Planning Committee - 2nd July 2013 - Newark and Sherwood ...

22 October 2012 Telephone: (01636) 650000 

E-‐mail: committees@nsdc.info 

Contact: 

Your Ref: 

Our Ref: 

Catharine Saxton Ext 5247 

CLS 

www.newark-‐sherwooddc.gov.uk 

Growth Development Business Unit 

Kelham Hall, Kelham 

Newark Nottinghamshire NG23 5QX 

Dear Sir/Madam, 

PLANNING COMMITTEE 

Notice is hereby given that a meeting of the Planning Committee will be held in the Council Chamber, 

Kelham Hall, Newark on Tuesday, 30 October 2012 at 4.00 pm. 

Yours faithfully 

A W Muter 

Chief Executive 

AGENDA 

Pages 

1. Apologies for Absence 

2. Minutes of the Planning Committee held on 2 October 2012 5 -‐ 10 

3. Declarations of Interest by Members and Officers 

PROSPERITY PEOPLE PLACE PUBLIC SERVICE

-‐2-‐ 

Pages 

PART 1 -‐ ITEMS FOR DECISION 

4. Land to the rear of Fox Hollow, Quaker Lane, Farnsfield (12/01193/FUL) 11 -‐ 34 

(Site Visit 11:55 –11:45 am) 

5. Fir Tree Cottage, Newark Road, Collingham (12/00989/FUL) 35 -‐ 42 

(Site Visit9:30 – 9:40 am) 

6. Roy Walker’s Pine, Queens Road, Newark (12/01004/FUL) 43 -‐ 48 

(Site Visit 9:10-‐9:15am ) 

7. Stonewold, Gravelly Lane, Fiskerton (12/01058/FUL) 49 -‐ 58 

(Site Visit 12:15 –12:25 pm) 

8. Monza, New Hill, Walesby (12/01164/OUT) 59 -‐ 64 

9. Dilliner Wood Farm, Main Street, Winkburn (12/01241/FUL) 65 -‐ 78 

10. Land Adjacent to 42 Ossington Road, Kneesall (12/01258/OUT) 79 -‐ 86 

11. Balderton Hydro Pool, Gilbret Way, Fernwood (12/01273/OUT) 87 -‐ 96 

12. Land to the rear of Orchard House, High Street, Harby (12/01280/FUL) 97 -‐ 112 

(Site Visit 9:50–10:00 am) 

13. The Meadows, Station Road, Bleasby (12/01288/FUL) 113 -‐ 122 

14. Fairfield House, Halam, Newark (12/01308/FUL) 123 -‐ 130 

(Site Visit 11:35–11:45 am) 

PART 2 -‐ ITEMS FOR INFORMATION 

15. (a) Appeals Lodged 131 -‐ 134 

16. (b) Appeals Determined 135 -‐ 142 

PART 3 -‐ STATISTICAL AND PERFORMANCE REVIEW ITEMS 

NIL 

PART 4 -‐ EXEMPT AND CONFIDENTIAL ITEMS 

The following items contain exempt information, as defined by the Local Government Act, 1972, 

Section 100A(4) and Schedule 12A, and the public may be excluded from the meeting during

discussion of these items. 

NIL 

NOTES:-‐ 

A Briefing Meeting will be held in the Cedar Room at 3.00 pm on the day of the meeting between 

the Planning Services Manager, the Chairman and Vice-‐Chairman of the Committee to consider 

late representations received after the Agenda was published.

NEWARK AND SHERWOOD DISTRICT COUNCIL 

Minutes of the PLANNING COMMITTEE held in the Council Chamber, Kelham Hall, Newark 

on Tuesday, 2 nd October 2012 at 4.00pm 

PRESENT: 

ALSO IN 

ATTENDANCE: 

Councillor D.R. Payne (Chairman) 

Councillors: 

Councillor D.Logue. 

R.V. Blaney, T.S. Bickley, G. Brooks, J. Bradbury, 

P Handley, D. Jones, G.S. Merry, J. Peck, 

Mrs S.E. Saddington, M. Shaw, Mrs L.J. Tift, I. Walker 

and B. Wells. 

58. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE 

An apology for absence was submitted by Councillor J Hamilton. 

59. MINUTES 

AGREED 

that the Minutes of the meeting held on 4 th September 2012 be approved 

as a correct record and signed by the Chairman. 

60. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS AND OFFICERS 

NOTED: 

Member 

Councillor T.S. Bickley 

Agenda Item No 

Agenda Item No. 9 – Combs Farm Shop, Old Rufford 

Road, Farnsfield (12/01147/FUL). Disclosable 

Pecuniary Interest, Councillor Bickley delivers 

motorhomes and caravans to the business. 

61. ORDER OF BUSINESS 

The Chairman, with the permission of the Committee, changed the Order of Business 

on the agenda. 

62. LAND OFF SANDHILLS SCONCE, TOLNEY LANE, NEWARK (12/00562/FUL) 

The Committee considered the report of the Director – Growth, following a site 

inspection held prior to the meeting, which sought retrospective planning 

permission for the change of use from paddock to gypsy and traveller residential 

caravan site at land off Sandhills Sconce, Tolney Lane, Newark. 

A schedule of communication was tabled at the meeting, which included 

correspondence received after the agenda was published from the owners of the 

application site. 

Councillor B. Richardson representing Newark Town Council spoke against the 

5

application on the grounds that the area was prone to flooding and was a further 

extension to the washlands. 

A Member commented on the unfair balance of gypsy and traveller pitches within 

the district, with Newark having allocated more pitches than other areas in the 

district. Concern was also raised regarding the access and egress from Tolney Lane 

onto the bridge and the further encroachment of land into the countryside. Whilst 

there was an evacuation procedure in place should a flood warning be announced, 

concern was raised regarding whether the temporary accommodation area had 

reached saturation point. 

A Member commented on the material difference for this application on Tolney Lane 

from past-approved applications. The site itself was an extension into the open 

countryside, the Planning Committee had made clear when considering previous 

applications that no further permission would be granted in the open countryside. 

The Committee would also be accepting the proposal with an inadequate flood risk 

assessment. It was further proposed that a third reason for refusal be submitted, on 

the grounds that Council at its meeting on 6 th September 2012, agreed to undertake 

a Gypsy and Travellers needs assessment. That assessment would form a 

development plan document, which would seek to propose sites; those sites would 

be sustainable and suitable sites. It would therefore be premature to grant 

permission on this site. 

AGREED (unanimously) that planning permission be refused for the reasons 

contained within the report with the addition of a further reason as follows: 

Reason 03 The District Council is committed to undertaking a new Gypsy and 

Traveller Accommodation Needs assessment within the next year and to prepare a 

subsequent Gypsy and Traveller Development Plan Document. These will determine 

the number of additional pitches required. In the opinion of the Local Planning 

Authority, the proposal is premature and approval could be prejudicial to the 

objective assessment of other sites that might be more suitable and sustainable. 

AGREED 

(unanimously) that the Director – Growth, takes appropriate 

enforcement action in consultation with the Planning Committee 

Chairman and Vice-Chairman. 

63. 78 FARNDON ROAD, NEWARK (12/00307/FUL) 


inspection held prior to the meeting, which sought full planning permission for a two 

storey detached dwelling at 78 Farndon Road, Newark. 


correspondence received after the agenda was published from Mrs T. Dunham the 

applicant. 

Councillor B. Richardson representing Newark Town Council spoke in favour of the 

application on the grounds that the site was large enough for the dwelling and 

similar sites had been developed. 

6

A Member supported the grounds for refusal and suggested that reason three 

should also include the impact on the amenity of No. 10 Lamb Close. 

AGREED 

(unanimously) that full planning permission be refused for the reasons 

contained within the report, with the amendment that the impact on 

Lamb Close also be included in reason three. 

64 107 FOSSE ROAD, FARNDON, NEWARK (11/01790/FUL) 


inspection held prior to the meeting, which requested full planning permission for 

the demolition of the existing single storey detached two bed roomed dwelling and 

the replacement with a two storey detached five bed roomed dwelling at 107 Fosse 

Road, Farndon, Newark. 


correspondence received after the agenda was published from resident of a 

neighbouring property; Mr C. Davies the agent; and the Planning Officer. The 

Planning Officer had suggested that additional control over surface water drainage 

on the site had not been conditioned on the report following the Environment 

Agency comments. Additional suggested condition related to discharge of surface 

water. 

The Business Manager Development informed the Committee that there was no 

guarantee that the large tree situated at the front of the property would survive if 

the proposal took place and the trees were not protected by Tree Preservation 

Orders (TPO). Members were also informed of the suggested additional condition 

which related to the discharge of surface water contained within the late item 

schedule, the Business Manager Development also proposed an informative note to 

the applicant, stating that permitted development rights exist for permeable 

driveway. 

Councillor D.P. Logue as Ward Member for Farndon spoke against the application on 

the basis of loss of privacy to neighbouring properties and overshadowing from the 

proposed three-storey building. The neighbour was a professional artist and the 

proposed dwelling would affect the light and shadowing of his property. It was felt 

that the proposal was incongruous with the design pattern of the road and over 

development of the plot. Concerns were also raised regarding the felling of the 

trees and car parking. 

A Member sought clarification regarding the right to light. The Business Manager 

Development confirmed that loss of light was a material consideration but there was 

not necessarily a right to light. 

Members felt that the proposal would fit in the street scene and would enhance the 

area, as the existing bungalow looked tired. 

A Member suggested whether the property could be turned around in order to fit in 

with the existing footprint and therefore would have less impact on the 

neighbouring property. The Business Manager Development confirmed that the 

7

change to the design would impact on the driveway, which ran along the side of the 

property to a turning head at the bottom of the garden. Members were also 

reminded that the applicant had asked the Planning Committee to consider the 

application before them. 

A Member suggested that an informative should be provided to the applicant stating 

that any hard landscaping had to be permeable. 

A Member moved an amendment and it was seconded, that the application be 

deferred in order that the applicant be asked to consider changing the design by 

turning the building around, in order to have less impact on the adjacent neighbour. 

The vote was taken and lost with 6 votes for and 8 votes against. 

AGREED (unanimously) that full planning permission be approved subject to the 

conditions contained within the report, the following additional condition 

and the informative to the applicant: 

(i). 

Condition 10: No development shall be commenced until details of 

the means of foul drainage and surface water disposal have been 

submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning 

authority. The development shall be carried out thereafter in 

accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in 

writing by the local planning authority. 

Reason: To ensure the provision of satisfactory means of foul 

sewage/surface water disposal. 

(ii). 

informative note to the applicant, stating that permitted 

development rights exist for permeable driveway. 

65. BARNBY COURT, BARNBY ROAD, BALDERTON (12/00750/FUL) 


inspection held prior to the meeting, which sought planning permission for the 

erection of four apartments with associated car parking at Barnby Court, Barnby 

Road, Balderton. 

The Business Manager Development reported that there was an error in the report 

regarding the number of car parking spaces, which was sixteen down to twelve 

spaces and not eight as stated. 

Councillor J. Page representing Balderton Parish Council spoke in favour of the 

application on the grounds of fulfilling the need for affordable homes. 

A Member commented on the need for affordable housing and felt this 

development would not be out of character as stated in the report and that the car 

parking issue had been dealt with. The Member moved an amendment that the 

application be approved subject to appropriate conditions, which was seconded. 

The vote was taken and lost with 3 votes for, 8 votes against and 1 abstention. 

8

Members commented that the development was over intensification in the 

countryside; the parking issue had not been satisfied; and the noise from the 6.30am 

train to London was also raised as a concern. It was further commented that the 

reasons stated within the report were so sound, to accept the application would be 

detrimental to the existing properties. 

AGREED (with 9 votes for, 3 votes against and 2 abstentions) that full planning 

permission be refused for the reasons contained within the report. 

66. MOOR FARM, NEWARK LANE, BARNBY-IN-THE-WILLOWS (12/00993/FUL) 


inspection held prior to the meeting, which sought retrospective planning 

permission for the erection of a replacement dwelling at Moor Farm, Newark Lane, 

Barnby in the Willows. 

AGREED 

(unanimously) that full planning be approved subject to the conditions 

contained within the report. 

67. COMBS FARM SHOP, OLD RUFFORD ROAD, FARNSFIELD (12/01147/FUL) 

The Committee considered the report of the Director – Growth, following a site visit 

held prior to the meeting, which sought retrospective planning permission for the 

change of use of the former farm retail premises and yard to the sale, servicing and 

repair of caravans and motor homes, at Combs Farm Shop, Old Rufford Road, 

Farnsfield. 


correspondence received after the agenda was published from Councillors Mrs N.A. 

Armstrong and R.B. Laughton, Ward Members for Farnsfield & Bilsthorpe. 

Members commented that 200 yards away from the site, a garage was selling cars 

on the roadside. There was also a public house, theme park and farm park on the 

opposite corners of the road. It was felt that this site was a good public amenity, 

which was not presenting any harm. 

A Member commented that the application was for the sale, servicing and repair of 

caravans and motor homes, there was nothing in the application, which referred to 

the Café side of the business, which was currently being operated. The Café was 

unauthorised, as the usage class was not covered by this application. 

The Business Manager Development confirmed that the two businesses had been 

separated and discussions were taking place regarding the issue of an enforcement 

notice for the Café. 

A Member suggested that the conditions for planning consent for the sale, servicing 

and repair of caravans and motor homes be delegated to the Director – Growth in 

consultation with the Planning Committee Chairman and Vice-Chairman. 

Enforcement action be authorised for the Café unless a planning application was 

9

eceived within three months. 

The Business Manager Development informed the Committee that Nottinghamshire 

County Council (Highways Authority) had sought further information regarding the 

parking provision, capacity for caravan storage and amendment of the red line plan 

to incorporate access to the public highway and that it would be appropriate to 

impose conditions regarding the approval of a layout for both car parking and 

caravans displayed for sale. 

AGREED 

(with 13 votes for and 1 vote against) that: 

(a) planning permission be approved contrary to Officer 

recommendation, subject to the conditions for planning consent 

being delegated to the Director – Growth in consultation with the 

Planning Committee Chairman and Vice-Chairman; and 

(b) 

enforcement action be authorised to secure the cessation of the 

unauthorised use of the Café business, unless a planning 

application for the Café is received within three months. 

(Having declared a disclosable pecuniary interest on the above Minute (Agenda Item No. 9) 

Councillor T.S. Bickley left meeting for the duration of the item). 

68. APPEALS LODGED 

AGREED 

that the report be noted. 

69. APPEALS DETERMINED 

AGREED 

that the report be noted. 

The meeting closed at 5.58 pm 

Chairman 

10

PLANNING COMMITTEE – 30 th OCTOBER 2012 

AGENDA ITEM NO.4 

Application No: 

Proposal: 

Location: 

Applicant: 

12/01193/FUL 

Resubmission of proposed erection of 2 dwellings and garages and 

replacement garage incorporating demolition of existing garage. 

Land Rear Of Fox Hollow, Quaker Lane, Farnsfield, Nottinghamshire 

Mr & Mrs A Robinson 

Registered: 23 rd August 2012 Target Date: 18 th October 2012 

The Site 

The site lies within the village envelope which defines the main built-up area of Farnsfield 

and also falls within Farnsfield Conservation Area. The surrounding area is predominantly 

residential. The southern-most part of the application site falls within Flood Zone 3 of the 

Environment Agency Flood Maps and is at high risk from flooding. 

The site comprises 0.19 hectares of land, the northern part of which is open land and 

described by the application as “disused” and the southern part of which currently forms 

the garden of the property known as Fox Hollow situated on Quaker Lane. The southern 

part of the site slopes upwards from south to north whereas the main part of the site 

appears relatively flat. The site is not visible from Quaker Lane but is directly adjacent to a 

public right of way which links with other footpaths to the east and west, creating a 

footpath network. 

To the west of the site are traditional two-storey cottages (often in terraces) in small plots, 

the southern boundary of the main part of the site is defined by a public right of way 

(Farnsfield Public Footpath No 9) in the form of a narrow unmade pedestrian path, and 

beyond that are larger detached properties in larger plots, some of which are traditional and 

some of which are more recent. To the east of the site is a part wooded/ part open area 

(with the exception of a stable building) and to the north of the site is a large residential 

garden serving a property fronting Main Street. 

The southern, narrower part of the site is defined by Quaker Lane at its southern end, a 

single-track access road to the west which serves Bramble Cottage and the remaining 

garden area serving Fox Hollow to the east. 

Quaker Lane is a narrow lane that runs south from Main Street. The part of the lane that 

runs in a north-south direction has a heavily built-up feel with a high number of dwellings 

situated along the back edge of the pavement with limited or no greenery. As Quaker Lane 

turns the corner at its southern end that character changes into properties set back from 

the road creating a more open character with hedges and trees softening the streetscape. 

Fox Hollow, Vine Cottage to the south of the application site and the majority of the 

cottages to the west of the site have been identified in the Farnsfield Conservation Area 

11

Appraisal as significant unlisted buildings or buildings that contribute to the townscape 

quality. The brick boundary wall between Fox Hollow and the access to Bramble Cottage is 

also identified as a topographical feature that contributes to the character of the 

Conservation Area. 

Relevant Planning History 

10/01592/FUL - Proposed erection of 2 No dwellings and garages and replacement garage 

(incorporating demolition of existing garage to serve Fox Hollow). The application was 

refused on the 19 th August 2011. The following reasons for refusal were identified: - 

01 

The proposed dwellings, by reason of their height, massing and scale, would represent 

incongruous, intrusive forms of development, out of keeping with the size and scale of 

existing dwellings, that would have a significant detrimental impact on the setting of the 

undesignated heritage assets to the west of the site and would harm rather than enhance or 

preserve the character and appearance of Farnsfield Conservation Area. 

In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the proposal is thereby contrary to Policies 2, 

26 and 27 of the East Midlands Regional Plan, Core Policy 14 of the Newark and Sherwood 

Core Strategy, Policy C1 of the Newark and Sherwood Local Plan and the guidance contained 

with Planning Policy Statement 5. 

02 

The proposed access, by reason its width and length, would represent an intrusive, 

engineered feature, that would have a detrimental impact on the setting of the adjacent 

undesignated heritage asset to the east and that would significantly adversely affect the 

character and appearance of Quaker Lane and would harm rather than enhance or preserve 

the character and appearance of Farnsfield Conservation Area. 

In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the proposal is thereby contrary to Policies 2, 

26 and 27 of the East Midlands Regional Plan, Core Policy 14 of the Newark and Sherwood 

Core Strategy, Policy C1 of the Newark and Sherwood Local Plan and the guidance contained 

within Planning Policy Statement 5. 

03 

The submitted Flood Risk Assessment fails to adequately demonstrate that the development 

will not result in future occupiers of the site being placed in danger from flooding in terms of 

providing dry, safe, emergency egress in a flood event. 

In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the proposal would therefore place eventual 

occupants at risk from flooding and be contrary to Policy 35 of the East Midlands Regional 

Plan, Core Policy 10 of the Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy, Policy PU1 of the Newark 

and Sherwood Local Plan and the guidance contained within Planning Policy Statement 25. 

12

10/01587/CAC - Proposed erection of 2 No. dwellings and garages and replacement garage 

(incorporating demolition of existing garage). Conservation Area Consent not required 

12.01.2011 

The application site formed part of a larger site with the land to the east. Relevant to 

consideration of this application are the following application details: - 

99/50643/FUL (FUL/991233) – Residential development consisting of road extension and 

seven dwellings. The application was refused on the 22 nd March 2000. The following reasons 

for refusal were identified: - 

01 

In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the proposed development of this site would 

result in the loss of an important open space and trees which contribute to the character of 

the village. In addition, the proposal does not satisfy the criteria outlined in Policy H21 of the 

Newark and Sherwood Local Plan. 

02 

In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the proposed development does not reflect the 

character of the locality in terms of scale, design and layout and the proposal is contrary to 

Policy H21 of the Newark and Sherwood Local Plan. 

03 

In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the proposed development would result in the 

loss of an important open space which makes a significant contribution to the character of 

the Conservation Area. The proposal would also result in a form of development that is out 

of keeping with the character and appearance of the Conservation Area in terms of design 

and layout. 

The proposed development would have a seriously detrimental impact on the character and 

appearance of the Farnsfiled Conservation Area and would fail to preserve and enhance it. 

The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy C1 of the Newark and Sherwood Local Plan. 

04 

The proposal will result in the loss of trees, hedges and the historic pattern of croft plots 

which are important to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The 

proposal is therefore contrary to Policy C4 of the Newark and Sherwood Local Plan. 

The land immediately to the west of the proposed access drive is also of some relevance as 

under planning reference 91/724, planning permission was granted by Planning Committee 

(contrary to officer recommendation) for a new dwelling and access road, which has been 

built and is now known as Bramble Cottage. 

13

The Proposal 

The application is a resubmission of an application refused in 2011 (10/01592/FUL) and 

comprises the erection of two 2-storey dwellings and associated detached double garages 

on the northern part of the site with a vehicular access being provided from Quaker Lane to 

the south. The access is formed using the existing garden of the property known as Fox 

Hollow and at its northern end crosses the existing public right of way. In order to create 

the access required, an existing garage serving Fox Hollow is proposed to be demolished and 

a replacement rebuilt to the north of the existing house which would utilise the proposed 

new access road from Quaker Lane. Plot 1 sits adjacent to the existing right of way facing 

east and Plot 2 sits on the northern part of the site facing south. 

Each dwelling comprises four bedrooms, two en-suites, a bathroom, kitchen, dining room, 

living room, sun room, family area, utility and cloakroom with one of the dwellings also 

provides a separate study. 

The maximum dimensions of the dwelling on Plot One measures 14.75 metres long by 9.25 

metres wide, 6.5 metre to the gable width and 6.8 metres to ridge. The revised scheme is 

therefore reduced by 0.25 metres in length, 1.5 metres in width, 1.1 to the gable and 0.8 

metres to the ridge. The sun room which formed part of the previous application has been 

replaced by a dual pitched roof construction and has been reduced in size. 

The maximum dimensions of the dwelling on Plot Two measures 15.4 metres long by 11.3 

metres wide, 6.5 metres to the gable width and 6.8 metres to ridge. The revised scheme is 

therefore reduced in sized by 0.5 metres in width, 0.5 metres to the gable and 0.3 metres to 

the ridge, whilst the length of the property remains the same. The sun room which formed 

part of the previous application has been replaced by dual pitched roof construction and has 

been reduced in size. 

There is a distance of approximately 14 metres between the side elevation of Plot One and 

the front elevation of Plot Two. In relation to Plot Two, the single storey sun-room is 

approximately 3m and the two-storey element is approximately 4 metres from the common 

boundary to the north-west at its closest point. 

Plot One has a lower two-storey projection to the rear which is situated approximately 10.5 

metres off the common boundary to the west, which is an increase in separation of 1.5 

metres compared to the previously submitted scheme. The single storey sun-room and 

two-storey element are both approximately 3 metres off the common boundary with the 

right of way at their closest points. The detached garage serving Plot One is approximately 

4.5 metres from the side elevation of the nearest existing neighbouring property to the 

west. 

The proposed access road from Quaker Lane to the existing right of way measures 

approximately 60 metres in length and varies in width from 4 metres wide at its narrowest 

to 5 metres at its widest. The road is fairly straight in nature, although it bends where the 

access crosses the public footpath. The proposal provides a turning head within the 

application site to enable the occupiers of the proposed dwellings to turn and leave the site 

in a forward gear. The access to Quaker Lane would be formed over the position of the 

existing driveway at Fox Hollow. The applicant has indicated that the yew hedge fronting on 

14

to Quaker Lane would be trimmed back and the existing brick wall would be reduced from 

1.8 metres to 900mm. 

The replacement garage to serve the existing property at Fox Hollow measures 7.5 metres 

long by 5.5 metres wide, approximately 2.3 metres high to eaves and 5.5 metres high to 

ridge and comprises two open cart-sheds and tool shed at ground level with workshop, 

served by external steps and two roof lights, above. 

The proposed layout plan (Dwg No 12/052-02) identifies some new planting within the site 

including 9 new trees and some hedging to the boundary of the site adjacent to the 

footpath, although it should be noted that this is indicative at this stage. A 1.8 metre high 

screen fence would secure the western boundary of the site. 

The planning application is supported by the following documents and technical studies: - 

• Design and Access Statement 

• Arboricultural Report 

• Ecological Walkover Survey 

• Historic Assessment 

• Flood Risk Assessment 

Departure/Public Advertisement Procedure 

Occupiers of 16 neighbouring properties have been individually notified by letter; a site 

notice has been displayed and an advert has been displayed in the newspaper. 

• Too much development in the village already and this would result in over 

development. 

• The need for housing development to 2021 can be satisfied without resorting 

to back lands filling within the conservation area. 

