Planning Committee – 27 March 2024

Live stream of the Gedling Borough Council Planning Committee meeting

Okay um welcome everybody lady said she come back to me and ask me as the chair it’s possible to speaka um I’ve been advised that uh the um you within the email it didn’t say you wanted to speak so I’m I’m sorry I can’t allow you to speak

I’ll just take further advice give me one minute I’m I’m sorry I’ve been advised that uh that that that it’s correct that you will you will not be able to speak at this I’m I’m terribly sorry no Ed okay um welcome to the uh planning committee everybody um the March ging

Planning committee um just like to uh before we start the meeting just like to make a point of saying that it is live streamed um and recorded um and as we have observers present I’d like to introduce the top table um I’m uh councelor Allen I’m the chair of the

Committee um to my right is uh Natalie OC and Lauren Sturgis they are legal officers um and to their right is Kate Goodall uh Democratic Services officer to my left is Mike Avery who is the head of development in place uh njel Brien who is the development manager Craig

Miles who is a principal planning officer and CLA to who is also a principal planning officer um before we start the committee I’d like to just um just inform the speakers that uh you’ll have um three minutes to speak uh and you and when you start please press the

Red button on the um on on the microphone uh at the uh the the Le turn and uh if you’re running out if uh if you’re still speaking when 3 minutes is up I will stop you okay thank you um so let’s move on to the planning agenda um

Agenda item one um do we have any apologies for absence and substitution councelor Smith thank you chairman apologies from councilors Walker bwick and greensmith substitute councelor Mike Adams thank you any other apologies or substitutes no thank you very much so we’ll move on to um agenda item two which is the draft

Minutes of the last meeting um I’d like to propose them as a true and correct record of the last meeting do I have a second councilor will concern thank you um any comments at all on the draft minutes okay thank you uh should we move to the vote all those in favor of

Agreeing that the draff minutes are a true and correct record please raise their hands uh and uh anyone against and any abstentions thank you that’s carried can I just bring your attention to the planning protocol in the uh um committee agenda please make sure you’re familiar with

It um I’d like to go to to agenda item three which is the Declaration of Interest are there any um pecuniary or non-pecuniary Declarations of Interest now I’d like to on behalf of the whole committee um declare a non- peun declaration of interest on items uh

Eight and nine as they are ging bur applications and they are on gedling bar land so now we’ll move on to um application on agender item four which is the uh uh landoff George’s Lane cowton um we have one speaker on this item um uh it is the uh applicant

Matthew Lim Rose is Matthew Lim Rose here do you want to move to the electon okay please uh please press the red button and start when ready thank you good evening councilors ladies and gentlemen my name is Matthew Lim Rose and I’m the managing director of aw Lim

The Family Funeral Service as detailed within the officer’s report our site received planning permission for a burial ground in August 2022 and we are working with the planning officers to discharge the conditions the previous permission deals with pedestrian and vehicle access as well as parking none of which are hurdles to today’s

Application concerns over the height of the covered Barrow led to planning refusal last year this evening you will be shown images which demonstrate that meetings with planning offices led to significant changes which have addressed those concerns the scheme does involve built form which raised concerns about the openness of the green belt having

Moved the covered Barrow to a natural Hollow in the landscape we are pleased the council accept the impact on openness is significantly reduced earmarking this area of land for natural burial and the barrows will prevent unnatural headstones and memorials from impacting on the openness going forwards the officer’s report details

The significant very special circumstances and highlights the Civic need the benefits to the people of ging burough and the high LEL of local demand for these barrows the scheme will have demonstrable environmental benefits such as the creation and Improvement of habitats and an overall net ecological gain the natural environment is also

Protected by avoiding the potentially detrimental impact that burial and scattering of cremated remains in a concentrated area may have we have had a successful public open day in early March and received dozens of positive comments from the General Public public as well as supportive neighbors a number

Of whom have chosen to voice their support on the planning portal while there are other barrows in the UK this particular scheme with a covered Barrow and two open barrows will not only be the first of its kind in our country but the entire world which would

Really put gedling on the map for any members who are still hesitant to support the application please may I leave you with two thoughts firstly and very importantly this scheme is now recommended for approval following very proactive engagement with the officers secondly the following quote was given by a gedling b Council

Resident they said I’ve had my mother’s ashes at home for a number of years and have not known what to do with them I’ve read your application and this is it thank you very much thank you okay um CL CLA turton will introduce this item thank you chair uh just a couple of

Updates before the presentation um paragraph 7.41 of the the committee report relates to a section 106 agreement the committee report states that the section 106 agreement would ensure that if planning permission were to be granted works could not commence on this current proposal until the previous planning permission was

Substantially complete this should read that if planning permission were to be granted this current proposal could not be brought into use until the previous permission was substantially complete and just a second update the site location plan on page 19 of the public document pack is incorrect it should be as shown on the

Screen now so this application proposal is for the construction of two open round barrows and a grass covered Barrow for the placement of cremation earns access path and Landscaping there is relevant site relevant planning history at the site planning permission was granted in 2002 on the larger side for a burial ground

And Associated structures this permission is still extended but has not yet been implemented so the area in the blue line has permission for a cemetery and it’s specifically the area in the red line that we’re looking at today planning permission was refused in July 20123 for the construction of two

Open rounded barrows and a grass covered Barrow see image on the left that’s the previous refusal and the image on the right is what we’re looking at today the reasons for refusal related to the size and scale of the development which was not considered to preserve the openness

Of the green belt and was also considered to have an undue impact on the visual amenity and Landscape character of the area this current planning application is a resubmission of the 2023 planning refusal with the aim of reducing the scale of the development Barrow three is the grass

Covered Barrow this has been relocated and reorientated from the previous proposal so that it sits within an existing Hollow in the landscape and is buried into the rising topography Barrow three will gra raise the ground level by approximately 6 MERS directly above the Barrow which will then be leveled

Previously it was 9 m above ground level and on a higher part of the site this results in the top of Barrow 3 in the previous refusal being located 4 m above the height of the adjacent foot path whereas the top of Barrow 3 in the current proposal is located 4 M below

The height of the foot path the applicants were asked whether the height of bar 3 could be reduced even further however due to the self-supporting construction of the roof of the Barrow this was not possible barrows one and two these are the open wall barrows the height of

Barrows 1 and two have been reduced they were previously 2.7 m in height from ground level to the top of the wall but are now 2 m above the existing ground level and these are similar in appearance to walls that can be re erected up to 2 m in height under

Permitted development rights so I’ll go back to that comparison picture paragraph 154b of the mppf is most pertinent to the application and states that in respect of the green belt certain uses are appropriate and I quote the provision of appropriate facilities in connection with the existing use of

Land or a change of use for outdoor sport outdoor recreation cemeteries and burial grounds and allotments as long as the facilities preserve the openness of the green belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within within it therefore the key judgment in this instance is not the principle of

Development rather it is whether or not the structures proposed preserve the openness of the green belt it is considered that the proposal has been reduced in scale relocated and reorientated as much as possible whilst ensuring the scheme is viable to reduce the impact on the openness of the green

Belt however there is still some built form and the proposal does still have some impact on the openness of the green belt orbe it much less than the previous proposal um if you can see the cursor this this area here is is the area being built up it is considered that the proposal

Cannot be amended any further to reduce the scale whilst remaining viable however it does have to be concluded that the development is considered to be in appropriate development within the green belt paragraph 152 of the mppf states and I quote inappropriate development is by definition harmful to the green belt

And should not be approved except in very special circumstances it is considered that in this specific case very special circumstances do exist to justify the granting of planning permission the applicant has submitted evidence regarding this this centers around the overriding need for such a facility in the burough cremations rather than burials

Represent the primary choice for all funerals in the UK and account for 80% of services barrows provide a separate function to cemeteries and crematoriums the nearest existing Barrow facilities are located at a site in Cambridge a distance of 127 kilometers from this site there are no facilities

