Calls for pedestrian safety reviews were also made in a decision over homes in Moor Lane, Kirk Langley
The proposed site in Moor Lane, Kirk Langley from above, with the site marked in red(Image: Planning & Design Group)
Dozens of new homes have been approved in a Derbyshire village following pedestrian safety calls and silence-ridden deadlocks between councillors.
At an Amber Valley Borough Council meeting on Monday, June 8, councillors approved plans for 49 homes in Moor Lane, Kirk Langley, a couple of miles west of Derby.
Approval of the homes followed the first planning meeting chaired by an independent councillor, with a Green Party vice-chair, after opposition groups outvoted the now-minority Labour leadership last month.
The meeting featured just six councillors of the 13-strong committee, including two Labour members, one Conservative, one Green Party, one Derbyshire Community Party councillor and an Amber Valley Independent.
The scheme, from Wheeldon Brothers, was opposed by Kirk Langley Parish Council which has long stressed that the cumulative effect of small housing developments has increased the village markedly in a short period of time.
Councillor Hilary Leonard, vice-chair of the parish council, told the meeting: “We are aware of the pressure of housing targets and the threat of appeals. Kirk Langley had 300 homes historically but it has now changed beyond recognition.”
The planned site of 49 homes in Moor Lane, Kirk Langley, close to previous newbuilds(Image: Google)
Cllr Leonard said plans had already been approved for more than 200 homes in the past couple of years, in small batches, with this 49-scheme also set to join the list and a plan for 36 more homes pending, overall representing the village almost doubling.
She said the village had an allocation for 54 homes up to 2032 which has already been achieved and that the borough council confirmed in its now-adopted Local Plan that no further housing sites were required in Kirk Langley to meet Government targets.
Cllr Leonard said the village was without modern facilities in its community buildings including heating and hot water, and that promises of crossings over Ashbourne Road – the A52 – through the village, had not been forthcoming.
She said it took two buses to reach the nearest large supermarket, Tesco in Mickleover, and that new residents will be reliant on cars, making the development “unsustainable”.
Bob Woollard, agent for the applicants, said the scheme was sustainable and would provide “high quality” homes and a “significant public benefit”, including 40 per cent affordable housing – 19 homes.
He said new housing sustains rural communities and that the scheme would include upgrades to bus shelters, road crossings and a children’s play area.
Mr Woollard said borough council figures showed the village had grown by 67 per cent since 2018.
Alan Redmond, a council planning officer, said Kirk Langley was a “key service village, so is ideal for growth”.
He said housing targets were a “minimum” with no upper limit on growth, so long as it is sustainable.
Councillor Jane Orton (Conservative) said: “These homes are not in the plan and we don’t need all of these windfall sites. Why have a plan at all?”
Sarah Brooks, the council’s planning manager, said: “The targets are not a ceiling, we are pro-growth, we need to be providing more housing.”
Councillor Eva Long (Green Party), new vice-chair of the committee, said she was “very concerned” about pedestrian safety in Kirk Langley, after a crossing promised in 2013 never arrived.
She called for the chair of the committee, Derbyshire Community Party councillor Fay Atkinson, to write to Derbyshire County Council calling for a full review of pedestrian safety on the A52 through Kirk Langley, which was agreed.
Cllr Long said residents, including schoolchildren, currently found it very difficult and dangerous crossing the road, including to make use of bus services in both directions.
Meanwhile, Councillor Philip Rose (Amber Valley Independent), called the plan “speculative”, which was reliant on “buzzwords” such as “sustainable”, “young people” and “affordable housing”.
He said affordable housing was “subjective” and said a planned £49,000 contribution to NHS services “doesn’t help anybody, saying this would pay for five minutes of a GP’s time.”
Cllr Rose said: “We sit here making decisions on planning applications but it is all decided in Westminster. It is all a con. We just have to accept what we are told.”
Ms Brooks said that with no objection from bodies like the county council, the borough had no grounds to oppose the plans on sustainability issues.
Cllr Atkinson asked if any councillor would either recommend approval or refusal, before a debate and a vote.
After 20 seconds of complete silence and members and officers looking at each other, Cllr Orton proposed refusal due to the cumulative impact and the disproportionate landscape impact.
Ms Brooks said officers would strongly disagree with that stance and said the council plan promoted growth and that this was a sensible extension to an urban core which would fit well.
Councillors hit a three-way deadlock to refuse the plans with two councillors voting for (Con and AV Ind), two against (Labour) and two abstaining (DC Ind & Green), with the chair not using her casting vote to break the tie.
Labour councillor Eileen Hamilton then proposed approval of the plans, which led to three votes in favour, two against and one abstaining, with the one change being chair Cllr Atkinson voting to approve the plans.