• The dwellings are too large and should reflect the scale of adjacent cottages 

• Size of dwellings should reflect the reduction in size of the site 

• The small reduction in gable widths and lower ridge height has not significantly 

altered the overall size of the dwellings. 

• Proposed access road crosses the footpath and would be hazardous for both drivers 

and pedestrians. 

• The proposed access, located between two buildings (Vine Cottage and Foxhollow) 

of special note in the heritage terms, constitutes an alien and unacceptable feature 

in the Farnsfield Conservation Area and would degrade the streetscene of Quaker 

Lane 

• Flood zone stretches to the middle of Quaker Lane directly opposite the footpath 

entrance Concerns raised regarding drainage of the site 

• Proposed buildings would increase flood risk 

• Heritage Statement is unfit for purpose 

• The loss of open space, hedges and trees contribute to the character of the 

conservation area. 

• High priority should be given to the objective of preserving and enhancing the 

character and appearance of the Conservation Area. 

15

• Electric (push button) gates either side of the public footpath are totally 

inappropriate for this Conservation Area. 

• The proposed development would have a damaging impact on the setting of a 

number of buildings that are identified in the council’s character appraisal as 

contributing to the character of the conservation area 

• Removing trees and shrubs will destroy the character of this landscape 

• Detrimental impact on a wildlife haven in urban environment 

• The buildings are adjacent to a Tawny Owl nesting area. 

• Loss of open space 

• Tree Report fails to identify a Black Poplar which would need to be removed to 

obtain access to the site. 

• NSDC have failed to take action against the applicant for unlawful removal of trees 

• The survival of trees to be retained would be compromised by the driveway and 

gateway 

• The proposed development relies on removal of trees, which have been identified as 

contributing to the character of the conservation area 

• Trees have been removed and others seriously reduced in height without consent 

• The proposed development threatens the long term survival of trees that contribute 

to the character and appearance of the conservation area 

• Further impacts on congestion and parking 

• Construction impacts such as noise, dirt, and parking of construction vehicles 

• Insufficient parking 

• Inappropriate access for emergency services 

• The proposed access relies on reduction in the height of an adjoining wall that would 

not appear to be in the control of the applicant 

• Overlooking from Plot 2 to Lilac Cottage 

• Disrupt quality of life of residents 

• Loss of view 

• The proposed development would be seriously detrimental to the amenity of 

neighbouring dwellings by virtue of overlooking of private gardens and resultant loss 

of privacy 

• Site should be used for recreational use e.g. allotments 

• Concerns raised regarding future aspirations of retained land to the rear of Sharrow 

Cottage 

• Devaluation of properties 

• The Council decided to modify the Farnsfield village envelope, removing the 

boundary from the immediate gardens to Sharrow Cottage, Ivy Cottage, The Cottage 

and Mayflower Cottage, it was stated that the area where Mr Robinson is now 

proposing to build on is landlocked and that there was no likelihood or intention of 

any residential development on the land, and that the redefinition was to facilitate 

the mapping of the village only. 

Relevant Planning Policies 

The Development Plan 

East Midlands Regional Plan – Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) (adopted March 2009) 

Members will be aware of the Coalition Government’s commitment to revoking Regional 

16

Strategies and their associated targets and the on-going legal challenges relating to this. 

The current legal position is that pending formal abolition, regional strategies remain as part 

of the statutory development plan and it remains for decision makers to decide the 

appropriate weight to attach the relevant policies. Policies relevant to this application: 

• Policy 2 (Promoting Better Design) 

• Policy 3 (Distribution of New Development) 

• Policy 13a (Regional Housing Provision) 

• Policy 17 (Regional Priorities for Managing the Release of Land for Housing) 

• Policy 26 (Protecting and Enhancing the Region’s Natural and Cultural Heritage) 

• Policy 27 (Regional Priorities for the Historic Environment) 

• Policy 35 (A Regional Approach to Managing Flood Risk) 

Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy DPD (adopted March 2011) 

Policies relevant to this application: 

• Spatial Policy 1 (Settlement Hierarchy) 

• Spatial Policy 2 (Spatial Distribution of Growth) 

• Spatial Policy 6 (Infrastructure for Growth) 

• Spatial Policy 7 (Sustainable Transport) 

• Core Policy 3 (Housing Mix, Type and Density) 

• Core Policy 9 (Sustainable Design) 

• Core Policy 14 (Historic Environment) 

Newark and Sherwood Local Plan (adopted March 1999) 

Saved policies relevant to this application: 

• Policy C1 (Development on Conservation Areas) 

• Policy C4 (Natural and Other Features of Interest in Conservation Areas) 

• Policy NE17 (Species Protection) 

• Policy PU1 (Washlands) 

Other Material Considerations 

• National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) 

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was released by the Department of 

Communities and Local Government (DCLG) on the 27th March 2012, with the aim of 

streamlining the planning system. Paragraph 12 of the NPPF states that, "This National 

Planning Policy Framework does not change the statutory status of the development plan as 

the starting point for decision making. Proposed development that accords with an up to 

date Local Plan should be approved and proposed development that conflicts should be 

refused unless other material considerations indicate otherwise." 

• Farnsfield Conservation Area Appraisal 

• National Planning Policy Framework 

17

Consultations 

Farnsfield Parish Council - Objection. The proposed changes are minimal and would have 

little or no impact upon the original submission. The area is probably the most unspoilt and 

original part of the village and firmly lies in the conservation area. The land proposed for 

development is a local habitat for wildlife and once disturbed this will be lost forever. The 

buildings are completely out of character with the surrounding cottages and would overlook 

and overpower adjacent dwellings. A public footpath will be included in the site and vehicles 

crossing this footpath will result in unnecessary hazards and danger to pedestrians and 

animals. The minor modification to the driveway achieves nothing as neighbours will be 

affected by the long drive and vehicle interference. Quaker Lane is very narrow, a typical 

county village lane, and does not support the additional proposed use. The design 

statement makes reference to the proposed addition of housing in Farnsfield but fails to 

state that current policies still apply in relation to development in the conservation area and 

backland development. Whist Farnsfield may be designated as a principle village Policies 

DM5, DM6 and DM9 are relevant in this case. The proposals would have a detrimental 

impact in the locality by nature of its design and impact on the environment and would 

seriously harm the appearance and character of the Farnsfield Conservation area. 

NSDC Environmental Health (Contaminated Land) - Advise that the applicant has a 

contingency plan should the construction phase reveal any significant contamination. 

Information will be provided as an informative. 

NSDC Access Officer - Provides general comments which could be provided as an 

informative. 

NCC Highways – No objections subject to conditions 

NCC Public Rights of Way Officer – No objections subject to conditions. 

Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust - No objections to the proposals in principle but fully 

support all of the recommendations in Section 6 of the report. 

Environment Agency – No objections subject to a condition which ensures that the 

development is carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Flood Risk Assessment. 

Severn Trent Water – No objections subject to conditions relating to the disposal of surface 

water and foul sewage. 

Comments of Director of Growth 

The main planning issues considered to be relevant under consideration of this planning 

application are:- 

· Principle of development 

o Strategic location 

· Design, heritage and conservation 

· Amenity 

· Highways 

· Public Right of Way 

18

· Ecology and trees 

· Flooding and drainage 

Principle of development 

Strategic location 

The site is located within Farnsfield, which is identified by Core Strategy Spatial Policy 1 as 

being a Principal Village. Core Strategy Spatial Policy 2 identifies the spatial distribution of 

growth with respect to residential developments and indicates that 10% of the Districts 

overall housing growth will be directed towards Principal Villages of which 10% of this figure 

would be focused towards development within Farnsfield. Core Strategy Spatial Policy 2 

indicates that growth within Farnsfield will focus upon the securing and supporting the role 

of Farnsfield as a Principal Village and ensuring that provision is made for new housing to 

meet local housing need. 

The principle of residential development on this site is therefore considered acceptable, 

subject to other planning considerations within this report and is therefore in accordance 

with Core Strategy Spatial Policies 1 and 2. 

Design, heritage and conservation 

Section 69 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 imposes a 

duty on local authorities to designate as Conservation Areas any, “areas of special 

architectural or historic interest, the character or appearance of which it is desirable to 

preserve or enhance”. 

The Council has identified 47 Conservation Areas across the district, of which Farnsfield is 

one. Special attention should be afforded to the preservation and enhancement of the 

character and appearance of the Conservation Area, and as such particular consideration 

should be afforded to the proposed siting, scale, materials and detailing. Development 

proposals should be sympathetic to the character of the area and should relate well to 

surrounding buildings, including the use of traditional materials. 

Section 71 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires local 

planning authorities to formulate and publish proposals for the preservation and 

enhancement of conservation areas and to submit them for consideration to a public 

meeting. Following designation, the local authority, in exercising its planning powers, must 

pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or 

appearance of the Conservation Area (Section 72 of the Act). 

A Conservation Character Appraisal is a tool used to define what is important about a 

Conservation Area’s character and appearance and to identify its important characteristics. 

The District Council has to date completed 14 Conservation Character Appraisals, and one 

such appraisal has been completed for Farnsfield. 

The Conservation Character Appraisal indicates that Farnsfield was historically a farming 

community. The village is surrounded by fields to the south and west and modern new 

housing development has encroached on the village to the north. The village was originally 

linear in form and is typically mediaeval in origin. Quaker Lane has a similar feel to Main 

19

Street where the buildings are close to the street frontage of the conservation area. The 

buildings are built onto the street frontage; many are orientated with their gables facing the 

street and their boundary walls enclose gardens, all of which contributes towards this sense 

of enclosure. Examples of cottages within proximity of the application site include 

Greengate Cottage, Ivy Cottage, Jasmine Cottage and Straws Cottage. 

Building types in Farnsfield are mixed, but predominantly they are small simple cottages. 

These vernacular buildings are simple in form, usually rectangular, the roofs are gabled and 

the domestic properties often have chimney stacks on one or both gables. Windows are 

usually arranged symmetrically in the front elevation and comprise either sliding sashes or 

casements. Other building types include the larger Georgian town houses and some later 

Victorian buildings. The Conservation Area Appraisal indicates that this mixture of styles 

adds character and vitality to the townscape, especially along the length of Main Street. 

The Conservation Area Appraisal states that, “new development should respect the historic 

framework and character of the village including plot size, scale and alignment of building, 

boundary treatment, materials and detailing. In particular, attention to detail is important 

on sites near to listed buildings and other important unlisted buildings.” 

NPPF paragraph 137 states that, “local planning authorities should look for opportunities for 

new development within Conservation Areas....to enhance or better reveal their significance. 

Proposals that preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to or 

better reveal the significance of the asset should be treated favourably.” 

Reason for refusal 1 raised issue with the proposed height, massing and scale of the 

properties. The officer report stated that, “The character and layout of the existing dwellings 

in the immediate vicinity of the main part of the site to the west are vernacular small scale 

cottages. The size and scale of the proposed houses do not respect the existing built form. 

The buildings have substantial footprints, wide gable ends and high ridge heights compared 

to the existing traditional properties. The scale and massing of the proposed dwellings would 

harm the setting of the non designated heritage assets to the west of the main site and 

would fail to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.” 

The dimensions to Plot One have been reduced by 0.25 metres in length, 1.5 metres in 

width, 1.1 to the gable width and 0.8 metres to the ridge. The dimensions to Plot Two have 

been reduced by 0.5 metres in width, 0.5 metres to the gable width and 0.3 metres to the 

ridge, whilst the length of the property remains the same as previous. 

To provide an understanding of site context, the applicant was asked to identify the ridge 

heights of adjacent properties located on Quaker Lane. The ridge heights of the surrounding 

properties on Quaker Lane appear to vary slightly between 7.1 and 7.3 metres. The 

proposed ridge heights of the properties measure 6.8 metres and as such are entirely 

appropriate within the context. The gable widths have also been reduced considerably 

compared to the previous scheme, and now measure 6.5 metres, which is considered 

appropriate within the context of those surrounding traditional buildings. The revised 

scheme is considered acceptable within the context of the surrounding traditional dwellings 

located to the west and south of the site. The propose development would not have a 

detrimental impact on the setting of the heritage assets. 

20

In terms of detailing, the proposed dwellings incorporate a number of architectural details, 

including dentil coursing and corbelling to the gables, interlocking clay pantiles, wedge 

lintels and timber lintels. These features are identifiable within the conservation area and 

Conservation Area Appraisal. The proposal with respect to detailed design is therefore 

considered acceptable. 

With respect to reason for refusal two, clearly the length of the access drive cannot be 

reduced from that which was previously submitted. However, the width of the access 

opening has been reduced significantly, and as such the entrance is not as grand as that 

which was presented under the previous scheme. The revised entrance would not result in 

there being a detrimental impact on the setting of the adjacent heritage assets (Fox Hollow 

and Vine Cottage). 

The Conservation Area Appraisal makes reference to both boundary walls and hedgerows 

and identifies the positive contribution that they make to the character of the conservation 

area. Although the proposed access would result in a reduction to the boundary wall and 

hedgerow, it is not considered that this loss would be so significant that it would seriously 

damage the wider character of the conservation area or that of its undesignated heritage 

assets. 

In light of the above consideration, I consider that the proposals respect the historic 

character of the village, with specific reference to gable widths, ridge heights and detailed 

design. The proposed scheme is therefore in accordance with Core Strategy Core Policy 14; 

Local Plan policy C1; and the NPPF. 

Amenity 

The proposed siting, internal arrangement and fenestration is in essence the same as that 

which was considered under the previous application. With respect to impact on amenity, 

the previous case officer commented that, “Careful assessment has been made in relation to 

the impact of the proposal on the amenity of existing occupiers. I acknowledge that Plot Two 

is situated particularly close to the common boundary on the north-west corner of the site (3 

and 3.5 metres at its closest point) however given the distances between the two storey 

elements of the proposed to the rear elevations of the existing dwellings are 28 and 29 

metres, I am satisfied that the proposal would not result in any unacceptable degree of 

overlooking. Any overbearing impact or loss of sunlight would be felt at the extremities of 

the existing rear gardens and therefore I do not consider this impact to be unacceptable.” 

Having visited the site, and the adjacent Lilac Cottage, I concur with the previous Officers 

comments which present a fair representation of potential impacts. The site is bound by a 

1.8 metre fence and there is significant tree coverage to the boundary of the adjacent Lilac 

Cottage. The impact of overlooking would be minimal and would not, in my view affect the 

amenity of the adjacent property. 

With respect to Plot One, the comments of the previous officer are highly relevant and 

reflect clearly and fairly the impacts of the proposed development on the amenity of 

adjacent occupiers. The officer states, “The rear projection has a first floor window and is 

situated approximately 9 metres from the common boundary with the property to the west. I 

am satisfied that the relationship between the existing and proposed is acceptable and 

would not result in an unacceptable degree of overlooking, overbearing impact or 

21

overshadowing. I am aware of the existing window in the west elevation of the existing 

property to the west at ground floor level which is not the only window serving this room 

and I am conscious that this window is effectively using adjoining land not within its 

ownership for light and outlook. this situation has clearly evolved over time and represents 

poor planning practice that is highly unlikely to be granted planning permission today. This 

cannot and should not be allowed to prejudice the redevelopment of the application site. 

Taking all material matters into consideration, i conclude that the amenities of the occupier 

of the dwelling to the west would not be detrimentally affected by the proposal.” These 

comments remain relevant. 

With respect to the amenity of future occupiers, the proposed dwellings would ensure that 

adequate light and outlook are provided from habitable room windows by virtue of the 

layout of the property and its position on site. The property incorporates outdoor amenity 

space to the front and rear of the property and is considered acceptable for a property of 

this type. 

Highways 

Spatial Policy 7 indicates that development proposals should be appropriate for the highway 

network in terms the volume and nature of traffic generate and ensure the safety, 

convenience and free flow of traffic using the highway are not adversely affected; and that 

appropriate parking provision is provided. 

The site would be accessed off Quaker Lane via a private drive which crosses a public 

footpath (further details are provided below). The applicant has indicated that the existing 

yew hedge would be cut back nominally and the height of the adjacent wall would be 

reduced to 900 mm from the existing 1.8 metres to assist with visibility. Parking would be 

provided on site for 6 vehicles. 

Concerns have been raised by neighbours as to the ownership of the wall which would be 

reduced in height. This has been raised with the applicant who has sought legal advice on 

the matter. Their solicitor has advised that the ownership of the wall remains in dispute at 

this stage, notwithstanding this, their solicitor has advised that this issue would be dealt 

with through the Party Wall Act in any case. 

Nottinghamshire County Council Highways Officer has assessed the scheme and raises no 

objections to the proposed works in respect of highway safety or parking, subject to 

conditions which are included at the end of my report. The Highways Officer indicted within 

her response that the County Council Public Rights of Way Officer should also be consulted 

in view of the proposed access crossing the footpath. Details of this are provided in 

subsequent sections of this report. 

In light of the comments received, there are no objections with respect to highway safety or 

parking and as such the proposals accord with the provision of Core Strategy Spatial Policy 7 

and NPPF. 

Public Right of Way 

The proposed dwellings will gain vehicular access from the proposed private drive from 

Quaker Lane over Farnsfield Public Footpath number 9. Nottinghamshire County Council’s 

22

Public Rights of Way Officer (PROW) has been consulted as part of the application 

consultation process. 

The PROW Officer initially raised an objection to the proposals. However following 

negotiations, the objections were withdrawn subject to certain criteria being met and 

secured through planning conditions. 

The proposed hedgerow should be set back slightly from the boundary with the footpath to 

ensure that the footpath is accessible at all times and this will be secured through the 

landscaping condition. The applicant has indicated that the hedges would be maintained by 

the developer and/or future residents to ensure that neither the footpath nor site lines are 

restricted or obscured at any time. The applicant has indicated that they would make a 

specific note in any future conveyancing highlighting the obligation to maintain the hedge 

adjacent to the public footpath. An informative is also recommended to ensure that these 

works are undertaken. 

Electronically operated gates would be located either side of the footpath crossing and 

would swing away from the footpath to ensure that pedestrians have right of way. The 

gates will be self-closing via a sensor ensuring that once a vehicle has passed the gates will 

close and remain closed. A push-button system will operate such that they will only open 

when a vehicle needs to pass. Details of the gates, their operation and implementation will 

be secured via condition, details of which are included at the end of my report. 

The applicant has indicated that the applicant or developer/future residents (i.e. whoever 

the ownership of the land across which the footpath falls) will take full responsibility/liability 

for any vehicular damage to the footpath surface and that any such damage is immediately 

repaired at the developer’s/residents’ full expense. The applicant has indicated that any 

such an obligation would be registered in any future conveyancing as necessary. 

Ecology and trees 

Ecology 

The applicant has submitted an Ecological Walk-over Survey in support of the application. 

The Survey aims to identify potential ecological issues associated with the proposed work 

and make recommendations for general mitigation, compensation and further surveys as 

appropriate. 

Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust has assessed the Ecological Walk-over Survey and raises no 

objections to the principle of the development and fully support the recommendations as 

detailed in Section 6 of the Survey. A planning condition is proposed which secures the 

recommendations and ensures that they are incorporated within the scheme as 

appropriate. 

Trees and landscaping 

The applicant has submitted an Arboricultural Survey in support of the application which 

provides an analysis of the impact of the proposed development on trees and local amenity 

with additional guidance on appropriate management and protective measures. The report 

23

incorporates a tree survey, proposed site layout plan, tree protection measures, and tree 

location plan 

The Arboricultural Survey classifies the trees on site into the following categories: - 

Category A: Trees of high quality and value 

Category B: Trees of moderate quality and value 

Category C: Trees of low quality and value 

Category R: Trees in such a condition that any existing value would be lost within 10 years 

and which should, in the current context, be removed for reasons of sound arboricultural 

management. 

The Arboricultural Survey identifies 36 individual trees within the application site. The 

survey indicates that 13 trees would be removed from the site to enable the development. 

Of these trees, four are categorised as category C trees, whilst the remainder are category 

R. All four of the category C trees are located within the garden of Fox Hollow. 

The proposed layout indicates that 9 replacement trees would be planted on site as part of 

the landscaping scheme. Four trees would be planted adjacent to the public footpath, two 

either side of it, whilst the remaining five trees would be planted between the two 

proposed properties. The replacement trees appear to be well located and although fewer 

trees would be planted that that which they replace, the number and location of these 

proposed trees are considered acceptable. Exact details of the proposed planting can be 

secured via a wider landscaping condition relating to the whole site. 

The Arboricultural Survey identified tree protection measures which appear to be 

comprehensive and should ensure that the necessary works can take place without any 

potential ground compaction occurring. 

Removal of trees without prior consent of the LPA 

During the consultation process of the previous application, neighbours indicated that three 

trees had been removed from the site unlawfully. As the site is located within a 

Conservation Area, prior notification should have been received from the Local Authority 

before any works to the trees had taken place. 

Following refusal of the previous application, the Council’s Enforcement Officer wrote to the 

applicant explaining that the Council was aware that trees had been removed from the site 

without consent and that these trees should be replaced during the next planting season, 

(November 2011 to March 2012). The Enforcement Officer noted that one of the trees, 

located where the proposed access was positioned had started to regenerate and as such 

only the two remainder trees should be replaced. The Officer indicated that the two trees 

should be planted within the next planting season or the Local Planning Authority would be 

within their right to issue a Tree Replacement Notice. 

It has come to light during consideration of this application that the applicant failed to 

replant the two trees as requested. Consequently a further letter was sent to the applicant 

to provide an explanation as to the history of the felling of trees on the site. 

24

The applicant responded to the Council’s recent letter. The letter states, “I have discussed 

the matter again with Mr Robinson who has confirmed to me that one of the trees toppled 

over during a storm into one of the neighbour’s gardens. When his contractor attended the 

site to remove the tree, he apparently removed the other owing to its condition and in 

order to prevent it similarly ending up in the neighbour’s garden.” 

The applicant has acknowledged that the trees have been removed from the Conservation 

Area without the Council’s permission and is fully aware that this needs to be addressed 

appropriately. The applicant has indicated that two further trees could be replanted along 

the same western boundary if required and that the position, species and standard could be 

discussed with the Council as appropriate. 

As noted above, the proposed layout indicates that 9 new trees would be provided on site 

as part of a landscaping scheme. It is considered that the proposed number of replacement 

trees is sufficient and as such it is considered unnecessary that two further direct 

replacement trees are provided. 

Flooding and drainage 

The applicant has submitted a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) in support of the planning 

application. Part of the existing curtilage of Fox Hollow together with the part of Quaker 

Lane south of the application site falls within Flood Zone 3 of the Environment Agency’s 

flood maps and is therefore at high risk of flooding The area within Flood Zone 3 forms the 

junction between the new access road and Quaker Lane and extends along the proposed 

access road roughly to a point level with the rear elevation of the existing Fox Hollow 

property. Whilst the main body of the site itself is not at high risk of flooding, the southern 

part of the proposed access road which would form the only route of escape by vehicles in 

the event of a flood is within Flood Zone 3. 

The applicant has submitted further information within the FRA to address reason for 

refusal 3. The Environment Agency (EA) has assessed the revised FRA and have indicated 

that the proposals identified in paragraphs 1.6, 1.7 and 1.8 of the FRA are sufficient to 

address the issues raised in reason for refusal 3. The EA have indicated that they raise no 

objections to the scheme on flood risk grounds, subject to conditions which secure the 

emergency egress mechanisms identified in the FRA. 

With respect to drainage the applicant has indicated the surface water would be disposed 

via soakaways and that Sustainable Urban Drainage methods would be used as the primary 

method for surface water management. Severn Trent Water has assessed the application 

and raises no objections subject to the submission and approval of drainage plans for the 

disposal or surface water and foul sewage. Details of the condition are outlined at the end 

of the report. 

Conclusions 

For the reasons set out above I conclude that the proposal accords with the Development 

Plan and there are no other material considerations that indicate a decision should be made 

to the contrary. 

25

RECOMMENDATION 

Approve, subject to conditions 

01 

The development hereby permitted shall not begin later than three years from the date of 

this permission. 

Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory 

Purchase Act 2004. 

02 

The development hereby approved by grant of this consent shall be carried out in strict 

accordance with the following plans: - 

Dwg. No. 12/052-01 - Location Plan (August 2012) 

Dwg. No. 12/052-02 - Proposed layout (August 2012) 

Dwg. No 12/05-04D - Plans and Elevations Plot 1 (May 2012) 

Dwg. No 12/05-05D - Plans and Elevations Plot 2 (May 2012) 

Dwg. No 12/05-06 -Garage and cart shed (August 2012) 

unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority through the approval of a 

non material amendment to the permission. 

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. 

03 

Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, samples and details of 

the materials to be used in the construction of all external elevations of the development 

shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme 

shall be carried out using the approved materials 

Reason: To safeguard the amenity, appearance and character of the area in accordance with 

Core Strategy Policy 9 Sustainable Design 

04 

The development hereby permitted shall not commence until drainage plans for the 

disposal of surface water and foul sewage have been submitted to and approved by the 

Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the 

approved details before the development is first brought into use. 

