Nine detached homes at Land To The North Of 14 Cottage Close, Blidworth

What was proposed

The application sought nine detached family homes with garages, a new access road from Main Street and landscaping.

“The Proposal 3.1 This application seeks permission for 9 detached dwellings on the site, with a new access proposed from Main Street to the south (adjacent no.14 Cottage Lane). The dwellings would be large family homes - 5 of the dwellings would have 4 bedrooms and 4 would have 5 bedrooms. The proposed site plan is shown below:”

Officer report

The site and its history

The undeveloped conservation-area site covers about 0.69 hectares, slopes downward northwards and previously had permission refused for 21 dwellings.

“The Site 1.1 The application site is located to the north of dwellings fronting Cottage Close and Main Street, Blidworth and is within the conservation area. The site comprises undeveloped land, approximately 0.69 hectares in size. Marriott Lane bounds the site to the west, and a new residential development lies to the south (just outside of the conservation area). The site is bordered by mature hedgerow as well as sporadic trees.”

“Relevant Planning History 2.1 20/02114/OUTM Outline Planning Application (all Matters Reserved) for erection of 21 dwellings, entrance road and garages – Refused (reasons in relation to heritage harm, highways safety, surface water drainage, developer contributions).”

Officer report

Officers’ main assessment

Officers considered the lower-density scheme acceptable, highway concerns resolved, and the housing benefit greater than the limited conservation-area harm.

“This is below the average, however given the context of the site within the conservation area (discussed further in the next section), it is considered that this lower density is required to limit the level of harm to the character and appearance of the conservation area and its rural character. Therefore the lower density in this case is acceptable.”

Officer report

Who spoke

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

What members debated

Members considered the access and exit unsafe and remained concerned about flooding, despite recognising the design and possible enhancement of the area.

“Members considered the application, and it was felt that the access and egress to this development was unsafe and although the report had indicated that flooding issues had been addressed there were still concerns regarding this. It was commented that whilst the development would enhance the area and appeared to be of good design it was not in the right place.”

“The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that contact with No. 7 Cottage Close had not taken place as flooding at that property was an existing flood problem and was not from this site.”

Minutes

The committee vote

The approval motion was lost by four votes to five, with one abstention, and a later refusal motion passed by five votes to four, with one abstention.

“A vote was taken for approval and lost with 4 votes For, 5 votes Against and 1 Abstention.”

“AGREED Moved Councillor T Smith and Seconded Councillor D Moore (with 5 votes For, 4 votes Against and 1 Abstention) that contrary to Officer recommendation Planning Permission be refused for the following reasons: (i) Access and Highways issues; and (ii) Failure to address surface water flood issues.”

Minutes