Item 4 Planning Applications - 14 RUSHCLIFFE BOROUGH COUNCIL by absences

VIEWS: 100 PAGES: 51

									                       RUSHCLIFFE BOROUGH COUNCIL

         MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

                                10 NOVEMBER 2005

REPORTS ON APPLICATIONS BY THE BOROUGH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER

PLEASE NOTE:-

1.   Slides relating to the application will be shown where appropriate.

2.   Plans illustrating the report are for identification only.

3.   Reports to the Development Control Committee take into account diversity
     and Crime and Disorder issues. Where such implications are material they
     are referred to in the reports, where they are balanced with other material
     planning considerations.

     With regard to S17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 the Police have
     advised they wish to be consulted on the following types of applications:
     major developments; those attracting significant numbers of the public e.g.
     public houses, takeaways etc; ATM machines, new neighbourhood facilities
     including churches; major alterations to public buildings; significant areas of
     open space/landscaping or linear paths; form diversification to industrial uses
     in isolated locations.

4.   Where the Development Control Committee have power to determine an
     application but the decision proposed would be contrary to the
     recommendation of the Borough Development Officer, the application may be
     referred by him to the Council for decision.

5.   The following notes appear on decision notices for full planning permissions:-

     “When carrying out building works you are advised to use door types and
     locks conforming to British Standards, together with windows that are
     performance tested (i.e. to BS 7950 for ground floor and easily accessible
     windows in homes). You are also advised to consider installing a burglar
     alarm, as this is the most effective way of protecting against burglary. If you
     have not already made a Building Regulations application we would
     recommend that you check to see if one is required as soon as possible.
     Help and guidance can be obtained by ringing 0115 914 8459, or by looking
     at our web site at www.rushcliffe.gov.uk/buildingcontrol”



 Plan Reference No                             Location                    Page No

 05/00987/REM           Pavilion, Gresham Close, West Bridgford              16-20
 05/01009/OUT           Mobile Home Park, Gamston                            21-28

 05/01296/OUT           254 Melton Road, Edwalton                            29-38


                                          14
05/01321/C1884   Conservatory, H M Prison Whatton               39

05/01322/C1884   Classroom/Recycling H M Prison, Whatton       40-41

05/01326/C1884   Visitors Centre, H M Prison, Whatton          42-44

05/01166/FUL     Ecoplants, Ruddington                         45-48
05/01313/FUL     Highfield House, Flawforth Lane, Ruddington   49-50
05/01150/FUL     77 Melton Road, West Bridgford                51-53

05/01255/FUL     Marriotts Close, Car Colston                  54-58

05/01194/ADV     7 Market Place, Bingham                       59-60

05/01302/FUL     69B Wilford Road, Ruddington                  61-62

05/01155/FUL     Adbolton Day Nursery. Holme Pierrepont        63-64




                                15
PLAN REFERENCE NO:         05/00987/REM

APPLICANT:                 Nottinghamshire County Council (as Enabling Authority)

PROPOSAL:                  New playing fields, pavilion and car parking with new
                           access road, footpath/cycleway from Wilford Lane via new
                           bridge
LOCATION:                  Land Including Allotments Adj Railway Line & Land
                           Opposite Gresham Close North West Of Wilford Lane,
                           West Bridgford

WARD                       Compton Acres

1.   The application relates to a site of 8.68 hectares bounded by the existing
     Wilford Meadows School to the north, the Trentside Site of Interest for Nature
     Conservation (SINC) to the east, the former railway embankment and
     proposed route for the NET tram extension to the west and Gresham Playing
     Fields to the south.

2.   Outline planning permission to form new playing fields, sports pavilion, car
     park and access from Wilford Lane was granted by the Development Control
     Committee on 28 February 2005 (04/01859/OUT). The current application
     seeks the approval of reserved matters and to discharge some of the relevant
     planning conditions attached to the outline permission. The application area
     has been revised slightly from that originally approved in order to
     compensate for the proposed new Emmanuel School's sacrifice of land to
     accommodate upgraded flood defences, to accommodate road design details
     and to facilitate efficient sports pitch layout around the boundary with the
     proposed new Beckett School.

3.   The proposed new sports pitches would include 3 natural turf senior football
     pitches, 1 all weather senior football pitch and 1 cricket pitch incorporating 4
     natural turf cricket wickets and 1 artificial wicket. The all-weather football
     pitch would be raised above flood levels and would be constructed of third
     generation rubber-crumb material. The existing pitches on the eastern portion
     of Gresham Playing Fields (located outside the application site) would be
     retained in a reconfigured layout during the proposed works, together with
     temporary car parking provision.

4.   The proposed new pavilion building would be single storey with a finished
     floor level of 22.6m AOD (between 0.88m and 1m above existing ground
     level) to avoid potential flooding. The building would have an eaves height of
     2.8m with a 6 degree sloping pitch roof to a ridge height of 4.5m. It would be
     47.35m long and 24.3m wide at the widest point (decreasing to approximately
     15m wide at the narrowest point). The pavilion would incorporate 16
     changing rooms, toilets, disabled facilities, equipment stores, kitchen and a
     recreation area. Materials would be a mix of orange/red coloured bricks,
     western red cedar cladding, colour coated curtain wall cladding and a metal
     roofing system of copper green colouring.

5.   The car park would have a finished level of 22.5m AOD to avoid flooding and
     would provide 150 car parking spaces, including 6 disabled spaces. An
     overflow car parking area, with hardened grass surface, would provide an
                                        16
      additional 20 car parking spaces. Cycle parking would be provided through
      the installation of 29 Sheffield cycle hoops under the eaves of the pavilion.

6.    The new facilities would be accessed by a new road, Gresham Park Road,
      which would be created from Wilford Lane to the east of the existing
      Gresham pavilion on land which is currently part of Gresham Playing Fields
      and an adjacent paddock. The access would take the form of a new
      roundabout set off line from Wilford Lane, with a separate service road
      created to serve residential properties on the opposite side of Wilford Lane
      (odd numbers 115 to 127). Numbers 129 and 131 Wilford Lane will retain
      direct access to Wilford Lane, although an extended vehicular access will be
      provided to serve these properties due to the re-alignment of Wilford Lane at
      this point.

7.    The new access road would run in a northwest/southeast direction to the east
      of the reconfigured Gresham Playing Fields, and would be raised between
      0.5m and 1m above existing ground level across its length to avoid flooding.
      It would cross a newly constructed bridge over Greythorne Dyke, terminating
      at a roundabout which would provide access to the proposed new Emanuel
      School (which will require a separate reserved matters application).

8.    The road would be 6.5m wide throughout its length and would incorporate a
      4m wide combined cycle track and footway along its western edge. The
      access road would be bounded to the west by a 1.2m high metal post and rail
      fence to prevent unauthorised access by travellers. The entrance to the car
      park area would also be secured using a 6m wide and 1m high metal barrier
      gate for this purpose.

9.    3m wide footpaths/cycle ways would be provided along the western and
      northern boundaries of the site. A 2m wide footpath, diverting the existing
      footpath, would also be provided through the site.

10.   The application is accompanied by a series of supporting statements
      including flood risk assessments, a playing fields design statement and
      phasing programme plans. The applicant has also submitted a detailed
      landscaping scheme, ecological planning statement and archaeological
      watching brief for the proposals.

11.   10 letters from 9 addresses have been received objecting to the proposals
      on the following grounds:

      (a)   impact on traffic levels on Wilford Lane;

      (b)   impact on road safety and the ability for pedestrians to cross Wilford
            Lane;

      (c)   impact on local air quality;

      (d)   loss of public open space ;

      (e)   impact on wildlife;

      (f)   impact on visual amenity;

                                           17
      (g)   lack of adequate landscaping;

      (h)   impact on flood risk;

      (i)   visual impact of any associated lighting;

      (j)   lack of provision for sustainable methods of transport;
            intensification of site usage;

      (k)   access to properties on Wilford Lane which are not served by the
            proposed service road will be made worse.

12.   One objector also states that the site has been disaggregated from the
      adjacent proposals to avoid call-in, that it should have been subject to
      scrutiny through the Local Plan Inquiry or dealt with as a departure to the
      Local Plan and that an Environmental Impact Assessment should be required
      for the proposals.

13.   The Wilford Lane Residents & Environs Residents Association reiterate that
      they are not opposed to the construction of cycle tracks and changing rooms,
      but that they object to the building of a new road access with traffic island
      near to Gresham Close. They consider that the access would result in a loss
      of amenity through increased traffic, vibration, pollution and increased flood
      risk. They also consider that the proposals would lead to difficulties for
      pedestrians crossing Wilford Lane and difficulties for residents of Wilford
      Lane joining the main traffic flow.

14.   One Ward Member does not object to the application.

15.   The Environment Agency does not object to the proposals subject to
      clarification about the location of the areas necessary to be raised in order to
      form the all-weather football pitch.

16.   Nottinghamshire County Council, as Highway Authority, does not object to
      the proposals.

17.   The NET project officer at Nottingham City Council has confirmed that there
      is sufficient space to accommodate the proposed 3m footpath/cycleway and
      also any land take required for the proposed NET Line 2 extension along the
      western boundary of the application site.

18.   The Borough Council's Leisure Facilities Manager has indicated that the
      detailed pitch proposals are acceptable, providing that the all-weather pitch is
      constructed of third generation rubber crumb material in order to meet the
      requirements for competitive football matches.

19.   The Borough Council's Landscape Officer does not object to the proposed
      landscaping scheme.

20.   The principle of development has already been established. Policy ENV1 of
      the Adopted Local Plan seeks to ensure that developments do not have a
      significant adverse impact on residential amenity for nearby residents, that
      sufficient space is provided for parking access and circulation, that the scale,

                                         18
      height and design are appropriate, and that wherever possible there is no
      significant adverse effect on wildlife habitats.

21.   The siting of the pavilion is considered to be appropriate and the building
      would be of a suitable scale, height and design in relation to the surrounding
      area, and would not have a significant detrimental impact on the amenity of
      neighbouring properties or the character of the surrounding area.

22.   Access arrangements for the proposed development are considered to be
      satisfactory. The proposal makes provision for a pedestrian crossing to the
      east of the new access roundabout at the Gresham Close/Wilford Lane
      junction. The proposals also incorporate a re-located bus stop on Wilford
      Lane and make provision for cycling and walking, along with secure cycle
      parking. The development would therefore provide adequate access to non-
      car based forms of transport.       Parking arrangements are considered
      appropriate and, while the car parking provision exceeds that which is
      currently provided at Gresham Fields, the applicant's supporting statement
      indicates that this would help to alleviate current issues with car parking
      overflowing onto Wilford Lane at peak times.

23.   Flood risk issues have been satisfactorily addressed, and it is noted that the
      finished levels of the proposed pavilion, access road and car park, along with
      the all-weather football pitch, would be raised above the 1 in 100 year flood
      level. Sustainable drainage principles (SUDs) will also be used to deal with
      surface water runoff from the proposed development. The Environment
      Agency do not object.

24.   The applicant's supporting statement shows that the proposals would not
      measurably affect flood levels in Greythorne Dyke, and that the replacement
      of the existing culvert carrying Greythorne Dyke under Wilford Lane, together
      with the removal of the existing culvert at Bede Ling will remove flood risk
      from adjacent areas for 1 in 100 year flood events. The report concludes that
      the drainage of Gresham Park will continue largely unchanged as a result of
      the proposals, with no direct need to upgrade the existing Greythorne Dyke
      Pumping Station.

