184-home outline scheme at Land On West Side Of Newark Road, Ollerton

What was proposed

The application sought outline permission for up to 184 dwellings, with access decided now and appearance, layout, landscaping and scale reserved.

“The Proposal 3.1 This application seeks outline planning permission for the construction of up to 184 dwellings, with all matters other than access reserved for future consideration. As such the submitted Framework Plan (Ref: SK01 Rev F) is for illustrative purposes only and those matters reserved for subsequent approval include appearance, layout, landscaping and scale.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The vacant 5.64-hectare site was grassland with trees and vegetation, beside homes, commercial uses, a care home, offices and footpaths.

“The Site 1.1 The site comprises 5.64 Ha (approx.) of undulating semi natural grass land located to the west of Newark Road and containing a number of trees and vegetation. The site is currently vacant and has no active authorised use.”

“The site has limited policy and/or other environmental designations. As noted above, it is in Flood Zone 1 and there are no other specific environmental designations, although the site forms part of the historic Ollerton Colliery Site and therefore, contaminated land is a consideration, as referred to later in this report. Other than that, the site supports various trees and vegetation as already noted above.”

Officer report

Earlier permission

An earlier permission covered 184 homes, with 14 built at Culpepper Avenue and Lavender Close and an extant permission for 170 remaining units.

“Relevant Planning History 2.1 The site benefits from a historical planning permission (05/02273/FULM) for the erection of 134 houses, 23 bungalows and 27 apartments (184 units). This was previously part implemented through the construction of the houses on Culpepper Avenue and Lavender Close, as is referred to in more detail below. An extract of the original layout from this permission (03/1297/2.01 Rev H) is provided below.”

“As such, it is understood (as mentioned above) that 14 of the approved dwellings have been built out and occupied to the northeastern corner of the site (Culpepper Avenue and Lavender Close). Two houses that were originally included in this consent in the north-west corner of the site have been built out under a separate permission (highlighted yellow in the above plan extract).”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the site was sustainable, the development plan was met overall, and financial contributions would mitigate impacts.

“These contributions will secure financial provision towards community, education, health, transport open space and library provision. When compared to the ‘fallback provision’ they represent a significant gain to be secured to mitigate the impacts of the proposed development. Whilst the scheme will result in the loss of important OMH habitat, this…”

Officer report

Who spoke

A local resident spoke against the application and the applicant spoke in support.

What members debated

Members raised concerns about traffic, suggested dual access, and rejected the absence of affordable housing and the proposed payment in lieu.

“Members considered the application, and concern was raised regarding traffic onto the surrounding network. It was suggested that a dual access was required. Members also commented that there was no affordable housing on this site and the payment in lieu was not considered acceptable.”

Minutes

The committee vote

The vote to approve was lost, with two votes in favour and ten against.

“A vote for approval was taken and lost with 2 votes For and 10 votes Against.”

Minutes

The final decision

The committee unanimously refused permission because the single access raised safety concerns and no on-site affordable housing was provided.

“AGREED Moved Councillor A Freeman and Seconded Councillor Councillor D Moore (unanimously) that Planning Permission be refused on the grounds of safety due to the single point of access and no affordable housing on site, the payment in lieu was not acceptable.”

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

Minutes