Reason: To ensure that the development is provided with a satisfactory means of drainage 

as well as to reduce the risk of creating or exacerbating a flooding problem and to minimise 

the risk of pollution. 

26

05 

No trees, shrubs or hedges within the site which are shown as being retained on the 

approved plans shall be felled, uprooted, wilfully damaged or destroyed, cut back in any 

way or removed without the prior consent in writing of the local planning authority. Any 

trees, shrubs or hedges which die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased 

within five years of being planted, shall be replaced with trees, shrubs or hedge plants in the 

next planting season with others of similar size and species unless otherwise agreed in 

writing by the local planning authority. 

Reason: To ensure the existing trees, shrubs and or hedges are retained and thereafter 

properly maintained, in the interest s of visual amenity and biodiversity. 

06 

No development shall be started until all the trees within (or overhanging) the site, with the 

exception of those trees clearly shown to be felled on the submitted plan, have been 

surrounded by substantial fences which shall extend to the extreme circumference of the 

spread of the branches of the trees (or such positions as may be agreed in writing by the 

Local Planning Authority). Such fences shall be erected in accordance with a specification to 

be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall remain 

until all development is completed and no work, including any form of drainage or storage 

of materials, earth or topsoil shall take place within the perimeter of such fencing. 

Reason: To safeguard the amenity, appearance and character of the area. 

07 

No development shall be commenced until full details of both hard and soft landscape 

works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and 

these works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include: 

a schedule (including planting plans and written specifications, including cultivation and 

other operations associated with plant and grass establishment) of trees, shrubs and other 

plants, noting species, plant sizes, proposed numbers and densities. The scheme shall be 

designed so as to enhance the nature conservation value of the site, including the use of 

locally native plant species. 

[an implementation and phasing programme]. 

existing trees and hedgerows, which are to be retained pending approval of a detailed 

scheme, together with measures for protection during construction. 

proposed finished ground levels or contours; 

means of enclosure; 

car parking layouts and materials; 

other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas; 

27

hard surfacing materials; 

minor artefacts and structures for example, furniture, play equipment, refuse or other 

storage units, signs, lighting etc.) 

proposed and existing functional services above and below ground (for example, drainage 

power, communications cables, pipelines etc. indicating lines, manholes, supports etc.) 

retained historic landscape features and proposals for restoration, where relevant. 

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and biodiversity. 

08 

The access shall be constructed and surfaced in a bound material in accordance with dwg. 

no. 12/052-02 and no other part of the development shall be commenced until the access 

has been completed in accordance with those plans. 

Reason: In the interests of highway safety. 

09 

No part of the development hereby permitted shall be brought into use until the drive is 

surfaced in a hard bound material (not loose gravel) for a minimum of 5 metres behind the 

Highway boundary. The surfaced drive shall then be maintained in such hard bound material 

for the life of the development. 

Reason: To reduce the possibility of deleterious material being deposited on the public 

highway (loose stones etc). 

10 

No part of the development hereby permitted shall be brought into use until the 

parking/turning areas are provided in accordance with the approved plan 12/052-02. The 

parking/turning areas shall not be used for any purpose other than parking/turning of 

vehicles. 


11 

No part of the development hereby permitted shall be brought into use until the access 

driveway/parking/turning areas are constructed with provision to prevent the unregulated 

discharge of surface water from the driveway/parking/turning areas to the public highway 

in accordance with details first submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. The 

provision to prevent the unregulated discharge of surface water to the public highway shall 

then be retained for the life of the development. 

28

Reason: To ensure surface water from the site is not deposited on the public highway 

causing danger to highway users. 

12 

The development permitted by this planning permission shall be carried out in accordance 

with the approved Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) and the following mitigation measures 

detailed within the FRA: 

1. Utilising SuDS measures to manage surface water, including soakaways and 

permeable paving. 

2. Locating the buildings within Flood Zone 1 as to keep the development safe 

from flooding and not increase flood risk to others. 

3. Provision of an emergency egress route from the site direct to Quaker Lane as 

described in paragraphs 1.6, 1.7 and 1.8. 

The mitigation measures shall be fully implemented prior to occupation and subsequently in 

accordance with the timing / phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme, or within 

any other period as may subsequently be agreed, in writing, by the local planning authority. 

Reason: To prevent flooding and an increase of flood risk elsewhere and to provide a safe 

means of egress from the proposed development. 

13 

The development hereby approved shall be carried out in strict accordance with the 

mitigation and compensation measures and further survey recommendations as detailed 

within Section 6 of the submitted Ecological Walk-over Survey prepared by EMEC Ecology 

(dated April 2012). 

Reason: To protect the ecological interests of the site in accordance with Core Strategy Core 

Policy 12 Biodiversity and Green Infrastructure 

14 

Prior to commencement of development a scheme shall be submitted to and approved by 

the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall identify details associated with the location, 

size, appearance, and functionality of the electronic gates, the proposed associated signage 

and details of their implementation. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to 

the construction of the 2.no dwellings in order to ensure that the same safeguards are in 

place throughout the construction period as well as ‘post development’ 

Reason: To protect the visual amenity of the area and to ensure that pedestrians and 

vehicles can safely utilise the public footpath. 

29

Notes to applicant 

01 

As part of the developer’s considerations of access to and use of the proposals, with 

particular reference to access and facilities for disabled people, attention is drawn to 

Approved Document M of the Building Regulations as well as BS 8300: 2009 ‘Design of 

Buildings and their approaches to meet the needs of disabled people – Code of Practice’ 

which contains additional useful guidance. Approved Document M is available online at 

www.planningportal.gov.uk 

Building Regulation access requirements relating to dwellings are described in the 

Sections 6 to 10 of Approved Document M. In particular level or ramped approach is 

required to and into a dwelling from the edge of the site together with generous 

doorways, corridors and passageways carefully designed to facilitate easy access and 

manoeuvre. Accessible switches and sockets are required together with suitable 

accessible WC provision etc. It is recommended that pedestrian pavements are 

incorporated to and around the development. 

The proposal will be required to meet Building Regulation requirements and a Building 

Regulations application is required. 

02 

The applicant to have a contingency plan should the construction phase reveal any 

significant contamination. In this event, details must be provided to the Proactive Team in 

the Housing and Environmental Services Section on (01636) 655620. 

03 

The development makes it necessary to construct a vehicular crossing over the public 

highway. These works shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the Highway Authority. You 

are, therefore, required to contact the County Council’s Highways Area Office tel. (01623) 

520023 to arrange for these works to be carried out. 

04 

Any future conveyancing should highlight that there is an obligation to maintain the hedge 

adjacent to the public footpath at all times to ensure public access along the public footpath 

is retained at all times. 

05 

The applicant or developer/future residents (i.e. whoever the ownership of the land across 

which the footpath falls) will take full responsibility/liability for any vehicular damage to the 

footpath surface and that any such damage is immediately repaired at the 

developer’s/residents’ full expense. Such an obligation will be registered in any future 

conveyancing as necessary. 

30

06 

This proposal may require the relocation of a street light, which will be at the expense of the 

applicant 

07 

The applicant is advised that all planning permissions granted on or after the 1 st December 

2011 may be subject to the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Full details of CIL are 

available on the Council’s website at www.newark-sherwooddc.gov.uk 

The proposed development has been assessed and it is the Council’s view that CIL IS 

PAYABLE on the development hereby approved as is detailed below: 

Dev Types 

Proposed 

floorspace 

(GIA in Sq. 

M) 

A B C 

Less ExistingNet Area CIL Rate 

(Demolition or(GIA in Sq. 

Change ofM) 

Use) 

(GIA in Sq. M) 

Includes % 

splits 

Indexation at CIL 

date of Charge 

permission 

(220 until 1 st 

January 

2012) 

Residential 372 372 372 65 220 £24,180 

(C3) 

Industrial N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

(B1b, B1c, 

B2, B8) 

Retail N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Totals 372 372 372 65 220 £24,180 

CIL Rate (B) x Chargeable Floor Area (A) x C (BCIS Tender Price Index at Date of Permission) 

220 (BCIS Tender Price Index at Date of Charging Schedule) 

REASONS FOR APPROVAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING 

(DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE) (ENGLAND) ORDER 2010 

In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the development hereby permitted accords 

with the policies listed below and there are no other material issues arising that would 

otherwise outweigh the provisions of the Development Plan. 

From the East Midlands Regional Plan - Regional Spatial Strategy (adopted March 2009) 

• Policy 2 (Promoting Better Design) 

• Policy 3 (Distribution of New Development) 

• Policy 13a (Regional Housing Provision) 

• Policy 17 (Regional Priorities for Managing the Release of Land for Housing) 

31

• Policy 26 (Protecting and Enhancing the Region’s Natural and Cultural Heritage) 

• Policy 27 (Regional Priorities for the Historic Environment) 

• Policy 35 (A Regional Approach to Managing Flood Risk) 

From the Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy Development Plan Document (adopted 

March 2011) 

• Spatial Policy 1 (Settlement Hierarchy) 

• Spatial Policy 2 (Spatial Distribution of Growth) 

• Spatial Policy 6 (Infrastructure for Growth) 

• Spatial Policy 7 (Sustainable Transport) 

• Core Policy 3 (Housing Mix, Type and Density) 

• Core Policy 9 (Sustainable Design) 

• Core Policy 14 (Historic Environment) 

From the Newark and Sherwood Local Plan (adopted March 1999) 

• Policy C1 (Development on Conservation Areas) 

• Policy C4 (Natural and Other Features of Interest in Conservation Areas) 


• Policy PU1 (Washlands) 

Other Material Planning Considerations 

• Farnsfield Conservation Area Appraisal 


BACKGROUND PAPERS 

Application case file. 

For further information, please contact Mr J Pennick on Ext 5834 

All submission documents relating to this planning application can be found on the following 

website www.newark-sherwooddc.gov.uk. 

Colin Walker 

Director of Growth 

32

PLANNING COMMITTEE- 30 October 2012 



Proposal: 

Location: 

Applicant: 

12/00989/FUL 

Householder application for single storey residential annex to existing 

dwelling (resubmission) 

Fir Tree Cottage, Newark Road, Collingham, Newark on Trent 

Mr & Mrs Richard Whiles 

Registered: 6.8.2012 Target Date: 1.10.2012 

The Site 

The application site comprises of existing garden land of approximately 0.072 hectares within the 

parish of Collingham. 

The site is located to the east of the existing Fir Tree Cottage and is currently laid to grass with a 

timber building to the eastern boundary and a 1m high (approximate) timber post and rail fence 

along all boundaries. 

There is a mature hedge located along the eastern and southern boundaries approximately 3m in 

height. There are some mature trees beyond the northern boundary and in front of the hedge to 

the southern boundary. 

To the west of the site are some timber garden storage sheds in a considerable state of disrepair. 

The application site is accessed by an unmade driveway (also serving the host dwelling, Fir Tree 

Cottage) off the A1133 Newark Road, the main road through Collingham which is identified within 

the adopted Newark and Sherwood Local Plan as a Principal village. 


11/00390/FUL - Proposed single storey extension and first floor balcony – Approved 5.5.2011 

12/00152/FUL - Householder application for single storey detached residential annex. – Refused 

8.5.2012. This application was refused on the basis of its siting, scale and massing and the resulting 

impact on the open countryside as it was located a considerable distance away from the dwelling. 

The Proposal 

Full planning permission is sought for a detached single storey two bedroomed annex with no 

accommodation proposed within the roofspace and sited approximately 10m east of the main 

dwelling. 

The accommodation comprises of an open plan kitchen/dining area, a living room, two double 

bedrooms (one containing and en suite) and a bathroom. 

35

The building is rectangular in shape with a floor area of approximately 65m 2 and measures 

approximately 16 metres wide by 7 metres deep at its deepest point. The maximum ridge height 

measures approximately 6.1 metres high from ground level and the eaves height measures 

approximately 2.6 metres from ground level. The principal elevation faces south. 

The proposal includes the demolition of existing timber outbuildings which serve Fir Tree Cottage. 


Occupiers of 6 neighbouring properties have been individually notified by letter. 





Strategies and their associated targets and the on-going legal challenges relating to this. The 

current legal position is that pending formal abolition, regional strategies remain as part of the 

statutory development plan and it remains for decision makers to decide the appropriate weight 

to attach the relevant policies, which for this application are set out below: 

• Policy 2 : Promoting Better Design 



• Core Policy 9 : Sustainable Design 



• NE1 : Development in the countryside 

• H24 : Extensions to dwellings 

Please Note: All policies listed above can be found in full on the Council’s website. 


National Planning Policy 

National Planning Framework 

Consultations 

Collingham Parish Council: Object on the following grounds: 

36

• Outside of the village envelope; 

• It is a new build and not attached to the house; 

• Overbearing nature of the building. 

Newark and Sherwood District Council – Access Officer: Observation, stating the developer should 

be aware of the access and facilities for disabled people and draws their attention to Approved 

Document M of the Building Regulation as well as BS 8300:2009 ‘Design of Buildings and their 

approaches to meet the needs of disabled people – Code of Practice’ 

Neighbours/Interested Parties 

A total of three letters have been received from neighbours, two object to the proposal and one 

supports it. The grounds for objecting the application are on the following grounds: 

• Outside of the village envelope; 

• Does not accord with Core Policy 9 of the Core Strategy; 

• Introduces an alien form of backland development (Policy H23 of the Local Plan); 

• Not satisfied previous reasons for refusal; 

• Out of scale, character and siting with the existing local built development and landscape 

environment; 

• Capable of becoming a separate dwelling. 

Comments of the Director of Growth 

The main planning considerations in the assessment of this application are; 1) the principle of new 

development within this location and; 2) the design and size of the building. 

The Principle of Residential Development 

Firstly I consider it necessary to bring to the attention of Members that this is for a detached 

annex within the curtilage of an existing residential dwelling for the sole occupation of family 

members of the occupiers of Fir Tree Cottage. The intention is to accommodate the applicants 

parents within the annex, who both have health issues and one of whom is registered disabled. 

In normal circumstances a building of this nature with this level of accommodation would be an 

independent dwelling. However as the proposal is within the residential curtilage of the main 

dwelling (Fir Tree Cottage) and the red line site plan incorporates all the residential curtilage of the 

existing dwelling as well as the site for the annex, in addition to the proposed occupier’s link to the 

use of the annex with the main dwelling, it is considered as an annex and the Council is therefore 

not able to assess this as an independent dwelling within the open countryside. 

I have carefully considered the concerns of the neighbours and the parish council in regard to the 

issue of residential development within the open countryside, but I am satisfied that the principle 

of development is acceptable due to the close proximity of the annex to the host dwelling, the lack 

of separate amenity space for the annex and the occupation of the annex with the host dwelling. 

Design and Size 

Firstly it is worth noting that the application site is not within a defined conservation area of 

Collingham, however the local planning authority has a duty to reject applications of unacceptably 

37

low standard or where it fails to uphold the character and appearance of the public realm. The site 

cannot be seen from the public realm nonetheless, the proposal has been designed to replicate a 

‘rural’ outbuilding with its differing ridge and eave heights. The external elevations are clad in 

timber weatherboarding and the roof utilises clay pantiles. Due to the secluded nature of the site I 

consider the design is acceptable and would not have any detrimental impact upon the openness 

of the surrounding countryside. 

The previous application (12/00152/FUL) was for a detached annex approximately 26 metres from 

the host dwelling and comprised of a 2 bedroom detached building of approximately 90m 2 floor 

area within the former ‘paddock’ area to the east of the dwelling. This application shows a 

reduction in floor area of approximately 25m 2 and shows a closer physical relationship to the host 

dwelling as it is now located on the site of existing outbuildings approximately 10 metres from the 

dwelling. 

The differing ridge heights are considered to add interest to the building and have been designed 

to replicate a range of outbuildings to the host dwelling. I am satisfied that the design of the 

building is acceptable in relation to its context within the landscape and therefore accords with 

the intentions of CP9 (Sustainable Design) of the Core Strategy. 

Neighbouring residential amenity 

I have carefully considered the potential concerns raised by residents of nearby dwellings however 

I see no demonstrable evidence to instigate a harm to neighbour amenity due to the use of the 

building. The nearest neighbour (Ashfield House) is approximately 40 metres from the building and 

the site is surrounded by mature trees which I consider would help to screen the development 

from other neighbours. The site is not currently overlooked and the building is only single storey 

therefore minimising the degree of overlooking which could be achieved from the annex. Due to 

the proximity of the building I consider that the proposed dwelling would not result in any 

detrimental impacts upon the living amenities of the occupiers of any neighbouring dwellings. 

Trees 

The proposal will result in the loss of five trees on the site all of which are not deemed worthy of a 

tree protection order (TPO) and are not protected by a conservation order. Two trees are self 

seeded ash, one is a dead horse chestnut, and two are silver birch. The applicant has proposed 

replacement silver birch and this can be controlled through a landscaping condition should 

Members be minded to approve planning permission. 

Each material planning consideration has been discussed in detail above and I conclude that the 

proposal accords with Core Policy 9 NSDC Core Strategy, Policy H24 and NE1 of the NSDC Local 

Plan and does not adversely impact upon the appearance of the surrounding landscape or the 

openness of the countryside and I therefore recommend that the application be approved 

planning permission subject to conditions. 


That full planning permission is approved (subject to conditions). 

01 

38

The development hereby permitted shall not begin later than three years from the date of this 

permission. 

Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase 

Act 2004. 

02 

The development hereby permitted shall not be carried except in complete accordance with the 

following approved amended plans, reference 174 A401 Rev A, 174 A402 Rev A unless otherwise 

agreed in writing by the local planning authority through the approval of a non-material 

amendment to the permission. 

Reason: So as to define this permission 

03 

The building hereby permitted shall not be occupied at any time other than for purposes ancillary 

to the residential use of the dwelling, known as Fir Tree Cottage. 

Reason: To prevent the creation of a separate dwelling in a location where new residential 

development would not normally be permitted. 

04 

The development hereby permitted shall be constructed entirely of the materials details 

submitted as part of the planning application unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local 

planning authority. 

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity. 

05 

No development shall be commenced until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have 

been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and these works shall 

be carried out as approved. These details shall include;- 

a schedule (including planting plans and written specifications, including cultivation and other 

operations associated with plant and grass establishment) of trees, shrubs, hedgerows and other 

plants, noting species, plant sizes, proposed numbers and densities. The scheme shall be designed 

so as to enhance the nature conservation value of the site, including the use of locally native plant 

species. 

hard surfacing materials; 


39

06 

The approved landscaping shall be completed during the first planting season following the 

commencement of the development, or such longer period as may be agreed in writing by the 

local planning authority. Any trees/shrubs which, within a period of five years of being planted die, 

are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting 

season with others of similar size and species unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local 


Reason: To ensure the work is carried out within a reasonable period and thereafter properly 

maintained, in the interests of visual amenity and biodiversity. 

Note to applicant 

01 

The applicant is advised that all planning permissions granted on or after the 1st December 2011 

may be subject to the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Full details of CIL are available on the 

Council's website at www.newark-sherwooddc.gov.uk/cil/ 

The proposed development has been assessed and it is the Council's view that CIL is not payable 

on the development hereby approved as the gross internal area of new build is less 100 square 

metres. 



In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the development hereby permitted accords with 

the policies listed below and there are no other material issues arising that would otherwise 

outweigh the provisions of the Development Plan. 

From the Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy Development Plan Document (adopted March 

2011) 



• NE1 : Development in the countryside 

• H24 : Extensions to dwellings 





For further information, please contact Lynsey Tomlin on 01636 655840 

40



Colin Walker 


41

PLANNING COMMITTEE 30 th October 2012 



Proposal: 

Location: 

Applicant: 

12/01004/FUL 

Change of use from gymnasium (D2) to retail (A1) and storage of 

furniture with ancillary office. 

Roy Walkers Pine, Queens Road, Newark 

Miss Cadi Lambert – Lincs and Notts Air Ambulance 

Registered: 24 July 2012 Target Date: 18 September 2012 

The Site 

Prior to the use of the unit as a gymnasium, it traded as a pine workshop and sales, presenting its 

frontage to Queens Road. The entrance is a traditional shop front with full height display windows 

either side of a single front entrance. The signage to the first use of the premises is still part of the 

frontage. The unit occupies two floors and stretches to the rear of units that front Kings Road to 

the south, the unit itself faces northeast. The multi level car park serving the Morrison’s 

supermarket is to the immediate rear of the site. The servicing of the unit is immediate adjacent 

the front entrance, to the northwest, and consists of a fenced off narrow strip of land running 

parallel with the northwest elevation. 

The site is in the Newark conservation area and is part of a predominantly commercial hub, well 

spatially related to the main town centre. There accountants, a veterinary surgery, motor 

mechanics and sales and retail in close proximity to the site which is between two main junctions 

to the northwest and southeast of the site, the former being the traffic light controlled T junction 

at Northgate and the latter the mini roundabout linking Kings Road. 


Planning permission was granted in January 2005 for the change of use of the shop unit to 

gymnasium, reference 04/02988/FUL. 

The Proposal 

The proposals seek to change the use of the premises back to A1 (retail), from D2 (gymnasium). 

There are works proposed to the interior but there is no physical development proposed. 


Occupiers of eight neighbouring properties have been individually notified by letter. A site notice 

has been displayed at the site and an advert placed in the local press. 


43

Please Note: All policies listed below and any supplementary documents/guidance referred to can 

be viewed on the Council’s website. 




Strategies and their associated targets which came into effect in July 2010. Since that time a High 

Court judgement has held that the powers the Government relied upon to achieve this could not 

be used to revoke all Regional Strategies in their entirety and therefore they have been reestablished 

as part of the Development Plan. 

The Government still intend to revoke Regional Strategies through the Localism Bill, which has 

begun its passage through parliament. The Government had stated that this intention to revoke 

Regional Strategies was a material consideration. The Court of Appeal has concluded that at the 

moment, the Government’s intention to revoke Regional Spatial Strategies may only be worthy of 

weight as a material consideration in very few cases. This application is not such a case. The 


statutory development plan (and the relevant policies for this application are set out below). 

• Policy 3 Distribution of New Development 

• Policy Northern SRS 1 Sub Regional Development Priorities 

• Policy 27 Regional Priorities for the Historic Environment 


• Spatial Policy 1 Settlement Hierarchy 

• Spatial Policy 2 Spatial Distribution of Growth 

• Spatial Policy 7 Sustainable Transport 

• Core Policy 8 Retail Hierarchy 

• Core Policy 9 Sustainable Design 

• Core Policy 14 Historic Environment 

• Newark Area Policy 1 Newark Urban Area 


• Saved Policy C1 Development in Conservation Areas 

Other material planning considerations 

National Planning Policy Framework 

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was released by the Department of Communities 

and Local Government (DCLG) on the 27th March 2012, with the aim of streamlining the planning 

system. Paragraph 12 of the NPPF states that, "This National Planning Policy Framework does not 

change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making. 

Proposed development that accords with an up to date Local Plan should be approved and 

proposed development that conflicts should be refused unless other material considerations 

indicate otherwise." 

44

Consultations 

Newark Town Council support the proposals 

Nottinghamshire County Council Highways advise that although there is an existing dropped kerb, 

the proposed access is in close proximity to both the traffic signalled junction at Queens 

Road/Northgate and the mini-island at Lovers Lane/Kings Road (leading to Morrisons 

supermarket). There are no turning facilities within the loading/unloading area, which would, 

therefore, result in a vehicle having to manoeuvre in Queens Road, preventing the free flow of 

traffic, and increasing the likelihood of danger to users of the highway. Whilst it is understand that 

this application site has been used as a furniture showroom in the past, it is considered that the 

use of this access would be detrimental to highway safety. Therefore, it is recommended that this 

application be refused as the proposed development fails to provide adequate servicing 

arrangements resulting in an increase in the likelihood of danger to other users of the highway 

due to vehicles having to manoeuvre into the Queens Road. 

Comments of the Director - Growth 

The proposals are for the change of use of an existing building in Newark Town centre and I am of 

the view that, given the location, the proposals sit acceptably with the sustainable development 

agenda of both the National Planning Policy Framework and the regional level plan. I also refer to 

the assertions in the same vein of the adopted settlement hierarchy as outlined by the Newark 

and Sherwood Core Strategy. Explicitly, the proposals find support in Core Policy 8. 

I am therefore satisfied that the principle of the use is acceptable subject to a site specific 

assessment of the impacts. In this case, the impact of the proposals can be measured in terms of 

visual and residential amenity and highway safety. 