25.   In relation to the concerns in respect of wildlife, the applicant's supporting
      ecological statement indicates that survey work is currently underway and
      that a full ecological method statement outlining any necessary mitigation
      works will be submitted to the Borough Council in line with the condition on
      the outline application.

26.   It is considered that whilst the character of the site would change, the
      proposals would retain a predominantly open site, with the pavilion building
      set within a large area of playing fields. The proposals would provide modern
      sports and leisure facilities to the benefit of the community as a whole. The
      proposals include measures to encourage the use of non-car based modes of
      transport, and provide road junction arrangements that will meet predicted
      capacity requirements and provide appropriate access for nearby houses. It
      is considered that the proposals meet the requirements of Local Plan policies
      and will be of benefit to the local community.



                                        19
RECOMMENDATION - approve the Reserved Matters application
to partly comply with Conditions 2, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 18, 20, 23, 24 and 25
on plan reference 04/01859/OUT subject to the following conditions:-

2.    Prior to the commencement of development an additional
      topographical survey shall be submitted to the Borough Council
      showing the precise location of all raised land and the area proposed
      for compensation. The development shall be carried out in accordance
      with the approved details.

      [To prevent the increased risk of flooding and to comply with policies
      EWT2 (Flood Risk) and EWT3 (Drainage) of the Rushcliffe Borough
      Local Plan].

3.    The all weather football pitch shall be constructed of third generation
      rubber-crumb material unless otherwise agreed in writing by the
      Borough Council.

      [In accordance with the submitted details and to ensure adequate
      playing field facilities are available in accordance with CRT1 of the
      Rushcliffe Borough Local Plan].

4.    The temporary playing fields and car parking areas shall be provided
      during construction works in accordance with the submitted details
      unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Borough Council.

      [In accordance with the submitted details and to ensure adequate
      playing field facilities are available in accordance with CRT1 of the
      Rushcliffe Borough Local Plan].

NOTES TO APPLICANT

You are advised to ensure disturbance to neighbours is kept to a minimum
during construction by restricting working hours to Monday to Friday 7.00am
to 7.00pm, Saturday 8.00am to 5.00pm and by not working on Sundays or
Bank Holidays. If you intend to work outside these hours you are requested
to contact the Environmental Health Officer on 0115 9148276 or 9148485.

This decision relates to planning law only. It is not a legal agreement either
to remove or relocate any right of way affected by the development given
planning permission.

You are reminded of the terms, conditions and Legal Agreement associated
with the outline application.

Not yet approved:

Protected species methods statement (Condition 16)
Means of enclosure (Condition 19)
Lighting (Condition 21)
Greythorne Dyke works plans (Condition 26)
Contaminated Material (Condition 22)


                                  20
PLAN REFERENCE NO:          05/01009/OUT

APPLICANT:                  Bloom Developments

PROPOSAL:                   Residential Development

LOCATION:                   Mobile Home Park , Bassingfield Lane, Gamston

WARD                        Gamston

1.   The site extends to approximately 0.4 ha and comprises a little under a half of
     the Gamston Caravan Park, accommodating 21 mobile homes and a small
     car park.

2.   It is proposed to redevelop the site for residential purposes. When originally
     submitted, the application included a layout plan showing 14 dwellings, but
     this has subsequently been deleted from the application, as has the reference
     to the number of dwellings, and all items are now reserved for future
     approval.

3.   The application has been advertised and local residents have been
     consulted. 15 letters of objection together with two petitions, bearing 24 and
     22 signatures respectively, have been received. The grounds of objection
     can be summarised as follows:-

     (a)    loss of privacy, amenities and outlook;

     (b)    inadequate access, both within the remaining mobile home site and on
            Old Tollerton Road;

     (c)    loss of car parking;

     (d)    less efficient use of land in terms of density;

     (e)    loss of “specialised” accommodation, particularly suited to elderly
            residents;

     (f)    noise and disturbance, including during construction;

     (g)    loss of community;

     (h)    effect on wildlife;

     (i)    lack of detailed proposals;

4.   A number of residents have also made specific reference to the illustrative
     layout with particular reference to the impact of particular dwellings, etc. As
     pointed out above, however, this layout forms no part of the application.

5.   The Parish Council has objected and commented:-

     “This application, like the earlier one which was withdrawn, has a very high
     profile locally, witnessed by over 30 residents attending the site inspection
                                          21
and the following Parish Council meeting solely convened to discuss the
application, on Thursday 22 September 2005. Public comment necessitates
this application be heard at Committee and not dealt with under delegated
powers. Please confirm this is your intention.

Much of the interest at this stage relates to a lack of information/clarity which
if not provided/corrected should result in a refusal of permission. The
application for residential development reserves all matters including siting,
design and means of access yet in the supporting statement talks about 14
houses. The accompanying illustrative plan is of insufficient detail to support
the application. Without a more detailed plan the applicant has not
demonstrated this density can be achieved having regard to those residents
remaining on the park and the adjoining properties, and relevant policies of
the Revised Deposit Draft Rushcliffe Borough Replacement Local Plan GP 1
and HOU 2.

Before considering the detail, the applicant needs to submit an indicative
layout plan to show how 14 houses can be satisfactorily accommodated,
correct the layout plan submitted (mobile homes are located in different
positions from the previous illustrative layout (copy attached) for example the
hammer head to the remaining road is under an existing mobile home (No.
12), include a plan showing all surrounding properties (not shown on your
web site) and revise the supporting statement. Without this, the Council
cannot conclude 14 houses can be satisfactorily accommodated on the site.

In respect of the supporting statement it talks about a Design Statement but
there is no evidence in plans or layout of any design (para 1.1). Where will
the remaining residents and their visitor’s park? The scheme should provide
a replacement car park that is understood to be a legal requirement for
mobile home parks (para 1.2). The existing park is not underutilised other
than at the owner’s discretion (para 2.1).

In terms of Policy HOU 2 the council considers that development WOULD
detrimentally affect the character and pattern of the remaining Mobile Home
Park (para (a)) i.e. loss of amenity and overlooking, and the site does make a
significant contribution to the surrounding area by virtue of its single storey
character and open nature (para (b)). There is no direct reference to Policy
GP 1. New development is required to have no significant adverse effect
upon the amenity of adjoining properties and surrounding area, by reason of
the type and levels of activity on the site or traffic generated (para’s (a and
b)). The existing park has a single-track one-way system for vehicles
including emergency and service vehicles plus a car park. All this will be lost.
The replacement hammerhead at the end of a 100m plus cul-de-sac is of
insufficient size for lorries to turn. In the absence of detail para c cannot be
confirmed.

In the supporting statement the applicant fails to mention the character of the
area is made up by the mobile homes (para 2.9), single storey with many
units remaining if planning permission is granted. Para 2.10 suggests the
model for the scheme is Bampton Court. This is not what is shown on the
plan submitted. In respect of para 3.2 and 3.3 the 9m gable wall (Bampton
Court style) of a proposed unit is opposite the living areas of mobile homes
Nos. 8 and 9 significantly less than the distance (14m) proposed in the
Council’s “Space Between Buildings”.
                                   22
The current application fails to address the Parish Council comments relating
to the previous attempt to secure permission which are repeated below.

“(a)   If permission is granted any scheme should create a mixture of units
       and not replace a very valuable source of less costly affordable
       accommodation with more monotonous expensive units. The Council
       believe you have a duty to provide and protect the provision of this
       type of facility?;

(b)    A complete change in character of the area from low-rise, single storey
       homes with an open aspect of two-storey intensive development;

(c)    The proposed scheme will result in a significant increase in
       overlooking and loss of privacy relating to the surrounding existing
       properties and residents remaining on the mobile home park;

(d)    The tearing up of an established community at a time when
       governments have been stressing the need to Build Sustainable
       Communities. The permanent residents of the mobile park, who will
       be remaining, take a very active involvement in the local community
       running many of its functions at the Village Hall. Many are concerned
       at how they have been treated by the applicant, who still at the time of
       writing has not discussed formal terms and details with the
       landowners. Anxiety and stress are commonplace due to the lack of
       information. This is another reason why the application should be
       thrown out or supported by detailed information. It is understood
       approximately 7 mobile homes will need to be relocated to enable this
       scheme to be brought forward, should planning permission be granted.

       It is our opinion that the Borough Council should insist upon the
       applicant submitting a strategy of how relocation will be achieved to
       both the Local Authority and the residents and under what terms;

(e)    The proposed development removed the extensive existing surface
       car park. Where are the cars to be parked in the future?;

(f)    The one-way traffic system around the park has been truncated,
       leaving what we believe to be an inadequate carriageway width
       serving 17 mobile homes.

In summary, we would ask for the application to be thrown out unless further
information is submitted. The Council cannot be sure that the proposal
complies with policy without such information. For example where is the
information on the boundary treatment between those homes remaining and
the proposal. Health and Safety requires a distance of circa 6m between a
mobile home and a fence.

If the Council are minded to grant permission we would urge firstly that an
accurate plan is submitted before any decision is made and all the matters
referred to above are subject to a condition (in the absence of any supportive
information) and the Council makes it clear that the layout submitted is not
part of the decision and has not been approved i.e. permission is only for
residential development not 14 houses.”
                                  23
6.    One Ward Member objects on the grounds of lack of detail, inadequate
      consultation, not conducive to building better communities and precedent.
      One Ward Member does not object.

7.    The County Council as Highway Authority has raised no objection in principle
      subject to the widening of part of Old Tollerton Lane and the payment of
      developer contributions, amounting to £12,000, towards integrated transport
      measures.

      Following discussions with the Highway Authority it has also been decided
      that it would be desirable to retain a visitor parking area, and adjust the road
      layout in the remaining mobile home park to ensure proper circulation.

8.    Severn Trent Water has raised no objection in principle subject to the
      provision of satisfactory foul and surface water facilities.

9.    The Head of Environmental Health has recommended the submission of a
      Contaminated Land Report.

10.   Policy H2 of the Rushcliffe Borough Local Plan states that planning
      permission for new unallocated development will normally be granted
      provided that development would not detrimentally affect the character and
      pattern of the area or settlement as a whole, the site does not make a
      significant contribution to the amenity of the surrounding area, development
      would not extend the built up area of the settlement or have an adverse
      visual impact from outside the area and there are no existing buildings which
      are worthy and capable of conversion by virtue of architectural and historic
      qualities. The present site is bounded on three sides by residential
      development and on its fourth side by the A52 (T) road, does not make a
      significant contribution to the character of the area and its development would
      not detrimentally affect the character of the area generally. It is considered,
      therefore, that there are no planning policy reasons to oppose the present
      development.

11.   Although an illustrative layout was submitted with the application, all items,
      including siting and design, are reserved for future approval. It is not,
      therefore, appropriate at this stage, to discuss the possible impact on
      neighbouring properties as this would form the subject of a further “reserved
      matters” application.

12.   The question of traffic generation has been considered by the County Council
      as Highway Authority and they have raised no objection. It is, however,
      acknowledged that the severance of the present one-way system within the
      mobile home park could create difficulties due to the narrowness of the road
      and a suitable alternative arrangement would be required to serve the
      remaining section of the site. Also provision should be made for the retention
      of some visitor parking facilities for the retained mobile homes. It is
      considered that this should equate to the proportion of mobile homes which
      will be retained and that a figure of 60% of the capacity of the existing car
      park would be appropriate (i.e. 13 spaces).



