80 age-restricted apartments at Melton Road, Edwalton

What was proposed

The application proposed 80 affordable, age-restricted apartments with parking and landscaping, changing the approved use from care accommodation to residential use.

“The application site is located to the west of Melton Road and to the south of Rose Way, falling within the strategic allocation at Melton Road as defined under Policy 20 of the Local Plan Part 1: Rushcliffe Core Strategy. Planning permission was granted under 23/01218/REM for the construction of a local retail store and a 77-apartment residential accommodation building (falling within use Class C2).”

“The application seeks the development of 80 age-restricted apartments including associated parking and landscaping, falling within Use Class C3 (residential). This represents a change from the approved scheme which comprised extra care residential accommodation falling under use class C2. It is proposed that all 80 units would be affordable housing.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site lies west of Melton Road and south of Rose Way within a strategic allocation, with access from an existing roundabout and housing nearby.

“Access to the site is to be taken from an existing roundabout junction to the west. There is a car showroom to the south and an attenuation area immediately to the north of Rose Way, beyond which are recently constructed residential properties, along with a residential development on the eastern side of Melton Road. Planning permission for a retail unit on land to the west of the application site was granted as part of 23/01218/REM.”

Officer report

Earlier permissions

Earlier permissions covered a local centre, a car showroom, supported-care accommodation, and the approved appearance, layout and scale of the current building.

“20/00089/HYBRID- Hybrid planning application comprising an application for full planning permission for the development of a car showroom and service centre (revised plans) with associated infrastructure, plant, car and cycle parking and landscaping, and an application for outline planning permission (with all matters reserved except for access) for a local centre comprising: 4 flexible A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, D1, D2 or Veterinary Practice units; and; C2 residential…”

“23/01218/REM- Application for matters reserved under application ref 21/01032/VAR for approval of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for local retail store and 77 apartment C2 residential accommodation. Approved in 2023.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval, finding the limited physical changes acceptable and considering the parking shortfall justified without unacceptable highway or residential amenity impacts.

“The proposed development would include limited physical alterations to the scheme approved under planning reference 23/01218/REM, with some internal changes proposed and some minor changes to the fenestration. No concerns are therefore raised in respect of the impact of the proposal on the character of the surrounding area or on the amenity of neighbouring residents.”

“The proposed use of the site for C3 properties, would result in a shortfall in parking provision when compared to the Nottinghamshire County Council Highway Design Guide. However, the proposal is for age-restricted units and evidence has been provided by the applicant to show how the proposed parking levels would compare to other schemes they have developed.”

Officer report

Consultees’ views

The Highway Authority initially objected to the parking provision but later found it satisfactory after further information, subject to conditions.

“The Highway Authority (Nottinghamshire County Council) submitted comments on 24 February 2025 in objection to the application, however if the applicant submits further details then they may reconsider this. In summary they consider the proposed 48 parking spaces to represent a substantial under-provision which does not appear justified based on the submitted information.”

“The Highway Authority provided further comments on 28 May following the receipt of a Transport Technical Note in order to address and justify the parking ratios. In summary they expect the parking ratios for the site to be higher than the other Anchor Independent Living sites in Nottingham.”

Officer report

Residents’ concerns

Most public representations objected to parking, congestion, highway safety, scale, green space, ecology, design and the missing community centre, while one supported affordable housing.

“Representations have been received from 73 neighbours/ members of public in objection to the application with comments summarised as follows: a. Insufficient parking, impact on roads within estate/ congestion/ highway safety b. Parking demand higher for a C3 use than C2 care facility/ over 55’s more likely to own cars c. Impact on public services d. Excessive scale and density e. Lack of adequate green space f. Ecological impact of loss of green space/ habitats g.”

“Representations have been received from 2 neighbours/ members of public neither objecting to or supporting the application with comments concerning the under provision of parking and congestion.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant’s agent, an objector and the ward councillor addressed the committee under the public speaking protocol.

Members’ concerns

Members questioned whether there were enough parking spaces, whether more could be provided, and whether displacement parking would affect neighbouring roads and the community.

“Members of the Committee expressed concerns about the associated parking and there not being enough parking spaces for the number of apartments and no obvious way of increasing it. The committee also considered that the proposal failed to demonstrate the impact of displacement parking on neighbouring roads and the local community.”

Minutes

The votes

A motion to refuse permission failed after an equal vote and the Chair’s casting vote, while a motion to approve succeeded on the casting vote.

“Councillor Ellis moved to reject the recommendation and refuse permission on the grounds of insufficient parking, access and safety issues and the displacement parking on neighbouring streets, this was seconded by Councillor Birch. The vote concluded in 5 for, 5 against and 1 abstention. The Chair had the casting vote and the vote was not carried.”

“Councillor Walker moved to accept the recommendation in the officer’s report to grant planning permission subject to the conditions in the report, additional condition reported in the late representation and prior signing of a S106 Agreement securing the contributions set out in the amended draft heads of terms table reported in the late representation and this was seconded by Councillor Edyvean.”

Minutes