Two detached dwellings at Land South Of 70 And 72 Sandy Lane, Beeston

What was proposed

The application proposed two large detached three-floor dwellings, garages, landscaping, an access drive and a pond between them.

“Details of the application 1.1 The application site (that is, the area contained within the red line boundary) seeks to construct two x two storey detached dwellings, each with basement accommodation (three floors of accommodation overall), on land to the south of 70 and 72 Sandy Lane. Within the site an access drive leading from the existing private drive will be created.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The undeveloped site forms part of designated green infrastructure and a Local Wildlife Site, adjoins a nature reserve and contains Japanese Knotweed.

“The site is allocated as forming part of a Green Infrastructure Asset (GIA) (Bramcote Hills and Ridge) and has a Green Infrastructure Corridor (GIC) running through it and is allocated as part of the Alexandrina Plantation Local Wildlife Site (LWS). The site also abuts the Sandy Lane Local Nature Reserve (LNR), which sits to the south and east.”

“To the south and east of the site is Sandy Lane Open Space Local Nature Reserve (LNR), a mainly wooded area, with a clearing which contains an informal football pitch and a play area with play equipment. There is a telecom mast in the wooded area between the site and the play area. This area is owned and managed by Broxtowe Borough Council. The wooded area continues from Sandy Lane LNR to the north and north east of the site.”

Officer report

Earlier applications and appeals

Earlier proposals for eleven dwellings and two dwellings were refused and dismissed on appeal, with the later decision upheld after a High Court challenge.

“19/00465/FUL Construct 11 dwellings and provision of infrastructure works to facilitate creation of community park Refused and dismissed on appeal Note: This was an application that included land within Nottingham City Council Authority boundary. 22/00790/FUL Construct two detached dwellings Refused and dismissed on appeal…”

“It should be noted that a High Court Challenge was lodged by the appellant in respect of the Appeal decision for the latter appeal. The challenge rested on the appellants contention that limited weight was given by the Planning Inspector in respect of emphasis on the need for the development to fund the removal of the JKW on the appeal site and on other land in the ownership of the applicant.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the development would harm Green Infrastructure and a Local Wildlife Site, and its benefits would not outweigh that harm.

“Planning Committee 11 June 2025 It is concluded that, having regard to the relevant policies of the Local Plan, national planning guidance and to all other material considerations including the Public Sector Equality Duty and comments raised in representations received, the proposal would fail to accord with adopted local plan policies as inadequate justification has been provided to allow the loss of GIA and LWS for the construction of two dwellings and that any benefits…”

“The proposed housing development, by virtue of the built development and the loss of habitats, would result in an unacceptable harm to a Green Infrastructure Asset and would result in the loss to a biodiversity asset (Local Wildlife Site). No benefits which clearly outweigh this harm have been demonstrated.”

Officer report

Consultees and residents

Highways and several council consultees raised no objections subject to conditions, while the Wildlife Trust sought protection of the corridor and biodiversity assets.

“County Council as Highways Authority: No objection subject to a condition in respect of signage on private access being provided • County Council Public Rights of Way Officer: No objections as no right of way appears to be affected • County Council as Lead Local Flood Authority: No comments to make • Broxtowe Waste and Refuse Officer: Sets out requirements for in provision and collection • Broxtowe Environmental Health Officer: No objections subject to conditions in…”

“Planning Committee 11 June 2025 • Broxtowe Environmental Development Officer (Parks and Green Spaces): No objections. Welcomes the removal of JKW, however does acknowledge that this may take 2 to 3 years to eradicate the plant, and this would be a challenge. Landscaping in respect of the proposal is acceptable, subject to choice of planting (e.g. native species). Brown roofs to the dwellings are a nice addition. Would need to secure landscaping via condition.”

Officer report

What people said

Four neighbouring objections cited earlier refusals, privacy, woodland and openness, while supporters emphasised Knotweed removal, public open space and biodiversity gains.

“Eight neighbouring addresses were consulted, and site notices placed at the site. 20 responses were received, 16 in support and 4 objections. The four objections were from properties adjacent to the site. Out of the letters of support, only four were noted to be from properties in the area (Wollaton and Bramcote, only one being directly adjacent to the site), one was from an address in Bulwell, and the remainder (11) did not give an address.”

“The benefits of the proposed development are the removing all the Japanese Knotweed on this site and the adjacent site, which is a blight and threat to flora and fauna; would allow for the creation of a publicly accessible open space. The development is the most minimal of enabling development to achieve this.”

Officer report

The decision

“that planning permission be granted planning permission be approved, with the reasons for approval and conditions and associated legal documents to include times, drawing, materials, curtilegde, method statement, landscapes, reintroduction of species and section 106 agreement, and that the precise wording of the approval be delegated to the Chair of Planning Committee in agreement with Assistant Director of Planning and Economic Development. 4.3”

Minutes, 11 Jun 2025