                                         24
13.   The County Council has pointed out that the development meets the
      requirements for the payment of developer contributions towards integrated
      transport measures. This would need to be secured by legal agreement.

14.   Although concern has been expressed over issues such as the effect on the
      mobile home site from a community point of view and the loss of small scale
      accommodation, there are no planning policies which would justify a refusal
      of planning permission on such grounds.

15.   In view of the above, it is considered that the development is acceptable in
      policy terms and would not result in a detrimental effect on the amenity of
      neighbours or highway safety problems. It is therefore recommended that
      outline planning permission be granted.

      RECOMMENDATION                – the Borough Development Officer be
      authorised to grant outline planning permission subject to the prior
      signing of a legal agreement to secure the payment of a developer
      contribution towards integrated transport measures of £12,000 (plus
      interest as appropriate), and subject to the following conditions:-

      2.    The development hereby permitted shall only be carried out in
            accordance with detailed plans and particulars relating to the following
            "reserved matters" which shall be submitted simultaneously to the
            Borough Council and the development shall not be commenced until
            these details have been approved in writing by the Borough Council.

            -      A detailed layout plan of the whole site;

            -      The siting, design and external appearance of the proposed
                   buildings;

            -      Plans, sections and cross sections of any roads or
                   access/service roads or pedestrian routes within the application
                   site, and this shall include details of drainage, sewerage and
                   lighting;

            -      The finished ground levels for the site and floor levels of the
                   buildings relative to existing levels and adjoining land;

            -      Cycle and bin storage facilities;

            -      Means of enclosure;

            -      Hard surfacing;

            -      The means of access, including a replacement one-way road
                   system to serve the retained area of mobile homes;

            [To ensure the development will be satisfactory and in the interests of
            visual amenity and to comply with policy ENV1 (General Amenity &
            Design) of the Rushcliffe Borough Local Plan].



                                         25
3.   The development shall not be brought into use until facilities for the
     disposal of foul and surface water drainage have been provided, in
     accordance with details previously submitted to and approved by the
     Borough Council in writing.

     [To ensure that adequate drainage facilities are provided in connection
     with the development and to comply with policy EWT3 (Drainage) of
     the Rushcliffe Borough Local Plan].

4.   The development shall only be carried out in accordance with a
     detailed landscaping scheme for the site which shall be submitted to
     and approved in writing by the Borough Council before development
     commences and shall be carried out in the first tree planting season
     following the substantial completion of the development. Any trees or
     plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the
     development 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 the Borough Council gives written
     consent to any variation.

     [In the interests of amenity and to comply with policy ENV12
     (Landscape Scheme) of the Rushcliffe Borough Local Plan].

5.   Before development is commenced, a Contaminated Land Report
     shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Borough Council.
     As a minimum, this report will need to include a Desktop Study.
     Where the Desktop Study identifies potential contamination, a Detailed
     Investigation report will also be required. In those cases where the
     Detailed Investigation report confirms that contamination exists, a
     remediation report and validation statement will also be required. All of
     these respective elements of the report will need to be submitted to
     and approved in writing by the Borough Council, prior to development
     commencing, and the development shall be carried out in accordance
     with the approved details.

     [To make sure that the site, when developed is free from
     contamination, in the interests of public health and safety and to
     comply with policy ENV1 (General Amenity & Design) of the Rushcliffe
     Borough Local Plan].

6.   The net density of the proposed development shall be a minimum of
     30 dwellings per hectare, as defined in Annex C of PPG3.

     [To ensure efficient use of land and to comply with Policy ENV1
     (General Amenity & Design) of the Rushcliffe Borough Local Plan].

7.   The layout shall make provision for open space in accordance with the
     standards set out in Appendix C of the Rushcliffe Borough Local Plan.

     [In the interest of amenity and to comply with policy ENV1 (General
     Amenity & Design) of the Rushcliffe Borough Local Plan].

8.   The layout shall make provision for a visitor car park containing 13
     spaces and no development shall take place on the remainder of the
                                 26
      site until this car park has been provided in accordance with details to
      be approved by the Borough Council. The car park shall be
      permanently retained thereafter.

      [To ensure adequate car parking facilities are provided and to comply
      with Policies ENV1 (General Amenity & Design) and M2 (Highway and
      Parking Standards) of the Rushcliffe Borough Local Plan].

9.    The development of the proposed housing shall not commence until
      the following have been provided in accordance with details submitted
      to and approved by the Borough Council:-

      i)     a replacement one way road system to serve the retained area
             of the mobile home park;

      ii)    the widening to 5.5 metres and the provision of a turning head
             to the road serving units 8-14 inclusive.

      [To ensure that satisfactory access is provided to the retained mobile
      home park and to comply with Policy ENV1 of the Rushcliffe Borough
      Local Plan].

10.   None of the proposed dwellings shall be occupied until Old Tollerton
      Road has been widened to 5.5 metres as far as the entrance to the
      site and a two metre footpath has been provided on its northern side,
      in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the
      Borough Council.

      [In the interests of road safety and to comply with Policy ENV1
      (General Amenity & Design) of the Rushcliffe Borough Local Plan].

NOTES TO APPLICANT

This decision relates to planning law only and you should ensure all other
legal requirements are addressed separately.

With regard to works affecting the highway you are advised that
Nottinghamshire County Council are the Highway Authority and it is
suggested that you contact Mr M Green by telephoning (0115) 878 6000 for
further information.

For further information on the content of contaminated land reports please
refer to the Borough Council's publication "Developing Land within
Nottinghamshire - A Guide to submitting Planning Applications for Land that
may be contaminated". This booklet is available from Rushcliffe Borough
Council's web site www.rushcliffe.gov.uk or by contacting the Environmental
Health Services direct on 0115 9148485

This is subject to an Agreement made under the provisions of Section 106 of
the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as substituted by the Planning and
Compensation Act 1991) relating to a payment towards Integrated Transport
measures of £12,000 plus interest as appropriate. Any payments will
increase subject to the provisions set out in the Agreement

                                 27
Prior to submitting any "reserved matters" applicable you are advised to
discuss your proposals with the Borough Council. The previous indicative
layout would be unlikely to meet the Council's guidelines for Space Between
Buildings, impact on adjacent properties, provision of car parking or access
requirements.




                                 28
PLAN REFERENCE NO:          05/01296/OUT

APPLICANT:                  Mr Bagnall

PROPOSAL:                   Erection of 12 dwellings, comprising 3 detached houses
                            and 2 apartment buildings, alterations to Melton Road
                            (demolition of dwelling)(outline including siting and means
                            of access - revised scheme)
LOCATION:                   254 Melton Road, Edwalton, Nottinghamshire

WARD                        Edwalton Village

1.   The site is located towards the outer fringe of the suburban area of West
     Bridgford and Edwalton, fronting an important and heavily trafficked primary
     distributor road into Nottingham from the south (the A606). The existing
     bungalow built around 1979 in the former garden of 252 Melton Road,
     located towards the rear of the application site, would be demolished under
     the proposals. The dwelling currently stands within an open ‘L’ shaped
     spacious plot, set well back and hidden from view from the A606 Melton
     Road. There is a wall defining the frontage of the plot with mature leylandii
     (3m plus in height) along the remaining boundaries. The current access to
     the property is via a tree-lined drive rising up from Melton Road.

2.   The predominant and distinctive character of the area is that of large
     spacious plots with buildings set back from the Melton Road in an open
     sylvan setting. The mature planted frontages and grass verges along the
     pavement and dwellings generally set back from the road provide a pleasant
     sylvan street scene that softens the transition from Green Belt countryside to
     the south to the more densely built-up area of West Bridgford. To the north
     of the site the general plot size reduces and the density of development is
     higher.

3.   The application currently under consideration is in outline but includes details
     of the means of access and siting of the proposed units and indicates a
     slightly revised form of development to that was refused under application
     04/01840/OUT. A statement has been submitted by the agents in which they
     outline the main changes in the current application and how they consider
     they address the reasons for refusal. The main changes include:-

     (a)     the narrowing of Melton Road to 7.3m, with consequently less verge
             taken from the eastern side of Melton Road;

       (b)   a reduction in the scale of the access drive by omitting the footways
             and having a shared surface. The width would now be similar to the
             existing drive and would be off the boundary with 256 Melton Road;

       (c)   a reduction in the footprint of house 3;

       (d)   alterations to the siting of the detached dwellings at the rear of the site;

       (e)   the submission of more details of landscaping;

       The scheme would be a density of 18 to the hectare, as before.
                                     29
4.   The proposals show three detached dwellings set in gardens comparable in
     size to many other dwellings within the area. House 3 would be set some
     40m back from Melton Road, (further back than 252 and about the same
     distance back as 256), allowing for substantial landscaping to the front of the
     site. This would maintain and augment the ‘green corridor’ along Melton
     Road. Two further homes would be in a similar position to the existing
     bungalow and being to the rear of 252 (and associated properties within the
     same curtilage) would not be visible from Melton Road. The remaining 9 units
     would be provided within two apartment buildings, located at the rear of the
     site. These would be set off the boundaries with the adjacent dwellings by
     about 5 metres to the south and 9 metres to the north, in order to allow for
     landscaping and to provide a setting and space around the buildings and
     20m from boundary with Machins Lane.

5.   The agent has also provided a planning and design statement with the
     application that concludes that the site is brownfield and underused and does
     not contribute significantly to the amenity of the surrounding area. It states
     that the site is suitable for residential development in accordance with PPG3
     and local plan policies and that the layout, siting and indicative design
     ensures that the land is used efficiently and that a high level of residential
     amenity is provided.

6.   An outline application for 12 detached dwellings and realignment of part of
     Melton Road (04/00808/OUT)), was refused on 25 May 2004. A further
     application for three houses and 9 apartments was refused on the 3 March
     2005 (04/01840/OUT) for the following reasons:-

     “(1)   the proposal would be a more intensive form of development that
            would be at odds with the distinctive and prevailing character and
            pattern of development in the area, and particularly with this group of
            Victorian houses north of Machins Lane, which are large properties set
            back in extensive grounds within mature landscaped gardens. The
            predominant and distinctive character of the area is that of spacious
            plots with large detached properties set back from Melton Road in an
            open sylvan setting;

     (2)    the proposed realignment of Melton Road would result in a significant
            and detrimental increase in vehicular use of the site and change to the
            streetscape, including the loss of the established verge to the eastern
            side of Melton Road. Notwithstanding the potential formation of new
            verge to the western side this would erode the established mature
            green corridor formed along Melton Road and be harmful to the
            character and appearance of the area and;

     (3)    the number and layout of dwellings on the site would lead to the
            formation of a more significant and elaborate access road into and
            through the site and in close proximity to the boundary with 256 Melton
            Road. This would be detrimental to the character and appearance of
            the area and result in increased noise, activity and disturbance that
            would harm the living conditions of the adjacent residents.”

     Both of these refusals are now the subject of a Public Inquiry that is to be
     held in January 2006.
                                       30
     The site was the subject of a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) that was made
     in 1977 in respect of trees on site at that time.