To deliver this service in gin or Nottinghamshire the applicants state that they have already received numerous expressions of interest and inquiries related to the reservation of niches within the barrows it is PR preferable to locate such a facility in a cemetery where it can form a multi-purpose service through

The provision of both indoor and outdoor burial ceremonies the settlements within gin burough are all closely Bound by Green Belt to enable the barrows to fully deliver on their function they should be located in a quiet location which effectively requires aural location for the reasons stated above it

Is considered that in this specific case very special circumstances do exist to justify the granting of planning permission even though the proposal does still have some impact on the openness of the green belt orbe it much less than the previous proposal as a result the application is recommended

For approval and I’ll just leave you with uh some photos of the site and then some images if planning permission were to be approved what it would look like thank you chair thank you CLA um I’d like to propose agenda item four for the purpose of debate do I have a second councelor

Wilkinson thank you thank you councelor Wilkinson um does anyone want to speak counselor Katherine Pope um I just wanted to recognize the work that had gone to try and fit in with the um objections that we raised previously and um I think um I I’ll be um recommending that we approve this thank

You councilor Wilkinson thank you chair um yeah I’d like to Echo uh what councilor Pope has just said I’d like to congratulate the the officers and and the applicants for for the way they’ve worked together to produce and acceptable scheme uh I’m certainly satisfied that uh um the very

Special circumstances have been met and that a very sympathetic development has been brought forward and uh I’d be happy to uh to support it thank you uh any other speakers at all okay in that case we’ll move to the vote um the recommendation is to Grant permission all those in favor

Thank thank you uh that was unanimous uh so the recommendation was carried for those watching on YouTube we just waited if few seconds whilst people left the room um I’d like to move on to uh agenda item five um land of mar Marian Avenue hugel uh we have two speakers on this item

Um Ashley anr who is a resident objector and Clayton peny uh the applicant could Ashley move to the electon please and as usual you have three minutes to speak good evening I’m Ashley crit um speaking on behalf of the residents uh around Maran Avenue um we’re here to speak in opposition to

The new development plan of Hayden Lane um we want the time to grow and Thrive but it’s critical we do it in a way that works for everyone and doesn’t create more more problems than it solves first off um I want to talk about the traffic issues our roads are already

Over busy and this new development is only going to make things worse the development is on gedling land but access is through a small Cordy in Ashfield the dpin L already struggles um servicing the 7 hour on Marin Avenue I’m not sure it’s going to serve

37 um it’s very tight down there um we want to keep the streets safe and less congested the always cars racing down cutting through to pck green and the new shed gate development um I’ve got CCTV footage of incidents to support our safety concerns um I’ve got them with me

There’s been some quite serious crashes um next There’s issues around parking um with more people moving in we’re going to need more parking spaces the current plan doesn’t provide enough parking which means we’ll end up with cars everywhere making it hard to uh hard for residents to park near their homes one

Of the residents on Maring Avenue as a child with special needs and must be collected and dropped off each day by ambulance um the child’s M spoken concerns regarding parking and access um with the new development um also how sa how safe is the new proposed drainage pool going to be for

Children also the schools uh doctors and dentists around Hulk op capacity with more aard this is only going to get worse also really concerned about the trees that were removed from the land uh cutting down trees without permission is just wrong the trees make the environment better help clean the air

And provide space for the Wildlife the trees on the land were removed before any surveys were carried out um there was a huge amount of wildlife in the Woodland before the trees were failed we need to prevent them from chopping down trees just for the sake of development I’ve got before and after

Drain footage if anyone’s interested um to finish up I’m a of progress um we need a development plan that considers our current needs and respects the environment I hope the committee will take these concerns seriously and rethink the proposed plan thank you thank you would Mr Penny like to approach the Elon

And you have three minutes thank you chair and um good evening members thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak this evening by way of brief background to the applicants um chevin Holmes is an award-winning Darby based house Builder who has a strong track record of delivering high quality homes across the

East Midlands most recently in gedling members of this Committee in December 2022 granted Chev hommes a detailed planning permission for 11 dwellings in Burton Joy a development which is now almost complete the proposal before you this evening is for the development of 30 dwellings on land to the south of the

Sheerwood gate development with access to to be provided directly off Maran Avenue within the main urban area of Huell a variety of house types are proposed including Bungalows terrorists semi-detached and detached houses a policy compliant nine houses are set aside as affordable which should per should permission be granted will be

Secured through a section 106 legal agreement along with substan ual Financial contributions to education Healthcare play areas and bus stop improvements as set out in the case officers detailed and thorough planning committee report the principle of residential development is already considered acceptable as the application site forms part of the Strategic housing

Allocation Land north of Papa Wick Lane for up to 300 homes allocated under policy 2 of the aligned core strategy 255 dwellings of the 300 allocated have already been or or are in the process of being delivered which leaves a current shortfall of 45 dwellings the proposals also comply with

Policy hsg 1 of the maid limby neighborhood plan we have worked proactively with a case officer to whom we are grateful and are pleased to present to members a scheme for consideration which is policy compliant and has no outstanding consulty or technical objections the scheme has been carefully considered to

Take into account any constraints and has sought to minimize any potential impact on the character and appearance of the area as well as residential ammuni detailed Landscaping proposals have been produced to enhance the open open space areas of the site as far as possible the removal of the trees is not

A planning matter and as set out in the officer report it is unavoidable to deliver the allocated housing the council’s tree officer has confirmed that they are satisfied with the management and proposed tree plan for the scheme other than scale this application is consistent with the bwood homes cor

Application on the adjacent site which members of this committee resolved to Grant in October last year a footpath link has been included within our scheme to provide potential connectivity between the two sites should both sites ultimately be granted planning permission when having regard to all matters raised and when assessed against

The relevant policies in the local plan neighborhood plan and the mppf taken as a whole it is considered that planning permission should be granted given that there is a clear and convincing justification for the scheme I therefore invite you to follow the advice of your officers and respectfully ask that you

Approve the application this evening thank you for listening thank You Craig mes will now introduce the report thank you chair just run you through the site location and what’s proposed application site is located off uh Hayden Lane huckell the site comprises of a single field that’s been cleared of vegetation it’s enclosed by existing hedge RS run

Along the perimeter of the site boundary and the site measures some 1.16 hectares the site’s importantly allocated in their development plan for housing on the North side the site ad joins Sherwood gate residential development which is a development of approximately 255 dwellings and adjoining the site to the West is the

Recently consented barwood homes development for 131 dwellings with access through Delhi Avenue and DOR Avenue the site itself uh is not identified at being at a high risk of flooding and there’s no statut environmental designations or Heritage assets on or directly adjacent to the site almost all of the land where the

Dwellings are proposed would be located within gedling B Council and only a very small proportion of application site Falls within Ashfield District Council and if you look on that plan it’s actually um the land beyond the blue dotted line that’s in Ashfield only Maran Avenue would be used

To access a site which also falls within Ashfield District now because application site crosses two administrative boundaries the application the applicant sorry would therefore need to get permission from both gedling and Ashfield District Council for the proposals as I mentioned previously the site’s allocated in our development plan

It was actually allocated in the line core strategy way back in 2014 as part of a wider Urban extension for 300 dwellings now off that only 255 dwellings have actually been consented and will be completed leaving a short fall of 45 dwellings in terms of what’s proposed uh the

Application is for 30 dwelling uh 13 dwelling sorry which is shown in this layout plan here in terms of the principle of development the site’s allocated for um a residential use so there’s no issues in respect of the principle of development terms of design and layout consider that development includes a

Range of two and three bedroom properties as well as dwellings of one and two stories in scale just show you some pictures nine of the properties identified as being affordable of which three would be first homes and remaining six dwellings would be affordable rented properties which would comprise of two and three

Bedroomed the layout the proposed development has been designed where possible with perimeter blocks formation that enables continuous roadside frontages and enclos rear Gardens the landscape proposals show that it would be enhanced Landscaping planting to the northwest corner of the site and to lesser extent throughout the site on the