In respect of visual amenity and with regards also the conservation area, I am of the view that the 

lack of physical development will mean that the proposals will have limited impact. I therefore 

conclude that the proposals will ensure that the character of the conservation area is preserved in 

the interests of the tests of saved Policy C1 of the Local Plan and that the design of the proposals is 

of sufficient quality in its context and is therefore in accordance with the stance asserted by both 

the NPPF and Core Policy 9 of the Core Strategy. I also see no conflict with the strategic aims of 

Core Strategy Core Policy 14. 

As a gymnasium, it is recognised that the servicing requirements would differ from the use of the 

unit as retail. I also note that Lincs and Notts Air Ambulance seek to sell large bulky items of 

furniture from the unit, as per its historical use. Having consulted with Nottinghamshire County 

Council, engineers are of the view that the available servicing for the use of the unit as retail and 

in particular the deposit, sale and collection of large bulky furniture items is inadequate. 

NCC highways state that, although there is an existing dropped kerb, the proposed access is in 

close proximity to both the traffic signalled junction at Queens Road/Northgate and the miniisland 

at Lovers Lane/Kings Road (leading to Morrisons supermarket). There are no turning 

facilities within the loading/unloading area, which would, therefore, result in a vehicle having to 

manoeuvre in Queens Road, preventing the free flow of traffic, and increasing the likelihood of 

danger to users of the highway. Whilst it is understand that this application site has been used as a 

furniture showroom in the past, it is considered that the use of this access would be detrimental 

45

to highway safety. Therefore, it is recommended that this application be refused as the proposed 

development fails to provide adequate servicing arrangements resulting in an increase in the 

likelihood of danger to other users of the highway due to vehicles having to manoeuvre into the 

Queens Road. 

Following this, and in light of the location, previous use and the charitable nature of the user, 

officers have undertaken discussions with NCC Highways in respect of alternative servicing and 

possible conditions controlling timings of deliveries, types of vehicles and tying the permission to 

the user. NCC Highways accept that any usage of the site would bring with it a level of servicing, 

and thus the use of a less than ideal access must thereore be accepted. However they of the view 

that, particularly given how highways conditions have changed in the area, that whilst other uses 

that require less servicing might be appropriate, an A1 use here (notwithstanding the furniture 

element which compounds the problem) cannot be supported or adequately controlled in the 

interests of highway safety. 

Members will note from the comments above that in this particular case there are several material 

planning considerations to balance in coming to a final view. The site is in a highly sustainable 

location, being within Newark Town Centre. The building also lies within the conservation area, 

which is of significance not only to the character and appearance of this part of the area but also 

nationally by the very nature of its designation. 

The proposals would bring back into active use this former retail unit within the Town Centre and 

would secure such a use for a charitable organisation. However, all such matters must be balanced 

against the concerns raised by NCC Highways, who rightly have identified concern which may 

affect highway safety, which is significant. 

In this particular case, whilst the benefits of the proposal are significant, so too is the potential 

harm as identified by NCC Highways. It is highly unusual for me to go against the technical expert 

advice of Highways colleagues and on this basis I must concur with their views, albeit accepting 

that for the other reasons detailed above this issue is very finely balanced. On this basis, refusal is 

recommended. 


That permission is refused for the following reason: 

01 

The proposed development fails to provide adequate servicing arrangements resulting in an 

increase in the likelihood of danger to other users of the highway due to vehicles having to 

manoeuvre into Queens Road. 



For further information, please contact John Morrison on Ext 5837. 



46

Colin Walker 

Director – Growth 

47

PLANNING COMMITTEE –October 30 th 2012 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7 


Proposal: 

Location: 

Applicant: 

12/01058/FUL 

Erection of new house with integrated double garage 

Stonewold, Gravelly Lane, Fiskerton, Nottinghamshire 

Mr & Mrs Ian & Lisa Terry 

Registered: 3 rd August 2012 Target Date: 28 th September 2012 

The Site 

The application site is located within the village of Fiskerton and forms part of the garden of 

Stonewold. The site itself comprises a wooden shed and is largely overgrown. To the west of the 

site is the Stonewold property which is in the ownership of the applicant, whilst tithe east is 

Horseshoe Lodge. Land to the south of the site are open fields. The site is accessed via a private 

driveway off Gravelly and is located within Flood Zone 2. 


03/02057/FUL – Erection of detached dwelling/ garage. Application approved subject to 

conditions 08.01.04 

08/02049/FUL - Erection of detached dwelling/garage. Application refused 09.04.2009. The 

reasons for refusal cited in the decision notice are as follows: - 

01 

PPS 25 - Development and Flood Risk aims to steer new development to the areas at the lowest 

risk of flooding (Zone 1) The application site lies within Zones 2 and 3 and is therefore at risk 

from flooding. Fiskerton is an unsustainable settlement where there is no justification for 

residential development that outweighs flood risk and therefore the proposal would fail the 

sequential test set out within PPS25 and would constitute un-necessary development in a flood 

plain. 

02 

Policy FS1 of the Newark & Sherwood Local Plan seeks to promote sustainable development by 

directing most new development towards Newark and Balderton the other main settlements, 

with particular emphasis on the re-use of derelict, vacant or neglected sites, Fiskerton is not a 

main settlement and lacks both services and facilities such as good public transport availability, 

a primary school, post office, food store, doctors surgery and pharmacy. Employment 

opportunities are limited and residents are largely dependent on the private car for transport. 

This application does not offer any justification to depart from Policy FS1 and therefore would 

be contrary and constitute an unsustainable form of development. 

49

The Proposal 

Planning permission is sought for the demolition of the existing stable block and the erection of a 

detached, two storey dwelling with integral double garage. The property comprises a kitchen with 

utility room. family room, dining room and lounge to the ground floor and master bedroom with 

en-suite and three further bedrooms to the first floor. The property would have a ridge height f 

7.1 metres and would be accessed from an existing private driveway which currently serves three 

properties off Gavelley Lane. 


Occupiers of 4 neighbouring properties have been individually notified by letter. 

2 letters of objection has been received as a consequence of the planning application publicity. 

The issues raised relate to: - 

• Loss of privacy and overlooking 

• Inappropriate access arrangements 

• Vehicles would pass within 2 metres of adjacent bungalow 

• Properties would be overbearing and out of keeping with properties in the area 








to attach the relevant policies. Policies relevant to this application: 

• Policy 3 - Distribution of new development 

• Policy Three Cities SRS1 Definition of Principal Urban Areas 



• Spatial Policy 1 – Settlement Hierarchy 

• Spatial Policy 2 – Spatial Distribution of Growth 

• Spatial Policy 3 - Rural Areas 

• Spatial Policy 6 - Infrastructure for Growth 

• Spatial Policy 7 – Sustainable Transport 

• Core Policy 3 - Housing Mix, Type and Density 

• Core Policy 9 – Sustainable Design 

• CorePolicy 10 - Climate Change 


50

Saved policies relevant to this application: 

• Policy PU1 - Washlands 


National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) 





Proposed development that accords with an up to date Local Plan should be approved, and 



National Planning Policy Framework Technical Guidance (March 2012) 

This document provides additional guidance to local planning authorities to ensure the effective 

implementation of the planning policy set out in the National Planning Policy Framework on 

development in areas at risk of flooding. This guidance retains key elements of Planning Policy 

Statement 25. 

Consultations 

Fiskerton Parish Council - Objection. The development would have a detrimental visual impact 

upon entry to the village; and the development is inconsistent with the surrounding dwellings 

which are bungalows. 

NSDC Environmental Health (Contaminated Land) - No objections although comment that due to 

the previous use of the site as a paddock and stables that the site may be contaminated from the 

uses. An informative is suggested and is detailed at the end of my report. 

NSDC Building Control Access Officer – Provides general comments regarding access which would 

be provided as an informative. 

NCC Highways – No objections 

Trent Valley Internal Drainage Board – No objections subject to a suitable surface water drainage 

scheme being implemented. 

The Environment Agency - No objections subject to conditions 

Comments of Director of Growth 

The main planning issues considered to be relevant under consideration of this planning 

application are:- 

• Principle of development 

51

o Strategic location 

o Greenfield 

o Mix and type 

• Flood risk and drainage 

• Design 

• Highways and Parking 

• Other issues 

o Community Infrastructure Levy 

Principle of development 

Strategic location 

The application site is located in Fiskerton which is defined in Appendix A of the Core Strategy as 

being a rural area. Spatial Policy 3 relates to Rural Areas and indicates that local housing need will 

be addressed by focusing housing in sustainable accessible villages. The policy states further that 

beyond Principal Villages, including the village of Fiskerton, that planning applications would be 

assessed against the following criteria: location, scale, need, impact and character. 

The site is located within the existing settlement boundary and community facilities are located 

only a short distance from the site. In this respect, the application site is considered to be located 

within the main built up area of the village. 

With respect to need, Spatial Policy 3 indicates that new housing would be permitted where it 

helps to meet an identified proven need. No information has been provided by the applicant to 

show how the proposal meets a local need. In terms of the information available to the Council 

our Housing Stock Analysis Report 2009 (undertaken by DCA for Newark and Sherwood District) 

does identify a wider need for family housing across this part of the District. 

However I note that the 2009 survey has itself informed the Core Strategy (and indeed the 

emerging Site Allocations DPD) which has determined that the focuses for all new housing 

development should be in accordance with the settlement hierarchy as defined in SP3 (i.e. the 

regional centre, service centres, and Principal villages). In this case the 2009 survey identifies this 

need in the Nottinghamshire Fringe area which also includes the principal village of Lowdham. 

Therefore in my view the identified need could be met through the existing settlement hierarchy. 

In the absence of any additional evidence to demonstrate a proven local need in Fiskerton I can 

only conclude that this proposal fails to meet SP3 on that basis. It is acknowledged that an 

argument could be advanced that the impact upon need of a single net additional dwelling would 

be negligible however this is an argument that could be too easily repeated. 

Further, Members will be aware that the Council has now confirmed they have a 5 year housing 

land supply which identifies suitable locations of dwellings across the district on more suitable and 

sustainable sites. Therefore the Council is not in an intensified position to allow dwellings in such 

unsustainable locations where there is a proven supply of adequate land in other locations 

throughout the district. 

With respect to scale, Spatial Policy 3 indicates that new development should be appropriate to 

the proposed location and small scale in nature. It is considered that the development of a single 

dwelling within a village of this size is considered to be small scale and as such is acceptable in 

terms of scale of development. 

52

With respect to impact, the development of a single dwelling would not produce a significant 

number of vehicle movements and as such would not create a severe detrimental impact with 

respect to impact on highways. Consideration of amenity impacts and impacts on local 

infrastructure are considered in greater detail within subsequent sections of this report. 

Turning to character, it must be noted that the adjacent properties are single storey in nature. 

Equally it is noted that the wider mix of properties in the surrounding area is varied. It is this latter 

issues which has persuaded me that on balance, the proposal will not be so harmful as to warrant 

refusal of the application. Indeed, I am further persuaded by the variety of architectural styles 

present in the locality. 

Greenfield 

NPPF paragraph 111 advocates the sequential approach to land uses indicating that, “planning 

decisions should encourage the effective use of land by re-using land that has been previously 

developed (brownfield land), provided that it is not of high environmental value.” 

Part of the site is occupied by a permanent structure (wooden shed) and as such this element 

would constitute previously developed land, in accordance with the definition provided within 

NPPF. However, the majority of the site is overgrown grassland and as such would be considered 

to be Greenfield in nature. Although not sequentially preferable, development of this site is not 

precluded, subject to other considerations, most notably scale and character impacts, which have 

been addressed above. 

Mix and type 

Core Strategy Policy 3 indicates that there is a housing need across the district for family housing 

of 3 bedrooms or more; smaller houses of 3 bedrooms or less; and housing for the elderly and 

disabled population. 

The proposed development would provide a single dwelling on site. The proposals would present 

an opportunity to deliver a large family home with 4 bedrooms, which it is accepted would 

contribute towards a wider development mix. However, this in itself, does not outweigh the local 

need issues detailed above. 

Flood Risk and drainage 

The application site is located within Flood Zone 2 as defined by the Environment Agency Flood 

Map Strategic Flood Risk Assessment, and has a medium probability of flooding. The applicant has 

submitted a Flood Risk Assessment in support of the application and this has been reviewed by the 

Environment Agency. 

NPPF and its Technical Guidance advises that inappropriate development in areas at risk of 

flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk through 

applying a sequential test. The aim of the Sequential Test is to steer new development to areas 

with the lowest probability of flooding. Development should not be allocated or permitted if there 

are reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower 

probability of flooding. 

53

The approach to the Sequential Test by Members at Planning Committee has been to consider 

whether there are any sequentially preferable sites (i.e. Flood Zone 1) 

a) Across the District as a whole; and 

b) Within proximity of Fiskerton 

In respect of part a) of the test, the proposals would fail the sequential test as there are a number 

of other existing garden sites capable of accommodating the development applied for that are in 

flood zone 1. However, consideration of the site in respect of available sites within Fiskerton 

would suggest that there are limited sequentially preferable opportunities available. In addition it 

is noted that there has been localized flood risk mitigation previously. 

Further, the applicant has submitted a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) which has been assessed by 

the Environment Agency (EA). The FRA indicates that the proposed development would sit 

approximately 0.30m higher than the EA’s predicted 1% annual chance flood level and the existing 

defences are deemed capable of withstanding between a 1:10 & 1:100 year event. The FRA states 

that in the unlikely event of a breach or overtopping failure, the occupants would be able to seek 

refuge on the private access road, whilst existing road levels recorded along Gravelly Lane suggest 

that should full evacuation prove necessary, a dry egress would remain available to the occupants, 

as well as a dry access for emergency vehicles. 

The EA has indicated that, “on the basis that the flood risk assessment is acceptable the Agency 

has no objections from a planning perspective to the proposed development.” The EA do however 

recommend that a condition is attached relating to surface water drainage. Details of this 

condition are outlined at the end of the report. 

Design and amenity 

NPPF paragraph 56 states, “The government attaches great importance to the design of the built 

environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good 

planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people.” Paragraph 63 states 

that, “great weight should be given to outstanding or innovative designs which help raise the 

standard of design more generally in the area.” Paragraph 64 however states that, “permission 

should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for 

improving the character and quality of and area and the way it functions.” 

As noted in earlier sections of this report the architectural style of properties in the surrounding 

area is varied and as such there is no singular defining architectural style. The proposed dwelling is 

the same as that which was considered in previous planning applications. The proposed dwelling 

comprises a series of hipped roofs, with dormer windows to the front elevation. Details are 

provided of the proposed build materials however a condition is recommended to ensure that 

property is built out using appropriate materials. The planning officer noted previously that, “the 

scale and design of the dwelling would ensure that the dwelling is reflective of the informality of 

the area in terms of design and layout. The scale and unobtrusiveness of the building as would be 

visible in the wider landscape is not considered to be such that it would adversely affect the setting 

of the village within the wider landscape and the provision of private amenity space, is not 

considered to be sufficiently adverse to add weight to a refusal of the proposals.” As the proposed 

design is the same as that which was previously considered it is considered that the previous 

officer’s comments continue to be reflective of the situation. 

54

Concerns have been raised by neighbours with respect to the detrimental impact on privacy and 

overlooking. It should be noted that loss of amenity did not form part of the reasons for refusal 

under consideration of the previous application. The proposed dwelling comprises no windows to 

either gable elevation; although there may be a limited impact to the rear of Horseshoe Lodge 

from oblique angle although this is not considered sufficient to warrant a refusal. In addition 

concerns have been raised by residents of She Nee Tay as the upper floor windows would 

overlook the rear of their garden. As previously, although there would be some impact the 

distance between the front elevation of the proposed dwelling and the rear elevation of the 

existing would be approximately 50 metres. 

Highways and Parking 

Spatial Policy 7 indicates that development proposals should be appropriate for the highway 

network in terms the volume and nature of traffic generated and ensure the safety, convenience 

and free flow of traffic using the highway are not adversely affected; and that appropriate parking 

provision is provided. 

The site would use the existing vehicular access off Gravelly Lane, which currently serves 

Stonewold. NCC Highways have assessed the proposals in respect of highway access, capacity and 

safety, parking, servicing and sustainability and raise no objections. It is therefore considered that 

the proposed development accords with Core Strategy Spatial Policy 7 

Other issues 

Community Infrastructure Levy 

The proposals fall within the Southwell Rural residential charging zone and as such a Community 

Infrastructure Levy (CIL) payment is required in accordance with the District Council’s approved 

CIL Charging Schedule. 

The applicant has completed the required CIL forms which indicates that there would be 172 

square metres of new floorspace created, which based upon the rates identified in the CIL 

Charging Schedule would equate to a CIL change of £12,900 


Refuse, for the following reason: 

01 

The application fails to demonstrate that there is an identified proven local need for the dwelling 

in this rural area. The proposal therefore represents an unsustainable pattern of development, 

contrary to Spatial Policy 3 (Rural Areas) of the adopted Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy 2011 

(Core Strategy) and the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (NPPF). 



55

For further information, please contact Mr J Pennick on Ext 5834 



Colin Walker 


56

PLANNING COMMITTEE – 30 OCTOBER 2012 



Proposal: 

Location: 

Applicant: 

12/01164/OUT 

A bungalow and garage situated in the land to the north of Monza 

Monza, New Hill, Walesby, Nottinghamshire 

Mr Christopher Knott 


The Site 

The application site is located within the village of Walesby and lies to the rear of an existing 

property known as ‘Monza’ which fronts New Hill. The site currently forms part of the residential 

curtilage to ‘Monza’ property. Several trees are located within the site. 

Access to the site would be gained from the existing access off New Hill located to the west of 

‘Monza’ which currently serves Walesby Primary School and an additional property located to the 

north of the application site. 


No relevant planning history 

The Proposal 

The proposals seek outline planning permission for the erection of a dwelling. Reference has been 

made to the scale of the proposed dwelling and an indicative location plan has been submitted 

with the application. The application also considered access as a fixed matter, all others in 

appearance; landscaping and layout are reserved for consideration. 


A site notice was also posted on the 3 rd September 2012 to expire on the 23 rd September 2012. 


Please Note: All policies listed within this report can be found in full on the Council’s website 






59





Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy (Development Plan Document) 2011 

• Spatial Policy 1 – Settlement Hierarchy 

• Spatial Policy 2 - Spatial Distribution 

• Spatial Policy 3 – Rural Areas 

• Spatial Policy 7 – Sustainable Transport 

• Core Policy 9 - Sustainable Design 


Policy H23 – Backland Housing Development 


National Planning Policy Framework 

Consultations 

Walesby Parish Council – Has no objection to the proposal but queries whether the application 

site lies within the village envelope. 

Nottinghamshire County Council (Highways Authority) – rear of Monza using the existing 

vehicular access. A further access is required from New Hill to serve Monza. A bin collection point 

is to be provided. There are two parking spaces provided for the new dwelling, and two spaces for 

Monza. Assuming that Monza is also a 3 bedroomed dwelling, this is satisfactory. Therefore, 

subject to the following, there are no highway objections: 

1. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be brought into use until a dropped 

vehicular footway crossing is available for use and constructed in accordance with the Highway 

Authority specification to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. 


2. The proposed access arrangements must be completed prior to occupation of the new dwelling. 


3. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be brought into use until all drives and any 

parking or turning areas are surfaced in a hard bound material (not loose gravel) for a minimum of 

5 metres behind the Highway boundary. The surfaced drives and any parking or turning areas shall 

then be maintained in such hard bound material for the life of the development. 

Reason: To reduce the possibility of deleterious material being deposited on the public highway 

(loose stones etc). 

60

4. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be brought into use until the access 

driveway/parking/turning area is constructed with provision to prevent the unregulated discharge 

of surface water from the driveway/parking/turning area to the public highway in accordance with 

details first submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. The provision to prevent the 

unregulated 

Severn Trent Water – No objection to the proposal subject to the inclusion of a condition 

requesting drainage plans to be submitted to the LPA prior to the commencement of works. 

Neighbours/interested parties – One letter of representation has been made expressing concerns 

that the application, if approved, would set a precedent for other development within rear 

gardens leading to traffic congestion. 


The proposals represent the erection of a dwelling at outline stage with matters of access and 

scales are fixed and all other matters reserved for further consideration. The key issues in the 

determination of the application are therefore the means of access and its impact on highway 

safety but moreover, the principle of residential development on the site in the interests of 

sustainable development policy. 

The Core Strategy’s spatial policies direct development towards the district’s main settlements in 

the form of a settlement hierarchy, for which Spatial Policy 3 is relevant to this site. Spatial Policies 

1 and 2 identify the districts main settlements and service centres which are promoted as those 

areas able to accommodate additional growth due to their access to local services. Spatial Policy 3 

identifies sustainability criteria for additional development in the District’s other rural areas not 

identified in either SP1 or SP2. 

The application site is located in Walesby which is defined in Appendix A of the Core Strategy as 

being a rural area. Spatial Policy 3 relates to Rural Areas and indicates that local housing need will 

be addressed by focussing housing in sustainable accessible villages. The policy states further that 

beyond Principle Villages, including the village of Walesby, that planning applications would be 

assessed against the following criteria: location, scale, need impact and character. 

The development plan no longer includes ‘village envelopes’ and instead refers to the main built 

up area of a village. This normally refers to the buildings and land which form the core of the 

village where most housing and community facilities are focused. The application site is located off 

New Hill in Walesby which although towards the edge of the village is surrounded by other 

residential properties to the east, south and west and by Walesby Primary School and another 

residential property to the north. The application is therefore considered to be within the main 

built up area of the village and as such the scheme complies with this aspect of Policy SP3. 

With respect to scale, Spatial Policy 3 indicates that new development should be appropriate to 

the location and small scale in nature. As the application is in outline with most matters reserved it 

is not possible to comment on the acceptability of the proposed development in terms of design 

however the applicant has indicated that the proposal would be for a bungalow and provided 

maximum scale parameters. The predominant house type for the immediate area surrounding the 

application site is two storey properties of varying styles. A dormer bungalow is located directly 

north of the application site and other bungalows exist further east of the site along New Hill. A 

property of the scale submitted in the application would be considered to be acceptable. 

61

Turning to need, Spatial Policy 3 further indicates that new housing would be permitted where it 

helps to meet an identified proven need. 

No information has been provided by the applicant to show how the proposal meets a local need. 

Future housing growth need will be delivered through the Core Strategy settlement hierarchy and 

in the absence of any additional evidence to demonstrate a proven local need in this location I can 









With respect to impact, Spatial Policy 3 specifies that new development should not have a 

detrimental impact upon the amenity of local people nor have an undue impact on the local 

infrastructure. The erection of a single new dwelling in this location is not considered to generate 

excessive car-bourne traffic or have a detrimental impact upon the drainage or sewage systems of 

the area. An indicative layout plan has been submitted as part of the application which shows the 

proposed dwelling to be located approximately 32.0 metres from the rear elevation of ‘Monza’ 

and approximately 35.0 metres from the property to the north known as ‘Carriageway’. As the 

application is in outline form with scale and access to be considered only, in terms of layout it is 

difficult to assess impacts upon the amenity of local people, however, given the location of the 

plot of land in relation to the existing property and that of ‘Carriageway’, no loss of amenity would 

be likely to occur through overlooking, massing or overshadowing. 

With respect to character, Spatial Policy 3 states that new development should not have a 

detrimental impact on the character of the location. Saved Policy H23 (Backland Housing 

Development) of the Newark and Sherwood Local Plan is in a similar vein and seeks to protect the 

general character and density of an area; in particular it seeks to prevent a precedent for similar 

forms of development, the cumulative effect of which would be to harm the existing character and 

appearance of the area. The character of this part of Walesby to the east of ‘Monza’ is medium 

sized detached dwellings set back from the road within large long plots. To the west of ‘Monza’ 

the character of the area is semi-detached properties set within narrow long plots. Dwellings 

either side of ‘Monza’ are located along New Hill with the exception of ‘Carriageway’ to the north. 

The erection of a dwelling in this location and its resulting smaller plot is considered to be out of 

keeping with the surrounding area. In addition, the granting of planning permission for a dwelling 

in this location would set an undesirable precedent for similar forms of development, the 

cumulative effect of which would be to harm the existing character of this part of New Hill. 

Highways and access. 

Details of the access to the site have been submitted for consideration and propose the use of the 

existing access which currently serves ‘Monza’ to extend to serve the proposed dwelling. A new 

access would be created to the east of the existing access with off road parking provided to the 

front of ‘Monza’ for the existing property. No objections have been received from the Highways 

Authority subject to conditions concerning the construction of the access. 


62

That full planning permission is REFUSED, for the following reason; 

01 

Core Strategy Spatial Policy 3 indicates that local housing need will be addressed by focusing 

housing in sustainable accessible villages and would be assessed with consideration to its location, 

scale, need, impact and character. The application takes the form of backland development which 

would be out of character with the surrounding built form. In addition the applicant application 

fails to demonstrate that there is an identified proven local need for the dwelling in this rural area. 

