Five additional pitches at Oak Tree Paddock, Kirkby Lane, Pinxton

What was proposed

The application sought five additional pitches, each with a mobile home, touring caravan and two parking spaces.

“The Application This is a full planning application for the extension of a Gypsy and Traveller site to provide an additional 5no. pitches. Each pitch is proposed to accommodate 1no. mobile home along with space to site 1no. touring caravan and 2no. car parking spaces.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

The site has earlier caravan permissions and refusals, including a recent refusal for five additional pitches on flooding and drainage grounds.

“V/1988/0408 – Site for two dwellings – Refused – Appeal dismissed. • V/1989/0692 – Site for two sheltered housing units – Refused. • V/1990/0823 – Site for two sheltered housing units – Refused. • V/2002/0547 – Detached bungalow – Refused. • V/2002/0749 – Detached bungalow – Refused – Appeal dismissed. • V/2007/1094 – Change of use of land for the stationing of 2 caravans for residential purposes – Refused – Appeal dismissed.”

“V/2025/0057 – Siting of additional caravan for residential purposes for gypsy pitch – Refusal • V/2025/0497 – Extension of Gypsy and Traveller Site to Provide 5no. Additional Pitches - Refusal…”

Officer report

What consultees said

The Environment Agency objected to flood risk and cesspit impacts, while highways raised no objection subject to conditions.

“NCC Highways - Traffic will increase at the site, but the increase is unlikely to be significantly detrimental and will have a negligible impact on surrounding highway network. - No objections subject to conditions restricting front boundary treatment height and surfacing of the driveway.”

“Environment Agency - Object, as site lies within flood zone 3b and therefore contradictory to the requirements of the NPPF and PPG. - Evidence presented by the applicant and their consultant is not sufficient to convince that the site is not within flood zone 3b. - Response to previous application is still valid, object as proposed development falls within a flood risk vulnerability category that is inappropriate to the Flood Zone.”

Officer report

What residents said

Eight residents objected on flooding, drainage, environmental, privacy, noise, traffic and appearance grounds; one comment supported the proposal.

“Residents 8 comments have been received objecting to the proposal and raising the following: - Vegetation and trees removed, loss of natural screening - Impact on countryside - Ground level increase covering dumped rubbish - Contaminated land - Land covered in plastic so rain cannot soakaway, directing to neighbouring properties - Flood Zone, conflict with flood risk policy - Land has been subject to flooding previously - Out of character - Overlooking - Utilities have been…”

“- Change in application boundary and inconsistent land ownership certificates - Indications that all elements of the scheme may not have been disclosed - Lack of detail in respect of day room - Concerns in respect of accuracy and completeness of plans - Trees protected by TPO removed 1 comment has been received supporting the proposal: - Should be allowed to live in there if they own the land - Great job - Fences make the development less visible…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant’s representative and Councillor Cathy Mason, who called in the application, addressed the committee.

The committee debate

Members considered further Environment Agency information about cesspit maintenance, overflow, untreated sewage and environmental harm.

“The Environment Agency had provided further information regarding their objections to the proposal and why they had recommended that planning permission should be refused. They stated there was a potential for environmental harm if the cesspit was not emptied at the regular intervals as required or was not maintained to ensure sewage did not leak.”

“In the event of flooding, there was the potential for crude sewage to go to ground or the nearby watercourse, if the cesspit overflowed or was not adequately maintained. Any sewage discharged from the cesspit would be crude sewage i.e., untreated sewage, so the risk for environmental harm was greater.”

Minutes

The vote and decision

Members voted unanimously to reject the refusal recommendation and approve the application with conditions, citing accepted flood risk and a satisfactory sealed cesspit.

“It was moved by Councillor Samantha Deakin and seconded by Councillor Helen-Ann Smith that the officer’s recommendation contained within the report be rejected and the application be approved with the following conditions:”

“Reasons for rejecting officers’ recommendation: Development should be approved as the owners accept risk of flooding and already established on site. The sealed cesspit is also considered to be satisfactory.”

Minutes