East part of the site’ be a large raining Pond that would be landscaped it’s also proposed to create a foot path link to the north um just on the Northern point of that um North Western point of that uh layout plan there overall it’s considered that the development would result in a scheme

That would represent respect the character of the area and have a appropriate density should also be noted the location setting and topography also means that are very few uh public views off the application site and of those views they are generally from the end of Allison Avenue and Marian

Avenue inspect of highways it’s proposed to access via new T Junction which would be an extension of Marian Avenue that presently forms a cuac there’s no proposals to access the site from Allison Avenue which is the one on the west side of that picture uh image there the transportation assessment submitted concludes that

Appropriate level of parking would be available to serve the proposed development and also concludes it would not have a negative impact on local Highway Network in terms of safety the highway Authority have responded to state that they have considered the submitted Transportation assessment and have no objections to the

Proposals on the basis that the traffic generation from the site would be acceptable within the wider Highway Network and the layout and parking provision is appropriate I should also note that the parking provision also exceeds the council’s own SPD on parking standards you should note that access via Marin

Avenue needs to be constructed prior to any occupation of any dwelling and it would mean that permission would first be required for the access via Ashfield District Council The Proposal is not considered to cause any acceptable issues of massing overshadowing or overbearing impact on tan OCC ERS due to separation

Distance from the proposed and existing dwellings of course the main impact of The Amity would be through the formation of the new access point via Mar Marian Avenue but this matter has already been considered as part of the allocation of the site in the development plan through

Examination when it was approved by the Secretary of State and subsequently adopted by gedling bur Council traffic would increase along Marian Avenue as a result of The Proposal and there would be some inevitable disruption during the construction phase of development however delivery of an allocated site is also of national and local policy

Requirements the layout of the proposals details dwelling set back from the boundary of the of this access point and in between an area of small open space to provide a buffer between the existing and proposed dwellings a construction management plan would also mitigate impact during the construction phase of

Development and is proposed as a planning condition in terms of trees um obor’s quite right the site was cleared and in fact they submitted a survey of what was there and it was 29 individual trees and 13 groups of trees that were removed from the site to facilitate development on

It our tree officer has been consulted on this and come to the conclusion none of those trees were of any sufficient Merit and more particularly they weren’t subject to a tree preservation order there are three tree preservation orders on the site on the northwest boundary but those trees are seek to be

Retained and protected as part of the proposed development the tree officer confirms he’s satisfied with the tree protection method as proposed and he’s content with the proposed level of replacement planting this can be secured via planning condition now in terms of ecology and biodiversity the removal of the trees has had a

Negative impact on the site clearly the applicant sought to maximize the provision of on-site biodiversity as much as possible will also ensureing development remains viable and deliverable proposed areas of open SPAC has incorporated a number of measures to enhance biodiversity as outlined in the report Al the applicants also offered uh

An off-site payment for biodiversity n gain um but it’s acknowledged that policy 18 does not allow for any off-site mitigation it stated that the loss of habitat should be weighed against the benefits of The Proposal at National level there is currently no requirement to provide biodiversity net gain as this

Application was registered in March 2023 prior to legislation coming into force in this instance the development of 30 dwellings would contribute towards meeting the authorities housing standards at Targets by developing on an allocated site in this scenario it’s considered that mitigation measures are set out in both the ecological impact

Assessment and the biodiversity net gain document is sufficient to meet the requirements and set out on policy ldp policy 18 also should be noted that Natural England do not object this application almost there right so in relation to to planning obligations the proposals are fully policy compliant that means 30% of affordable

Housing has been provided an education contribution of 131,000 towards secondary Provisions provided a post education uh contribution of 26,000 is to be provided an offsite contribution for off-site play equipment of almost 50,000 proposed and another 20,000 for its future maintenance a contribution towards NHS Primary Care provision is also proposed of

£16,000 and that would go into surgeries based within the hell area it’s also prop proposed and agreed to provide bus stop improvements of some 7,700 so in summary it’s considered the proposal is consistent with local and National planning policies the principle of development is accepted and we’re content with the design scaling layout

The replacement tree planted planting locations and numbers are acceptable the proposed development is policy compliant in relation to developer contributions and we don’t think there’d be a significant unacceptable impact on residential amenity of occupiers close by the site or future residents the parking provision in access is considered acceptable there’s no Highway

Objections from the highway Authority there are no other issues in respect to flooding and drainage archaeology noise contamination it’s either sufficient information has been provided or a condition has been applied chairman the recommendation is to Grant planning permission subject to the conditions outlined in the report

And the owner entering to a planning uh and entering into a section 106 agreement to secure those planning obligations that have raised thank you thank you Craig uh I’d like to propose agenda item five for the purpose of debate do I have a second counselor forgot councelor

Alis thank you um does anyone want to speak on this item councelor Whiting thanks thank you chair um a couple of points of one point of clarification if I may in the report 414 it says that there was no response received from s Trent water at the time

But is there any update to report to the meeting please chair there isn’t no further update um no there’s no further update in relation to uh Trent water that’s to do with the connections of the site into the water system okay thanks um so I mean I understand the residents

Concerns especially around the traffic because it seems to me from that map that we’ve got on the screen there that is there any reason why access couldn’t have been from Allison Avenue and Marin Avenue it seems that that would have taken some of the stress off you’ve now

Got those seven houses on Marin Avenue that are going to have to bear the brunt of potentially 45 50 cars um coming down that’s that’s going to have a significant impact on the air quality um of those residents and taking into account what the uh officer said in his report as

Well I note that in in our report here at 4:13 uh Nottingham sheer Wildlife trust while not objecting in principle note that there’s no biodiversity net gain and it I understand that we’ve got to build houses and I understand that this has been allocated but it seems a shame

That um you know this parcel of land has has been cleared of trees um and we’re going to lose that habitat for the natural environment and the biodiversity that we had there so um I think I’m going to struggle to support this chair thank you thank you councelor

Strong thank you chair um my point is very similar to Council of writings I was concerned um about the access to this site and I understand that the permission still has to be gained from Ashfield about using these roads but we we have a potential number of Journeys

Along that road if you have 49 parking spaces that’s potentially 98 per day and that is rather the overuse of the small road which can be seen from Google Earth uh I’m very worried about the design of this and I don’t not understand why only one access point has been

Agreed um on the design as I said I I Echo the concerns of councilor Whitey on this thank you thank you any any clarification on why access only one access has been designed because initially when the applicant consulted with the highway Authority they considered only one access was

Required into the site not two um so that’s the reason why there is only one access thank you uh councelor Ellis then Wilkinson thank you chair um we have to judge the application as it’s in front of us um and as the officers have said this is policy compliant it’s been

Allocated for for housing it meets the parking standards um I’m pleased to see the section 106 contributions uh unlike some of the other applications in in front of us this is a compliant um and will offset some of the concerns that the residents have rightly raised about the effect on

Services in hille um highways are content with the the um access um and there are are professional advisors so I’m quite happy to accept their their advice and so I think on balance I will be supporting this thank you thank you councelor Wilkinson thank you chair um yes as we’ve heard this is

An allocated site and has been an allocated site for uh a long time uh as Council Ellis says we have to judge the application that that is in front of us and it is a policy compliance um application it would be very difficult if that probably an ey on impossible to

Sustain objection on Highway grounds um when uh uh when the the highway Authority itself has not raised any um any objections um also like counselor Ellis I’m very pleased to see um the section 106 uh um uh contributions and agreement um I think that that that uh uh is is

Very praiseworthy and I congratulate the uh the applicants on on bringing that forward in in in terms of in in in accordance with our with our policy so um I’m inclined to agree with Council Ellis and I’m minded to support this for those reasons thank you uh Council Al thank you chair

Um I I’m I gather this is a a detailed planning application rather than rather than an outline application um I suppose my my only concern is with regard to the any future um possibility of the to the north of the sites there’s a apologies I don’t

