Affordable home scheme in Daventry deferred so layout can be improved

editorial image

A planning application to build affordable homes in Daventry has been deferred so the scheme’s layout can be improved to help tackle crime.

Futures Homeway had applied to build 59 new dwellings on land at Farnborough Drive in Middlemore.

But members of Daventry District Council’s planning committee ignored officer advice to grant the scheme permission, and instead asked the developers to come back with an improved layout which could help prevent crime hotspots.

Concerns had also been raised over parking problems, but due to the complexities of the deferral, raising concerns about parking will now not be grounds on which the application can be refused in future.

A representative of Futures Homeway told the planning committee on Wednesday evening (October 10) that 90 per cent of the homes would be affordable, which would be a ‘positive step’ towards helping the housing situation in the town.

The spokesman added: “This scheme is very much in accordance with your policies and provides a mixture of housing that meets national guidelines as well. So we feel we’ve come up with a good scheme.”

The town council had objected to the application as the ‘proposed tandem parking will not resolve parking issues in this already congested area’.

Councillor Wendy Randall, who sits on both the town and district councils, said: “We have serious concerns over parking. The parking on that whole estate is pretty horrendous because there’s only one way in and one way out.

“This development features tandem parking, so it will just be pushed out onto the pavements and kerbs.”

But when concerns were also raised about the layout and the effect it could have on potential crime, a proposal was made and agreed to defer the application until developers came back with a better layout.

But this led to confusion as to what councillors had voted on, as the concerns over parking were not included in the reasons for deferral.

Councillors were given legal advice that their decision meant that they had voted only that they were unhappy with the layout aspect of the application, and that parking concerns would now not be a sufficient reason to refuse the application when it comes back to them in future, as it could leave the authority open to a legal challenge from the developers.