137 homes and infrastructure at Kirkby Lane Farm, Kirkby Lane, Pinxton

What was proposed

Full permission was sought for 137 dwellings, with highways, drainage, landscape infrastructure and a new access from Park Lane.

“This is an application seeking full planning consent for the construction of 137 Dwellings, Highways, Drainage and Landscape Infrastructure. The development would be served by a new access off Park Lane, with a central road across the site west to east. Kirkby Lane Farm stead is outside the boundary of the site and is served by an existing separate access also via Bourne Avenue along the northern…”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The 9.7-hectare site lies on Selston’s north-eastern edge between the village and the M1 corridor, within the Green Belt.

“The application site is situated on land adjoining the north-eastern edge of Selston and comprises a section of land between the village to the west and the M1 corridor to the northeast. The site is formed by two parcels of land, together they amount to 9.7 hectares. The northern most portion of the site is 3.2 hectares and currently contains Kirkby Lane Farm. It is adjacent to Park Lane and is bounded on its western edge by residential dwellings.”

“The southern portion of the site is 6.5 hectares and is bounded by residential to the western edge. A farm access route runs from Bourne Avenue through the middle of the site, this links to farm buildings at Kirkby Parks Farm, east of the M1, via an underpass which is required to be maintained. A telecommunications mast is located at the north of the site, close to Park Lane.”

Officer report

Planning history

A prior approval application for demolition of outbuildings was recorded as not requiring prior approval.

“X/2026/0022 - Proposal for Demolition of Outbuildings – Prior approval not required.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended permission because the homes would significantly boost supply, the site was considered grey belt and highway impacts were acceptable.

“The development site is located outside the settlement boundary of Selston in an area identified as Green Belt. Substantial weight is attached to any harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.”

“The site is an allocated housing site under Emerging Plan Policy H1, with the development also proposing to deliver an affordable housing contribution of 25% in accordance with emerging policy H3. The site forming part of the emerging Local Plan carries significant weight. It is considered that the development would be considered ‘grey belt’ under the NPPF and as such in not considered to be inappropriate development in the Green Belt.”

Officer report

Residents’ objections

Thirty-three written objections cited Green Belt and wildlife harm, inadequate infrastructure, flooding, traffic, pollution, noise and effects on neighbours.

“Consultations A site notice has been posted together with individual notifications to surrounding residents. A notice has also been published in the press. The following responses have been received: Resident comments: 33 written representations have been received objecting to the proposal. The representations raise the following points:”

“Harmful impact to wildlife and Ecology • Harm the Green Belt • Insufficient local infrastructure • Harmful impact to neighbouring amenity during construction of the development. • Harmful to the character of the wider area. • The dwellings would result in overlooking to neighbouring properties • Increase the risk of flooding elsewhere. • Increased traffic would be harmful to the local highways network. • Increased traffic would increase air and noise pollution.”

Officer report

Who addressed the committee

An objector and a representative speaking for the applicant addressed the committee, after which members could clarify their points.

Committee discussion

Members moved and seconded conditional consent, with an added requirement for the speed limit to be reduced before the M1 bridge.

“It was moved and seconded that conditional consent be granted, as per the officer’s recommendation contained in the report, subject to a condition being updated to require a reduction in speed limit to be in force prior to the M1 bridge.”

Minutes