Know what road road It’s called is there any way that that could be connected up uh to the site because then you’d have a a through road going right through the the development site from the existing housing site to the north uh which obviously would create a lot of

Traffic problems so really just some reassurance that that that couldn’t happen uh W with this development um um I’m I’m sorry um we we’ll have to consider the application as it stands um um I’m sorry but that’s that’s that’s what we’re judging tonight thank you uh councelor Smith thank you

Chairman you don’t hear me say this very often but I agree with uh councilor Alis and um um I always forget his name Council Wilkinson sorry um I always forget his name as well I’m sorry about um you know it would be well we’d be taken um to appeal if we

Rejected it because it’s in our allocation plan so our hands are kind of tied behind our back which is hard for members of the public to understand but I think that needs saying out loud I do share concerns about the um tree removal um I note that the report says there’s

29 trees to be removed but also if you read paragraph uh 6.30 it’s pleasing to see that the trees that are tped on the boundary will be remaining and I think that’s important for visual aspects and 29 trees removed 20 trees planted um as per paragraph 6.25 is pleasing as well that

Some of those trees that are being removed will be replaced and um create natural habitat there also picking up on the points that others have on the section 106 stuff um the resident who spoke says about um getting into doctor’s appointments and stuff and it’s pleasing paragraph 4.7 as others have

Said you know there is a contribution that this development will contribute about £16,000 towards the expansion of two doctor’s surgeries and also comes with um funding for secondary schools as well which obviously developments contribute so we can’t actually um legally well we could but if we voted against it it’d go to appeal

And get through anyway so for that reason we’re going to I’m going to have to vote for it Mr chairman thank you thank you uh any other speakers on this item no so we’ll move to the vote we’re voting on agenda item five the recommendation is to Grant permission um all those in

Favor thank you um all those against thank thank you and any abstentions thank you um that was carried so we’ll move on to uh agenda item [Applause] six a councelor has just left the room um could give him one minute to come back please we’re we’re still live streaming

So if we can be quiet for those who are watching on YouTube we we’re just waiting for counselor to return to the chamber um if the council doesn’t see all of the um speakers and um uh introduction then they will not be able to vote on the application but the

Council has just arrived back in the chamber okay so we’re all here now um let’s move on to agenda item six which is Lan to the west of Mansfield Road Red Hill um we have one speaker Robbie lock who’s uh who’s the applicant on behalf of the applicant cor

Homes uh you have three minutes and start when ready good evening my name is Robbie lock and I’m the head of planning and strategic lands for the applicant I’m happy to be here tonight supporting a clear recommendation for approval from your officers this is an allocated site in

Your local plan and as you know your local plan involved an extensive and thorough site selection process it went through consultation and examination to establish the principle of development on this site cor homes has previously delivered the first phase of development adjacent to this parcel our our Eagle Edge phase

One we are delighted to now be in a position to once again assist the Council in delivering an adopted housing allocation councilors allocated homes to the north of gedling as a sustainable place for new housing it is a short walk or bike to local services and facilities

And a short bus trip to the city center the site is also ideal for housing from a technical perspective the lead local flood Authority agrees that the drainage is good and that there is no risk from flooding or surface water drainage there are no statutory environmental designations the council’s open space

Officer has confirmed that the level of proposed open space exceeds policy requirements the the council’s tree officer is satisfied with the report submitted and Natural England have no objections to the proposals there will be a large area of public open space along the site’s Western flank inclusive of additional

Play facilities to complement the play provision delivered in Phase One in addition to this a considerable area of public open space is provided to the south of the site accommodating the site’s drainage basins and a range of new species Rich habitats overall the site will deliver a total of

Two hectares of public open space far in excess of the council’s requirements this will make this development feel like a spacious and green community and importantly this site will deliver affordable housing having spent time working with the case officer and appointed experts cor will be delivering a total of 21

Affordable homes within the schemes both for affordable rents and first homes for first time buyers this is alongside the full package of financial contributions as set out in the office’s report cor is also pleased to be working hard to find a solution for a local resident of gedling who has been waiting

For an affordable house to meet her needs for in excess of a decade working in conjunction with your housing officer core has secured a two-bedroom Bungalow for local resident Lucy Fischer we are in the process of understanding how the property can be adapted to meet her specific needs in summary the proposed

Development will deliver a mix I’m sorry your time is up okay thank you thank you this item will be introduced by uh Craig miles thank you chair um before I start there’s a variety of committee updates to let members know about and I’ll just touch on those before I

Start the presentation um mo one first of all is in the committee report itself is referenced as 141 dwellings that that are proposed in this case it’s actually 144 dwellings apologies there a type O in the in the report second point is there’s two further letters of objection

That’s been received since the report’s been published all the matters raised in that objection have been dealt with in the report third point is there’s one letter of support that’s been received that’s not been highlighted in the report and that’s been made on the following grounds the development would provide an

Affordable home for a local resident with specific special need requirements that they’ve been waiting on a suitable premises for a long period of time but none are available and buying a new home and adapting it to their needs is financially prohibitive now the fourth Point um I

Like to make is the Deputy leader has made what I would term a very L representation on the basis that um a signalized junction should be provided to the site from Mansfield Road onto Adam’s Drive sufficient measures should be in place to limit water runoff from

The site um to limit runoff from the site into phase one Lodge Clos larksburg Avenue Henry Street and Richmond Gardens that the p pedestrian that a pedestrian only link should be provided to the existing foot path to the South this all become transparent as we go through the report

Additional tree planting should be provided along the Green Space Between the private shared Drive the suds area and adjacent uh area to the rear of Lodge clo Larkspur Avenue Henry Street and Richmond Gardens and that there’ be a loss of Green Space the last Point i’ like to make

Chair is the highway authority of made late comment that a further condition should be made to the application requiring uh additional details in respect of the submitted travel plan and that can be secured by way of a condition they also request that obligations for two new bus stops

Be amended slightly so it could also be used to upgrade or alternatively be up used to upgrade existing bus stop infrastructure thank you chair so I’ll just move on to the committee items uh which is a main part of the presentation application site application site is located on the west

Side of Mansfield Road Red Hill approximately 2 km to the northwest of AR Town Center it forms land to the rear of phase one know known as Eagles Edge residential development which is now been constructed and is largely occupied the land itself is allocated in our development plan Part Two for the

Development of 150 dwellings site’s roughly rectangular in shape and measures some 6.95 hectares there are no built structures on the site instead consists of open grassland the most notable feature on the site is it topography as it slopes significantly from west to east and in Parts very

Steeply north to south on the southern part of the site the vehicular access and pedestrian access is achieved via joining fields which are accessed from Adams Drive there’s also a public foot path in part to the south of the site and if you look that yellow dotted line You’ll see

There um a small proportion of the site of but it but it’s not included in the application site itself in terms of what’s proposed a full application just a couple of site pictures here it’s a full application for the rection of 144 dwellings as shown on the layout plan and elevation

Drawings there’ll be total of uh 21 different house types and they range between one and four bedroomed the mix of detached semi- detached and terrist housing there’ll be a large area of open space to the South and West parts of the site and we’ve got some indicative

Images I’ll show you now of what is proposed um I’ll move on to that layer in terms of signalized Junction we keep that on in terms of the principal development the site’s already allocating a development plan for 550 units in terms of the design and layout um similar to

Their development it’s designed with a perimeter block formation which enables continuous frontages of um houses fronting on to the public road and public facade and that enables um Gardens to be provided to the rear and for them to be enclosed each dwelling would have its own car parking space um

And private many space to the front and rear there’ll be a good range of house types as I’ve mentioned and the development result in around 30 dwellings per hectare which is promoted by our development plan accepted the main constraint to development the site and its enti is topography where there are

Large changes in land levels across the site which essentially constrain the site from new development because of the costs associated with reprofiling the land as a result 144 are proposed and not 150 units the impact on the layout however is positive there would as as there would be two hectares of open space

Provided within the site as a result of the the only having 144 dwellings and the requirement is only 0.2 hectares um also considered that street scene elevations have been submitted I considered that be an attractive Street Scene that is reflected of The Wider strategic housing Alle appliation that’s already been