7.   One Ward Member objects to the application on the grounds that previous
     views and comments are still relevant i.e., ‘consider that there is no
     justification in approving the application. Whilst not associated with this site
     ‘other’ applications in the area will now lead to overintensive development of
     this stretch of Melton Road if approved.’ He also refers to the pleasant sylvan
     streetscene.

8.   17 representations have been received from local residents raising the
     following issues:

     (a)   Concern about the time to respond;

     (b)   The scheme is largely unchanged;

     (c)   Still overbearing, inconsiderate towards immediate neighbours;

     (d)   The scheme would spoil sylvan setting and urbanise the site;

     (e)   The intensive development is in a low density area, alien and out of
           character with the area, density should be limited to that which
           removed the necessity for any roadway changes;

     (f)   Contravention of local plan and planning guidelines;

     (g)   There are restrictive covenants on several properties on Melton Road
           which limit it to one building per site;

     (h)   The site is not brownfield or derelict land;

     (i)   Impact on emergency services;

     (j)   Access is difficult and the proposal would aggravate problems
           experienced on the road that is already overcrowded, over-used,
           inadequate for existing use and dangerous, including for cyclists,
           inconvenience to local residents;

     (k)   Just because the new highway with meets the Highway Authority
           minimum standards it does not mean it’s acceptable in overall terms,
           urge the Council to undertake a traffic survey;

     (l)   Apartments will be seen from across the fields;

     (m)   Noise impact on 256;

     (n)   Internal layout does not meet the NCC requirement to meet adoptable
           standards as said on 04/01840/OUT, the internal road should remain
           in its current position and remove house 3 to meet policy ENV1;

     (o)   Leylandii hedge could be the subject of high hedges legislation from
           future occupiers;
                                        31
      (p)   House 3 is out of character with a squashed appearance, garden out
            of character, it’s in an elevated position and it will take decades for any
            planting to become significant;

      (q)   Profit motive;

      (r)   Sharphill development would increase traffic;

      (s)   Housing market is flat and there are plenty of houses available at the
            moment.

9.    The County Council as Highways Authority has no objection to the
      application subject to a number of conditions and subject to a s.106
      Agreement to secure a financial contribution towards Integrated Transport
      Measures (£30,000) and a scheme for future maintenance of the grass verge
      together with an agreement for advance payment under s220 of the 1980
      Highway Act, which will require a deposit of a financial amount equal to the
      cost of the creation of the internal road.

10.   Severn Trent Water has no objection subject to a condition relating to details
      of surface and foul water drainage.

11.   Edwalton Lodge Close Residents Association objects to the application on
      the grounds of inappropriate development, overlooking, amenity and that it
      would endanger road users and pedestrians.

12.   Pedals objects to the proposal as they consider narrowing the road would
      lead to the intimidation of cyclists.

13.   Policies ENV1, ENV12 and H2 are relevant in the consideration of the
      application in respect to potential impact on adjacent occupiers, landscaping
      and contextual issues.

14.   PPG3 Housing encourages Local Planning Authorities to achieve a more
      efficient use of land (At paragraph 58 suggesting between 30-50 dwellings
      per hectare) and encourages developments that result in a mix of types and
      tenures. At the same time, at paragraph 54 it says that Planning Authorities
      and developers should think imaginatively about designs and layouts which
      make more efficient use of land without compromising the quality of the
      environment.

15.   The trees located along the drive were planted after the TPO was made
      (therefore they are not subject to the order) and were part of a Reserved
      Matters application for the erection of the bungalow. Although they make a
      contribution to the driveway setting they are not considered to be so
      significant as to merit protection from a Tree Preservation Order. Their
      removal and subsequent replacement with substantial planting of more
      appropriate species along the Melton Road frontage, as now proposed,
      would make a greater contribution to the street scene and sylvan setting.

16.   The leylandii hedge around three boundaries of the site is particularly tall but
      in parts it is becoming ‘woody’ and sparse at the base. The height of this
      hedge or its replacement can be controlled by condition.
                                         32
17.   The siting of number of units proposed is considered to be acceptable, as it
      provides for a more efficient use of land, whilst taking account of the spacious
      context of its surroundings. In achieving this balance the density is below the
      Government recommendation. It is considered that the proposal does not
      erode the prevailing character and pattern of development as it maintains the
      building line and openness of the Melton Road frontage whilst the more in-
      depth and less visible development behind relates well with those units on
      Highgrove Gardens.

18.   The introduction of a less formal internal road has allowed more space to be
      provided around the properties. This has resulted in the proposed access
      being located approximately 4.2m off the boundary with no.256 compared to
      1m as previously proposed. This property does have some secondary
      habitable windows facing the site and the leylandii hedge is bare in parts. A
      condition could require a fence and planting on the inside of the hedge to
      mitigate noise created from traffic using the access road and protect the
      residential amenities of the occupiers of the property.

19.   The rear units are to be located approximately 38m from the properties on
      Edwalton Lodge Close. There is significant existing planting between these
      properties and Machins Lane. This, together with the leylandii hedge
      bordering the site and differences in land levels, is considered not only to
      reduce the visual impact of the development from distant views, but also
      prevent overlooking or loss of privacy.

20.   One major concern of the residents is the proposed road realignment. The
      County Council Highway Department has no objection to this part of the
      proposal and considers that it will not impinge on highway safety in the
      vicinity. The previous application was refused on the grounds that the erosion
      of the grass verge to the east and introduction of up to a 5m wide tarmac
      path on the west side would erode the sylvan setting of the area and not for
      highway safety issues. The amount of verge lost on the east would now be a
      maximum width of 1m, which tapers along a length of 31m and the applicant
      has indicated that that they could provide an area of grass verge along the
      widened footway on the west side of the road. Therefore the visual impact of
      the realignment would be softened and the character of the area protected.

21.   Details of the landscape design approach have been submitted that illustrate
      how landscaping, at the point of access on to Melton Road, can be achieved
      so as to enhance this area by the introduction of hedgerow planting to the
      front boundary and along the new drive as well as a dense area of structural
      and tree planting within the site frontage.

22.   The position of the buildings as proposed will not result in significant adverse
      impact on the adjoining properties. The size, layout and density is not
      dissimilar to the surrounding area and its impact on Melton Road and the
      sylvan setting is considered to be acceptable. There are no objections on
      highway grounds. Therefore, on balance, it is considered that there is no
      justification to refuse the application.

23.   It is considered that the proposal respects its surroundings and would not
      have a significant adverse impact on the character of the area, on residential
      amenities or on the highway safety of the area.
                                         33
RECOMMENDATION –               that the Borough Development Officer be
authorised to grant planning permission subject to the prior signing of
a S106 Agreement to secure a contribution of £30,000 towards
Integrated Transport Improvements and a scheme for future
maintenance of the grass verge and a scheme for future maintenance of
the grass verge and subject to the following conditions:-

2.    The development hereby permitted shall only be carried out in
      accordance with detailed plans and particulars relating to the following
      "reserved matters" which shall be submitted simultaneously to the
      Borough Council and the development shall not be commenced until
      these details have been approved in writing by the Borough Council.

      -     Sections and cross sections of the site showing the relationship
            of the proposed development to adjoining land and premises;

      -     The finished ground levels for the site and floor levels of the
            buildings relative to existing levels and adjoining land;

      -     Cycle and bin storage facilities;

      -     The design and external appearance of the proposed buildings;

      -     Plans, sections and       cross     sections   of   any   roads   or
            access/service roads;

      -     The layout and marking of car parking, servicing, manoeuvring
            areas, and traffic calming;

      [To ensure the development will be satisfactory and in the interests of
      visual amenity and to comply with policy ENV1 (General Amenity &
      Design) of the Rushcliffe Borough Local Plan].

3.    The development shall only be carried out in accordance with a
      detailed landscaping scheme for the site which shall be submitted to
      and approved in writing by the Borough Council before development
      commences and shall be carried out in the first tree planting season
      following the substantial completion of the development. Any trees or
      plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the
      development 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 the Borough Council gives written
      consent to any variation.

      [In the interests of amenity and to comply with policy ENV12
      (Landscape Scheme) of the Rushcliffe Borough Local Plan].

4.    The landscaping scheme referred to in condition shall indicate the
      species and planting heights of all trees and shrubs and shall make
      provision for the planting of trees of which at least 10% shall be
      standards of not less than 3 metres (10 ft) in height. The scheme shall
      be carried out in the first planting season following the commencement

                                 34
     of the development and any trees or plants which within a period of 5
     years from the completion of the development 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 the
     Borough Council gives written consent to any variation.

     [To ensure adequate planting is provided and to comply with policy
     ENV12 (Landscape Scheme) of the Rushcliffe Borough Local Plan].

5.   No operations shall commence on site until the existing trees and/or
     hedges which are to be retained have been protected in accordance
     with details to be approved in writing by the Borough Council and that
     protection shall be retained for the duration of the construction period
     (see British Standard BS 5837:1991 - Trees in Relation to
     Construction). No materials, machinery or vehicles are to be stored or
     temporary buildings erected within the perimeter of the fence, nor is
     any excavation work to be undertaken within the confines of the fence
     without the written approval of the Borough Council. No changes of
     ground level shall be made within the protected area without the
     written approval of the Borough Council.

     [To ensure existing trees are adequately protected during the
     development and to comply with policies ENV11 (Natural
     Environment) and ENV12 (Landscape Scheme) of the Rushcliffe
     Borough Local Plan].

6.   Details of all screen fencing/walling and means of enclosure to be
     erected on the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
     Borough Council before development commences. The development
     shall not be brought into use until the approved screen fencing/walling
     and means of enclosure have been completed, and they shall be
     retained thereafter unless the Borough Council gives written consent
     to a variation.

     [In the interest of amenity and to comply with policy ENV1 (General
     Amenity & Design) of the Rushcliffe Borough Local Plan].

7.   The hedge located on the boundary of the application site shall be
     retained and any part of the hedge removed, dying, being severely
     damaged or becoming seriously diseased shall be replaced, with
     hedge plants of such size and species, in accordance with details
     previously submitted to and approved in writing by the Borough
     Council. The replacement should take place in the first planting
     season following agreement of the details by the Borough Council.

     [The hedge is an important feature in the area and its retention is
     necessary to help screen the new development and prevent undue
     overlooking of adjoining dwellings and to comply with policy ENV11
     (Natural Environment) of the Rushcliffe Borough Local Plan].

8.   No development shall take place until such times as details of the
     following has been submitted to and approved by the Borough
     Council.

                                35
      (a)   Highway and junction layouts in accordance with the `Highway
            Design Guide' that shall include the realignment of Melton
            Road, traffic calming on the access road, landscaping and
            visibility splays including pedestrian visibility splay at accesses
            and junctions within the site;

      (b)   Visibility splays as indicated on drawing reference MB/100/02/A
            at the junction with Melton Road and which shall be provided at
            footway level and be kept clear from obstruction thereafter;

      (c)   A 23m forward visibility splay shall be provided around the 90
            degree bend adjacent house 2 on (08) 02 rev D and the splay
            shall be kept clear of obstruction from 0.6m above carriageway
            level thereafter;

      (d)   The internal access shall be 4.8m wide to ensure that a car can
            pass a lorry;

      (e)   2.4m x 23m visibility splays will require detailing at the T-
            junction adjacent the apartments and from the driveways to
            house 2 and 3;

      (f)   Traffic calming is required on the straight section of the access
            road to keep vehicular speeds to a minimum;

      (g)   1.5m x 1.5m pedestrian visibility splays will be required
            adjacent the driveways and pedestrian access.