The proposal therefore fails to meet all the requirements of the Core Spatial Strategy Policy 3. 

INFORMATIVE 

You are advised that as of 1st December 2011, the Newark and Sherwood Community 

Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Charging Schedule came into effect. Whilst the above application has 

been refused by the Local Planning Authority you are advised that CIL applies to all planning 

permissions granted on or after this date. Thus any successful appeal against this decision may 

therefore be subject to CIL (depending on the location and type of development proposed). Full 

details are available on the Council's website www.newark-sherwooddc.gov.uk/cil/ 



For further information, please contact Charlotte Henson on Ext 5828. 

Colin Walker 


63

PLANNING COMMITTEE – 30 OCTOBER 2012 AGENDA ITEM NO. 09 


Proposal: 

Location: 

Applicant: 

12/01241/FUL 

Conversion of former agricultural buildings to form three dwellings 

Dilliner Wood Farm 

Main Street 

Winkburn 

Newark On Trent 

Mr J J Broadberry 


The Site 

The application site is approximately 1.58 hectares in area based on the site location plan (not the 

application form) and is currently occupied by a group of agricultural buildings, which together 

form Dilliner Wood Farm. The existing buildings on the farm comprise: 

• a two-storey dwelling (the farmhouse) which is occupied on a long-term let (excluded 

from the red line of the application site); 

• a range of two and single-storey traditional agricultural buildings (including barns, cow 

and cart sheds) constructed of brick and some clay pantiles and some asbestos sheet 

roofing; they are situated around a courtyard area; and 

• a number of larger Dutch-type barns/open storage buildings. 

The application site is situated in open countryside between the villages of Eakring to the northwest, 

Maplebeck to the north-east and Winkburn to the south-east. Although accessed from 

Winkburn, the site lies approximately 1.5 miles north-east of the village as the crow flies. 

The site is served from the adopted highway by a private single track that is approximately 1.4 

miles long and made up of hardcore. This road serves three farms (including Dilliner Wood). The 

nearest dwelling to the application site is Orchard Wood Farm, which is approximately 500 metres 

to the south-west. 


00/00905/FUL - Planning permission was granted for the change of use of the barns, loose boxes 

and cow sheds to Class B1 use. This permission has not been implemented. 

05/01513/FUL – An application was made for the ‘conversion of barns to form 6 dwellings, 4 to be 

used for holiday lets & 2 units permanent’ by Kirklington Farms Ltd in September 2005. However 

the application was withdrawn before it was determined. 

06/00356/FUL – An application was made for the ‘conversion of barns to form 3 holiday lets and 2 

permanent dwellings (resubmission)’ by Kirklington Farms Ltd. As Winkburn Parish Council 

objected to the application, it was presented to the Planning Committee in November 2006 for 

65

determination where it was approved as recommended. A material start was made on-site before 

the permission expired and as such the permission is extant in perpetuity. 

The Proposal 

Full planning permission is sought to convert the existing traditional buildings on the site to form 

three dwellings. 

Unit 1 is proposed around a small courtyard in the single-storey cow sheds in the south-west 

corner of the site and would comprise a four bedroom dwelling with study. To make this work on 

the ground, a small linkage building is proposed to join the buildings to form a U shape. 

Units 2 and 3 are located in the two-storey barns around the existing larger open courtyard and 

comprise three and four bedrooms respectively. 

The proposal includes some external and internal alterations to the buildings including replacing 

the asbestos sheet roofing with clay pantiles, dismantling the single-storey lean-to additions and 

repairing brickwork. The proposal also includes the removal of a large existing Dutch barn and 

cattle yard from the site. 

Amended plans have been sought to avoid unnecessary harm to the character and integrity of the 

former agricultural buildings. These are expected prior to the Committee meeting. 

The applicants have submitted a Supporting Statement with their application which explains the 

history of the agricultural land that has been leased to serve Dilliner Wood Farm and why this is no 

longer possible, rendering the use of the existing buildings for agricultural use unviable. A letter 

has also been received from letting agents confirming that these buildings were offered up for let 

in December 2000 and enclosing a set of particulars in respect of the site. They also confirm that 

they have had no interest in the buildings. 

The application is accompanied by a Design and Access Statement, Heritage Impact Assessment, 

Updated Structural Survey and Protected Species Survey. 


Due to the rural location of the site, no neighbouring properties have been individually notified by 

letter. However a site notice has been displayed at the site entrance with the main road. 

Planning Policy Framework 








66



• Policy 1 - Regional Core Objectives 

• Policy 2 - Promoting Better Design 

• Policy 13a - Regional Housing Provision (excluding Northamptonshire) 

• Policy 14 - Regional Priorities for Affordable Housing 

• Policy 15 - Regional Priorities for Affordable Housing in Rural Areas 

• Policy 26 - Protecting and Enhancing the Region’s Natural and Cultural Heritage 

• Policy 27 - Regional Priorities for the Historic Environment 

• Policy 28 - Regional Priorities for Environmental and Green Infrastructure 

• Policy 29 - Priorities for Enhancing the Region’s Biodiversity 

• Policy 43 - Regional Transport Objectives 

• Policy 45 - Regional Approach to Traffic Growth Reduction 


• Spatial Policy 3 – Rural Areas 

• Spatial Policy 7 - Sustainable Transport 

• Core Policy 1 – Affordable Housing Provision 

• Core Policy 3 – Housing Mix, Type and Density 


• Core Policy 12 – Biodiversity and Green Infrastructure 

• Core Policy 14 – Heritage Environment 


• Policy NE1 (Development in the Countryside) 

• Policy NE2 (The Conversion of Rural Buildings) 

• Policy H27 (Housing Development in the Countryside) 



• National Planning Policy Framework which now replaces all PPG’s and PPS’s. 

• Supplementary Planning Document: Conversion of Traditional Rural Buildings, adopted 

September 2005. 

Consultations 

Winkburn Parish Council - No response has been received to date. 

Nottinghamshire County Council (Highways Authority) – Comment as follows: 

“The application site is located along an unadopted road, some distance from the public highway. 

The proposed development for the conversion of barns to form three dwellings is not expected to 

impact significantly on the public highway, therefore, there are no highway objections.” 

67

Environment Agency – No comments to make. 

Natural England – Responded to confirm that Standing Advice applies. 

Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust – Comment as follows: 

“We welcome the provision of a Protected Species Survey (B.J. Collins - August 2012) as this allows 

protected species to be properly considered in the determination of this planning application. 

We are satisfied with the survey’s methodology and evaluation of protected species at the site and 

strongly support the survey report’s conclusions and recommendations. 

As this site has been identified to have the potential to support roosting bats we also strongly 

support the report’s recommendations that the works are carried out in the presence of a licensed 

ecologist within the recommended times of late September to October or March to early April. We 

recommend that this be further outlined as a condition within any formal planning approval along 

with the inclusion of bat and bird nesting boxes within the proposed development as 

recommended by the survey.” 

No representations from local residents or interested parties have been received to date. 


Principle 

The application site is located in the open countryside and relates to the conversion of traditional 

rural buildings into 3 dwellings. Consent has already been granted for the conversion of these 

buildings to 2 permanent dwellings and 3 holiday lets back in 2006 and these permissions have 

been part implemented (these are in the early stages of conversion, none of the barns are near to 

completion or occupied) and remain extant. This is therefore the applicant’s fallback position. The 

extant permission however, required (by Condition 15) that the holiday lets were provided and 

available for let before the two permanent dwellings were first occupied. 

The buildings subject to this application are of architectural merit and the group of buildings are 

worthy of retention. The applicant has already made investments by reroofing the buildings and 

partially implementing the previous scheme to ensure their long term-retention. As concluded by 

the Structural Report, the buildings are structurally of sound condition and capable of conversion 

without substantial rebuild or demolition. It would appear, therefore, that these traditional 

buildings should be and can be converted successfully as a matter of principle. 

This application makes the case that the applicants do not have the financial means to convert the 

three holiday lets first, that there is no demand for holiday lets in this location and that holiday 

lettings are an unviable option. 

Saved Policy NE2 (Conservation of Rural Buildings) of the Local Plan provides that planning 

permission will be granted for the conversion or re-use of agricultural and other rural buildings in 

the countryside for commercial uses provided it accords with certain criteria. The policy then goes 

on to state that planning permission will be granted for conversion to residential use subject to 

additional criteria. However more recent policies at both national and local levels have moved 

68

away from the commercial uses first approach, recognizing that commercial uses can be more 

unsustainable than residential uses. 

The site lies in the open countryside and is accessed via an informal single track approximately 1.4 

miles to the main road. I consider that residential use for a relatively small number of dwellings (3) 

is acceptable and likely to be more sustainable in terms of the amount of vehicle movements the 

uses would generate than alternative commercial uses such as the previously approved light 

industry scheme (now lapsed) and 3 holiday lets plus 2 dwellings. For the reasons I have set out, I 

do not consider that it is necessary to look first at commercial uses in this case and I also consider 

that the viability argument put forward is irrelevant and warrants no further assessment. In terms 

of demand, I am aware that there have been other similar types of development that have shown 

there is no demand for holiday lets in such remote locations in Nottinghamshire and I am satisfied 

that no further exploration of this matter is required. 

As a matter of principle, I therefore conclude that the proposal is in line with Policies SP3, CP14 

and NE2 of the Development Plan. 

Impact on character and appearance of the buildings 

A small linkage building is proposed to link together the buildings that would form Unit 1 (formerly 

the 3 holiday lets). I consider that this is acceptable given that it is modest and barely visible until 

within the crew yard itself. Amendments have been requested from the applicants to avoid the 

loss of breathers, to re-site some window openings and to avoid the formal carving up of the 

courtyard spaces with walls and fences. I expect these revisions ahead of the Planning Committee. 

Subject to these being forthcoming I consider that the scheme would maintain the integrity of the 

barn’s character and it would therefore be in keeping with its rural surroundings. 

There is currently no landscaping or planting on the site. I consider that the site would benefit 

from some additional soft landscaping particularly as the gardens to be created could come under 

pressure for washing lines, children’s play equipment and other domestic paraphernalia. Given 

this potential, the landscaping plan should include some hawthorn hedge planting around the 

boundaries of these amenity areas and additional trees to protect the character of the 

countryside. In addition, I recommend removal of permitted development rights by condition and 

agreeing matters of details such as the means of enclosure, joinery details, any new materials etc 

again by condition. I therefore proposed that conditions are imposed to deal with these issues. 

However I am satisfied that overall the proposals are in line with Policies CP9, CP14, NE2 and the 

Council’s SPG. 

Amenity 

The nearest neighbour is obviously the farmhouse. The main elevation of the farmhouse faces to 

the south-east, away from the existing barns and cow sheds, as is the private amenity space 

serving it. There is a distance of 20 metres between the south-east facing elevation of Barn 2 with 

window openings and the rear elevation of the existing farmhouse. The south-east facing end 

elevation of Barn 1 contains no openings. I am therefore satisfied that the privacy of the 

farmhouse would not be so detrimentally affected to warrant refusal of permission. 

Clearly, the additional comings and goings of a further 3 dwellings and their occupants nearby will 

69

have some impact on their existing isolated surroundings, but I do think that the increase in noise 

and disturbance would be so acute as to warrant refusal of the proposal. 

The only other affected properties would be the two other farms that use the private road for 

access. I am satisfied that the level of traffic associated with the proposed development would 

not result in an unacceptable degree of traffic noise and disturbance and the maintenance of the 

private road is a private matter between the people that use and own the road. 

The only existing uses in the vicinity that could affect the amenities of the occupiers of the 

proposed dwellings would be the potential for the surrounding land to be used for agricultural 

purposes and the two farms that share the private access road. Given its location, occupiers 

should expect to find agricultural uses close by and, in my opinion, these uses are able to exist in 

close proximity without resulting in an unsatisfactory standard of amenity for occupiers of the 

converted buildings. The two adjacent farms are far enough away from the proposed dwellings, 

so as not to cause an amenity problem. 

Highways 

Given the relative small-scale of the development, I do not consider that the proposal would have 

an adverse impact upon the highway network from traffic generated by the proposal. There is 

sufficient space on site to accommodate all parking needs for the development (three spaces each 

for the four-bed dwellings and two spaces for the three bedroom unit). There are no highway 

objections and I am satisfied that access and parking to serve the proposed development is 

acceptable. 

Protected Species 

A protected species survey has been submitted. This concludes that there is no evidence to 

suggest that any of the barns are being used by an established bat roost although although 

foraging of bats cannot be dismissed and bat activity has increased since the previous survey 

undertaken in 2006. It is therefore recommended that further surveys and a qualified ecologist be 

present on site when the roof sheeting’s are removed from the two storey barns. Nottinghamshire 

Wildlife Trust are satisfied that this is acceptable and the proposal accords with the Standing 

Advice from Natural England. In order to protect breeding birds the Survey also recommends that 

works are undertaken outside of bird breeding season (April to September inclusive) in respect of 

Units 2 and 3 only. Overall I am satisfied that the proposal has adequately considered and 

mitigated harm to protected species in line with policies NE17 and CP12. 

Affordable Housing 

As the site comprises in excess of 0.4 hecatres, 30% affordable housing would ordinarily be 

required for a residential scheme irrespective of the number of dwellings. However in this case, 

given that the applicant has a fallback position of 2 dwellings (plus 3 holiday lets) and given that a 

scheme could have been presented for the conversion of the single storey barns to one dwelling 

with a much smaller site area, I take the view that it would be unreasonable for this Authority to 

take such a regimented approach and apply the affordable housing policy. In any event, as the cost 

of barn conversions is more expensive than developing new builds, it is likely that the cost of 

conversion would not be able to support an affordable housing unit on the site in any case. This is 

the approach we have taken for similar types of small-scale barn conversion developments 

elsewhere. 

70

Conclusion 

For the reasons I set out above, I consider that the proposed development is broadly in 

accordance with the Development Plan. Whilst not strictly in line with CP1 (relating to affordable 

housing) I consider that it would be unreasonable to require the provision of 30% affordable 

housing having regard to the applicant’s fallback position. I therefore recommend permission be 

granted subject to conditions. 


That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions shown below. 

Conditions 

01 

The development hereby permitted shall be begun within three years from the date of this 

permission. 


Act 2004. 

02 

The extent of all repairs, including precise details of (i) any proposed demolition and rebuilding 

works, (ii) any structural alteration to the fabric of the building, including any proposed once the 

development has been commenced, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local 

Planning Authority. 

Development shall thereafter be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved details, 

unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 

Reason: To ensure that any required repairs/rebuilding works to the farm buildings are completed 

satisfactorily. 

03 

The development shall not be commenced until representative samples of the facing bricks and 

roofing tiles to be used in the development have been deposited with and approved in writing by 

the Local Planning Authority. 

Reason: To ensure that the development has a satisfactory external appearance by virtue of the 

materials used, and enhances or is suitable for the character/visual amenity of the area. 

04 

All pointing of existing or proposed brickwork shall be flush jointed using a lime based mortar mix, 

joint width and finish that shall be first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority (LPA) 

following an inspection on site by the LPA's representative, of a sample panel of no less than 1 

71

metre square prepared as the first pointing/re-pointing work to take place associated with the 

works/alterations hereby approved. 

Reason: To ensure that the detail finish to the development is satisfactory. 

05 

No development shall be commenced in respect of the features identified below, until details of 

the design, specification, fixing and finish in the form of drawings and sections at a scale of not less 

than 1:10 have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. 

Development shall thereafter be undertaken in accordance with the approved details unless 

otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. 

External windows including roof windows, doors and their immediate surroundings, including 

details of glazing and glazing bars. This shall include rooflights 

Treatment of window and door heads and cills 

Treatment of existing ventilation holes 

Rainwater goods 

Extractor vents 

Flues 

Meter boxes 

Soil and vent pipes 

Reason: In order to safeguard the special architectural and historical appearance of the building. 

06 

No development shall be commenced until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have 

been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and these works shall 

be carried out as approved. These details shall include: 

A schedule (including planting plans and written specifications, including cultivation and other 

operations associated with plant and grass establishment) of trees, shrubs and other plants, 

noting species, plant sizes, proposed numbers and densities. The scheme shall be designed so as 

to enhance the nature conservation value of the site, including the use of locally native plant 

species. 

Existing trees and hedgerows, which are to be retained pending approval of a detailed scheme, 

together with measures for protection during construction. 

72

Means of enclosure (including height, design and proposed materials); 

Proposed finished ground levels or contours; 

Car parking layouts and materials; 

Other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas; 

Hard surfacing materials; 


07 

The approved soft landscaping shall be completed during the first planting season following the 

commencement of the development, or such longer period as may be agreed in writing by the 

local planning authority. Any trees/shrubs which, within a period of five years of being planted 

die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting 

season with others of similar size and species unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local 

planning authority. The approved hard landscaping shall be implemented on site prior to first 

occupation. 

Reason: To ensure the work is carried out within a reasonable period and thereafter properly 

maintained, in the interests of visual amenity and biodiversity. 

08 

No development shall be commenced in respect of Units 2 or 3 during bird nesting season 

(beginning of March to end of August inclusive) unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local 


Reason: To ensure that adequate provision is made for the protection of nesting birds on site. 

09 

The development shall be carried out in complete accordance with the recommendation set out in 

the Protected Species Survey undertaken in August 2012 by B J Collins which forms part of this 

permission. 

Reason: In order to afford adequate protection to protected species on the site. 

010 

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted 

Development) Order 1995 or any amending legislation apart from that hereby approved, there 

shall be no development under Schedule 2 Part 1 Class A, B, C, D, E Part 2 Class A, B, C, unless 

consent has first been granted in the form of a separate planning permission. 

73

Reason: To ensure that any proposed further alterations or extensions are sympathetic to the fact 

that the building is a converted "barn"/agricultural building. 

011 (this condition will be completed once the amended plans have been received) 

The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in accordance with the 

following amended approved plans, reference(s) ********* unless otherwise agreed in writing by 

the local planning authority through the approval of a non-material amendment to the permission. 

Reason: So as to define this permission. 

Note to Applicant 

01 

Further to the requirements of condition number 5 the rooflight[s] hereby approved should sit 

flush with the plane of the roof. 

02 

Further to the requirements of condition number 4 the mortar for the purposes of re-pointing 

should consist of a lime mortar to a mix of 1:2:9 (cement/lime/sand with an element of sharp 

sand) and the pointing technique should be bagged or stipple finished. 

03 

The applicant's attention is drawn to those conditions on the decision notice, which should be 

discharged before the development is commenced. It should be noted that if they are not 

appropriately dealt with the development may be unauthorised. 

04 

Please note that the District Council no longer provides wheeled bins for residential developments 

free of charge. Wheeled bins can be purchased from the District Council or any other source 

provided they conform to appropriate standards and requirements of the Council. Enclosed is a 

leaflet from the District Council's Waste Management Section entitled 'Guidance for New 

Development - Waste Storage and Collection' which sets out these standards and requirements. If 

you wish to purchase wheeled bins or discuss this matter further please contact the Waste 

Management Officer on 01636 655677 or email: waste.management@nsdc.info. 

05 




The proposed development has been assessed and it is the Council's view that CIL is not payable 

on the development given that there is no net additional increase of floorspace as a result of the 

development. 

74



In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the development hereby permitted broadly accords 

with the policies listed below. Whilst the proposal does not provide 30% affordable housing as 

technically required by CP1, weight has been attached to the applicant's fallback position, that the 

barns would be costly to convert, the desirability to retain these buildings of architectural and 

historic interest and that the proposal could have been presented for a much smaller site area 

thereby avoiding the need for the provision. It is therefore considered unreasonable for the 

Authority to require a contribution to affordable housing in this case. There are no other material 

issues arising that would otherwise outweigh the provisions of the Development Plan. 

From the East Midlands Regional Plan 



• Policy 13a - Regional Housing Provision (excluding Northamptonshire) 

• Policy 14 - Regional Priorities for Affordable Housing 

• Policy 15 - Regional Priorities for Affordable Housing in Rural Areas 

• Policy 26 - Protecting and Enhancing the Region's Natural and Cultural Heritage 


• Policy 28 - Regional Priorities for Environmental and Green Infrastructure 

• Policy 29 - Priorities for Enhancing the Region's Biodiversity 

• Policy 43 - Regional Transport Objectives 


• From the Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy DPD (adopted March 2011) 



• Core Policy 1 - Affordable Housing Provision 



• Core Policy 12 - Biodiversity and Green Infrastructure 

• Core Policy 14 - Heritage Environment 

• From the Newark and Sherwood Local Plan (adopted March 1999) 

• Policy NE1 (Development in the Countryside) 

• Policy NE2 (The Conversion of Rural Buildings) 

• Policy H27 (Housing Development in the Countryside) 




For further information, please contact Clare Walker on 01636 655841. 

75



Colin Walker 


76



Proposal: 

Location: 

Applicant: 

12/01258/OUT 

Erection of 1 no. dwelling 

Land adjacent to 42 Ossington Road, Kneesall 

Mr Mark Swanborough 


The Site 

The site lies at the northern end of Kneesall village within the Conservation Area. At the corner of 

Ossington Road and School Lane, this site occupies a prominent position east of the host property 

at No. 42 Ossington Road, a modern bungalow. 

The site comprises a rectangular shaped parcel of former garden land measuring approximately 

18m wide by 38m in depth. This has been separated from the rest of the garden serving No. 42 

with high timber fencing. The site is a flat grassed piece of land bound with a c2m high Hawthorn 

and Rowan hedge to all other boundaries including the two road frontages. 

There are a number of trees within and around the periphery of the site including a horse 

chestnut. These are mature and appear to be in good condition. 

There are a varied style of dwellings in the vicinity of the site, mainly two storey properties. 

Kneesall C of E Primary School lies to the south of the site. 


03/02719/FUL - Full planning permission for the erection of a bungalow was submitted by Mr F 

Wright. In February 2004, the application was refused by Planning Committee as recommended on 

the following (summarised) grounds: 

1. The siting and layout of the proposed bungalow is inappropriate and does not reflect the 

character of the locality in terms of layout. In addition the proposal does not respect the 

trees, on the eastern boundary of the site, which are important features and contribute to 

the character of the surrounding area, contrary to Policies H13 and H21 of the NSLP. 

2. The siting of the large bungalow in this prominent location and its inappropriate design 

would conflict with the future growth of the established trees on the eastern boundary, 

and would harm the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, contrary to Policy 

C1 of the NSLP. 

3. Adverse impact on trees which positively contribute to the character and appearance of 

the Conservation Area and contrary to C4 of the NSLP. 

79

The Proposal 

Outline consent is now sought for the erection of one dwelling. All matters are reserved for 

subsequent consideration. 

The accompanying Design and Access Statement states that the dwelling would be a bungalow 

with an approximate floor area of 159 sq m. Its approximate gable width would be 11.3m and it 

would have a 40 degree pitch roof with a ridge height of 7.2m and an eaves height of 2.4m. In 

addition, it is proposed that a garage/store building be erected with a floor area of approximately 

45 sq m. It would have a flat roof to eaves height (2.4m). 

An indicative block plan has been received showing how the dwelling might be laid out on site. 

This shows a footprint of approximately 10.75m by 15m (161.25 sq m). It does not show the 

position of the proposed garage/store. 

The applicant has confirmed that the dwelling would have four or more bedrooms. 

A simple tree survey has been submitted with the application which indicates the position and 

species of the trees on site. This is not to the British Standard. 


Occupiers of five neighbouring properties have been individually notified by letter. A site notice 

was also displayed on site and an advert has been placed in the local press. 













• Policy 3 - Distribution of New Development 

• Policy 13a -Regional Housing Provision (excluding Northamptonshire) 

• Policy 17 -Regional Priorities for Managing the Release of Land for Housing 




80

• Spatial Policy 1 - Settlement Hierarchy 

• Spatial Policy 2 - Spatial Distribution of Growth 




• Core Policy 14 - Historic Environment 


• Policy C1 -Development in Conservation Areas 

• Policy C2 - Outline Planning Applications in Conservation Areas 

• Policy C4 - Natural and Other Features of Interest in Conservation Areas 

• Policy C11 (Setting of Listed Buildings) 


National Planning Policy Framework which now replaces all PPG’s and PPS’s. 

Consultations 

Kneesall Parish Council - No objections 

Nottinghamshire County Council (Highways Authority) – No response has been received to date. 

Neighbours/Interested Parties - No comments have been received to date. 

Nb - Any comments received after the printing of the Committee Agenda will be reported as late 

items at Committee. 


Kneesall has been identified as an ‘Other Settlement’ in the Settlement Hierarchy as defined by 

SP1 of the Core Strategy. It no longer has a defined settlement boundary although has a primary 

school, a public house and limited access to public transport. This proposal falls to be assessed 

against SP3 (Rural Areas) of the Core Strategy. This provides that local housing needs will be 

addressed by focusing housing in sustainable, accessible villages. It goes on to say that beyond 

Principal Villages, proposals for new development will be considered against five criteria; location, 

scale, need, impact and character. 