Developed officially the design is of the scheme is considered to be acceptable and would respect the wider character of the area in terms of amenity for existing occupiers the main impact would be through the continuation of the existing access from Mansfield Road into the application site via Fe phase one as

Traffic would increase as a result of proposals and there would be some inevitable disruption during construction however it’s always been intentioned that phase two would be accessed via phase one and the layout that was previously approved took account of this requirement I should also set the stage

It’s proposed to put a traffic light Junction on Mansfield Road itself these are the technical drawings of it and so the on we’ve got unfortunately and that would be right in front of that existing access uh where that Pink Arrow is pretty much in the site entrance

There just back to amenity uh we think that the existing dwellings would be set back significantly from phase one not to have an harmful impact on overlooking loss of light sunlight or of an overbearing impact uh planting and Boundary treatment along all of the garden boundaries properties about

Application site would limit noise and disturbance further I should say at this stage Landscaping is um a condition on this application so we’re expecting further details to outline exact technical details of types of Hedges trees Etc but the layout plan indicates areas where that would be provided a construction management plan would

Also mitigate nois and disturbance during the construction period and that’s also secured by condition also think for future residents the proposed dwellings would be appropriately separated from one another uh so that future residents would have a decent sized rear garden and no loss of uh amenity now onto Highway matters the

Application site would be accessed from phase one as discussed uh phase uh Transportation assessment was submitted and uh a new signal control T Junction uh would be provided that would serve both phase one and Phase 2 this has already be aged in principle by the County Council highway

Department and phase one has been modified in order to accommodate the Lodge Farm Lane development which is on the other side of Mansfield Road consisting of 148 dwellings the transportation assessment concludes that the proposed development would not result in Impact an adverse impact on the stud area Junctions and

Therefore no further mitigation is proposed other than the traffic light Improvement further details also been provided to demonstrate that all internal roads have all necessary visibility requirements and ability for Refuge vehicles to comfortably ENT or maneuver exit the site as a result development proposals would not result

In any adverse impact on the surrounding Highway Network and no mitigation are required in respect of for the proposals the highway Authority have responded to say that they no objections and agree with the conclusions of the transportation assessment subject to a range of conditions in relation to parking

Provision the number of spaces actually exceeds our supplementary planning document um by at least 35 spaces now in regard to what I’ve just said the level of car parking provision and the access mean that we are content with the access and level of parking within the site in terms of ecology uh

Last speaker highlighted there would be um some improvement in biodiversity gain this is to do with the planting off the areas of open space which would be significant also should be acknowledged that policy 18 um states that loss of habitat should be weighed against the benefits of the

Proposal and similar to the last application there isn’t a technical requirement for uh 10% biodiversity net gain simply because this application was submitted some time ago in terms of flooding and drainage a flood risk assessment a drainage strategy has been submitted in support of the applic location identifies that

The site Falls within flood zone one so offer low risk of flooding the environment agency do not object to the proposals in the area there are um surface and full water sewage um facilities that the development can link into and it’s expected that any F seage could be pumped to Tren Tren water

Sewage uh system to the south of the site that was previously approved proved as part of phase one surface waters tending to be linked to a drainage Pond located on the southern part of the site with permeable pavement and soakaways that would also function as a holding

Area for surface water in terms of high water volume the lead flood Authority have no objections to their overall drainage strategy as a concept but request a condition uh detailing and requesting technical further information um in respect of the drainage strategy and as such on this basis there’s no objections to flooding or

Drainage now now move on to planning obligations it gets a little bit complicated here chair um in terms of the planning obligations the amount of affordable housing proposed to be delivered is reduced because of the increased costs associated with developing the site just run you through through that so then ppf

Advises that planning obligations must only be sought when are necessary directly related to development and fairly and reasonably related in scaling kind to development so in this instance a financial viability assessment was submitted by the applicant and it concludes it is able to support all of the planning obligations with the

Exception of affordable housing in part largely due to the scheme not reaching the Benchmark land value is states that there’s no Financial Headroom available to provide 11 first homes and 31 affordable rented dwellings on the site and if it were the scheme would be unviable simply wouldn’t go

Ahead the primary reason being the normal costs associated with developing the site are unusually high this is mainly due to the Topography of the site and the requirement to rofile the site and erect retaining walls the total abnormal cost is some £ 4.5 million the conclusion of the assessment

Of the viability um submission is that there would would only be viable if the level of affordable housing was reduced to 21 units instead of 42 and that would comprise of 15 first homes and six affordable rented uh premises all other obligations would be met now this includes a contribution of

£78,000 towards Primary Care pray provision H sorry NHS Primary Care provision a local Authority contribution of just shy of £800,000 a contribution of 50 uh3 35,000 to encourage new residents to use the bus services a contribution of £ 57,4 to create two new bus stops in each

Side of Mansfield Road or bus stops Improvement or a combination of the both and a contribution of £ 5,074 towards Library provision in summary is accepted that providing a higher proportion of affordable housing uh a lower proportion excuse me chair would affect can I just start that one again

In summary it’s accepted that providing a higher proportion of affordable housing would make the scheme effectively unviable and it would be unreasonable to assist on its inclusion given the reference to this matter and local plan policy LPD 36 six even though there are significant cost to development the site 15 first homes and

16 affordable units would still be delivered as well as all of the other obligations the applicant has provided a statement agreeing to providing these contributions through a section 106 agreement should planning permission be granted all of the above contributions are considered to comply with the relevant guidance in respect of of being

Pertinent to the application under consideration as such a development is therefore deemed to comply with the nppf and development plan in relation to other matters there’s a public right of way to the south of the site this would not be stopped up or diverted a result of this these

Proposals although there’s no particular plans to provide a link to the public right of way there is a requirement for the applicant to provide a landscaping scheme whereby access could be gained to the the foot path which is the applicant is willing to provide in summary it considered that

The proposed development is consistent with the Lo with local and National planning policies the principle of development is acceptable on this allocated site designed scal and layout of a proposal is considered to be acceptable does not have an unacceptable impact on character on the character or official amenity of the

Area there reduce level of affordable housing is to cons is considered to be justified and acceptable there would be no adverse impact on residential amenity of existing or future occupiers and parking at the site is and access is considered acceptable there are no other concerns in to flooding drainage arche archaeology noise and

Contamination chairman the recommendation is to Grant plan and permission subject to the conditions outlined in the report and the owner enter entering into a planning obligations uh securing planning obligations through a section 106 agreement with this Authority thank you chair thank you Craig uh I’d like to

Propose agenda item six for the purpose of debate do I have a seconder councelor Ellis thank you um do we have any speakers on this item councelor Smith thank you Mr chairman again like I said on the last one another application on a site that’s within the local plan

So we can’t say no at this point really without it risking it going to appeal just on surface water and drainage if I may and I do get quite frustrated at this so I apologize in ADV Advance the lead flood Authority have asked for further details and then suggested

Suggested a condition will the development be P you know be prevented from going ahead even if we vote to approve it until those details have been submitted to the County Council and then approved by Nottingham sh County Council and although it might not be in a flood zone which I’ve heard during the

Presentation I’m not frankly bothered about the site flooding whilst it’s in development what we’ve got to be careful of is run off into the existing properties and businesses and the roads around there whilst it is in development and it’s just really really really frustrating that we hear that the flood

Authority have asked for more details yet the application’s here for us to vote on it before or those details have been reviewed and accepted by the flood Authority and for me and it might just be me and I’m happy for it just to be me if others don’t agree for me I would

Delay this decision until it comes back to us with all the details and we can have it in black and white that the flood Authority either agree with it or not because we’re making a decision based on information that can be submitted after we’ve made our decision

And I just find that unacceptable I really really do cuz water runoff is causing Havoc across our Bor it really is and we need to stand up to it thank you uh Craig yeah I think Council condition seven would cover off most of what you say but yeah take your point the general