      [In the interest of highway safety; and to comply with policies ENV1
      (General Amenity & Design) and M2 (Highway & Parking Standards)
      of the Rushcliffe Borough Local Plan].

9.    Notwithstanding the submitted Access Proposal (as shown on drawing
      number 04088(08)04) that indicates the area of grass verge to be
      removed and new area to be created, precise details of the treatment
      and layout of this area shall be submitted and approved in writing by
      the Council prior to the commencement of development. The approved
      scheme shall be implemented prior to the occupation of any of the
      units hereby approved and thereafter be retained unless an alternative
      is agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

      [To ensure the appearance of the development is satisfactory and to
      comply with policy ENV1 (General Amenity & Design) of the Rushcliffe
      Borough Local Plan].

10.   The development shall not be brought into use until facilities for the
      disposal of foul and surface water drainage have been provided, in
      accordance with details previously submitted to and approved by the
      Borough Council in writing.

      [To ensure that adequate drainage facilities are provided in connection
      with the development and to comply with policy EWT3 (Drainage) of
      the Rushcliffe Borough Local Plan].

                                 36
11.   The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until
      details of the facing and roofing materials to be used on all external
      elevations have been submitted to and approved in writing by the
      Borough Council and the development shall only be undertaken in
      accordance with the materials so approved.

      [To ensure the appearance of the development is satisfactory and to
      comply with policy ENV1 (General Amenity & Design) of the Rushcliffe
      Borough Local Plan].

NOTES TO APPLICANT

The applicant should note that the authority would expect the proposed
development to have due regard to the height of the buildings that surround
the site on Machins Lane and Melton Road together with the apparent land
level differences between the site, Edwalton Lodge Lane and Melton Road.

The Nottinghamshire County Council Highways Area Manager should be
contacted at an early stage with regard to any existing highway drainage
problems.

The Advance Payments Code in the Highways Act 1980 is in operation in the
area, and under Section 219 of the Act payment may be required from the
owner of the land fronting a private street on which a new building is to be
erected. The developer should contact the Highway Authority with regard to
compliance with the Code, or alternatively with regard to the issue of a
Section 38 Agreement and Bond under the Highways Act 1980.

With respect of the condition above it is strongly suggested that the
developer contact the Highway Authority at an early stage to clarify the codes
etc with which compliance will be required in the particular circumstance, and
it is essential that design calculations and detailed construction drawings for
the proposed works are submitted to and approved by the Director of the
Environment Department in writing before works commence on site.

Correspondence with Nottinghamshire County Council as Highways Authority
should be addressed to the Director of the Environment Department,
Nottinghamshire County Council, Gamston Depot, Radcliffe Road,
Nottingham, NG2 6NP

Nottinghamshire County Council as the highway authority advise that a
suitable agreement will be required with them under the provisions of S278 of
the Highways Act 1980 in respect of works in the public highway, contact Mr
Harrison on
(0115) 878 6007.

Nesting birds and bats, their roosts and their access to these roosts are
protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Should birds be
nesting in the trees concerned it is recommended that felling/surgery should
be carried out between September and January for further advice contact
Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust on 0115 9588248. If bats are present you
should contact English Nature on 01476 584800.


                                  37
This Decision Notice is to be read in conjunction with the Agreement made
under the provisions of Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act
1990 (as substituted by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991), which will
require a contribution of £30,000 towards Integrated Transport measures and
a scheme to secure the future maintenance of the grass verge.

It is understood that there may be a covenant on this property which could
prevent the use/development authorised by this permission. You are
reminded that this decision relates to planning law only and does not override
the terms of any covenant.

The applicant should note the Council's Space Between Buildings
requirements in respect of the apartments as well as the houses.




                                  38
PLAN REFERENCE NO:         05/01321/C1884

APPLICANT:                 HMP Property Services Group

PROPOSAL:                  Conservatory

LOCATION:                  H M Prison Whatton , Grantham Road, Whatton

WARD                       Cranmer

1.   The Crown does not require planning permission but does need to seek the
     views of the Borough Council for development that would otherwise need
     planning permission. This notification relates to a courtyard within the prison
     which is surrounded by two-storey buildings. It is not visible from outside the
     security fence of the prison. The Borough Council’s views are sought on a
     proposal to erect a single storey conservatory covering the courtyard area to
     provide staff facilities.

2.   The Borough Council made no objection to notification reference
     02/01065/C1884 for an expansion of the prison to provide 500 additional
     Category C prisoner places. The Borough Council also made no objection to
     a subsequent revision to the scheme, under reference 04/00640/C1884,
     amending the access arrangement to the site. The Borough Council recently
     made no objection to notification reference 05/01149/C1884 for use of land
     as a temporary car park.

3.   Newark Internal Area Drainage Board make no observations.

4.   The proposal falls to be judged under Policies ENV1 and ENV17 of the
     Rushcliffe Borough Local Plan. Policy ENV1 covers general environmental
     considerations, such as impact upon residential amenity, parking and traffic
     generation. Policy ENV17 seeks to protect the open and rural character of
     the open countryside.

5.   Being surrounded by two-storey buildings, the proposed conservatory would
     have no impact upon neighbouring dwellings, nor on the open character of
     the countryside nor the amenity of the area.

     RECOMMENDATION –                   That the Borough Council raises no
     objection to the development.




                                       39
PLAN REFERENCE NO:         05/01322/C1884

APPLICANT:                 HMP Property Services Group

PROPOSAL:                  Extension to works yard; erection of security fencing;
                           erection of classroom and recycle/storage centre; static
                           compactor
LOCATION:                  H M Prison Whatton , Grantham Road, Whatton

WARD                       Cranmer

1.   The Crown does not require planning permission but does need to seek the
     views of the Borough Council for development that would otherwise need
     planning permission. This notification relates to an area which is currently a
     through route adjacent to and inside the secure boundary of the prison, to the
     north of an adjacent dwelling, 2 Belvoir Close.

2.   The Borough Council’s views are sought on a proposal to extend the works
     yard of the prison into this area to include a classroom, a recycle/storage
     centre and a static compactor. This will involve the alteration to and erection
     of security fencing.

3.   The Borough Council made no objection to notification reference
     02/01065/C1884 for an expansion of the prison to provide 500 additional
     Category C prisoner places. The Borough Council also made no objection to
     a subsequent revision to the scheme, under reference 04/00640/C1884,
     amending the access arrangement to the site. The Borough Council recently
     made no objection to notification reference 05/01149/C1884 for use of land
     as a temporary car park.

4.   Responses to consultation had not been received at the time of writing the
     report.

5.   The proposal falls to be judged under Policies ENV1 and ENV17 of the
     Rushcliffe Borough Local Plan. Policy ENV1 covers general environmental
     considerations, such as impact upon residential amenity, parking and traffic
     generation. Policy ENV17 seeks to protect the open and rural character of
     the open countryside.

6.   The site is screened from outside the prison by existing security fencing,
     which is solid up to 2.4 metres in height and then of a mesh construction to
     5.2 metres in height. The mesh does not allow a clear view through. The
     proposed classroom and recycle/storage centre buildings are of a
     construction and design similar to stables and have pitched roofs to 3.3
     metres high. They would be sited at least 14 metres from the secure
     boundary, as such they would have very little visual impact outside the prison
     site. The static compactor, at 2.8 metres high, would barely be seen from
     outside the security fence. The static compactor has an electronically
     operated enclosed hopper. It would be 10 metres from the secure boundary
     and over 35 metres from the nearest dwelling, at such a distance noise
     nuisance would not be caused to the neighbouring dwelling.


                                       40
7.   The proposal would have minimal visual impact outside the prison boundary
     upon neighbouring dwellings and the open character of the countryside and it
     would not cause noise nuisance.

     RECOMMENDATION – that the Borough Council raises no
     objection to the development subject to the following conditions:-

     1.    The    recycle/storage centre   and   static   compactor    are
           managed/operated in such a way that no disturbance is caused to
           nearby residents.

           [To protect the amenities of the area and to comply with policy ENV1
           (General Amenity & Design) of the Rushcliffe Borough Local Plan].

     2.    No development shall commence until a scheme for protecting the
           dwelling(s) from noise from the recycle/storage centre and proposed
           or future compactors has been submitted to and approved in writing by
           the Borough Council. The development shall be carried out in
           accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in
           writing by the Borough Council.

           [To protect the amenities of the area and to comply with policy ENV1
           (General Amenity & Design) of the Rushcliffe Borough Local Plan].




                                      41
PLAN REFERENCE NO:         05/01326/C1884

APPLICANT:                 HMPS Property Services Group

PROPOSAL:                  Gatehouse and visitor centre blocks (revised proposals)

LOCATION:                  H M Prison Whatton , Grantham Road, Whatton

WARD                       Cranmer

1.   The Crown does not require planning permission but does need to seek the
     views of the Borough Council for development that would otherwise need
     planning permission. This notification relates to a site where HMP Whatton is
     currently being extended. The Borough Council made no objection to
     notification reference 02/01065/C1884 for an expansion of the prison to
     provide 500 additional Category C prisoner places. The Borough Council
     also made no objection to a subsequent revision to the scheme, under
     reference 04/00640/C1884, amending the access arrangement to the site.
     This notification relates to a gatehouse and visitor centre, which are sited just
     inside the prison expansion site boundary, adjacent to 4 neighbouring
     dwellings. The construction of the buildings is substantially complete and the
     buildings constructed differ from those to which the Borough Council made
     no objection under reference 02/01065/C1884. .

2.   The Borough Council’s views are sought on revised plans for the gatehouse
     and visitor centre as built. The key differences from the original plans are
     that the gatehouse is 800mm taller and has additional windows to the east
     elevation and the visitor centre is 2200mm higher and has gabled ends
     instead of a hipped roof.

3.   The Borough Council recently made no objection to notification reference
     05/01149/C1884 for use of land as a temporary car park.

4.   The Parish Council, Ward Member, 4 neighbours and the Newark Area
     Internal Drainage Board have been consulted. No responses have yet been
     received and any comments received will be reported at the Development
     Control Committee. However during the construction nearby residents had
     raised concerns about the number and position of windows, height and roof
     form.

5.   The proposal falls to be judged under Policies ENV1 and ENV17 of the
     Rushcliffe Borough Local Plan. Policy ENV1 covers general environmental
     considerations, such as impact upon residential amenity, parking and traffic
     generation. Policy ENV17 seeks to protect the open and rural character of
     the open countryside.

6.   The visitor centre is sited 12 to 14 metres from the rear boundaries of 6 and 4
     Belvoir Close, respectively. The dwellings have very long rear gardens and
     the building is sited approximately 65 metres from the dwellings themselves.
     A native hedgerow approximately 3 metres high forms the boundary between
     the prison expansion site and these neighbouring dwellings. The visitor
     centre is on a lower ground level than the neighbouring dwellings and
     therefore the hedgerow reaches to above eaves height on the visitor centre
                                         42
      as viewed from the neighbouring dwellings. The visitor centre is 7.25 metres
      high, a similar height to a 2 storey dwelling, although the span of the building
      is much wider than a dwelling would be. The blank gable end of the visitor
      centre faces the dwellings and it is clad in a light grey material which does
      not stand out significantly against the sky. It is proposed to supplement the
      existing hedgerow with a row of hawthorn hedgerow to the prison side, so
      that existing screening will be thickened and improved. In view of the
      distance of the building from the neighbouring dwellings and their rear
      boundaries, and the existing and proposed screening, it is considered that
      the building does not cause an overbearing or overshadowing effect.

