Mixed-use town centre redevelopment at Land At Rufford Avenue, Ollerton

What was proposed

The scheme would demolish three existing buildings and provide a cinema, leisure and café building, retail and offices, public space and three dwellings.

“Report Summary Application Number 25/01999/FULM Proposal Demolition of The Forest Centre 111 Forest Road, the Former Lloyds TSB Bank Forest Road and the Town Hall, Sherwood Drive, and the erection of a mixed use proposed development including: a cinema/ leisure use/ café building; retail (Class E(a)), customer service/office facilities (class E(c)) and ancillary/shared areas; commercial office units (Class E(c)); and associated infrastructure; landscaping; public realm…”

“This application seeks permission for the redevelopment of the site to include the demolition of The Forest Centre, the Former Lloyds TSB Bank and the Town Hall, and the erection of a mixed use proposed development including: a cinema/ leisure use/ café building; retail (Class E(a)), customer service/office facilities (class E(c)) and ancillary/shared areas; commercial office units (Class E(c)); and associated infrastructure; landscaping; public realm areas; and the…”

Officer report

The site and its history

The site is in New Ollerton’s local centre, includes previously developed land, and has received advice through three earlier pre-application submissions.

“The application site is located within the local centre of New Ollerton, to the north of Rufford Road, south of Forest Road, and west of Sherwood Drive. The site is split into 2 parcels of land as can be seen on the site location plan below. The site comprises the Forest Centre and a former bank, fronting Forest Road. The section fronting Sherwood Drive comprises the existing Town Hall.”

“The site is not within a conservation area; there are no nearby listed buildings and the site is in Flood Zone 1 (lowest risk of flooding). New Ollerton Colliery Village is adjacent to the site and is a non-designated heritage asset. Ollerton conservation area lies to the west of the site over 750m away.”

Officer report

What consultees said

Highways raised issues requiring conditions, the flood authority had no objection subject to drainage details, the town council supported the scheme and ecology concerns were addressed.

“The comments note the Travel Plan is not acceptable, detailed comments have been provided to set out what is required and a condition recommended to secure a suitable Travel Plan. 6.2. 9 conditions have been recommended and subject to the conditions, NCC Highways confirms no objections to the proposal. Nottinghamshire Lead Local Flood Authority – No objection subject to a pre-”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant spoke in support of the application, and members received a presentation from the Principal Planning Officer.

What members discussed

Members praised the design, discussed permeable driveway surfaces, parking arrangements, CCTV and secure cycle parking.

“Members considered the application and commented that this was of good design and a fantastic scheme. It was commented that permeable surface should be used for the driveways and may provide increased moveability on the driveways for parallel parking. The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that there was a hard and soft landscaping condition, permeable surfacing could be considered under that condition.”

“It was confirmed that increased CCTV would be provided around the site and that secure cycle parking would be provided for employees in the rear gated area and public cycle parking would be to the front of the development in the open area, which should be a deterrent for any potential theft.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

Planning permission was approved with 10 votes for and one abstention, subject to replacing the proposed unilateral undertaking with a planning obligation.

“Members considered the presentation from the Principal Planning Officer, which included photographs and plans of the proposed development. The recommendation contained within the report was also amended from a “unilateral undertakings” to “Planning Obligation” if the Planning Committee were minded to approve the application.”

“AGREED (with 10 votes For and 1 Abstention) that Planning Permission be approved, subject to the amendment regarding Planning Obligation.”

Minutes