Approach to drainage on the bigger sites is to submit an overall concept of how you drain the site and deal with f seage and we consult the flood Authority on that basis actual technical points in terms of sewage that also be covered by the building regulations process um but

If you look at conditions seven there is a very specific um condition in terms of uh flow rates Etc but there Al there’s also requirement in there for details to be provided during the construction period um for drainage of the site because with the site being so um varied

In terms of its topography I think that’s an important uh consideration and that is secured by condition seven J thank you right um councelor Wilkinson thank you chair um as we’ve already heard this is an allocated site uh we’ve been expecting this development to come um for some time now and uh I’m

I’m glad to see it it is here um I’m a little disappointed that um that it’s not proving possible to provide the uh the full affordable housing uh requirement to be uh to be fully uh policy compliant but I do at least acknowledge that there is some

Affordable housing in the uh uh in in the plan and I also do note with uh we pleasure that uh that the the other um uh obligations as detailed in a section 106 agreement uh are are all fully policy compliant and that is that is very much to be welcomed um so therefore

On balance uh I I I think I minded to uh to support this application thank you councilor Alis thank you chair i’ Echo the the comment on section 106 on the on the affordable housing disappointed to see another scheme being brought forward which doesn’t provide the full range of

Affordable housing I don’t know whether it’s a a success that the applicant initially wanted % uh affordable housing so Rel least was we halfway towards our our policy and I suppose we’re we’re we’re lumbered with that um couple of points of clarification please well first of all

Suppose the comment from Mr miles about the uh the Landscaping scheme and missing the link to bestwood Country Park would be would be missing a missing a great opportunity but that can be dealt with as part of the Landscaping that that’s fine and Echo counselor Smith’s comments about about floodings

The runoff is an issue and needs to be made sure the that’s that’s dealt with before development starts and everything in the condition there and then condition for is about um The Junction onto the uh on onto the uh Mansfield Road can I just be clear just

What condition for provide what most of us would regard as a signalized control even though it’s across the two roads the the access to this site and and Lodge Farm thank you thank you Craig yeah it would be a signalized control uh chair um and response to other question

About the foot path um we have control everything up to the red line boundary an applicant can do anything they can within the red line boundary they’ve applied for so in terms of foot links to the foot path um they could in theory as part of the landscap

And provide some link to it and we could discharge that through the landscape through the Landscaping scheme um what they may not be able to do is provide a direct link because we’re not ensure of the land ownership between the boundary of the site and the foot

Path but that can be secured in terms of informal access to the site which would remain open um should permission be granted from the foot path into the site thank you uh any other speakers on this item councilor Adams than thank you just a a quick point on the affordable

Housing numbers um can you tell me those numbers again what it should be and what we’ve got please and then I’ll just come back if that’s okay chair sorry I was could you could you say repeat that please yeah sure um affordable housing numbers what should

It be in terms of the full development in terms of what is actually uh in terms of the total house number development and what it actually is please and then I’ll come back if that’s okay thank you yeah I’ll pass this on to Craig yeah chair it’s 42 units should

Have been provided as policy compliant and we’re actually getting 21 units thank you chair thank you thank you yeah so just just on that then so is our is our policy not fit for purpose or why are we in a place where our affordable housing requirements is not

Meeting the ability for the developer to make a development financially viable um or not and if that’s the case are we looking to adapt and change that policy in order to resolve that issue going forward because otherwise we’re going to be in this position every single time having to be disappointed as councilors

Have mentioned on the fact that things aren’t being um developed as they should be in terms of numbers and if so when is that happening or when will we be discussing it in terms of planning going forward or in terms of full Council thank you thank you councilor Adam so in

Terms of a review of the affordable housing policy that would be a matter that would be referred to Cabinet in due course in terms of whether that policy is fit for purpose most of the developments which are approved are are actually in Conformity with with the affordable housing policy um the only developments

That aren’t approved in accordance with the policy is where there’s a viability issue on this particular site as outlined by Mr miles in his presentation earlier there are some significant issues with site levels um so the land Rises quite steeply there’ll be a requirement for the site to be

Reprofiled and there will be a number of retaining walls that need to be constructed as part of the development so I think Mr my pulled out a figure earlier on of in excess of4 million pounds of abnormal costs so that is quite unusual whereas there are other

Sites in the burough where there there AR abnormal costs and the affordable housing policy is applied and we would expect full Conformity with that policy but the policy will be reviewed in due course that will be linked into a review of the community infrastructure Levy because the evidence base is the same um

But that will be a decision which will be made by cabinet and planning committee will be um they will be consulted and kept fully informed in terms of um a policy review does that answer your question yes thank you the only small um part I was going to mention was in which

Case I suppose is a question of the original viability of the site Full Stop in terms of this being brought forward as a future development site if it’s not financially viable doesn’t in order to meet our standard policy in terms of affordable development and how would a

Site like this end up in development uh in the first place bearing on mind that obviously the site isn’t suitable uh for a development to achieve policy within ging’s terms with the right figures being being encompassed within that I think at the time when the site was allocated not all of the abnormal

Costs were were known at that time um and it should be it should be identified that previously at the front of the site there was actually a factory building on there so it was a former metall facture um site and then this site was was was

At the rear um so things do come to light um post allocation um but it’s been a very detailed piece of work which has been undertaken which has actually highlighted um the need for additional Works to to bring the site forward so I think this site is is is somewhat

Unusual thank you uh any other speakers on this item right should we move to the vote uh we’re voting on agenda item six the recomend recommendation is to Grant permission all those in favor thank you uh that’s unanimous so it’s uh carried shall we move on to uh agenda

Item seven uh site of DBL laundry uh we have uh one speaker on this item James Hannah who is the applicant which is mcarthy the stone as as usual you have three minutes thank you good evening chair members the application before you relates to a Brownfield site within the main urban

Area of D Brook and Arnold benefiting from a housing allocation within your adopted local plan our proposal are for a 51 bedroom retirement living scheme over three stories with a communal Lounge residence Garden car parking and all Associated Works since submitting our application in September 2023 we have established and maintained a really

Positive dialogue with your officers and I am pleased to see this reflected in the positive recommendation this evening ahead of submission McCarthy Stone undertook a community consultation exercise that involved writing to 245 neighboring residents and businesses an overw 83% of those who responded were in full support throughout the planning

Process we have responded to officer and consult te comments alike to ensure that all technical information has been provided this includes additional information in relation to drainage SS and justification the proposed 20 car parking spaces for the scheme this is based on our own knowledge and knowled

And experience of our other site for this product whereby a lower proportion of car ownership has been observed the sustainability of the site and access to nearby services and Facilities also supports this and upon review by your officers they also consider that the car parking ratio is acceptable The Proposal secure on-site

Biodiversity net gain improvements through a comprehensive Landscaping scheme including the planting of 60 new trees and a wildflower Meadow on the western boundary the design of the building ensures a modern development whilst respecting the local character of the area which is dominated by a red brick vernacular the construction process will also

Utilize modern methods of construction in order to provide a building envelope that exceeds building regulation requirements the use of air source heat pumps solar panels EV charging points also demonstrates our commitment to low carbon Technologies turning attention towards Financial contributions the proposal uh the proposal before you is viability

Tested it concludes the development is unable to support affordable housing due to the scheme not reaching the bench mark land value nor is there a financial headro available for planning obligations this has been critically assessed by our independent viability consultant including sensitivity testing of our appraisal however not withstanding the

Viability constraints which is due to elevated enabling Works costs and absence of formal contributions we remain 100% committed to the site through our strategic partnership with homes England we intend to deploy housing Grant to offer a specific older person shared ownership scheme this enable potential homeowners to acquire a property at 75%

Or less than its market value in order to broaden the affordability of our development the result is an application that has support from all statutary consules our proposal secure the full and efficient Redevelopment of an allocated vacant Brownfield piece of land principles your time is up okay um Craig will uh introduce this

