Derbyshire Dales councillors reject plans to partially develop Upper Hackney site for 18 new homes
Derbyshire Dales District Council has refused planning permission for proposals to build 18 homes in Upper Hackney, saying it would be an inefficient use of land earmarked for a larger development.
The council’s planning committee were almost unanimous in voting through an officer’s recommendation to reject the scheme for greenfield land on Old Hackney Lane, next to the Darley House Estate.
The plans partially occupied a site allocated for up to 57 new homes in the Derbyshire Dales Local Plan, and officers reasoned that piecemeal development would be an inappropriate way to approach layout, open space provision and drainage.
They also reasoned that the plans would be detrimental to the landscape, lacked detail in response to climate change policies, and could deny the opportunity to provide sufficient affordable housing across the whole site.
Richard Piggott, representing developer Chevin Homes, asked for councillors to defer any decision to allow further responses to the officer’s report.
He said: “Our legal analysis has concluded that part of an allocated site can come forward in isolation, provided it does not prejudice the rest of the allocation, and we firmly believe this to be the case.”
Planning officer Sarah Arbon said that the applicant had already proposed changes following her report, but that they were so significantly different from the original and failed to address concerns raised so there were no grounds for approval or delay.
Council leader Garry Purdy was first to back her recommendation, and said all applicants must now think seriously about green energy policies.
He added: “What I also find disappointing is that here we go again, the same design of house throughout the rest of the country. They must get these off a shelf.”
Councillor Neil Buttle queried the likelihood of 57 homes ever being developed on the site, and was told by a council officer that a figure in the mid-40s might be a more realistic target.
Councillor Clare Gamble asked about the chances of the applicant appealing any decision, and whether the council could successfully defend itself from legal challenge as opposed to entering into further negotiations with the developer.
She was told that strong prospects for a development proposal covering the whole site meant that although winning an appeal could not be guaranteed, officers believed they had a good case.