1 to 2 dwellings at Land To The Rear Of 59 Beacon Hill Road, Newark-on-Trent
Summary of planning committee decision
Decided by Newark And Sherwood Planning Committee on 12 Feb 2026.
What was proposed
Permission in principle was sought for between one and two dwellings, with detailed design to be considered later.
“The application seeks Permission in Principle (the first of a 2-stage process) for residential development of between 1 and 2 dwellings. No specific details are required at this stage. Permission in Principle requires only the location, the land use, and the amount of development to be assessed. If residential development (as is the case in this application), the description must specify the minimum and maximum number of dwellings proposed.”
“The proposed dwellings would create a new residential access drive off Beacon Hill Road. As the proposal is for permission in principle, no elevational details or plans have been submitted at this stage – details would be considered at the Technical Details Consent stage if permission in principle is approved.”
Officer report
The site
The site is a rectangular residential-area parcel beside Beacon Hill Road, bordered by homes, hedgerows, shrubbery and mature trees.
“This application is being referred to the Planning Committee for determination as the application has been called in by Cllr David Moore for the following reasons, back land development, street scene / character, over intensive. The Site 1.1 The application site relates a rectangular parcel of land approximately 0.10 hectares in area within the defined Newark Urban Area.”
“The rear of the site is bounded by existing overgrown hedgerows/shrubbery to the boundaries with some domestic hedgerow trees within, and to the rear (north) boundary by mature trees.”
Officer report
What officers recommended
Officers recommended approval because the site was suitable for residential development and two dwellings were considered an acceptable amount.
“Planning Committee is the appropriate body to consider the content of this report. A Legal Advisor will be present at the meeting to assist on any legal points which may arise during consideration of the application. Conclusion 9.1. The purpose of this application is to assess the acceptability of the proposal on the application site, in relation to location, land use, and amount of development, in principle only.”
Officer report
Consultation responses
Highways considered access achievable subject to detailed requirements, four objections raised concerns, and no comments were received from Newark Town Council.
“Consultations and Representations 6.1. Comments below are provided in summary - for comments in full please see the online planning file. Statutory Consultations 6.2. NCC Highways – Access for two additional dwellings at this location would appear achievable. Detailed matters will need to be provided at technical details stage…”
“Town/Parish Council 6.3. Newark Town Council – No Comments Received. Representations/Non-Statutory Consultation 6.4. Environmental Health Contaminated Land – The site of this application lies within the zone of influence (250m) of the former Beacon Hill Landfill Site.”
Officer report
Who spoke
A local resident and Newark Town Council spoke against the application, while the agent spoke in support.
The vote
The vote to approve was lost, with twelve votes against and one abstention.
“A vote was taken for approval and lost with 12 votes Against and 1 Abstention.”
Minutes
The committee’s decision
The committee refused permission against the officer recommendation because of backland development, conflict with design policy, over-intensification and the area’s character.
“AGREED Moved Councillor A Freeman and Seconded Councillor D Moore (with 12 votes For and 1 Abstention) that contrary to Officer recommendation Planning Permission be refused for the following reasons: (i) Backland development; (ii) Incongrous form in conflict with DM5; (iii) Over intensification; and (iv) Out of Character for the area.”
“The wording for refusal to be delegated to the Business Manager – Planning Development, in consultation with the Planning Committee Chair and Vice-Chair.”
Minutes
The members' reasons
The resolution gives these reasons:
Minutes
- Incongrous form in conflict with DM5
- Out of Character for the area. The wording for refusal to be delegated to the Business Manager – Planning Development, in consultation with the Planning Committee Chair and Vice-Chair. In accordance with paragraph 18.5 of the Planning Protocol, as the motion was against Officer recommendation, a recorded vote was taken. Councillor Vote C Brooks Abstention L Dales For S Forde For A Freeman For M Ho
“Members felt that there were significant differences with this development, the plot size was much narrower and there were no outbuildings in situ.”
“Members felt that the gardens should remain as gardens as approval would set a precedent for further development in the gardens along Beacon Hill, which was considered as overwhelming the area, invasion of privacy for the neighbouring properties and land grab.”
Minutes
Source: the council's minutes, quoted word for word.
Sources
- Newark And Sherwood Planning Committee minutes, 12 February 2026
- Agenda and papers (council website)
Source: Plota analysis of Newark And Sherwood's committee minutes and officer report. Quotations are the council's own words; headings and summaries are Plota's.
Committee decisions and nationwide planning applications, in one API
The Plota API returns planning applications from every council we cover, each with its decision, whether a committee or officers decided it, and the committee date. Build it into your own tools.
See the API →At the meeting
- Council
- Newark And Sherwood
- Date
- Thursday 12 February 2026
- Recommendation
- Officers recommended approval
- Committee decided
- Refused, against officer advice
- Minutes
- The council's minutes
- Meeting
- Agenda and papers (council website)
- Application
- The application (council website)
- All decisions
- Newark And Sherwood committee decisions →
This committee's year
37 decisions in the 12 months to this meeting, 10 against officer advice.
Source: Plota analysis of the committee's minutes.