7.    The gatehouse stands approximately 12 metres from the north-west corner of
      the large garden of 2 Belvoir Close. The dwelling at 2 Belvoir Close has an
      oblique view of the gatehouse at approximately 56 metres away and it is
      visible from their garden. The same 3 metre high hedgerow forms the
      boundary to the prison at the rear of 2 Belvoir Close. The north boundary to
      2 Belvoir Close is formed by a 1.8 metre high close boarded fence. There
      are also a number of mainly deciduous trees within the boundary of 2 Belvoir
      Close which provide some screening of the gatehouse. It is proposed to
      continue the additional row of hawthorn hedge across the rear of 2 Belvoir
      Close and to plant 2 Field Maple trees behind this hedgerow. The plans also
      show a tree to be planted within the rear garden of 2 Belvoir Close. This may
      be subject to an agreement between the owners of the property and the
      prison, but it is considered that it should not be taken into account in
      determining this notification as it is not within the notification site, nor the
      prison’s control. Whilst the gatehouse is a large building, standing at 10.15
      metres high, it is considered to be a sufficient distance from 2 Belvoir Close
      and sufficient screening exists and is proposed to negate an overbearing or
      overshadowing impact.

8.    The gatehouse has 7 windows to its east elevation which have an oblique
      view of 2 Belvoir Close at least 16 metres from their boundary and 59 metres
      from the dwelling. It is proposed to completely obscure glaze 2 of the 4
      nearest windows and to obscure glaze the right hand casement of the other
      two windows so that views towards 2 Belvoir Close are limited. Direct views
      out of the 7 windows are further restricted due to the thick security bars on
      the inside of them. It is also proposed to make solid the upper part of a
      section of mesh security fencing within the prison boundary in order to
      improve the screening between the gatehouse and 2 Belvoir Close. At such
      a distance away, and with such measures to limit views towards 2 Belvoir
      Close, the gatehouse does not cause a significant loss of privacy.

9.    Whilst the revisions from the original plans have resulted in an increase in
      height and massing of the buildings, these changes are not significant in
      terms of the overall scale of the scheme and they do not harm the open and
      rural character of the countryside.

10.   It is considered that the gatehouse and visitor centre do not cause significant
      impacts upon neighbouring dwellings in terms of overshadowing, overbearing
      effect or loss of privacy. The buildings do not significantly affect the open
      character of the countryside or the amenity of the area in general.



                                         43
RECOMMENDATION –               that the Borough Council raises no
objection to the development subject to the following conditions:-

1.   The hawthorn hedgerow and 2no. Acer Campestre shown on the
     approved plans adjacent to the boundaries of the dwellings on Belvoir
     Close shall be planted in the planting season 2005-2006. Any trees or
     plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the
     development 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 the Borough Council gives written
     consent to any variation.

     [In the interests of amenity and to comply with policy ENV12
     (Landscape Scheme) of the Rushcliffe Borough Local Plan].

2.   The windows and casements to the gatehouse indicated to be obscure
     glazed in the agent’s letter dated 28 September 2005 shall be made
     obscure glazed before the building becomes operational and shall be
     retained as such permanently thereafter.

     [To prevent overlooking and loss of privacy to neighbouring property
     and to comply with policy ENV1 (General Amenity & Design) of the
     Rushcliffe Borough Local Plan].

3.   Before the building becomes operational, the solid panel shown to be
     attached to the security fencing on the plan received xxxxxxxxxxx shall
     be implemented and retained permanently thereafter.

     [To prevent overlooking and loss of privacy to neighbouring property
     and to comply with policy ENV1 (General Amenity & Design) of the
     Rushcliffe Borough Local Plan].




                                44
PLAN REFERENCE NO:         05/01166/FUL

APPLICANT:                 Rushcliffe Homes

PROPOSAL:                  Use of land as builders compound (for 18 months)

LOCATION:                  Ecoplants , Flawforth Lane, Ruddington

WARD                       Ruddington

1.   The application relates to a site of some 0.1 hectares located towards the
     road frontage of the Ecoplants Nursery complex on the south side of
     Flawforth Lane. Immediately to the west is Meadow Croft, a bungalow built
     originally as an agricultural workers dwelling following a planning permission
     in 1949; beyond it some 70m from the appeal site is Flawforth Avenue a cul-
     de-sac of some 30 dwellings. To the east Nursery House has recently been
     demolished, and construction of a replacement two-storey house is due to
     commence shortly following a planning permission granted in June 2005
     (Ref: 05/598/FUL). Ecoplants comprises a stone/gravel parking area (which
     is where the application is located) to the south of which is a two-storey
     building, beyond which are greenhouses and various structures associated
     with the nursery business.

2.   The land on which the Ecoplants complex is located was originally a chicken
     farm, but at some time probably in the early 1970’s changed to use as a
     wholesale Nursery. The land between Flawforth Avenue and Meadow Croft,
     and between Meadow Croft and Nursery House has been the subject of
     numerous applications for residential development during the period 1962-
     1979; all have been refused with appeals being dismissed in 1962 (Ref:
     5/32/492) and 1979 (Ref: 78/D/551).

3.   The current application seeks permission to use land at this location as a site
     compound for 18 months in connection with Rushcliffe Homes modernisation
     of 380 properties in the West Bridgford/Ruddington and Wilford areas (of
     which 251 are in Ruddington). They require a compound in close proximity to
     these dwellings for storage of materials, such as kitchen and bathroom
     fittings, doors, sheet materials etc, alongside welfare and management
     facilities.

     The compound will be contained by a 3 metre hard-back palisade fence, with
     steel containers within the boundary. Vehicular access to the compound will
     be via Flawforth Lane between the hours of 8.00am – 4.30pm Mon-Thurs and
     8.00am – 3.30pm Fri. The time span for these works is estimated for
     completion by March 2007. The sketch layout plan indicates 12 containers,
     and an area to be used as offices/canteen.

     Traffic management and weight restrictions of 7.5 tonnes will be in place on
     all deliveries to the site compound.

     They comment that they have investigated several other locations for use,
     however these have proved unsuitable; Heritage Centre (Ruddington
     Business Park), the railway sidings at Ruddington Country Park, and a

                                        45
     disused bus garage at the junction of Clifton Road and Wilford Road in
     Ruddington.

4.   The site is within the Nottinghamshire Green Belt, and the application has
     been advertised as representing a departure from the approved development
     plan. In response 18 letters have been received objecting to the proposal on
     the following grounds:-

     (a)   traffic problems on Flawforth Lane;

     (b)   noise;

     (c)   visual impact;

     (d)   inclusion of industrial activity in a Green Belt/rural area;

     (e)   precedent;

     (f)   applicants have not carried out exhaustive search for alternative sites,
           other sites would be more appropriate;

     (g)   applicants address is same as Borough Council and application
           shouldn’t be determined by the Council;

     (h)   previous applications for residential development have been refused
           and dismissed on appeal;

     (i)   too close to adjacent residential properties;

     (j)   could be first stage in site being regarded as brownfield for further
           development;

     (k)   security risks caused by presence of compound;

     (l)   3m fence around compound would be visual intrusion.

5.   The Parish Council object for the following reasons:

     (a)   change of use from agricultural to industrial even though for a limited
           period sets a precedent in Green Belt area;

     (b)   use not compatible with Green Belt policy;

     (c)   concerns from neighbouring property holders over surface water and
           sewerage drainage capacity issues;

     (d)   location of storage units too close to adjoining property leading to loss
           of privacy, noise, dust and rubbish pollution risk;

     (e)   additional traffic creation on to Flawforth Lane adding to peak period
           congestion and also risk of breach of 7.5 tonne limit by delivery
           vehicles to the site;


                                        46
6.    One Ward Member objects, commenting that the site is in the Green Belt and
      the proposal would encourage speculators to apply to build here.

7.    A second Ward Member has declared an interest.

8.    The Nottinghamshire County Council (Planning) comment that:

      “Although the applicant is not in accordance with policy it is relatively minor in
      strategic planning terms. Provided, as a Council, you are satisfied that there
      are special circumstances that make it necessary to locate these facilities
      within this part of the Green Belt due to its proximity to the housing
      development, and that such use of the site will not adversely affect the open
      character of the Green Belt I do not wish to raise strategic planning
      objections. I would however request that a time limit is put in place and you
      also include a condition, if granting planning permission, that the land is left in
      the same condition or better than its present state once this time period has
      elapsed”.

9.    From the highways viewpoint, the County Council raise no objections.

10.   While not doubting that it would be beneficial for Rushcliffe Homes to have a
      compound close to Ruddington while modernisation of their properties in the
      village takes place, the problem with the application site is that it is in the
      Green Belt and close to residential properties, particularly Meadow Croft,
      which would immediately adjoin the western boundary of the compound. The
      use does not represent development appropriate in Green Belt locations, and
      the proposal (even on a temporary basis) would conflict with policy ENV16 of
      the Local Plan. Similarly, policy E7 states that open storage will not normally
      be granted, in addition the proximity of the compound to nearby dwellings in
      particular Meadow Croft, would adversely impact on those dwellings and
      conflict with policy ENV1.

      RECOMMENDATION                   – Refuse planning permission for the
      following reasons:-

      1.     The proposal would result in an inappropriate form of development in
             the Green Belt and would, therefore, be contrary to policy ENV16 of
             the Rushcliffe Borough Local Plan.

      2.     It is considered that the proximity of the site to adjacent residential
             properties would give rise to an unacceptable degree of noise and
             disturbance, and the proposal would thus conflict with criterion (a) of
             Policy ENV1 of the Rushcliffe Borough Local Plan which states that:-

             Planning permission for new development, changes of use,
             conversions or extensions will normally be granted provided that,
             where relevant, the following criteria are met:-

             (a)    there is no significant adverse effect upon the amenity,
                    particularly residential amenity, of adjoining properties or the
                    surrounding area, by reason of the type and levels of activity on
                    the site, or traffic generated.


                                          47
3.   The proposal represents an open storage use in the Green Belt and
     would conflict with criteria (a) and (b) of policy E9 of the Rushcliffe
     Borough Local Plan which states:-

     Planning permission for open storage will not normally be granted
     unless the proposal complies with the following criteria:

     (a)   the open storage is adjacent to and associated with existing or
           proposed industry or warehousing; and

     (b)   the proposal complies with policies ENV1 (Control of Amenity &
           Design) and ENV18 (Control of Development in the
           Countryside).




                                48
PLAN REFERENCE NO:         05/01313/FUL

APPLICANT:                 Mr Caven Pickering

PROPOSAL:                  Convert stables to form office (in connection with Highfield
                           House)
LOCATION:                  Highfield House , Flawforth Lane, Ruddington

WARD                       Ruddington

1.   The application relates to a single storey stable building constructed following
     a planning permission granted in December 1988 (Ref: 88/1099). It is
     located within land owned by the occupier of the nearby Highfield House and
     is positioned some 100m to the north of Flawforth Lane, to which it has its
     own vehicular access. The site is within the Green Belt.