Item also thank you chair it’s not quite as complicated as the last site um application site relates to the former debuk laundry site which is located to the north of the existing Aldi store on uh Sir John Robinson way and is to the west of Mansfield Road it’s effectively to the

Rear of the Premier in if anyone knows that it forms part of the main urban area of arold the site comprises of a partially cleared V Brownfield site made up of mixture of hard standing partially demolished brick structures um on a site um that was previously used as a laundry and

Cleaning Depot there’s area for scrub planting and grassland around its perimeter and places got some pictures off the site that’s a site allocation some of the images off the site lay out B an issue in terms of site topography uh to the rear of the site uh

Say to the rear um so the West boundary of the site um there’s quite a change in land levels from those houses that you can see um to the west of the site there and actual site level where the L-shaped buildings would be located the site’s not in a Conservation Area

Um it’s in flood zone one uh which is the lowest level of flood risk and there’s no statutory designations on or directly alongside the ey so fil planning permission is sought for 51 retirement living apartments it’ll be housed within a three-story purpose build retirement living building the proposed building would

Comprise of self-contained apartment um so it’ be 152 bed apartments and 36 one bed Apartments distributed across three floors the footprint would be L-shaped and Central located be a total of 20 off street car parking spaces and two disabled spaces included within that 20 and access would be from uh Sir John

Robinson way which would be an extension of that little road from Mansfield Road leads round into old car park access road itself would be 6 M wide and it be a pedestrian foot length that would tie into the existing foot path um adjacent to Al day there’ be an area of communial

Ground surrounding the building to the rear of the building a steep embankment on the west side as mentioned will be landscaped and a fence erected on the boundary with dwellings backing onto the application site at Brown close now I think the point I was trying to make

Earlier uh in terms of the cross-section and particular that bottom one um you’ll see that the land level for those houses Browning close to the rear are much higher than the FL ground floor level of the proposed building so in terms of the principle of development uh the site is already

Allocated in the development plan for development of 50 dwellings uh in terms of the design and layout as mentioned would be centrally located in three stories in height um it actually be positioned to the rear of the Premier in and there’d be very limited public views of the site uh from

Mansfield Road you’d really only see it if you’re coming around to the car park um as mentioned that the floor levels would differ from other Residential Properties to the rear that be sort of sunken down although it’ be three stories in height internal layout we consider would have an appropriate size

Uh facility for retirement living for future residents with sufficient communial areas so in summary consider that proposed development layout is considered acceptable and result in a development would be welld designed and be of appropriate scale be keeping with its surroundings in terms of amenity um going to the position

Orientation of other dwellings and buildings uh alongside the site there wouldn’t be any real uh prospects of any up overlooking or overshadowing on the site um simply to to topography in the distance to their dwellings um just touch on highway safety and parking so mentioned this it be accessed

From John Robinson way there’ll be 20 spaces and within that 10 Electric vehicle charging spaces would be provided um in terms of the actual number of spaces if to reply our own guidance there’s requirement for 0.8 spaces per apartment and this is the starting point for assessing car parking

Requirements but also says in our SPD that the expect expectation is that paring standards will be me met however if development is served by one or more regular bus uh public transport services it may be a material consideration justifying A reduced parking provision especially if the site is located within

Or close to a Central Area applicant states in the planning statement the site benefits from a good vehicular uh good vehicular and pedestrian connectivity within the immediate and surrounding area indeed there’s bus stops um with Services running in both directions uh towards Nottingham City Center and Mansfield less than 150 M

From the site and there’s infrastructure there already that includes stroke curbing tactile pavement Crossing points road marking and barriers Etc to encourage that from the application side Al the applicant also states in the supporting statement that the provision of 20 spaces appropriate and Justified given the retirement living model which

Generates less car parking requirement and vehicle movements compared to more convential for conventional residential developments uh Transportation has also been provided as Compares um other similar development developments in England to what is proposed here and and surprisingly concludes that requirement is reduced uh because uh vehicle movement amongst retirement living uh apartment

Developments um is um the fuel allocation is not required in essence so nevertheless the highway Authority has been consulted and um they initially requested for additional spaces um it’s not been provided they have since been Rec consulted and come to conclusion it would not um harm the highway Network

And overall they do not object to the proposals so in this scenario it can be considered a reduced parking requirement can be justified given the nature of the development as retirement living apartments which can be secured via condition and ensure at least at least one occupant of each apartment is 50 60

Years or over it’s also been demonstrated that the site is accessible by other means of Transport as well connected to public services in terms of planning obligations gets a little bit more complicated now um usually there’s requirement to provide 30% of affordable housing in this location together with planning obligations for NHS provision

Bus stop improvements and Library enhancements similar to last application where were n ppf advises that the planning obligations must only be sought where are necessary directly related to the development and fairly unreasonably related in scale in kind to the development in this instance a financial viability assessment was submitted with

The application it concludes that development is unable to support any onsite or offsite affordable housing or contributions largely due to the scheme not reaching the Benchmark land value states that there’s no Financial Headroom available for planning obligations after accounting for anticipated gross receipts and all reasonable aspects of the outlay

Necessary to develop the site in that scenario the scheme produces a deficit of around 790,000 and therefore unable to provide any obligations an externally appoint appointed independent viability expert has reviewed the assessment and he concludes with a fixed developer profit of 20% on revenue and nil planning policy contributions the scheme does

Uh result in a negative um residual land value and this is below the Benchmark land value of 330 and it’s deemed unviable even before any planning policy contributions are factored in now he’s also taken account of a scenario if sale values were to increase by 5% and construction cost remained the

Same and the conclusion is that it still be invi unviable um because it’ be below the Benchmark land value so in this scenario no such obligations are therefore sought uh and separately matters relating to trees Colley drainage have all been addressed in the report and secured by conditions and there’s no

Objections to those matters in conclusion chair it’s recommended that despite not having affordable housing or contributions that the site is in a sustainable location and would provide 60 retirement uh sorry sorry 51 retirement living apartments the principle of development is acceptable in this location the design scale and layout of The Proposal

Is considered to be acceptable and does not have an unacceptable impact on the character or visual amenity of the area the reduced level of affordable housing and for contributions is considered to be justified The Proposal would not have unacceptable impact on residential amenity in terms of overlooking or massing the reduced

Parking and access at the site is considered accept acceptable and there are no other concerns of in relation to flooding Dr archaeology noise or contamination J the recommendation is to Grant planning permission subject to the conditions outlined in the report thank you thank you Craig uh I’d like to

Propose agenda item seven for the purpose of debate do I have a seconder councilor Wilkinson thank you thank you anybody want to speak on this item councelor strong uh thank you chair um I’m very glad to see that an good use is being made of this previously industrial site

It seems to be a as I said good use for it and it’s nice to see it coming into use I am however Disturbed that the parking provision is so low and I take the point that um car ownership may be used excuse me car ownership may very well be

Reduced uh in a retirement settlement however and their final position is um the numbers which are set out in the in the plans which are proposed so to add a further condition that the application needs to be considered on the basis of the information submitted so it wouldn’t

Be reasonable to add a further condition and I would add that the highways Authority does support that well they raise no objection to the level of provision proposed okay thank thank you um councelor Wilkinson thank you chair um it is certainly welcome to see this site finally developed it’s been empty and

Cleared for for far too long without being developed uh and there is much to commend the uh uh development the uh the actual building itself um I I I think is a very welcome uh addition my reservations are as councilor strong said in terms the the level of uh the parking

Provision I understand what what is being said though by um uh the officers um but I’m also particularly disappointed that there are no Financial contributions at all there no affordable housing no section uh 106 agreement and and that is very disappointing I I understand um that we have a um a

Viability assessment uh in front of us so it is what it is and and it wouldn’t cause me to uh um to oppose the uh um uh development on that that that basis um yeah I’m just just frustrated and you know about it um just a question uh that

Either for Mr Avery or Mr miles that perhaps they could uh answer I can recall a couple of um uh developments in the past where where um the developer has has provided a a viability assessment that um showed it wouldn’t be viable with uh with contributions um and

