Planning blow for residents’ bid to stymie homes move
RESIDENTS who feared their Derbyshire village would double in size have been dealt a blow after a convoluted planning meeting.
Kirk Langley is home to 291 households but housing applications for the area total 144 new homes.
Villagers had lobbied for 35 homes off Moor Lane, next to Kirk Langley Primary School – submitted by Clarendon Land and Development Ltd – to be refused at a meeting last week.
Amber Valley Borough Council’s planning committee refused those plans, against the recommendations of its own officers.
The plans would have included a school drop-off and pick-up area, a playing field extension for the school and room for a school expansion, and a pond on the housing site.
It had been reduced from 65 homes to 35 homes after talks with residents and parish councillors, the developer said.
Kirk Langley resident Hilary Leonard said at the meeting that the series of housing plans “would effectively double the size of the village”.
She said: “By overwhelming the village in this way, our very limited existing facilities will be totally inadequate.
“We have no shops here, residents are reliant on their car or supermarket deliveries. Who can carry a weeks’ worth of shopping on the bus?
“You wouldn’t plan a new village like this so why permit it to happen to an old one?
“Do you really need to build here? You’ve (AVBC) just approved 600 houses at Mackworth less than three miles away.
“So why do you need to build more and more houses in Kirk Langley.”
Cllr Lucy Baker, a Kirk Langley parish councillor, said: “Over many centuries the village has developed slowly and in doing so has maintained its historic character - until now.
“Our heritage is threatened as never before by the sheer scale of modern development in our small rural village.
“The village will be doubled in size in just a few years. You can delete historic villages like ours from the visitors’ brochure.”
Tracey Brown, a Kirk Langley resident, said: “Developers want to build on a field on the edge of our village.
“Last year it grew barley, bulldozers will destroy this fertile piece of land in minutes. We have already lost farmland in Mackworth and Mickleover, farmland is valuable to us all.
“We must stop building on green fields. Green fields or concrete, the choice is a stark one.
“What will future generations think of the way we have ruined our countryside?”
Cllr Brenda Whittaker, chair of Kirk Langley Parish Council’s Neighbourhood Plan Steering Committee, said: “This development leads to loss of landscape character because the development expands towards Derby to the east and towards Langley Common to the south.
“It should not matter that the encroachments are not huge, it is the principle that counts.
“If not prevented, over time, developments will surely creep along step by step.”
She said: “This will be an isolated community.
“Since 2006, we have lost a bus service to Mackworth, a post office and a nearby garage.
“Why suddenly, in the face of the demand to cut the reliance on the car, did we become classed by Amber Valley as a sustainable area when our services are reduced?
“You will harm this historic agricultural village forever, you will destroy the sense of community we have.”
Andrew Gore, agent for the developer, told the meeting: “The scheme you see before you is the result of a lot of hard work and genuine community engagement. It will provide 10 affordable homes aimed at local people who are struggling to get on the property ladder.
“There will be 25 market homes which importantly will count towards Amber Valley’s emerging Local Plan housing requirement - which will require green field release.”
He also said financial contributions would be made to the parish council playing fields and to the school, to help offset the scheme.
Cllr Jane Orton, Conservative,
said: “I do not see why we have to take these houses just because we have only just got a five year housing supply, when in fact we have more than that, so I am not in favour of this application at all.
“I’ll never forget talking to a resident who said she did not get to the doctors very often because it was so difficult to get the bus there and then reliably get a bus back. It just demonstrates this area is not sustainable.”
Sarah Brooks, the council’s planning manager, said the five-year land supply is a minimum amount, not a ceiling.
She said: “In terms of sustainability it is not just about location. We have mentioned again and again at these meetings that it is three strands, it is not just about where something sits but the economic and social benefits that go with it.”
A vote to approve the plans failed by seven votes to six.
This was followed by a motion to reject the plans, arguing the benefits did not outweigh the negatives, including the loss of farmland and impact on Kirk Langley’s conservation area.
However, this also failed by a vote of seven votes to six.
Cllr Isobel Harry, Labour, was the only vote to change.
After a short adjournment of the meeting, a third vote was then held, this time to approve the plans - again - which succeeded by seven votes to six.