In terms of location, the site was formerly within the defined settlement boundary, is adjacent to 

an existing bungalow and forms the space between it and School Lane. Taking these matters into 

account I consider that it is within the main built up part of the village and it does have some local 

services and access to Newark Urban Area. Being for one dwelling, I consider that the scale of the 

development is appropriate for the size of the village (which has a population of c230) and the 

impact arising from this large family home would generate car bourne traffic but not to an 

excessive degree. 

Therefore it meets three of the five criteria set out. However the policy also requires housing 

applications to be assessed with regard to its impact upon character (a matter that I shall return 

to) and whether it meets a proven local need. 

81


In terms of the information available to the Council our Housing Stock Analysis Report 2009 

(undertaken by DCA for Newark and Sherwood District) identified that in the Rural East Area 

(which includes Kneesall) there is a surplus of 12 four+ bedroom bungalows of private stock and a 

surplus of 48 four+ bedroom houses. This is the best information we have available and it indicates 

that there is no wider housing need in this part of the district for larger dwellings or indeed 

bungalows. 





need in the Rural East Area which also includes the principal village of Sutton-on-Trent. Therefore 

in my view the identified need could be met through the existing settlement hierarchy. In the 

absence of any additional evidence to demonstrate a proven local need in Kneesall I can only 

conclude that this proposal fails to meet SP3 on that basis. It is acknowledged that an argument 

could be advanced that the impact upon need of a single net additional dwelling would be 

negligible however this is an argument that could be too easily repeated. 






Returning to impacts upon the character, the site occupies a prominent position within the 

Conservation Area on the corner of Ossington Road and School Lane. This open site surrounded by 

native hedging and trees in good condition forms an attractive entrance to the village from the 

east, positively contributing to its character and appearance. Furthermore from the north side of 

Ossington Road, views are afforded of the listed St. Bartholomew's Church to the south-west. The 

erection of even a modest dwelling (in this case 7.2m to ridge is relatively high for a 'bungalow') 

would likely erode views of the church and in my view the loss of the site to a dwelling per se 

would harm the rural character and appearance of the Conservation Area in this location, where 

development would be expected to be a lower density being at the edge of the village. I therefore 

consider that the proposal is contrary to Policies 27, CP14, C1 and C4 of the Development Plan and 

is contrary to the NPPF in this regard. 

Members will note that the application is presented in outline form. Saved Policy C2 of the NSLP 

states that outline consent will not normally be granted for development in Conservation Areas. 

However LPA's have other powers to require the applicant to submit further information to 

accompany an application and I therefore give this policy limited weight. In any event, I consider 

that I have sufficient information to form a view on the acceptability of the proposal, using the 

scale parameters set out in the Design and Access Statement and the indicative block plan. 

The applicant has stated that the bungalow would be c159sq m and has submitted an indicative 

block plan showing a footprint of c161sq m sited in line with the host dwelling facing Ossington 

Road. Siting is a matter to be reserved but given the site constraints, it is reasonable to assume 

82

that a footprint of the size indicated would be sited in this approximate location. Clearly in outline 

form, the applicant has not provided detailed design of the proposed dwelling. However the 

Design and Access Statement indicates the 'bungalow' would be c7.2m to ridge line with an eaves 

height of 2.4m. This is higher than a genuine single storey dwelling and the large depth of the roofscape 

indicated leads me to conclude that the applicant may well be looking for a dormer style 

bungalow, with rooms within the roofspace, which would in my view be unacceptable in this 

context. 

I am concerned that a dwelling in line with the scale parameters specified would be out of keeping 

with the character and appearance of the area in terms of its likely siting and its likely design, form 

bulk and massing. A dwelling of the parameters set out and as shown on the indicative block plan 

would appear cramped in relation it its boundaries. It should be noted that the plan does not show 

the proposed location of the garage/store but with a flat roof (specified by the Design and Access 

Statement) I am concerned that this would be incongruous particularly for a garage use as this 

may well mean it would need to be sited towards the frontages of the site adjacent to the access. 

In any event, I find the proposal particularly harmful given that the site lies at a prominent 

position and the entrance to the village where one would ordinarily expect the densities to be 

lower as the village transcends into the countryside. I therefore consider that the proposal is 

contrary to Policies 2, 27, SP3, CP9, CP14 and C1 of the Development Plan. 

The means of access is a matter that has been reserved, although it is shown indicatively as being 

located adjacent to the access adjacent to the host dwelling on Ossington Road. Whilst the 

Highways Authority have yet to comment, bearing in mind that they did not object to the previous 

refusal in 2003, I expect that it would be possible to achieve a safe access into the site using one of 

the road frontages and that in principle matters of highway safety would be acceptable and in line 

with SP7. Highway comments will be reported as a late item. 

Whilst no robust tree survey has been provided I am satisfied that a suitable layout to safeguard 

the retention of the trees could be found, notwithstanding my wider concerns on character 

detailed above. In terms of residential amenity, I am also satisfied that a scheme could be 

forthcoming that safeguards the amenity and privacy or existing properties in the vicinity. 

However, for the reasons I have set out above I conclude that the proposal does not meet an 

identified proven local need and would have a harmful impact upon character and heritage assets. 

There are no other material considerations that outweigh the harm identified. 


That outline consent be refused for the reasons set out below. 

Reasons for Refusal 

01 


in this rural area. In addition, from the Council’s own evidence it appears that there is surplus of 

this type of property in this area. The proposal therefore represents an unsustainable pattern of 

development, contrary to Spatial Policy 3 (Rural Areas) of the adopted Newark and Sherwood Core 

Strategy 2011 (Core Strategy) and the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (NPPF). 

83

02 

The site occupies a prominent position within the Conservation Area on the corner of Ossington 

Road and School Lane. This open site surrounded by native hedging and trees in good condition is 

considered to form an attractive entrance to the village from the east, positively contributing to its 

character and appearance. Views are afforded of the listed St. Bartholomew's Church to the southwest 

through the site. The erection of a dwelling to the scale parameters specified would, in the 

opinion of the Local Planning Authority, unacceptably erode views of the church and result in the 

loss of a site that plays an important part in contributing positively to the rural character and 

appearance of the Conservation Area. This would be particularly harmful given that the site lies at 

a prominent position and the entrance to the village where one would expect the densities to be 

lower as the village transcends into the countryside. The proposal is therefore contrary to the 

following policies from the Development Plan; Policies 2 and 27 from the East Midlands Regional 

Strategy, Spatial Policy 3 and Core Policies 9 and 14 from the Core Strategy and saved policies C1 

and C4 of the Newark and Sherwood Local Plan (NSLP). The proposal is also contrary to the NPPF 

in this regard. 






Colin Walker 


84



12/01273/OUT 

Proposal: Demolition of hydropool and residential development for up to 3 

dwellings (with all matters reserved) 

Location: 

Balderton Hydro Pool, Gilbert Way, Fernwood, Nottinghamshire 

Applicant: 

Nottinghamshire Health Care NHS Trust 


The Site 

The site comprises the now redundant hydrotherapy pool at the former Balderton Hospital site. 

The wider site has been redeveloped for housing and the hydrotherapy pool is now accessed off 

Gilbert Way, Fernwood. It is surrounded to the north and east by modern two and three storey 

residential dwellings and has been secured off with temporary high metal fencing. 

The site itself is basically rectangular in shape and comprises approximately 0.15 hectares of land. 

The 1970’s bespoke building on site is mainly single storey with a flat roof and is constructed of 

brick. It is located towards the south of the site with hard standing to its rear. An area of hard 

standing also fronts the building and the site is now is a state of disrepair and is overgrown. Land 

to the south comprises amenity open space and to the west is retained mature woodland. 


03761059 – Hydrotherapy pool with changing facilities, shower and rest areas. Approved 19 th 

November 1976. 

03920421 – ‘Redevelopment comprising construction of new village of 1,150 dwellings, retail floor 

space within Use Class A1, provision of school and community facilities including village hall and 

internal roads.’ Approved 3 rd March 1999. Condition 3 states: 

“Those buildings identified on the attached plan entitled Annex A, which forms of this permission, 

shall not be demolished, without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. 

Reason: To ensure the retention and re-use of existing buildings and structures which are either of 

architectural or historic interest and therefore contribute to the special character of this particular 

site, or of value to the new community.” 

Nb. Annex A referred to in the condition shows that the Hydrotherapy Pool was one the buildings 

to be retained. The others were The Water Tower, Balderton Hall and Eastdale Villa (now 

demolished as no appropriate re-use could be found) and the perimeter wall at the patient’s 

horticulture unit in the original proposed location for the junior school. 

11/00675/VAR106 – ‘Amendment to Masterplan to relocate proposed primary school and allocate 

existing school site for residential development and removal of bunding/planting/buffer zones 

along parts of northern and north-eastern boundaries.’ 

87

This application relates to a variation of the Masterplan which seeks to change the location of the 

proposed primary school. Of relevance to this application was the requirement to submit a 

Masterplan, which was subsequently approved by Members. Reserved matters submissions 

should be in accordance with the approved Masterplan or any amended plan that is agreed. This 

seeks to ensure a comprehensive approach to design and layout across the whole scheme. This 

was presented to the Planning Committee on 28 th June 2011 who agreed the amendment. 

The Proposal 

Outline consent is sought for the demolition of the hydrotherapy pool building and the erection of 

up to three dwellings. All matters are reserved for subsequent consideration. 

A Design and Access Statement has been submitted and the applicant has now confirmed the 

upper limit scale parameters of the dwellings are as follows: 

Maximum height to eaves 6.5m, 

Maximum height to ridge 9.5m 

Maximum width 11m 

Maximum depth 10m 

An indicative block plan has also been received which shows how 3 dwellings might be 

accommodated on site. 


Occupiers of eight neighbouring properties have been individually notified by letter. A site notice 

was also displayed at the site entrance. 
















88





• Spatial Policy 8 – Protecting and Promoting Leisure and Community Facilities 

• Core Policy 3 – Housing Mix, Type and Density 


• NAP1 – Newark Urban Area 


• H3 – Site Na – Balderton Hospital New Community 


National Planning Policy Framework which now replaces all PPG’s and PPS’s. 

Consultations 

Fernwood Parish Council – A copy of a letter sent to Cllr I Walker has been forwarded to the LPA 

and the Parish Council have asked that these be considered. The relevant points are as follows: 

“Residents have formally complained about the proposal to replace the Hydro pool with three 

dwellings on the following grounds: 

(a) Since there are no scale drawings of the intended buildings no proper assessment can be made 

on whether the proposed build will intrude on the light that is available to near neighbours esp. on 

Rosefield Close. 

(b) For the same reason – and without the access route to the proposed build properly defined – 

no assessments can be made regarding any unnecessary restrictions on access during the build 

programme. 

(c) Obviously, and for the above reasons, no reasonable assessments can be made regarding noise 

pollution either during the building process or indeed subsequent to. 

(d) From the detail available on the N&SDC Planning website no reference has been made 

regarding impact on the existing flora and fauna. 

Strictly without the immediacy of the appeal / comment period – initially set as the 18th October 

which left very little time for residents to assemble a consensus opinion – there are key 

considerations which appear to have been overlooked: 

(e) Is the proposed development strictly in accordance with the understandings that are implicit 

within the existing 106 Agreements? 

(f) The Hydro pool was initially determined as a facility that could be re-developed for the benefit 

of the whole community – and/or indeed re-designed to suit another much needed public 

amenity. No opportunity has been provided for such a review. 

89

(g) on the advisory note that was sent to near residents mention was made of the fact that the full 

plans could be inspected via the Parish Council – no such intimation/advisory note/detailed plans 

have been forwarded via the offices of the Planning Dept. The earliest that the full Council 

meeting can discuss the issue is at its next meeting on the 15 th of this month – scarcely enough 

time to form a considered response. Not the first instance that this timing problem has been 

mentioned. 

In summary, besides the immediate concerns of residents – refer (a) – (d) above we feel that, yet 

again, the overall concerns of the community have not been taken into consideration. Although, in 

principle, it must be mentioned that there are no real objections to any well-developed building 

scheme, but that there should have been a much better lead-in consultation process.” 

• The Council would also like it to be noted that they were not given the opportunity to do 

something with the Hydro Pool themselves, ie make it into a community library. 

Further comments from the Parish Council are expected ahead of the Planning Committee and 

these are to be reported to the Planning Committee as a late item. 

Nottinghamshire County Council (Highways Authority) – No objections: 

“This application is an outline application with all matters reserved. It is proposed to make use of 

the existing access to the site, which has previously been used for the parking area to the 

hydrotherapy pool. This development will increase the vehicular movements to/from the site, 

across a recently adopted link footway, therefore, it is recommended that in order to ensure 

pedestrian/highway safety, a speed hump be installed close to the adopted link footway. 

Therefore, subject to the following, there are no highway objections: The formal written approval 

of the LPA is required prior to commencement of any development with regard to parking and 

turning facilities, access widths, gradients, surfacing, street lighting, structures, visibility splays and 

drainage (hereinafter referred to as reserved matters). All details submitted to the LPA for 

approval shall comply with the County Council’s current Highway Design Guide and shall be 

implemented as approved. 

In order to undertake the works involving the construction of the speed hump, 

the applicant is required to contact Dave Albans (Notts County Council (01623) 

520735 for advice.” 

Two representations from local residents have been received to date. These are summarised as 

follows: 

• Site needs redevelopment, is effectively a brown field site within a residential setting but a 

full application would be better. 

• Over development and overlooking are becoming an increasing issue within Fernwood. 

• Application should either be withdrawn or refused asking that a full planning application be 

submitted. 

• Buildings should be single storey otherwise there will be loss of privacy and light 

90

• Removal of trees will deprive residents of numerous songbirds which nest in them, 

including tawny owls and jays. 

• Would not oppose two single storey dwellings but request maximum number of trees to be 

retained and request that evergreen trees are planted to protect privacy on perimeters of 

the site. 


I consider that the main issues in assessing this application relate to the principle of demolition 

(including an assessment of the loss of the community facility as well as the building itself) and of 

further housing in this location, likely impacts in terms of design and layout, amenity and highway 

matters. Each matter shall be discussed in turn. 

Technically the hydrotherapy pool is/was a community facility and consequently should be 

assessed against SP8 which states that the loss of existing community and leisure facilities will not 

be permitted unless they can be clearly justified. 

The building was previously used by the NHS as a Hydrotherapy Pool, which historically formed 

part of the Balderton Hospital complex. Following the demolition of the main hospital buildings, 

the building remained in use until 2007. I understand from the applicants that despite investment, 

there were continuing problems with leakage and ultimately structural failure. Its poor condition 

meant that the facility required a complete rebuild which was uneconomical having regard to cost 

and location. The property has been on the market (for sale) for approximately 18 months on the 

basis of its existing use but there has been no serious interest and the only interest ceased when 

the full extent of the structural condition became apparent. As such the redundant and dated 

building is now considered not viable for reuse as a hydrotherapy pool. Furthermore like in many 

organisations faced with the task of reducing expenditure, the NHS Trust has concluded that it is 

not financially sustainable to own and maintain its own pool and now operates by sharing 

resources across the county with other organizations. Provision is now being met with existing 

dedicated facilities. As such I am satisfied that the loss of the albeit redundant community facility 

is justified and does not conflict with SP8 of the Development Plan. 

The building is of a bespoke design and is of no architectural merit. The redundant site does, in my 

view, have a negative impact upon the appearance of the area and I have no objection to the loss 

of building in principle. Condition 3 of the original consent for the new settlement requires that 

this building be retained unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. I take 

the view that this application fulfills the requirement of that condition. A legal view has been 

sought regarding whether this application triggers a requirement to vary the wider Fernwood 

Masterplan (in addition to the outcome of this application) and this matter will be reported 

verbally as necessary to the Planning Committee. 

The application has been made in outline form, with all matters reserved for up to three dwellings. 

The issue is therefore, taking into account the scale parameters set out, whether we are satisfied 

that the site could accommodate up to three dwellings without representing over intensive 

development that is cramped and without causing amenity issues. I note the comments from the 

Parish Council and local resident that this application should be made in full. However I am 

satisfied that we have sufficient information to take an informed view on whether the proposal 

would be acceptable in principle. 

91

CP3 indicates that densities in all housing developments should normally be no lower than an 

average of 30 dwellings per hectare. Based on the site area, three dwellings would equate to 20 

dwellings per hectare in this case. This is lower than average but given the shape of the site and 

the surrounding site constraints I consider that in principle three dwellings would be acceptable in 

this location. 

This could be in any form, including a single block/terrace but is more likely to be three detached 

dwellings. Indeed the applicant has provided an indicative plan showing how such a development 

might be laid out. In my view this is likely to be acceptable in principle and reflects the general 

densities of the surrounding areas as well as demonstrating it would be possible to achieve 

acceptable separation distances between dwellings to protect privacy. I have noted comments 

from local residents concerning loss of privacy and overlooking. However I am also satisfied that it 

would be possible to design such dwellings to avoid direct overlooking at reserved matters stage. 

The means of access is a reserved matter although on the block plan it is shown as being taken 

from off Gilbert Way, which is the only realistic way to access the site without encroaching 

through woodland and open space. NCC Highways Authority raise no objections to the scheme 

and I am therefore satisfied that in principle an appropriate access to the site could be achieved 

without compromising highway safety. 

Finally I have noted the comments from local residents regarding the loss of trees. I would point 

out that there are no trees of significance on site and the site is overgrown with vegetation not 

worthy of retention. The existing trees surrounding the site that form part of the woodland and 

parkland will be retained and there would be no harm to wildlife in this respect. 

To conclude, in my view there would be no significant harm caused from the loss of a redundant 

community facility. Indeed its demolition and redevelopment of the site for up to three dwellings 

would reuse a brown field site and bring about some environmental improvements. I am also 

satisfied that a detailed scheme could be designed to positively improve the appearance of the 

area, avoid detrimental impacts on residential amenity and highway safety. I find that the 

proposals accord with the Development Plan and recommend approval. 


That outline consent be approved subject to the conditions shown below. 

Conditions 

01 

Application for approval of reserved matters shall be made to the local planning authority not later 

than three years from the date of this permission. 

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than two years from the date of approval 

of the last of the reserved matters to be approved. 


Act 2004. 

02 

92

Details of the access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale (hereinafter called 'the reserved 

matters') shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any 

development begins and the development shall be carried out as approved. 

Reason: This is a planning permission in outline only and the information required is necessary for 

the consideration of the ultimate detailed proposal. 

Note to Applicant 

01 

The applicant's attention is drawn to those conditions on the decision notice, which should be 

discharged before the development is commenced. It should be noted that if they are not 

appropriately dealt with the development may be unauthorised. 

02 




The proposed development has been assessed and it is the Council's view that CIL IS PAYABLE on 

the development hereby approved. The actual amount of CIL payable will be calculated when a 

decision is made on the subsequent reserved matters application. 

03 

The applicant is advised that as the development will increase the vehicular movements to and 

from the site, across a recently adopted link footway. As such there will be a need to introduce 

speed reduction measures such as a speed hump to be installed close to the adopted link footway 

for reasons of highway and pedestrian safety. Details should be included within the reserved 

matters application. In order to undertake the works involving the construction of the speed 

hump, the applicant is required to contact Dave Albans (Notts County Council (01623) 520735 for 

advice. 






From the East Midlands Regional Plan 






93

From the Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy DPD (adopted March 2011) 




• Spatial Policy 8 - Protecting and Promoting Leisure and Community Facilities 



• NAP1 - Newark Urban Area 


• H3 - Site Na - Balderton Hospital New Community 






Colin Walker 


94

PLANNING COMMITTEE- 30 October 2012 



Proposal: 

Location: 

Applicant: 

12/01280/FUL 

New dwelling to replace existing agricultural repair and sales workshop 

(resubmission) 

Land to the rear of Orchard House, High Street, Harby 

Mr Nigel Wheeler 


The Site 

The application site comprises of a former agricultural workshop of no architectural merit. The 

agricultural use now comprises of a few animals and the land has no obvious divide between the 

amenity space of Orchard House. 

The application site lies to the rear (east) of Orchard House. The main element of the application 

site is located outside of, what was previously (until the adoption of the Core Strategy) the defined 

built-up part of Harby. The site is accessed from a private driveway from High Street to the south 

of Orchard House. The application site is located to the east of the host dwelling. 

To the southern boundary is a 2m high (approximately) brick wall, to the northern boundary are 

some hedgerow trees and a 2m high hedge (approximately) and the western boundary (bordering 

the driveway and Orchard House) is a 3m high (approximately) hedge. 

To the east of the application site is an orchard and the site is surrounded on 3 sides by residential 

dwellings. 


12/00649/FUL - New dwelling to replace existing agricultural repair and sales workshop - 

Withdrawn 12.6.2012 

11/01369/FUL - Householder application to incorporate an existing barn (attached to the main 

house) to use as part of the existing dwelling – Approved 13.12.2011 

OUT/970517 - Proposed dwelling including demolition of existing building on site – Approved 

9.7.1997 

82924AD - Business sign – Approved 24.12.1982 

82762 - Change of use to agricultural repair premises – Approved 21.10.1982 

The Proposal 

97

Full planning permission is sought for a detached two storey three bedroomed dwelling with a 

detached double garage on the site of the former agricultural building. 

The ground floor accommodation comprises of an open plan kitchen/dining/living area, utility, TV 

room and a W.C. The first floor comprises of three bedrooms, one study, a bathroom, dressing 

room and en-suite to the main bedroom. 

The building is square in shape and measures approximately 10.2 metres wide by 12.8 metres 

deep. The highest roof ridge measures approximately 7.6 metres high from ground level and the 

eaves height measures approximately 5.4 metres from ground level. The principal elevation of the 

dwelling faces west and is located approximately 30 metres east of Orchard House. 

The garage is detached with storage space within the roof and it is located to the north-west of 

the proposed dwelling. The garage measures approximately 5.9 metres in width by 6.6 metres in 

depth by 5.0 metres to the ridge and 2.3 metres to the eaves. The principal elevation of the garage 

faces south. 

The proposal makes use of the existing vehicular access to the agricultural building from High 

Street, to the north of Holly Farm and includes the demolition of the existing agricultural building 

and the small timber chicken and pig pens on the site. Orchard House has a separate access from 

High Street. 


Occupiers of 3 neighbouring properties have been individually notified by letter and a site notice 

has been displayed at the site. 










• Policy 3 : Distribution of New Development 

• Policy 13a : Regional Housing Provision 



• Spatial Policy 3 : Rural Areas 

• Core Policy 3 : Housing Mix, Type and Density 


98



• Policy H22 – Intensification of Development 

• Policy H23 – Backland Housing Development 




National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012 

Consultations 

Harby Parish Council: Support the application. 

Nottinghamshire County Council (Highways Authority): “This proposal is for the erection of a new 

dwelling to replace an agricultural machinery workshop. The existing access will be used with no 

alterations. There is sufficient manoeuvring space within the site curtilage and adequate parking 

provided, therefore, there are no highway objections to this proposal.” 

NSDC Environmental Health - No objections. 

NSDC Environmental Services (Contaminated Land) - Potential for contaminated land. A condition 

is recommended for a land contamination investigation. 

Neighbours/Interested Parties 

One letter of support has been received from Councilor Rontree and has been summerised below 

but also attached as an appendix. In addition the letter from the Headmaster of Queen Eleanor 

School is also attached for Members attention. 

The letter from Councilor Rontree supports the application for the following reasons: 

• The location, scale, need, impact and character meets the requirements of Spatial Policy 3 

of the Core Strategy and utilizes the site of an otherwise redundant building; 

• Harby's community facilities are at risk; 

• The proposal is needed to support the school and would deliver sustainable community 

facilities in Harby. 

One neighbor has objected to the application for the following reasons: 

• Erosion of privacy and security; 

• Highway safety; 

• Noise. 


99

I consider that the main planning considerations in the assessment of this application are: 1) the 

design of the dwelling 2) the principle of development on this site and within Harby. 


Harby is not defined within the Core Strategy as a principal village or a main urban area as defined 

within Spatial Policies 1 and 2. As an ‘Other Village’ it falls to be assessed against Spatial Policy 3 

(Rural Areas) of the Development Plan. Outside of principal and urban areas, new housing should 

be located within sustainable and accessible villages and should principally meet the five criteria as 

set out within Spatial Policy 3 (SP3). These are 1) Location; 2) Scale; 3) Need; 4) Impact and 5) 

Character. 

The location of the development is outside of the previously defined main built up area of Harby, 

which was, until recently, set out within the adopted Newark and Sherwood Local Plan 1999. 

