Decisions

Construct first floor and two-storey rear extension including raising the ridge height and balcony, front porch and garage/ store alterations including a mono-pitched roof to the store

52 Assarts Road, Nuthall, Nottinghamshire, NG16 1AP

Councillor P J Owen has requested this application be determined by Committee.

The Committee considered the late items related to a second consultation that was carried out due to a change of description and amended plans being received.  In response to the consultation eleven objections and a petition of 64 signatures in opposition being received.

Janet Russell, applicant, Alan Coulton, objecting and Councillor Paul Simpson, Ward Member addressed the Committee prior to the general debate.

The Chair then made a statement that any hint of racism at Planning Committee would not be tolerated. 

It was noted that the Nuthall Neighbourhood Plan stated that the loss of houses that were suitable for elderly residents or those with limited mobility would be resisted and this was discussed with regards to the personal circumstances of the applicant. 

The debate focussed on whether the design of the proposed development would have an impact on neighbour amenity and the street scene.  There were concerns about the impact of the balcony on the privacy of the neighbours and that the unusual design may dominate the street scene.

As the debate progressed it was considered that the street scene would not be impacted negatively as was a mix of housing, including two storey houses opposite the proposed development, that the design was interesting and that there would be no impact of overlooking on neighbour amenity because the proposed balcony was to be obscurely glazed.

RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions.

Construct two detached dwellings

Lockup Garages, Chetwynd Road, Toton Nottinghamshire 

The application was deferred by the Committee on 8 June 2022 to allow the developer to address concerns about the design of the proposed development, specifically the layout of the site with plot two too close to existing properties.  There was also concern regarding the size of the proposed houses.

There were no late items for the Committee to note.

Alistair Harris, objecting, addressed the Committee prior to the general debate.

The Committee considered the height of the proposed development, noting that a previous planning permission for bungalows had been conditioned to remove permitted development rights for the roof space.  There was concern that few changes had been made to the original application to address the impact on neighbour amenity resulting from overdevelopment, the configuration of the site and the proximity of the houses to existing properties.

          RESOLVED that planning permission be refused with the precise wording of the refusal delegated to the Chair of the Planning Committee and the Planning Manager.

Reasons

The submitted scheme, by virute of its siting, size and scale creates an overbearing and overly dominant impact on meighbouring properties, to the detriment of the amneity of neighbouring properties. The poropsed devleopment is therefore contrary to Policy 10 of the Broxtowe Aligned Core Strategy (2014) and Policy 17 of the Broxtowe Part 2 Local Plan (2019).

Construct purpose built student accommodation (sui generis) and ground floor commercial unit (Class E(g)(i)) with associated access, car parking, landscaping and infrastructure

Station Road (Central) Car Park Station Road Beeston Nottinghamshire 

This item was called before Committee by Councillor S J Carr.

There were a number of late items for the Committee to consider including 17 letters in support of the application, two letters of objection, the commitment of the applicant to ensure the building was rated in the highest category for energy efficiency and a submission from the applicant regarding restricting residents from parking on the streets surrounding the proposed development.  The applicant also asked the Committee to note the outcome of a recent appeal.

Patrick Cassidy, the applicant and Karen Stainer, objecting, made representation to Committee prior to the general debate.

The Committee applauded the applicant’s commitment to energy efficiency, however the debate focussed on concern about the amenity of students living in the accommodation because the rooms were very small and the intensity of occupation was too high for the size of the site.  It was noted that there would be an impact on neighbour amenity because of the lack of car parking provided on the site and because the students would only be in occupation for part of the year.  The design of the building was considered to be unimaginative and inappropriate as a gateway building to Beeston. 

The Committee received legal advice.

It was proposed by Councillor S J Carr and seconded by Councillor T Hallam that there be a recorded vote.  The voting was as follows:

            RESOLVED that planning permission be refused with the precise wording of the refusal delegated to the Chair of Planning Committee in agreement with the Planning Manager.

Reason

1.             The submitted scheme, by virtue of its size and design represents an unsatisfactory development which fails to provide appropriate internal floor space and consequently the proposal would afford a substandard level of amenity for future occupiers. The proposal also fails to provide sufficient car parking for a development of this magnitude and would increase on street parking in surrounding areas. The proposed restriction of occupation to students would also fail to maximise the potential contribution to town centre footfall during non-term periods. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Policies 6 and 10 of the Broxtowe Aligned Core Strategy (2014) and Policy 17 of the Broxtowe Part 2 Local Plan (2019).

Construct two storey side extension

5 Barlow’s Cottages Lane, Awsworth, Nottinghamshire, NG16 2QW

The application was brought before the Committee at request of Councillor L A Ball BEM.

There were no late items for consideration by the Committee.

Tony Barker, applicant, made representation to the Committee before the general debate.

It was noted that a large hedge would screen the proposed development from view and that the design was sympathetic to the original building.  There was a consensus that the extension would not impact on the amenity or openness of the Green Belt.

            RESOLVED that planning permission be granted, with the precise wording of the permission and conditions to be agreed by the Chair of the Planning Committee and the Planning Manager.

Conditions:

1.          The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

2.          The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing numbers: 22/1071/03 Rev B, 22/1071/o4 rev B and 22/1071/02 Rev A received by the Local Planning Authority on 24 May 2022.

Reasons:

1.          To comply with S91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by S51 of the Planning and Compulsory Act 2004.

2.          For the avoidance of doubt.

3.          In the interests of reflecting an acceptable appearance and in accordance with Policy 10 of the Aligned Core Strategy (2014) and Policy 17 of the Part 2 Local Plan (2019).

The minutes of the meeting on 6 July 2022 were confirmed and signed as a correct record.