2.   Permission was refused in July 2002 (Ref: 02/415) and August 2005 (Ref:
     05/709) to convert the building to form a dwelling.

3.   The current application seeks permission to convert the stable building (which
     is now unused for its original purpose) to an office (of some 65 sq.m) with two
     small store rooms. No extensions are proposed. The application form
     indicates that the use will be associated with occupation of Highfield House.

4.   One letter has been received objecting to the proposal on the following
     grounds:-

     (a)    inappropriate use in Green Belt;

     (b)    conversion to a very large office block with associated parking would
            be detrimental to visual amenity;

     (c)    traffic problems.

5.   The Parish Council object on the grounds that the proposal represents
     commercial development in the Green Belt.

6.   One Ward Member objects on similar grounds to those advanced by the
     Parish Council.

7.   Nationally, guidance on development in Green Belts is provided in PPG2:
     Green Belts. Paragraph 3.7 of this document states that “with suitable
     safeguards, the re-use of buildings should not prejudice the openness of
     Green Belts, since the buildings are already there”. It also requires that such
     buildings are of permanent and substantial construction, and capable of
     conversion without major or complete reconstruction, and that the form, bulk
     and general design of the building should be inkeeping with its surroundings.
     It is not considered therefore that the application proposal conflicts with this
     guidance.

8.   The relevant Local Plan policies are ENV16 (Green Belts) and ENV1
     (Environment). The former permits (under criterion (h)) changes of use to
     (amongst others) employment uses, providing the building is structurally
                                        49
      sound, no significant extensions/alterations are required, and the impact of
      the building is not significantly increased. It is considered that the application
      proposal would accord with these principles.

9.    Criterion (a) of Policy ENV1 requires that there should be no significant effect
      on residential amenity of adjoining properties by reason of the type and levels
      of activity, or traffic generated. It is considered that the small size of the
      building involved would not cause any significant environmental problems.

10.   It is considered that subject to a condition relating occupation to ownership of
      Highfield House the proposal would not conflict with Green Belt policies, and
      represents a reasonable re-use of an existing building in the Green Belt.

      RECOMMENDATION – Grant planning permission subject to the
      following conditions:-

      2.     This permission shall enure for the benefit of the owner of Highfield
             House, and shall not authorise occupation of the office independently
             from that dwelling.

             [To clarify the extent of the permission and to comply with policy ENV1
             (General Amenity & Design) of the Rushcliffe Borough Local Plan].




                                          50
PLAN REFERENCE NO:         05/01150/FUL

APPLICANT:                 Indian Nights

PROPOSAL:                  Single storey side and rear extensions to facilitate use of
                           premises as restaurant; external staircase to rear to
                           provide access to first floor flat
LOCATION:                  77 Melton Road, West Bridgford, Nottinghamshire

WARD                       Melton

1.   The application relates to a three storey building on the east side of Melton
     Road in a well established parade of shops. The property is currently in use
     as a hot-food take-away at ground floor and a flat on the upper floors. To the
     north is another takeaway and the adjoining property to the south is a florists
     shop. A side access to the north leads to a small yard area to the side and
     rear. To the east the site borders the rear gardens of houses on Highfield
     Road.

2.   The current use of the property as a takeaway dates from planning
     permission granted in December 1996 (96/01032). Prior to that the property
     had previously been used as a shop and a takeaway. In 1990 planning
     permission had been granted for a single storey rear extension but this was
     never implemented (90/0894).

3.   The development subject of this application would comprise a single storey
     side and rear extension that would wrap around the projecting two storey rear
     element of the building. This would be about 2.5 metres out from the side
     and 4.1 metres to the rear. It would come to within about 1 metre of the rear
     boundary and include an external staircase up to the boundary, providing
     access to the first floor flat. The extension would accommodate a kitchen and
     toilets thereby enabling the front part of the property to be laid out as a
     restaurant. The layout submitted with the application shows about 46 covers.
     Other alterations include bricking up a rear facing kitchen window and
     repositioning it to the side and the removal of the internal stairs and their
     replacement by the external staircase.

4.   In response to notification 13 letters have been received in which the
     following objections are raised:-

     (a)    Lack of off street parking and the new use will lead to parking on
            Melton Road, Glebe Road and Highfield Road;

     (b)    Noise and disturbance from customers and their vehicles, especially
            late at night;

     (c)    Would encourage increased anti-social and criminal behaviour;

     (d)    Council should encourage provision of local shops and not restaurants
            serving a wider area;

     (e)    External staircase will lead to overlooking;

                                        51
      (f)    Location of the kitchen would lead to noise and smells nuisance.

5.    One Ward Member declares an interest in the application.

6.    The County Council as highway authority have no objections to the
      development and make the following comments;

       “although there is no parking associated with the development there are
      several lay-bys along this section of Melton Road also most of Melton Road
      is protected from parking by TRO’s. The main demand for the proposed
      restaurant is likely to be in the evening and therefore I don’t believe that the
      proposed development would cause a highway safety issue”.

7.    The Head of Environmental Health suggests that conditions be imposed to
      require submission of details of the fume extraction system and noise levels
      of any plant or equipment. In addition he suggests that the rear kitchen
      windows be non-openable and that the hours of operation be restricted to
      10.00-22.30.

8.    The site falls within an established shopping parade in which Policy S2b) of
      the Rushcliffe Borough Local Plan contains a presumption in favour of A1,
      A2, and A3 uses (shops, financial and professional services and food and
      drink uses). The existing use as a hot food takeaway falls within the A3
      definition and although the Use Classes Order has recently been amended
      the change from a hot food takeaway to a restaurant would not be
      development requiring planning permission. In view of this the use of the
      existing premises as a restaurant could not be controlled. However, the
      existing floorspace is very limited and the principal issue with this application
      is the impact of the extension and the level and type of activity associated
      with it.

9.    The use as a restaurant with about 46 covers would generate increased
      levels of longer term parking than would be associated with a takeaway. The
      County highways officer rightly says that peak usage is likely to occur in the
      evenings when many of the other shops nearby are closed and the lay-by
      parking less busy as a result. Accordingly it is not considered that the use
      would be likely to generate levels of parking on the nearby side roads such
      as to cause significant problems of congestion or highway safety.

10.   The restaurant is at the front of the building with access only onto Melton
      Road. It is unlikely that any noise or activity associated with the arrival and
      departure of customers would be unduly harmful to the living conditions of
      residents of Glebe, Clumber or Highfield Roads.

11.   The proposal would extend the building over a substantial proportion of the
      site, in a similar manner, but to a greater degree, to the adjacent Chinese
      takeaway. This gives rise to concerns about the proximity of the kitchen to
      the residential properties on Highfield Road. The Head of Environmental
      Health has suggested that the rear facing windows be non-opening and that
      details of the extraction system and noise generating equipment be subject of
      conditions (the intention is that the extraction system for the new kitchen
      would route through the building and join to the existing flue which extends
      up the two storey side elevation of the building). These measures would
      ameliorate adverse impacts to a degree but it is considered that the higher
                                         52
      level of use associated with a restaurant, with access to the enlarged kitchen
      and the bin store to the side and rear, would be likely to increased levels of
      noise and disturbance concentrated in the small area close to the boundaries
      with the residential properties on Highfield Road.

12.   A further element of concern is the provision of an external staircase to serve
      the existing flat. Because of the size of the building this would be immediately
      adjacent to the rear boundary and has resulted in representations about the
      potential for overlooking and loss of privacy. Whilst the adjacent property at
      79 Melton Road has a rear access door at first floor level this proposal
      involves the provision of an access staircase constructed immediately
      adjacent to the boundary. The use of this access would lead to the potential
      for increased overlooking and loss of residential amenity for the adjacent
      residents from persons entering and leaving the flat.

13.   It is considered that the use is acceptable in principle in this shopping parade
      but that the size of the building, the increased activity and the proximity to the
      rear boundary would constitute an overly intensive form of development,
      concentrating activity likely to result in increased noise and disturbance into a
      restricted area close to residential properties. This would result in undue
      harm to the living conditions of adjacent residents on Highfield Road.

      RECOMMENDATION                   - refuse planning permission for the
      following reason:-

      1.     The size and use of the proposed extension, and its proximity to the
             boundary with adjacent residential properties on Highfield Road
             represents an overintensive form of development likely to result in
             unacceptable levels of overlooking, noise, activity and disturbance for
             occupants of those neighbouring properties. The proposal would thus
             be contrary to Policy ENV1 of the Rushcliffe Borough Local Plan which
             states that planning permission for new development will normally be
             granted provided that, inter alia:-

             (a)    there is no significant adverse effect upon the amenity,
                    particularly residential amenity, of adjoining properties or the
                    surrounding area, by reason of the type and levels of activity on
                    the site, or traffic generated;

             (c)    sufficient space is provided within the site to accommodate the
                    proposal together with ancillary amenity and circulation space.




                                          53
PLAN REFERENCE NO:         05/01255/FUL

APPLICANT:                 Mr & Mrs Nalder

PROPOSAL:                  Alteration and extension of outbuildings to form granny
                           annexe
LOCATION:                  Marriotts Close , Screveton Road, Car Colston

WARD                       Oak

1.   The current application is for the conversion and extension of an existing
     outbuilding to form a granny annexe, with a lounge and kitchen diner to the
     ground floor and two bedrooms and a bathroom to the first floor. The
     extension would be 5.7 metres in length, 3.9 metres in width and 5.6 metres
     at the highest point (the roof is asymmetrical, having a greater slope to the
     rear as the first floor room is smaller than the kitchen to the ground floor).

2.   The application site is a detached red brick outbuilding with a red tiled roof,
     within Car Colston Conservation Area. There are small white painted timber
     framed windows and a hatch at first floor level with three black painted doors
     at ground floor level (one double width). There are wooden lean-to single
     garages attached to the eastern and southern elevations, also painted black.

3.   The outbuilding is within the rear garden area of Marriott’s Cottage and
     adjoins Wayside Cottage, the adjacent dwelling to the west. To the north of
     the site is the rear garden area of Marriott’s Cottage, to the east a vegetable
     garden, to the south Wayside Cottage and its rear garden and to the west
     two parking spaces for Marriott’s Close enclosed by Wayside Cottage.

4.   The site is within Car Colston Conservation Area and an Archaeological Alert
     site.

5.   An application for a first floor rear extension to Marriott’s Cottage was
     approved in 1995 (95/00894/FUL). An application for conversion and
     extension of outbuilding to form granny annexe, following demolition of
     existing garage was approved in 2000 (00/00944/FUL). An application for
     two-storey and single storey extensions with a detached garage was
     approved in 2002. An application for the conversion and extension of
     outbuilding following demolition of garage was withdrawn in 2005. The
     withdrawn application was identical to the current application apart from the
     use for holiday letting.

6.   The Parish Council do not object provided that:-

     “1      The extended outbuildings are for use of extended family and the
            occupants of Marriotts Close i.e. elderly relatives or adult children.