And we’ve been assured that should the financial uh the economic position um improve in the future that is something that could be Revisited uh if the uh if the site hadn’t already been developed I’m just wondering whether that might be a possibility in this case you know should should the position change

Thank you it’s something that we did give consideration to in terms of whether we could require a reassessment in know in a in a set period of time in this instance though it’s an apartment block so usually once an once development is commenced on an apartment block the block would need to be

Completed before it was occupied so the the planning permission has a life of three years and I think the previous schemes that you referred to that was development comprised of of apartments and dwellings so it was a range of um a range of um housing Types on a site

Whereas this is a discret um development of one apartment block so for that reason and given that the development would need to be commenced within a period of 3 years we didn’t feel that that was necessary or reasonable in this instance thank you uh counselor Smith thank you chairman I don’t think

There’s any question of whether we need um more retirement living apartments or Brownfield development which is very welcome to see on this side it’s just very very very disappointing as other councilors have said that there’s not adequate parking even though there’s plenty of space on the site where extra

Parking could PR be provided 18 spaces and I know the officer referred to 20 two of them are disabled spaces so they’re restricted so I’ll say 18 spaces for 51 appointment apartments just simply isn’t enough and it goes against our policy as it’s not enough but then

As I’ve said in planning meeting after planning meeting after planning meeting our policy then says but if you’re near a good bus service don’t worry we don’t have to provide you parking but then we cannot restrict people moving into there to only those that get the bus we can’t

Do that so that bit of the policy really isn’t worth the paper it’s written on and I’ve said that before and I’ll keep saying it till it changes cuz it needs to change um also what hasn’t been mentioned yet there’s no visitor parking somebody made reference I think it was

The officer in the presentation that over 60s or implied that over 60s are more less likely to drive I don’t agree with that uh because they are of working age but if you are of a Elder age you’re more likely to have visitors to your property as well there’s no visitors

Parking on site which that coupled with the fact that there’s not enough spaces full stop for those who live in it is just going to shift the problem onto nearby Residential Properties and highways um and what will happen is those residents will then write to counselors in this room or County

Counselors asking um for parking restrictions on their Road and the taxpayers pick the bill up and it shifts the problem elsewhere I’m really minded to vote against this application reluctantly because I want Brownfield to sight development and I want retirement um Apartments development um but if we

Vote against it it might make the developer go back and think come back uh with better and adequate parking which is clearly space for on site thank you um just a clarification from Craig the total number of parking spaces on this site please yeah it’s a total of 20 um two of

Those are disabled species as Council pointed out chair so there’s a total of 20 two of which are disabled spaces thank you um councelor Adams thank thank you uh chair yes really just to uh Echo uh what councilor Smith has said I mean we mentioned that highways have no

Objection to the number of parking spaces they have highlighted it but obviously the parking space issue is not a highway policy it’s a ging Bor Council um policy and ginp council’s policy clearly states 0.8 parking spaces um it does also add the point that councilor Smith’s made around the bus access um

But again when residents are applying to other councils for or things like resident parking schemes they’re as a result of KnockOn effects of inadequate parking being provided for two dense housing uh and the reality is here is that we’re dealing with a high density and a low ability to actually conform

With our own policy I don’t understand why we’re doing that I don’t it I don’t get why why we sat here being asked to make a decision based on something that goes I mean it’s not even like a tiny bit off the policy I mean it’s it’s less than

Half of what our requirement is which I just I just find it incredible that we sat here looking at this now ex you know we’re back at viability again we talked about viability earlier this is not a viable site for this development there’s no contributions going to the local Authority there’s no

Paying for doctors there’s no paying towards the highway there’s none there’s none of that none of that’s going we’re not gaining any benefit from that and the local Authority and the residents that are going to live there moving from an outside side area the local Authority

Isn’t going to get any benefit of that to provide services for them I find that strange I find that strange that we’re dealing with not only a parking policy that’s not being followed but we’re also dealing with a policy where we’re not providing any benefit to local gedling Bor or the Wy

County to maintain those people when they join our Bor so I don’t get why it’s here I don’t get why I accept that people can apply for planning policy on anything even land they don’t own I accept that but I also don’t accept why we’re sat here with a

Decision that is let’s go ahead CU what what we’re saying is let’s go ahead against our own policies in planning and although I understand that planning in the decision point is done by councilors we are LED and guided by planning guidance that is given by this Council

And yet we are not just going against one of those policies we are also not catering for the needs of those residents once they enter our local Society I cannot for those conditions back this application under any circumstances with within those points thank you um any other comments on this item at

All okay so we’ll move to the vote uh we’re voting on agenda item seven uh all those in the recommendation is to Grant permission all those in favor thank you uh all those against and any abstentions so that’s is carried we’ll move on to agenda item 8 uh Eagle Eagle Square Front Street

Arnold there are no speakers on this item and it’s uh Nel Brian to introduce uh thank you chair um plan of permission is sought uh for a 12-month period for the change of use of land at Market State Eagle Square sorry for the uh 12 stalls on the market permission

Was granted in December 2020 for the same although that permission has now lapsed should permission be granted over the next 12 months the council will undertake a full review of the permanent location of the Market within Arnold Town Center in consultation with Market Traders and residents the application

Site is is outlined on the slide before you you can see the market has obviously been operating for a number of years now and these are the the Stalls that um are currently on the on site and just a picture of the same but in short it’s just looking to to renew an

Our extend permission to enable the council to um you know work out where the future of the market is over the next 12 months and enable that review to undertake place and the recommendation is to approve as outlined on pages 118 to 119 of the committee report thank you

Chairman thank you uh I’d like to propose item eight for the purpose of debate to have a second councelor pearon thank you uh anyone want to speak on this item councilor Smith thank you chairman I’m fully in support of this extension but it’s the um Market holders that I

Feel sorry for extension after extension after extension has been applied for to this Council by ourselves uh with no reassurance these people have mortgages to pay they have um families to look after they’ve got no Assurance whatsoever once this 12 months runs out or 8 months 6 months until we reapply

Again it’s time this Council and I know it’s not for this planning but it’s time this Council give the stall holders some assurance and some future and with that said I’ll vote for the 12-month extension just to give them that little bit of reassurance thank you uh any other speakers on this

Item okay should we move to the vote so we’re voting on agenda item eight the recommendation is to Grant permission all those in favor that’s you thank you very much so we’ll move on to agenda item nine Richard Herod Center foxville Road Central Colton and Brian will introduce this one also thank you

Chair um yeah plan permission is sort for a storage container on lands of the rear of changing rooms on the playing fields adjacent to the the Richard Herod um Leisure Center it will be cited to the rear of the of the building as you can just see in the center of the sign

Originally it was proposed to be sighted closer to the residential units but it now proposed to be cited you know immediately adjacent to the um the actual changing rooms to um reduce its visual impact on those nearby neighbors um this is the the structure be similar to Bas um a shipping

Container I think it’s going to be used for the storage of um you know Nets and the corner Flags Etc um but the visual impact given its location is not considered to be um significant it will be cited adjacent to the actual building to this side of the grass roughly in

This location here so in terms of the impact on Visual imunity and residential immunity is considered to be um acceptable and there’s no no overriding policy concerns and therefore the AC applications recommended for approval as outlined on page 125 of the committee report thank you chairman thank you I’d like to propose

Item nine for the purpose of debate have a seconder council person thank you um does anybody want to speak on this item all right should we move to the vote uh so the recommendation is to approve um all those in favor uh that’s unanimous so that’s

Carried so we’ll move on to um agenda item 10 which is uh for noting result of an appeal uh any comments on this item we’re happy to note it okay y I see nods we’ll move on to agenda item 11 future applications which is for noting any comments at

All right happy to note it yeah thank you uh agenda item 12 uh which is the planning delegation panel action sheets which is for noting are we happy to note it yeah and finally item 13 uh there’s no um in business so I’d like to close the meeting thank you