However this defined area has now fallen and therefore can be given little weight, being an 

arbitrary line on a plan. In assessing this afresh I consider that the site does lie within the main 

built up part of the settlement in that it is previously developed land, has residential development 

on either side and projects no further back than other residential dwellings along this side of High 

Street. Harby has some local facilities such as a public house, primary school and a village hall. The 

shop has recently closed but still retains its ability to be reopened as a retail use. There is also 

limited public transport to Saxilby and Newark. As such I consider that locationally the proposal 

meets the first criteria of SP3. 

However Policy SP3 provides that new housing will only be permitted where it helps to meet an 

identified proven local need. This dwelling is proposed as market housing for the current 

occupants of Orchard House and makes no case other than for this personal need and that it 

would support the sustainability of the primary school and Harby. 

The application is for the sole occupation of the applicants who will move out of their current 

dwelling at Orchard House, High Street, Harby. The NSDC Housing Stock Analysis report 2009 

states within the Lincolnshire Fringe (where Harby would fall within) there is an oversupply of 16 

three bedroomed houses. 

The agent has stated the application would benefit the sustainability of the local primary school 

(Queen Eleanor Primary School) which has suffered dwindling pupil numbers since 2008/2009 

where the total numbers enrolled were 66. In 2012/2013 the pupil numbers are 49. This is out of a 

total capacity of 91 pupils at the school which covers the rural catchment area of Harby, Thorney 

and Wigsley. The school caters for children from Reception to Year 6 where they then move to a 

secondary school. The headmaster of the school has fully supported the application and has stated 

the application will "directly contribute to improving both community life and the sustainability of 

our school." I have contacted the headmaster directly to try to ascertain the current situation. It is 

apparent from the headmaster that the applicant’s children already attend and are enrolled at the 

primary school. In addition the headmaster has stated that the pupil numbers prior enrolled 

previously were as follows: 

2006/07 – 44 pupils 

2007/08 – 49 pupils 

From the information above I remain to be convinced that one dwelling alone can ensure the 

direct sustainability and longevity of the whole school. There are other externalities which would 

100

impact on the future of the school such as the occupation and demographic within the school’s 

catchment area and the fact that the headmaster has stated that they accept children from 

outside that catchment area, the fluctuations in the population and the subsequent rise and fall in 

pupil numbers. 

Members will be aware that the Council has now confirmed they have a 5 year housing land 

supply which identifies suitable locations of dwellings across the district on more suitable and 




As the dwelling is proposed to serve the occupants of Orchard House, it is considered that there is 

no significant and demonstrably proven local need that would outweigh the benefits of allowing a 

single dwelling within this rural village. The personal need of the applicants are noted but again 

this is not persuasive in the balance in terms of my recommendation. I therefore have to conclude 

that this constitutes an inappropriate form of development within the rural area and is therefore 

considered to fail to accord with the intentions of policy SP3 (Rural Areas) of the NSDC Core 

Strategy. 

Design 

Following the withdrawal of planning permission (12/00649/FUL) the applicant met with officers 

of this Council to discuss a positive way forward. Following this meeting a revised scheme was 

submitted which although it was an improvement on the previously withdrawn scheme it was 

stated that it could be further improved to reflect the 'character' of the area and if this was not 

achieved then it was unlikely to receive a favourable officer response on this basis. The scheme 

before Members is a largely unchanged version of those Pre Application discussions. 

It is worth bringing to Members attention that the application site is not located within a defined 

Conservation Area. Nonetheless the local planning authority has a duty to reject applications 

where it is not appropriate to the proposed location and fails to uphold the character and 

appearance of the public realm or fails to reflect the character or distinctiveness of the area. 

The NPPF states “Permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take 

the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of the area.” It is considered 

that whilst the use of materials on the principal facade has been changed to brick and tile which 

are typical local materials, this alone does not ensure it responds to character. The dwelling 

although set back from the roadside, must still be considered for its architectural merits and the 

wider impact upon the distinctiveness of the area. The NPPF states planning policies and decisions 

should aim to ensure that developments “respond to local character and history, and reflect the 

identity of local surroundings and materials, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate 

innovation.” Whilst it is accepted that the dwelling is of a modern design and is sought as a 

sustainable dwelling which incorporates eco friendly initiatives, in my view the proposal has failed 

to sufficiently adhere to local character. Ensuring that speculative residential developments such 

as this harmonises and blends in to the surroundings, it is key to make sure that the development 

responds to the context, local vernacular and the landscape. In this case it is considered that the 

development fails to make reference to these principles and therefore fails to accord with the 

distinctive character of the area thus failing to adhere with the intentions of CP9 (Sustainable 

Design) of the Adopted Core Strategy and Policies H22 and H23 of the Local Plan. 

101

It is accepted that the redevelopment of this former workshop site would deliver benefits and 

these would be welcomed with an appropriate scheme. However, it remains my view that the 

scheme before us is inappropriate and would harm the character and appearance of the area. 

Highway Impact 

The impact from the development in terms of increased traffic created from an additional dwelling 

is not considered to be excessive nor is it considered to create any additional detrimental impact 

upon the amenities of neighbours or upon highway safety. This is reiterated by the comments 

from Nottinghamshire County Council Highways who have raised no objection to the proposal. 

Neighbouring residential amenity 

I have carefully considered the potential impact of residential amenity and the concerns of the 

neighbour. In such cases as this it is necessary to consider the amenity of all existing and future 

occupiers of neighbouring dwellings when considering planning applications. It is considered that 

the increase in vehicle movements to and from the site, past Holly Farm, would not have any 

significant detrimental impact upon the living amenities of the occupiers of Holly Farm. 

The dwelling, with regard to the location of windows, has been designed to alleviate any potential 

direct overlooking and in that respect it is considered that there would be no detrimental impact 

in terms of overlooking upon the living amenities of occupiers of neighbouring dwellings. With 

regard to overshadowing and overbearing, it is considered that there is sufficient distance from 

the neighbouring dwellings to not cause any significant overshadowing or overbearing and 

therefore in these respects the application is acceptable. 

One neighbour has raised an issue of noise during construction however this is not something that 

can be considered during the planning application process. Nonetheless the potential noise from 

the site if Members are minded to approve the application would be no more than a normal 

domestic property. Therefore I consider it would not cause any unacceptable impact to the 

amenity of neighbours. Should the neighbour have any concerns issues of noise could be pursued 

through Environmental Health legislation. 

Issues of security raised by the neighbour would again not be controlled through the planning 

process and it would be a civil matter should the neighbour choose to pursue it if Members are 

minded to approve the application. 

Concluding Comments 

Notwithstanding this, in conclusion, I consider that the proposal fails to accord with the 

Development Plan by reason of (1) inappropriate design taking into account its context; and (2) 

lack of proven local need, and there are no other material considerations that would significantly 

or demonstrably outweigh the harm identified. 


That full planning permission is refused for the reasons. 

01 

102

The Local Planning Authority has now confirmed a 5 year housing land supply of identified land 

across the district which is more suited to housing development. The application has failed to 

demonstrate that there is a significant and demonstrable local need for the dwelling that would 

directly contribute to the sustainability of the community and the application does not seek to 

present a case that it is in any way business or agriculturally justified or connected, and therefore 

represents an unsustainable pattern of development. The proposal therefore fails to accord with 

Spatial Policy 3 (Rural Areas) of the Adopted Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy 2011 and the 

National Planning Policy Framework 2012 

02 

In the opinion of the local planning authority the proposal, by virtue of the design, fails to adhere 

to the character of Harby which in turn would fail to make a positive contribution to the 

surrounding area. As such the proposal is contrary to Core Policy 9 (Sustainable Design) and Spatial 

Policy 7 (Rural Areas) of the adopted Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy 2011, East Midlands 

Regional Spatial Strategy Policy 2 (Promoting Better Design). 







details are available on the Council’s website www.newark-sherwooddc.gov.uk” 



For further information, please contact Lynsey Tomlin on 01636 655840 



Colin Walker 


103

104

105

106

Appendix 1 

Kevin Rontree 

8 MOOR ROAD 

COLLINGHAM 

NG23 7SZ 

01636 892995 

07790039757 

FAO Lynsey Tomlin 

Councillor David Payne, Chairman of Planning 

PLANNING APPLICATION 12/01280/FUL 

Land To The Rear Of Orchard House High Street, Harby, Nottinghamshire 

Dear Lynsey 

I am writing in support to Planning Committee for the planning application ref: 12/01280/FUL as 

noted above. 

The application relates to a new family home in Harby and the site has previously had a planning 

consent on another section of the site which has now lapsed. This scheme is an improvement on 

that lapsed outline proposal. 

The site is currently an agricultural machinery workshop and sales business which has closed down 

and is subsequently previously developed brownfield land. 

As well as supporting the application can I request you make a site visit to view the site in order to 

make a full appraisal of the proposals as a personal view of the site will help in guiding your decision. 

It has come to my attention that Harby’s community facilities are at risk. The village shop has 

recently closed because of lack of business and I have been made aware that the Headmaster of 

Queen Eleanor Primary School is very concerned in regard of the falling roll at his school. 

The school in Harby is one of the pillars of community life in Harby and the evidence shown to me 

suggests this is seriously at risk. An increase in family housing is required in Harby to sustain this 

community facility and the other facilities remaining in the village. 

The Parish Council has indicated its support for the proposal and recognises the advantages of this 

additional development and the wider sustainable benefits to the village and the community and the 

Chair of the Parish Council is to speak to the Committee personally in this regard. 

The relevant Planning Policy is Core Strategy Policy SP3 and it is my view that this proposal addresses 

the five points noted; 

107

1. Location 

2. Scale 

3. Need 

4. Impact 

5. Character 

In particular I support this application with regard to “Need” as we should be supporting the school 

in Harby in attracting new numbers to sustain this part of the community and new family housing 

would deliver sustainable community facilities in Harby. 

The intentions of Policy SP3 is to sustain communities across the District including settlements that 

are not defined as principal villages. An inflexible approach to development proposals is likely to 

result in the stagnation of these settlements, including Harby, and the consequent adverse effect on 

local services including schools, community facilities and shops. 

As stated as the beginning of my letter, I support this proposal unequivocally as it helps to support 

the local community of Harby. 

Regards 

Kevin Rontree 

N&SDC Collingham & Meering 

108

Appendix 2 

109

Appendix 2 

110

Appendix 2 

111

112




Proposal: 

Location: 

Applicant: 

12/01288/FUL 

Erection of a Dormer Bungalow 

The Meadows , Station Road, Bleasby, Nottingham 

Mr M Theakstone 


The Site 

The application site lies on the southern side of the village of Bleasby, and therefore falls within 

the Rural Area defined by the Core Strategy. The site also falls within Flood Zone 2 of the 

Environment Agency Flood Maps and is therefore at medium risk from flooding. 

The Meadows is a large, modern two-storey 4-bedroomed dwelling with double garage, set well 

back from its access point with Station Road (by approx 50 metres). Adjacent to the road frontage 

to the east there is two-storey traditional cottage beyond which is an access to a field which sits to 

the east of the application site. Between the field and the application site there is an open 

watercourse maintained by the Internal Drainage Board. To the west of the application site is a 

large modern property set well back from the road in a substantial plot and beyond that are large 

modern dwellings that have been developed in tandem. To the north of the site is residential 

development fronting Station Road and to the south are open fields. 

The site comprises a 0.32 hectare area of land that currently comprises the garden serving The 

Meadows. The application site has a narrow road frontage (approx 8 metres wide) with Station 

Road, which also provides vehicular access to The Meadows. The application site narrows further 

towards the centre part of the site (approx 3.5 metres wide) and extends to a larger triangular 

shaped area at the southern end of the site (approx 33 metres wide along its widest southern 

edge). The site has a total depth of approx 125 metres. There is a timber building within the 

application site close to the southern boundary. The application site accommodates a large 

number of trees, particularly along its eastern boundary and is not readily visible from the public 

realm. 


APPLICATION NUMBER 33860473 

PROPOSALS Erect four bedroomed house and double garage 

DECISION Approved DECISION DATE 27.06.86 

APPLICATION NUMBER 33900634 

PROPOSALS Side extension including double garage 

DECISION Approved DECISION DATE 07.08.1990 

113

APPLICATION NUMBER 11/01260/FUL 

PROPOSALS Erection of dormer bungalow 

DECISION Withdrawn 18 th November 2011 

The Proposal 

Full planning permission is sought for a dormer bungalow which provides one bedroom at ground 

floor level and a large single room within the roofspace indicated as a hobbies room served by 

dormer windows. The ground floor accommodation comprises an open plan kitchen/dining/living 

area, a master bedroom with en-suite and dressing room, a utility room and wc, and storage room 

and wc to the rear of the garage. 

The building measures approx 14 metres wide by 11.5 metres deep at its deepest point. The main 

and highest roof ridge measures 6.6 metres high from ground level. A single garage is attached 

and the combination of front and rear projections allow for a variety of roof heights and forms. 

The proposal shows the inclusion of solar panels on the rear south-facing roof slope. The main 

elevations are north and south facing. 

The new building is situated on the southern and widest part of the application site, approx 28 

metres to the rear of the existing dwelling. The dormer bungalow is positioned to the east and at 

an angle, to avoid direct overlooking with the host property. 

The new dwelling shares a vehicular access with the host property and the access road therefore 

extends to the side of the existing property, close to the eastern boundary. A cross-section has 

been provided showing the detailing of the narrow section of the new drive adjacent to the host 

property. This shows a 1.5 metre high wall and trellis fencing defining the boundary between the 

existing and proposed curtilages, a 2.75 metre wide access road, a 400 mm high retaining wall 

with deeper foundations on its eastern side, forming a support for the road and providing a new 

treatment for the western edge of the open watercourse. 

The proposal shows that 13 trees are to be removed to allow for the development (out of a total 

of 40 trees that were identified on both the host site and the application site by the submitted 

tree survey). According to the arboricultural report of the 13 trees to be removed, 3 are 

recommended for removal in any event as being of poor quality, 2 are category ‘C’ trees (low 

quality), and 8 are category ‘B’ trees (moderate quality). The two category ‘A’ trees on the site are 

proposed to be retained. 

In support of the application, the following documents have also been submitted: 

• Design and Access Statement; 

• Flood Risk Assessment; 

• Tree Survey and Arborocultural report. 


114

Occupiers of 4 neighbouring properties have been individually notified by letter. A site notice has 

been displayed at the site was posted on the 25 th September 2012 to expire on the 16 th October 

2012. 


Please Note: All policies listed within this report can be found in full on the Councils website. 

















• Core Policy 10 - Climate Change 

• Core Policy 13 - Landscape Character 


None relevant to the proposal 


National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) 





Proposed development that accords with an up to date Local Plan should be approved, and 



National Planning Policy Framework Technical Guidance (March 2012) 

115

This document provides additional guidance to local planning authorities to ensure the effective 

implementation of the planning policy set out in the National Planning Policy Framework on 

development in areas at risk of flooding. This guidance retains key elements of Planning Policy 

Statement 25. 

Consultations 

Bleasby Parish Council – No comments have been received at the time of writing the report. 

Environment Agency - Following your email dated 24 September 2012 informing the Environment 

Agency that the site fails the sequential test applied by Newark & Sherwood District Council; the 

Environment Agency has no further comment to add. 

Nottinghamshire County Highways - This proposal is for the construction of a dwelling, gaining 

vehicular access from the existing access point for The Meadows. There is an existing dropped 

kerb in place. It was stated in pre-application advice to the applicant that the access should be 

4.8m in width for the first 8m into the site. The existing low brick wall adjacent the highway is at a 

height for emerging vehicles to gain adequate visibility for both other road users and pedestrians. 

Therefore, subject to the following, there are no highway objections to this proposal: 

1. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be brought into use until the access to the 

site has been completed and surfaced in a bound material for a minimum distance of 8m behind 

the highway boundary. Reason: To ensure that vehicles entering and leaving the site may pass 

each other clear of the highway. 

Trent Valley Internal Drainage Board – The site is served by the Board maintained Holme Dyke an 

open watercourse which is located along the eastern site boundary. 

In order to protect the Board’s machinery access, no excavation of soil, deposition of spoil, 

planting of trees, structures, fencing or other such obstructions will be allowed within 9 metres of 

the edge of the above watercourse without the prior consent of the Board. Similarly, any proposal 

which involves works in, over or under a Board maintained watercourse will also require the 

Board’s prior consent. 

The Board’s formal consent will also be required prior to additional discharges of surface water 

run-off being made to the drainage network. 

The Board therefore require further details regarding all works that are proposed within 9 metres 

of the watercourse including the proposed access, retaining wall and boundary treatments. This 

will enable the Board to better consider the implications for the Board and to determine what 

aspects of the application require consent and the likelihood of the Board’s consent being granted. 

The Board note that this is a similar application to Planning application number 11/01260/FUL to 

which the Board also objected and no further information was received from the applicant. 

Neighbours and Interested Parties 

5 letters of support have been received highlighting the following: 

• The erection of a bungalow at the rear of the property would have no visual impact from 

the road. 

• Would seem to be good utilisation of limited space within Bleasby. 

One letter of objection has been submitted raising the following issues: 

• The site floods and flooded in 2007 and became heavily water logged this year and if built 

116

on will exacerbate the flood risk to neighbouring properties; if the dyke is built on to create 

the access required, this will also cause increased flooding problems in the area; 

• Access is unsatisfactory, the position of the shared driveway would impact on the privacy 

and amenities of existing neighbours and future occupiers of the dormer bungalow. 

• Will result in increased usage of existing private drive onto the narrow main street. Poor 

visibility for motorists and pedestrians due to bend in road. The hedge proposed to be 

trimmed to provide visibility splay is not on land belonging to the applicant; 

• Loss of old established trees and natural screening, resulting in loss of local wildlife habitat; 

• Loss of privacy and amenity and intrusive to outlooks of existing neighbours; 

• Constitutes backland development, very close to host property; 

• Proposed bungalow too large for size of plot, harming the character and appearance of the 

area; 

• Has the applicant obtained planning permission for change of use of the southern part of 

the application site from agricultural to domestic garden land? 


The main planning considerations in the assessment of this application are the principle of 

development in this location, flood risk, the design and impact on the character of the area, 

effects on the amenity of neighbouring properties and highway issues. 


The village of Bleasby is identified in the adopted Core Strategy as an ‘other village’ in the 

Settlement Hierarchy defined by Spatial Policy 1. As such, it no longer has a defined village 

envelope but is rather part of a wider Rural Area and falls to be considered under Spatial Policy 3 

of the Core Strategy. This states that local housing needs will be addressed by focusing housing in 

sustainable, accessible villages and proposals for new development will be considered against five 

criteria: location, scale, need, impact and character. 

In terms of location, the site is on the periphery of the existing built form and despite the open 

fields to the east and south, the majority of the site (apart from the southernmost strip of land 

that would form the rear garden of the proposed dwelling) was within the formerly defined village 

envelope recognised by the Local Plan. I am satisfied therefore that the development would be 

within the main built-up area of the village. 


In terms of the information available to the Council our Housing Stock Analysis Report 2009 

(undertaken by DCA for the Newark and Sherwood District) in the Nottingham Fringe Area 

(comprising Lowdham and the Trent villages), there is a shortfall of 37 two-bed houses in private 

stock, but a surplus of 53 one-bed houses. 





need in the Nottingham Fringe area which also includes the principal village of Lowdham. 

Therefore in my view the identified need could be met through the existing settlement hierarchy. 

In the absence of any additional evidence to demonstrate a proven local need in this location I can 


117








Design and Impact on Character of Area 

The site is well screened from the public realm because of the distance from Station Road and the 

existing mature trees, particularly along the eastern boundary. Therefore only glimpses of the site 

may be visible from Station Road adjacent to the field access. The concern raised by the objector 

relates to the principle of backland development being harmful to the character and appearance 

of the area. I am of the opinion that such an argument is weakened given examples of similar 

layouts of development to the west of the site. In my view such a reason for refusal is therefore 

unlikely to be defendable at appeal. 

The design is contemporary differing roofpitches and projections which add interest and with a 

maximum ridge height of 6.6 metres. I am satisfied that the design is satisfactory and the scale is 

appropriate within its landscape setting to the east and south without being unacceptably 

intrusive to the undeveloped character of the countryside beyond. I have some concern in 

relation to the impact of the retaining wall currently proposed along the eastern side of the site 

and the western side of the open watercourse. However, it is only required to be constructed in a 

limited area where the driveway is adjacent to the existing house and on balance, I do not 

consider this to be so sufficiently harmful to the character of the area to warrant refusal of 

planning permission. The loss of 10 reasonable trees on the site is regrettable, however, I am 

satisfied that this loss will have a limited impact on the character of the site in overall terms, given 

the number of trees that are to remain. 

Amenity of neighbours 

I have carefully considered the concerns regarding loss of residential amenity. There is a distance 

of approx 28 metres between the proposed dormer bungalow and the host property. As the 

proposed dwelling is east of the existing and has been angled to face in more easterly direction, I 

am satisfied that the relationship between host and proposed is acceptable and avoids direct 

overlooking leading to unacceptable degrees of loss of privacy. The adjacent property to the west 

is positioned even further away and with a greater angle, and is adequate to meet the needs of 

privacy, in my opinion. I have also considered the impact of the traffic in terms of noise and 

disturbance on the occupiers of the host property and am satisfied that even if engine noise was 

audible from within the property, the frequency of the sound would be limited from a one/twobedroomed 

dwelling so as not to cause significant detrimental effects on amenity. The fact that 

the new dwelling might be visible to neighbours, does not in itself result in harm that would justify 

the refusal of planning permission. I conclude therefore that there are no grounds for refusal on 

amenity impacts. 

Highway Issues 

The proposal provides for parking and a turning area to enable cars to leave in a forward gear, 

118

albeit sharing part of the access with another dwelling. However, despite concerns raised by a 

third party in relation to visibility and access, the Highway Authority have considered the proposal 

and have concluded that subject to a condition relating to hard surfacing adjacent to the public 

highway, the proposal would not result in any danger to highway users. I therefore conclude that 

the scheme accords with Spatial Policy 7 of the Core Strategy. 

Flood Risk 

The site lies within Flood Zone 2 of the Environment Agency Flood Maps. Core Policy 10 of the 

Core Strategy states that through its approach to development, the Local Development 

Framework will seek to, amongst other criteria; locate development in order to avoid both present 

and future flood risk. 

Para 100 of the NPPF states that Inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be 

avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk, but where development is 

necessary, making it safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere. It goes onto to then state that 

Local Plans should apply a sequential, risk-based approach to the location of development to avoid 

where possible flood risk to people and property and manage any residual risk, taking account of 

the impacts of climate change, by applying the Sequential Test and, if necessary, applying the 

Exception Test. The aim of the Sequential Test, according to the NPPF, is to steer new 

development to areas with the lowest probability of flooding. Development should not be 

allocated or permitted if there are reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed 

development in areas with a lower probability of flooding. 

Considering this as a duty placed on an LPA, it is reasonable to conclude that within the district, 

there will be a number of other green field garden sites elsewhere in the district that will be within 

flood zone 1, at the lowest risk of flooding. In addition, the NPPF states at the outset that in 

exercising this duty, it should be considered whether the development is necessary. Whilst there is 

no clear definition of what type of development might be necessary, it is reasonable to conclude 

that this would relate to types of development that would have to be on the site or within the 

settlement by virtue of, for example, a change of use, replacement building, extension of an 

existing building, community benefit schemes, affordable housing or development directly 

associated with near water activities. This list is by no means definitive and even in the case of the 

community benefit angle; said benefit would have to be significant to outweigh a risk of flooding 

to persons or property. 

As the proposals do not fulfil any of what the LPA would consider exceptions for development in 

areas at risk of flooding, there is no justification for the LPA to depart from the duty to steer 

development away from areas at risk of flooding, in its application of the sequential test. It is 

therefore considered that the development would, in failing the sequential test, represent 

unjustified and inappropriate development in a flood zone, contrary to one of the key aims of the 

National Planning Policy Framework. 

Each material planning consideration has been discussed in detail above and I conclude that the 

proposal fails the Sequential Test set out in The National Planning Policy Framework and is also 

contrary to Core Policy 10 of the Core Strategy, which seeks to direct development to sites at 

lower risk of flooding. In my opinion, the sustainability of Bleasby village together with any other 

material planning consideration cannot outweigh this sequential approach and I therefore 

recommend that the application be refused planning permission. 

119


That full planning permission is REFUSED, for the following reasons; 

01 


in this rural area. The proposal therefore represents an unsustainable pattern of development, 

contrary to Spatial Policy 3 (Rural Areas) of the adopted Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy 2011 

(Core Strategy) and the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (NPPF). 

