4 to 6 homes at Field Reference Number, Blidworth

What was proposed

The application sought permission in principle for between four and six residential dwellings, with detailed design considered later.

“The application seeks Permission in Principle (the first of a 2-stage process) for residential development of a minimum of 4 dwellings and a maximum of 6 dwellings.”

“As the proposal is for permission in principle, no site plan or elevational details are required to be submitted at this stage. Such details would be considered at the Technical Details Consent stage, if permission in principle is approved. The agent has however provided an indicative site layout plan to illustrate how the site could potentially be laid out, although this carries no weight in decision taking:-”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The undeveloped triangular site lies just outside Blidworth’s village envelope, beside homes, woodland, a footpath and a bus stop.

“The application site comprises of a triangular parcel of land measuring 0.165 hectares. The site is located to the northern side of Dale Lane, just outside the village envelope…”

“In terms of connectivity the site is located adjacent to the eastern entrance into Blidworth, and there is a footpath on the northern side of Dale Lane, connecting the application site to the village. A bus stop is also located approx. 130m to the west of the site which has services to Newark, Eakring and Bilsthorpe.”

Officer report

Planning history

The report states that the application site has no relevant planning history.

“The application site has no relevant history.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers considered the site suitable in principle because it was Grey Belt, sustainably located and capable of accommodating the proposed number of homes.

“It is therefore considered that the application site would be Grey Belt land.”

“Having regard to the location of the site, its enclosed nature, and the proximity of the built-up urban areas, it is not considered that the proposed development would fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan.”

Officer report

Responses to the proposal

The parish council and local residents objected, while highways officers found no unacceptable highway safety impact in principle.

“NCC Highway – The proposal does not have an unacceptable impact on highway safety as the principle is considered acceptable, and in terms of this application does not justify an objection on highway safety grounds. However, it would need Highway Authority approval to construct the vehicle accesses, particularly the vehicle access serving the 4no.”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector, the agent and the local ward member spoke at the meeting.

Members’ debate

Members debated Green Belt and Grey Belt, services, the footpath, trees, ecology, site size, alternative sites and whether four to six homes would be cramped.

“Members considered the application, and clarification was sought regarding whether this site was in the Green Belt or Grey Belt as detailed within the report. Members debated the loss of Green Belt sites and the Government’s objective of delivering 1.5 million new homes. The Business Manager – Planning Development provided a detailed explanation regarding what constitutes Grey Belt.”

Minutes

The committee vote

A vote to approve was lost, with one member supporting approval, eleven opposing it and one abstaining.

“A vote was taken and lost for approval with 1 vote For, 11 votes Against and 1 Abstention.”

Minutes

The final decision

The committee refused permission in principle because it considered the location inappropriate for any housing.

“AGREED Moved Councillor A Freeman and Seconded Councillor L Dales (with 9 votes For, 2 votes Against and 2 Abstentions) that Permission in Principle be refused. Reason for refusal: inappropriate location for any housing. The wording for reason of refusal to be delegated to the Business Manager – Planning Development.”

“In accordance with paragraph 18.5 of the Planning Protocol, as the motion was against Officer recommendation, a recorded vote was taken.”

Minutes