Two flats at Land Off Vernon Court, Nuthall

What was proposed

The application sought a two-storey building containing two single-bedroom flats, with shared outdoor space, bins, solar panels and electric vehicle charging.

“The application is brought to the Committee at the request of Councillor P. Owen 1. Purpose of the Report 1.1 The application seeks planning permission for the erection of a two-storey building to accommodate two residential flats. The building will be a traditional two storey property with gable roof. Each flat will have a single bedroom, kitchen/dining/living room and shower room with toilet.”

“The application seeks permission for a two-storey building comprising two flats. Each flat would have a single bedroom, kitchen/dining/living room and shower room with toilet. The ground floor flat would have an area of 41.05 sqm and the first floor flat would have an area of 44 sqm. A communal external bin store, EV charger and a shared private yard will be provided to the side and rear of the building.”

Officer report

Site and planning history

The site is a hardstanding courtyard in a residential area, and an earlier two-apartment application was refused but allowed on appeal.

“The application site includes a hard standing courtyard off Vernon Court. There is a 1.6m high brick wall along the boundary with nos. 24 to 32 Vernon Court. Other properties in the vicinity have open frontages. The site lies within a residential area and is within walking distance (approx. 11 minutes) to regular bus services. The site is mainly flat.”

“An application to construct one building to form 2 apartments (ref. 24/00431/FUL) between nos.14-17 and 18-19 Vernon Court was refused for the following reasons: The proposal represents an unsatisfactory form of development which is out of keeping with the pattern of development within the immediate vicinity of the application site. By virtue of its siting, layout and design the proposal fails to positively integrate into its surroundings.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval, considering the design, location, transport access and housing benefits acceptable despite some neighbour amenity impact.

“Design and Layout 6.2.1 Policy 8 of the ACS paragraph 4 states that the appropriate mix of house size, tenure and density within housing development will be informed by c) local demographic context and trends, d) local evidence of housing need and demand, f) area character, site specific issues and design considerations, and g) the existing or proposed accessibility of a location by walking, cycling and public transport.”

“Planning Committee 15 April 2026 due to these reasons it is considered the proposed development would not have a significantly detrimental impact on the occupants of these neighbouring properties. Overall, it is considered that whilst there would be some degree of overlooking, this is a built up area which is already overlooked by first floor windows.”

Officer report

Consultation and objections

Environmental Health raised no objection subject to conditions, Highways’ access issue was addressed, and five neighbours objected on several amenity and construction grounds.

“Environmental Health – raised no objections subject to the following conditions: ✓ No construction hereby approved shall take place until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.”

“NCC Highways – requested a revised plan showing increased access width to 5.8m for the first 8m. Access drives will need to be hard surfaced with suitable drainage. Revised plans were received to address NCC Highways request. 5.2 25 Neighbours were consulted on the application and a site notice was posted on Vernon Court on 10 th March 2026.”

Officer report

Who spoke

There were no public speakers for the item.

What members debated

Members considered the site inappropriate, the development overbearing, the road too narrow for more traffic, and asked for investigation of a possible emergency tree preservation order.

“The Committee gave consideration to the representations before it, with debate covering the appropriateness of the site. Members considered that the site was inappropriate for the proposed development.”

“It was considered that the development would be overbearing to existing properties and the road is too narrow to accommodate any further vehicle traffic. Concern was raised that existing healthy trees had been cut down in preparation of any approvals - a request was made to contact the Tree Officer with regards to investigating the possibility of an emergency Tree Preservation Order (TPO) on a tree on the grounds of the application.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee resolved to refuse planning permission because the proposal’s massing, scale and design would harm surrounding living conditions through overbearing impact and loss of light.

“RESOLVED that planning permission be refused for the following reasons:”

“The proposed development by virtue of massing, scale and design would have a detrimental impact on the living conditions of surrounding residential properties and the existing residential properties through overbearing, and loss of light due to the increased massing and density of the proposal. Therefore, the…”

Minutes