better to refuse the scheme due to its “fundamental issues” rather than try to “tweak a plan we don’t think is tweakable”.
Ms Arbon confirmed this was correct. She said the authority initially did not think it could even validate – formally accept – the planning application due to it pitching a detailed application for an already approved site, but only on a section of the site.
Ms Arbon said a legal opinion showed the authority had to accept it, but claimed the fact that it “initially wasn’t considered to be possible” shows the issues with the scheme.
Councillor Clare Gamble said refusal and a potential appeal could be “antagonistic” but that it was a “messy scheme”.
Councillor Peter O’brien said the scheme was poorly designed. He said it was a development “totally dominated by highway with a collection of dwellings loosely developed around that highway area” with “leftover spaces coloured green” and a “rather randomly organised collection of dwellings”.
Councillor Sue Bull said the scheme looked “very compact”, saying: “I do feel that this is trying to compact too many houses into a smaller area with maybe the benefit of trying to put more in in the future, I just think it is cramped living. This is a lovely village and we should be keeping green open spaces between the houses and giving better living accommodation.”
Councillor Jacqueline Allison said: “I am disappointed with the plans, it is my ward and I want to see high-quality development and I do want to see this site brought forward, which is why I hoped the applicant could be able to work with the planning department.” She said it would have provided “much-needed” affordable homes.
Councillor Gamble, addressing the applicant, said: “Please come back but take on board everything that has been said about this application. We all want this to happen but in a much better way.”
In total, 20 objection letters had been submitted opposing the plans, with Doveridge Parish Council also against the application, saying the project aimed to “squeeze” 46 homes “onto some 75 per cent of the original site as tightly as possible”.
The parish council continued “with a clear indication in the road design that access is provided to the retained land, for a further application for more dwellings to be submitted in the future”.