02 

The National Planning Policy Framework states that Inappropriate development in areas at risk of 

flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk, but where 

development is necessary, making it safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere. It goes onto to 

then state that Local Plans should apply a sequential, risk-based approach to the location of 

development to avoid where possible flood risk to people and property and manage any residual 

risk, taking account of the impacts of climate change, by applying the Sequential Test and, if 

necessary, applying the Exception Test with the aim of steering new development to areas with 

the lowest probability of flooding. Development should not be allocated or permitted if there are 

reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower 

probability of flooding. 

The site lies within flood zone 2 as defined on the Environment Agency’s flood zone mapping and 

is therefore at medium risk of flooding. There are a number of other existing garden sites across 

the district, including in areas which are more sustainable (as defined by SP1 and 2 of the Core 

Strategy) which are capable of accommodating the proposed development that are in flood zone 

1. In addition, the proposals represent unnecessary and unjustified development in flood zone 2; 

and are contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 and Core Policy 10 of the 

Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy. 

INFORMATIVE 






details are available on the Council's website www.newark-sherwooddc.gov.uk/cil/ 



For further information, please contact Charlotte Henson on Ext 5828. 

Colin Walker 


120

121

122




Proposal: 

Location: 

Applicant: 

12/01308/FUL 

Householder application for construction of single storey side 

extension and first floor balcony (Resubmission) 

Fairfield House, School Lane, Halam 

Mr Philip Jelley 


The Site 

The site lies within the main built up area of Halam. It is a relatively level site and comprises a 

detached 5-bed property set back from the road frontage by approximately 15m. The dwelling is 

finished in red brick with clay pantiles to the roof. 

Neighbouring properties lie beyond the western and eastern boundaries. The common boundary 

along the west of the site is defined by a high brick wall and a number of young trees are planted 

on the applicant’s side. Mature trees, planting and timber fencing lie along the eastern boundary. 

A public footpath runs between the application site and the Firs. 

The driveway off School Lane leads to hard standing at the front of the site which is well screened 

from the street by well established planting along the front boundary. 


06/01521/FUL: Demolition of existing conservatory and erection of two storey extension. This 

planning application was approved on 17 th November 2006. 

12/00540/FUL: Householder application to construct single storey side extension and form first 

floor balcony. This planning application was refused on 6 th June 2012 identifying the following 

reasons for refusal:- 

The proposed side extension, by virtue of its size and projection towards the site boundary, would 

have an overbearing and detrimental impact on neighbour amenity contrary to Policy H24 of the 

Newark and Sherwood Local Plan and Core Policy 9 of the Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy 

2011. 

The Proposal 

Planning permission is sought for a single storey side extension on the west elevation of the 

property. The extension would have a width of 5.0m and extend approximately 4.0m rearwards of 

the existing rear building line. It would have a height of 4.75m to the ridge and approximately 

2.3m to the eaves. 

123

Full height glazing is proposed in the rear gable and two 2-pane windows to the front. Facing 

materials and details are proposed to match the existing dwelling. A door and roof light are 

proposed on the south west elevation and french doors and two roof lights (both to be orientated 

towards the rear private amenity space) on the north east elevation. 

A timber balcony structure is also proposed to the rear, which would lead off the master bedroom. 


Two neighbours were notified individually by letter. A site notice was also posted on the 5 th 

October 2012 to expire on the 26 th October 2012. 



East Midlands Regional Plan 












• Policy H24 – Extension of Dwellings 

Please Note: All policies listed above can be found in full on the Council’s website. 



• Supplementary Planning Document: Extensions to Dwellings Adopted 2005 

Consultations 

124

Cllr N Armstrong has referred this application to the Planning Committee should the 

recommendation be for approval. This is on the basis that the application represents over 

intensification of development and is too close to the neighbour. 

Halam Parish Council – No comments received to date. 

Neighbours/interested parties – No representations have been received to date. 


The main planning consideration in the assessment of this application is the impact upon the 

neighbouring amenity of current and future neighbours to the west of the site. 

Principle of Development 

The policy criteria for extending a dwelling are set out by ‘saved’ policy H24 of the 1999 Local Plan. 

These establish in all cases that extensions are acceptable in principle provided that the proposal 

would not harm the amenities of adjacent premises, does not compromise the available amenity 

space within the curtilage/plot, and reflects the character of the dwelling and local built 

environment (in design and materials). 

In this case part of the site is located within an area identified in the Local Plan as “no further 

intensive development”, however, saved policy H22 is not considered relevant in this domestic 

context. 

Design and Impact on Character of Area 

The proposed extension is unlikely to be visible from the street due to its set back position from 

the front building line. Notwithstanding this, the design, finished appearance and the use of 

fenestration ensures the extension and balcony are appropriate subservient additions that 

assimilate well with the host property. The development will comply with the relevant 

development plan policies and supplementary guidance in this regard. 

Residential Amenity 

With regards to the remaining private open space within the application site, I am satisfied that 

this would be acceptable given that the property benefits from a large amenity area. 

As identified above, the main consideration with regard to this application is the potential impact 

of the single storey extension on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers to the west of the site. 

Fairfield House shares a close relationship with Evergreen House insofar as development is 

relatively close to the shared boundary on both sides. Part of this built form within the curtilidge 

of Evergreen House includes detached barns. Members should be mindful of an extant permission 

to convert these barns into three dwellings; known as Yew Tree Barn, Oak Tree Barn and 

Evergreen Barn. The approved site plan relating to this conversion indicates that parking and 

garden space will be south of the barns (and thereby shielded from Fairfield House by the 

presence of the barns), however due to the existing presence of built form, it is necessary to have 

regard to the potential use of the open space between the barns and the neighbouring boundary 

as private amenity space. 

125

This open space can reasonably be considered as rear gardens to serve the barns. These are 

relatively small, approximately 4.5m at the narrowest point. In addition the ground level within 

these gardens is approximately 0.5m lower than the application site. These factors were a major 

contributor in the refusal of the previous scheme on the grounds that it would be overbearing to 

the occupiers of the barns. 

The scheme submitted for consideration in this instance has however reduced the scale of the 

extension from the refused scheme by 1.3m in height and 0.8m in width. Based on the approved 

fenestration details for the barn conversions, in particular a lack of first floor windows (albeit there 

are approved roof lights), it is considered that the proposed extension, by virtue of its lower 

height, would be less prominent from the ground floor level which it is likely to be viewed at. 

Although it is conceded that the pitch would be visible from the rear amenity space of the barns, it 

is deemed that this would not amount to an overbearing impact. 

Given the higher site levels of Evergreen House (broadly level with the application site) and the 

use of the space between the properties as hard standing (members should also note there is a 

live planning application for a single storey garage in this space for the occupiers of Evergreen 

House) it is not envisaged that the extension will be detrimental to the occupiers of Evergreen 

House in terms of overbearing or loss of privacy. This is particularly the case again given the lack of 

first floor fenestration on the north east elevation of Evergreen House and that only the top third 

of the windows proposed on the south east elevation would be visible above the existing fenced 

boundary. 

The previous case officer in their delegated report made reference to a potential perception by 

neighbouring properties of being overlooked from the full height gable window on the north west 

elevation. However, by reducing the proposed pitch height from the previously refused scheme, 

the height of the windows has also been reduced. Moreover, owing to the single storey nature of 

the proposed extension the ability to look into neighbours’ gardens would be limited. 

The outlook from the proposed balcony, although being large enough to walk out onto and indeed 

potentially sit out on, would be shielded by the built form of the dwelling to the north west and 

the well established boundary treatment to the north east. Notwithstanding this there is a 

significant distance between the proposed balcony and private amenity space of the nearest 

neighbours to the north east; Old Coach House and The Firs. 

Conclusion 

For the reasons set out above, I consider that there would be no significant detrimental impact to 

neighbouring properties that would warrant a reason for refusal and find that the proposal 

accords with the Development Plan. 


That full planning permission is approved subject to the following conditions. 

01 

The development hereby permitted shall not begin later than three years from the date of this 

permission. 

126


Act 2004. 

02 

The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with 

the following approved plan reference 

• Ground Floor Plan 

• South West Elevation and North East Elevation 

• North West Elevation and South East Elevation 

unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority through the approval of a nonmaterial 

amendment to the permission. 

Reason: So as to define this permission. 

03 

The development hereby permitted shall be constructed entirely of the material details submitted 

as part of the planning application unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning 

authority. 

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity. 


01 



Council’s website at www.newark-sherwooddc.gov.uk 

The proposed development has been assessed and it is the Council’s view that CIL is not payable 

on the development hereby approved as the gross internal area of new build is less 100 square 

metres. 






From the Newark and Sherwood Local Plan (adopted 1999) 

Saved Policy H24: Extension of Dwellings 

From the Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy Development Plan Document (adopted March 

2011) 

Core Policy 9: Sustainable Design 

127



For further information, please contact Laura Gardner on Ext 5907. 

Colin Walker 


128

129

130


APPEALS A 

APPEALS LODGED (received between 17 September – 15 October 2012) 

1.0 Members are advised that the appeals listed at Appendix A to this report have been 

received and are to be dealt with as stated. If Members wish to incorporate any specific 

points within the Council’s evidence please forward these to Planning Services without 

delay. 

2.0 RECOMMENDATION 

That the report be noted. 


Application case files. 

For further information please contact Ray Hodkin on Ext 5864 or planning@nsdc.info. 

C Walker 


131

132

Appeal reference Application number Address Proposal Procedure 

APP/B3030/D/12/2182967 12/00282/FUL Fiskerton Manor 

Main Street 

Fiskerton 

Nottinghamshire 

NG25 0UH 

Householder application to 

erect a garage (resubmission) 

Householder Appeal 


APP/B3030/A/12/2182176 12/00256/FUL Land Adj Newark 

Concrete Quarry Farm 

Works 

Bowbridge Lane 

Balderton 


Erection of a wind turbine 

(maximum blade height to tip 

66.7m) and associated 

infrastructure including 

access tracks, external 

compact housing with 

underground cabling to the 

wind turbine, turbine 

foundation and crane 

hardstanding. 

Written Representation 


APP/B3030/E/12/2182804 12/00777/FUL 4 Nottingham Road 

Southwell 


NG25 0LF 

Householder application for 

the erection of a two storey 

side extension 

Written Representation 

133

134

PLANNING COMMITTEE – 30 OCTOBER 2012 AGENDA ITEM NO.16 

APPENDIX B: APPEALS DETERMINED (APPEALS B) 

App No. Address Proposal Decision Decision date 

11/01316/FUL Rosemount 

Halam Road 

Southwell 


NG25 0AD 

Erection of a detached dwelling ALLOW 18.09.2012 


11/01088/CAC 20 Church Street 

Edwinstowe 

Mansfield 

NG21 9QA 

Demolition of bungalow DISMIS 08.10.2012 


11/01087/FUL 20 Church Street 

Edwinstowe 

Mansfield 

NG21 9QA 

Demolition of bungalow and 

erection of 1 No. bungalow and 2 

No. two storey houses 

DISMIS 08.10.2012 

135


11/01242/FUL Ivydene 

22 Low Street 

Collingham 

Newark On Trent 


NG23 7LW 

Erection of new dwelling on land 

at 'Ivydene' including new access 

DISMIS 26.09.2012 


11/01714/FUL Leek Barn 

Epperstone 

Nottingham 

NG14 6AR 

Removal of Agricultural Occupancy 

Condition, Condition No. 2 of 

planning permission 87860102 

(Re-submission) 

DISMIS 24.09.2012 


That the report be noted. 


Application case files. 

For further information please contact Ray Hodkin on Ext 5864 or planning@nsdc.info. 

C Walker 


136

Appeal Decision 

Site visit made on 21 August 2012 

by Nigel Harrison BA (Hons) MRTPI 

an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government 

Decision date: 18 September 2012 

Appeal Ref: APP/B3030/A/12/2176200 

‘Rosemount’, Halam Road, Southwell, Nottinghamshire, NG25 0AD 

• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 

against a refusal to grant planning permission. 

• The appeal is made by Mr M Evans against the decision of Newark & Sherwood District 

Council. 

• The application Ref: 11/01316/FUL dated 19 September 2011, was refused by notice 

dated 17 November 2011. 

• The development proposed is a new dwelling. 

Decision 

1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a new dwelling at 

Rosemount, Halam Road, Southwell, Nottinghamshire, NG25 0AD in 

accordance with the terms of the application, Ref: 11/01316/FUL dated 19 

September 2011, subject to the conditions set out in the Schedule attached to 

this decision. 

Application for Costs 

2. An application for costs was made by Mr M Evans against Newark and 

Sherwood District Council. This application is the subject of a separate 

Decision. 

Procedural Matters 

3. The application was amended whilst being considered by the Council by revised 

plans numbered and dated as follows: 11-1849-02 Rev B; 11-1849-03 Rev A; 

and 11-1849-04; and I have considered the appeal on this basis. The 

amendments which have been made are as follows: 

 

 

 

A new vehicular access and turning area to Halam Road. 

The proposed dwelling set back approximately 6.6m from the back edge of the 

footway at its closest point (previously 5.1m). 

The dwelling positioned approximately 1.0m closer to ‘Rosemount’ (and 

correspondingly 1.0m further away from ‘Buckhill)’. 

Roof lights in the rear roof slope reduced in number and re-positioned 1.65m 

above internal floor level. 

 

The dwelling dug into the existing ground by 0.7m at the front elevation (so 

that it would be the same height as ‘Buckhill’; and up a maximum of 1.2 at the 

rear, with the patio area contained by retaining walls. 

http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 

137

Appeal Decision APP/B3030/A/12/2176200 

4. On 27 March 2012 the Government published the National Planning Policy 

Framework ‘the Framework’. For a 12-month period paragraph 214 says 

decision-takers can give full weight to relevant policies adopted since 2004, 

even if there is a limited degree of conflict with the Framework. I am satisfied 

in this case that there is no conflict the policies of the Newark and Sherwood 

Local Development Framework Development Plan Document (DPD) to which I 

have been referred, and the provisions of the Framework. 

Background and Main Issue 

5. Notwithstanding all other considerations, the Council has raised no objections 

to the principle of residential development in this sustainable location, as the 

site lies within a built-up area and has the benefit of an extant outline 

permission for a detached house (Ref: 09/01478/OUT) in which access, layout 

and scale were not reserved for subsequent approval. However, the appeal 

application was made in full due to additional land being included in the site 

and changes to the size and design of the proposed dwelling. 

6. I therefore consider the main issue in this case is the whether or not the 

proposal would represent over-development of the site, taking into account the 

effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupants of neighbouring 

dwellings with regard to outlook and privacy. 

Reasons 

7. The appeal site comprises part of the side/rear garden of ‘Rosemount’. The 

immediate surroundings contain a wide mix of house types and styles, and 

there is no uniformity or particularly local distinctiveness. Whilst I 

acknowledge that properties in other parts of the road follow a similar building 

line, this is clearly not the case in the vicinity of the appeal property. The 

Council has raised no objections to the effect of the proposal on the street 

scene in Hallam Road or the character and appearance of the surrounding area, 

and I find no reason to disagree with that assessment. 

8. It is proposed to erect a four-bedroom two-storey dwelling with rooms in the 

roof space, having its main frontage to Halam Road. A single garage is 

proposed to the rear on the site of a former gas compound adjacent to 

Woodland View. A further access is proposed from Halam Road, and this would 

entail the removal of a section of the frontage hedge. 

9. The proposed dwelling would be L-shaped; the main two-storey part measuring 

8.3m wide and 9.4m deep (max), with a single-storey flat-roofed room 

projecting a further 4.5m to the rear. It would be dug into the ground in order 

to reduce the height of the ridge relative to the two adjacent properties, and 

the ridge height would be 8.2m. The distance between the side elevation of 

the proposed dwelling and that of ‘Rosemount’ to the east would about 1.2m, 

and the corresponding distance to the side elevation of ‘Buckhill’ to the west 

about 2.7m (max). It would be positioned about 11.5m from the northwest 

corner No 2 Woodlands View, which is set on higher ground, and whose rear 

garden abuts the rear boundary of the appeal site. 

10. Policy 2 of The East Midlands Regional Plan (RSS), which still comprises part of 

the development plan, seeks to promote better design. Amongst other matters 

it encourages design-led approaches which take account of local character and 

make the most efficient use of land. DPD Policy 9 has similar aims, and says a 

high standard of design is expected that contributes to and sustains local 

http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 2 

138


distinctiveness, and is of an appropriate scale and form to its context. DPD 

Core Policy 3 seeks to secure new housing development that adequately 

addresses the housing need of the District, including family housing of three 

bedrooms or more. 

11. I have carefully assessed the revisions that have been made to the scheme as 

originally submitted; taking into account the neighbouring occupiers’ comments 

in reference to both the original and amended plans. I consider the proposed 

setting back of the dwelling further into the plot by about 1.5m, together with 

excavation into the ground by up to 1.2m, would reduce the height and 

prominence of the dwelling in the streetscene to an acceptable degree, and the 

ridge line would roughly correspond to that of the dwellings on either side. 

Whilst the dwelling would occupy much of the width of the plot, I consider that 

sufficient space would be left between dwellings to avoid an unacceptably 

cramped appearance or over-intensive form of development. The setting back 

of the dwelling would bring about a reduction in the size of the rear garden in 

comparison to those of neighbouring and nearby properties. Nonetheless, and 

in the absence of any guidance relating to minimum garden size, I consider 

that the amount of amenity space proposed is adequate to serve the needs of 

future occupiers. 

12. The two-storey gabled wing of the proposed dwelling would project 

approximately 6m forward of the front elevation of ‘Buckhill’. Both the 

appellant and the occupiers of that property have submitted calculations based 

on an interpretation of the general guidelines of the ’45 degree rule’. The 

neighbours at ‘Buckhill’ have measured the 45 degree line from the edge of the 

closest habitable room and conclude that the proposal breaches the rule. On 

the other hand, the appellant has measured from the centre point between the 

two nearest windows (which both serve the same room); and on this basis 

concludes that the proposal complies with the guidelines. However, as these 

windows serve the same room there is no clarity from where the measurement 

should be taken. In any event, whilst this ‘rule’ is often used for guidance 

purposes, it has not been adopted by the Council and does not constitute an 

overriding material planning consideration. 

13. Even in its amended form, I accept that the bulk and massing of the projecting 

wing will directly affect the front garden area and be visible from the frontfacing 

windows. However, any impact on the garden and the rooms served by 

those windows would be less pronounced in terms of overshadowing and loss of 

light due to the northerly orientation. On balance therefore I consider its 

impact would not be sufficiently harmful to warrant withholding permission for 

this reason alone. 

14. Whilst privacy in the gardens of ‘Rosemount’, ‘Buckhill’ and ‘No 2 Woodlands 

View’ would be affected to some degree due to the potential for overlooking 

from the first floor windows on the rear elevation, I am not persuaded it would 

be to an unreasonable level, particularly given the separation distances and 

relative orientation between dwellings. In any event, some overlooking of the 

neighbouring properties already occurs to a certain degree from the first floor 

windows of ‘Rosemount’. The revised position of the roof lights above eye level 

would help to prevent direct overlooking, as would the obscure glazing which is 

indicated in the staircase window in the side elevation facing towards ‘Buckhill’. 

Existing boundary fences and hedges around the site would also mitigate the 

potential for overlooking from the proposed ground floor rear-facing windows. 


139


15. I note the representations made by the Town Council and others that the 

proposal would represent a highway safety problem, as the distance of the 

garage from the dwelling would encourage vehicles to park or wait on Halam 

Road and cause obstruction. However, the Highway Authority has raised no 

objections subject to conditions, and I find no reason to disagree with that 

professional assessment. Local residents have also raised concerns in relation 

to the potential for the worsening of surface water flooding. Whilst the amount 

of hard-surfaced areas would increase as a result of the proposal, I am 

satisfied that its impact on surface water run-off can be controlled by condition. 

Conditions 

16. I have considered the list of suggested conditions put forward by the Council in 

the light of the advice in Circular 11/95. In addition to the standard 3-year 

condition for the commencement of development, a condition is required to 

secure compliance with the revised plans for the avoidance of doubt and in the 

interests of proper planning. Although indicated on the approved plans, details 

of facing bricks and roof tiles should be submitted for approval in the interests 

of the appearance of the area. For the same reason, full details of boundary 

treatment are required. The suggested landscaping condition is justified as it 

sets out the parameters for the submission and subsequent implementation of 

full details, in the interest of the appearance of the area and biodiversity. 

17. Conditions to cover the formation of the new access and to ensure that the 

garage, parking and turning areas are used for their intended purpose are all 

necessary in the interests of highway safety. Surface water drainage details 

are required in order to prevent an increased risk of flooding. A condition has 

been put forward withdrawing normal permitted development rights relating to 

additional windows in the west elevation. I consider this is reasonable in order 

to protect the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, although I shall 

extend it to include the east elevation. For the same reason, the condition 

requiring the installation and retention of obscure glazing to the staircase 

window is justified. 

18. Although indicated, I shall impose an additional condition requiring the 

submission of full details of existing and finished ground levels of the site, and 

finished floor levels of the dwelling, for the avoidance of doubt and in the 

interests of proper planning. 

Conclusion 

19. Overall, although a finely balanced decision, I am satisfied that the proposal 

would not represent over-development of the site, and would not materially 

harm the living conditions of the occupants of neighbouring dwellings with 

regard to outlook and privacy. As such, I find no conflict with DPD Core Policy 

3 and Policy 9, RSS Policy 2, and provisions in the Framework which include a 

stated presumption in favour of sustainable development. Therefore, for the 

reasons given above, and taking into account all other representations raised 

including those from local residents, a District Councillor, Southwell Town 

Council and Southwell Civic Trust, I conclude that the appeal should be 

allowed. 

Nigel Harrison 

INSPECTOR 


140


Schedule of Conditions: Appeal Ref: APP/B3030/A/12/2176200 

1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years 

from the date of this decision. 

2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance 

with the following approved plans, except in respect of the site plan 

included within Drawing No 11-1849-03 Rev A. 

Proposed Site Plan (Drawing No 11-1849-04); 

 

 

Proposed General Arrangement Plans (Drawing No 11-1849-02 Rev B); 

Proposed Plans and Elevations (Drawing No 11-1849-03 Rev A). 

3) No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used 

in the construction of the external surfaces of the building hereby 

permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local 

planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance 

with the approved details. 

4) No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and 

approved in writing by the local planning authority a plan indicating the 

positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be 

erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the building 

is occupied, or in accordance with a timetable agreed in writing with the 

local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in 

accordance with the approved details. 

5) No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft 

landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the 

local planning authority, and these works shall be carried out as 

approved. These details shall include: a) a schedule including planting 

plans and written specifications of trees, shrubs and other plants, noting 

species, plant sizes, numbers and densities; b) the position of existing 

trees and hedges which are to be retained, together with measures for 

their protection during construction; c) the use of permeable hard 

surfacing materials where possible. The scheme shall be designed so as 

to enhance the nature conservation value of the site, including the use of 

locally native plant species. 

6) All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with 

the approved details prior to the occupation of any part of the 

development, or in accordance with the programme agreed with the local 

planning authority. Any tree or shrub which, within a period of 5 years of 

being planted, dies, is removed, or becomes seriously damaged or 

diseased, shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of 

similar size and species, unless the local planning authority gives its 

written approval to any variation. 

7) The dwelling hereby approved shall not be occupied until the garage and 

parking space adjacent to Woodland View have been completed; and the 

garage and parking space shall be used solely for the benefit of the 

occupants of the dwelling of which it forms part and their visitors and for 

no other purpose, and permanently retained as such thereafter. 


141


8) The dwelling hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the access and 

parking/turning areas accessed from Halam Road are provided in 

accordance with the approved plan (Drawing No 11-1849-04); and the 

parking/turning areas shall remain free of obstruction and not be used for 

any purpose other than parking and turning. 

9) The dwelling hereby permitted shall not be occupied the proposed 

vehicular access to Halam Road has been constructed and surfaced in a 

bound material in accordance with the approved plans. 

10) No development shall take place until a scheme for the disposal of 

surface water from the site via trapped gullies within the site has been 

submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The 

scheme shall include details of how the drainage systems shall be 

maintained and managed after completion and the works shall be carried 

out in accordance with the approved scheme prior to the first occupation 

of the dwelling. 

11) Before the first occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted the vertical 

window on the west elevation shall be fitted with glass blocks glazed to 

level 3 or higher on the Pilkington scale of privacy or an equivalent, shall 

be non-opening, and shall be permanently retained in that condition. 

12) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning 

(General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and 

re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no windows or 

dormer windows, other than those expressly authorised by this 

permission, shall be constructed on the east and west elevations. 

13) No development shall take place until full details of existing ground 

levels, finished floor levels of the dwelling and garage, and proposed 

finished levels of the site have been submitted to and approved in writing 

by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in 

accordance with the approved details. 


142

Planning Committee - 2nd July 2013 - Newark and Sherwood ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?