     2      The applied for building is not rented on a commercial basis;

     3      The applied for building is – and cannot – be sold as a separate
            dwelling from Marriotts Close.”


                                       54
7.    Two letters of objection have been received, one from Wayside Cottage and
      one from a property on Church Lane. These raise the following concerns:-

      (a)   the only change to the previously withdrawn plans is the change to
            granny annexe;

      (b)   over-intensive development as the site has had previous extensions;

      (c)   there is a large garden and this development is very close to the
            writer’s house and boundary;

      (d)   the building is large and a slight increase in height will overshadow
            and impact upon the view;

      (e)   concern regarding noise and disturbance from the gravelled parking
            area;

      (f)   access and egress is already difficult and ask why two parking spaces
            are required for a granny annexe;

      (g)   the plans are unclear;

      (h)   possibility that the development will be used as a separate dwelling,
            which would be detrimental to amenity and an undesirable precedent;

      (i)   a dividing wall has already been constructed, therefore if granted it
            must be conditioned to remain part of Marriotts Close and not sold off
            separately.

8.    One Ward Member declares an interest.

9.    Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust do not object to the proposal providing that the
      recommendations outlined in the protected species report are conditions of
      any approval. They also comment that bats and breeding birds are protected
      and how work should be carried out in order to protect them.

10.   The proposal falls to be judged under policies ENV1, ENV2, H14 and H15 of
      the Rushcliffe Borough Local Plan. Policy ENV1 seeks to ensure that
      development will respect the amenity and design of the surrounding area.
      Policy ENV2 seeks to ensure that development does not affect the special
      character or appearance of Conservation Areas, their form or open spaces
      within them. Policy H15 seeks to ensure that applications for house
      extensions are not detrimental to the neighbours amenity, are in keeping with
      the street scene and are not overintensive. Policy H14 contains a
      presumption in favour of the conversion of buildings to form granny annexes
      providing there is no loss of amenity to adjoining development and that the
      property remains one unit of occupation.

11.   The previous application was withdrawn following concern expressed by the
      Council regarding the impact of the holiday let use upon the amenity of
      Wayside Cottage and as the visibility from the access would not be suitable
      for an increase in traffic. The use as a granny annexe is considered to be
      acceptable as the outbuilding would only be used for purposes ancillary to
      the existing dwelling and not for a commercial use. Permission was granted
                                        55
      for the outbuilding to be used as a granny annexe in 2000, although with a
      slightly smaller extension. The outbuilding would not be suitable for
      conversion to a residential property due to it’s proximity to existing dwellings,
      highways issues and as insufficient private garden space would be provided.
      Therefore, a condition is recommended to prevent the annexe from being
      used for commercial purposes or as a separate dwelling. Ownership is a
      legal issue and cannot be controlled under planning law, however any
      condition would continue to apply, regardless of ownership.

12.   It is considered that the appearance of the proposal is acceptable. The
      Conservation and Design Manager raises no objections to the proposal. The
      extensions are considered to be sympathetic to the design of the existing
      outbuilding. Matching materials and traditional fenestration detailing will be
      employed. The extension to the eastern elevation will have a lowered
      roofline, creating a subordinate appearance.

13.   The development is not considered to overshadow or overlook the adjacent
      property, Wayside Cottage. There is an existing single storey extension in the
      position of the proposal and the extension will be just 5.5 metres in height,
      with the lower roof slope adjacent to Wayside Cottage further reducing
      overshadowing. A gap of two metres would remain between the extension
      and the boundary with the rear garden of Wayside Cottage. The bedroom
      windows to the rear of Wayside Cottage, are high level and the existing gap
      of 6.5 metres will remain between the two properties. As the extension to the
      outbuilding is to the eastern elevation, not the closest western elevation to
      Wayside Cottage, the development is not considered to overshadow Wayside
      Cottage. Loss of view is not a material planning consideration in this
      instance. Two high level velux windows are proposed to the southern
      elevation, adjacent to Wayside Cottage. A condition is recommended to
      prevent the further addition of windows to this elevation in order to protect
      Wayside Cottage from any future overlooking. Conditions and informatives
      are recommended in line with the comments of Nottinghamshire Wildlife
      Trust.

14.   It is considered that the proposal would be of an acceptable design and
      appearance in keeping with the Conservation Area and that, subject to
      suitable conditions, there would be no undue harm to the living conditions of
      nearby dwellings.

      RECOMMENDATION –                   Grant planning permission subject to the
      following conditions:-

      2.     The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until
             details of the facing and roofing materials to be used on all external
             elevations have been submitted to and approved in writing by the
             Borough Council and the development shall only be undertaken in
             accordance with the materials so approved.

             [To ensure the appearance of the development is satisfactory and to
             comply with policy ENV1 (General Amenity & Design) of the Rushcliffe
             Borough Local Plan].



                                         56
3.    The outbuilding and the alterations hereby permitted shall not be
      occupied at any time other than for purposes ancillary to the
      residential use of the dwelling known as Marriotts Close, Screveton
      Road, Car Colston.

      [It is not considered that the site possess sufficient amenities or is
      otherwise suitable to accommodate an additional independent dwelling
      or a commercial purpose, and to comply with policy ENV1 (General
      Amenity and Design) of the Rushcliffe Borough Local Plan].

4.    The mitigation/compensatory measures referred to in the protected
      species survey (or follow-up survey required by condition) shall be
      completed before commencement of development and the Borough
      Council shall be notified when these measures have been carried out
      and there shall be no alteration to the measures taken without the prior
      written approval of the Borough Council. Any mitigation measures
      required shall be implemented in accordance with the survey to the
      satisfaction of the Borough Council.

      [To ensure that adequate compensatory measures are undertaken
      and to comply with policies ENV1 (General Amenity & Design) and
      ENV11 (Natural Environment) of the Rushcliffe Borough Local Plan].

5.    In the event that the planning permission is not implemented within 1
      year of the date of the planning permission a further protected species
      survey shall be carried out and submitted to the Borough Council. Any
      mitigation measures required shall be implemented in accordance with
      the approved details to the satisfaction of the Borough Council.

      [To ensure the survey reflects the situation pertaining at the time and
      to comply with policies ENV1 (General Amenity & Design) and ENV11
      (Natural Environment) of the Rushcliffe Borough Local Plan].

NOTES TO APPLICANT

This grant of planning permission does not alter the private legal situation
with regard to the carrying out of any works involving land which you do not
own or control. You will need the consent of the owner(s) involved before any
such works are started.

This permission does not give any legal right for any work on, over or under
land or buildings outside the application site ownership or affecting
neighbouring property, including buildings, walls, fences and vegetation
within that property. If any such work is anticipated, the consent of the
adjoining land owner must first be obtained. The responsibility for meeting
any claims for damage to such features lies with the applicant.

You are advised to ensure disturbance to neighbours is kept to a minimum
during construction by restricting working hours to Monday to Friday 7.00am
to 7.00pm, Saturday 8.00am to 5.00pm and by not working on Sundays or
Bank Holidays. If you intend to work outside these hours you are requested
to contact the Environmental Health Officer on 0115 9148276 or 9148485.


                                 57
Bats can change roosting site frequently throughout the year, including the
winter season, therefore the negative result of the survey for the buildings
should only be considered reliable for a short period of time (please see
condition five). Roof work should be carried out carefully by hand. If a bat or
bats are discovered work should be stopped immediately and the procedures
outlined in Appendix B of the protected species survey should be followed.
Failure to comply is an offence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981
and the Conservation (Natural Habitats and C) Regs. 1994 which makes it an
offence to recklessly kill, injure or disturb a bat or to destroy any place used
for rest or shelter by a bat (even if bats are not in residence at the time).

If breeding birds are found, work must stop to avoid disturbance to the nest
because all birds' nests (except pest species) are protected from disturbance
and destruction by The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (and as amended).




                                   58
PLAN REFERENCE NO:         05/01194/ADV

APPLICANT:                 Cafe Piano Bingham Ltd

PROPOSAL:                  Illuminated sign

LOCATION:                  7 Market Place, Bingham, Nottinghamshire

WARD                       Bingham East

1.   The applicants are applying for the retention of an illuminated sign at Café
     Piano. It has a white background with raised lettering, silver in colour, and
     internal red lighting that shines back onto the white fascia.

2.   The restaurant is on the corner of Bingham market place. Whilst being
     constructed within the last ten years the unit is one on four that are
     considered to be sympathetic to the character of the Conservation Area.

3.   The Parish Council object to the application on the grounds that;

     (a)    Out of keeping in a Conservation Area;

     (b)    Too bright/garish;

     (c)    Applications for similar signs have been turned down in the past .

4.   One Ward Member does not object to the application whilst the other has
     objected on the grounds that the sign would be out of character with the
     Conservation Area, as well as noting that similar applications have been
     turned down in the past.

5.   The Head of Design and Conservation considers the sign to be well
     designed, simple and stylish.

6.   Policy ENV9 (Advertisements) of the Rushcliffe Borough Local Plan is
     pertinent in the determination of this application. This policy states that in
     Conservation Areas internally illuminated box signs, either fascia or
     projecting will not normally be permitted.

7.   The sign is contemporary in design being individually applied letters and not
     a traditional illuminated box fascia. Concerns have been raised about the
     lighting, however the illumination does not radiate toward the market place
     but provides a relatively subdued red glow to the immediate fascia
     surrounding the letters.

8.   In view of the above it is considered that the sign would not have a
     detrimental impact upon the character of the Conservation Area.




                                       59
RECOMMENDATION               – Grant advertisement consent subject to
the following conditions:-

2.    The sign shall only be illuminated when the cafe is open.

      [To protect the amenities of the area and to comply with policy ENV1
      (General Amenity & Design) of the Rushcliffe Borough Local Plan].




                                 60
PLAN REFERENCE NO:         05/01302/FUL

APPLICANT:                 Mr & Mrs D McCree

PROPOSAL:                  Single storey front extension to form granny annexe
                           (revised proposal)
LOCATION:                  69B Wilford Road, Ruddington, Nottinghamshire

WARD                       Ruddington

1.   The application property is a detached pebble dashed bungalow and is one
     of two bungalows to the rear of houses fronting the west side of Wilford
     Road. The site is located within a residential area of predominantly semi-
     detached and terraced houses to the north of the village centre. There are
     allotment gardens adjacent to the site to the west and north.

2.   The proposal, which is currently under construction, involved the demolition
     of a detached sectional garage to enable construction of the extension on
     approximately the same footprint. The accommodation would comprise a
     living room/kitchen, entrance hall and bathroom. An existing bedroom in the
     property would be used as a bedroom for the annexe which would be self
     contained from the main property. The extension has a pitched roof to match
     the existing roof and is being constructed from red bricks and roof tiles which
     match the existing roof, and it is proposed to finish the east elevation with
     pebble dash to match the existing property. The application has been
     submitted as the roof is being constructed higher than was approved under
     an application granted permission by this committee on 16 June 2005
     (05/00641/FUL).

3.   A number of planning applications have been granted permission since 1977
     for single storey rear and side extensions, a double garage and dormer
     windows. An application for single and two-storey extensions was refused
     permission by this committee on 26 April 2005 (05/00416/FUL).

4.   The Parish Council object on the following grounds:-

     “1.    Roof line has “crept back” up to height of original application which
            was refused (05/00416/FUL).

       2.   It would seem that the building has already been built to this height
            even though approval has not yet been given.

       3.   Approval was given to 05/00641/FUL with lower roof line.”

5.   One Ward Member has declared an interest (the site is adjacent to the Ward
     Member’s allotment).

6.   Policies ENV1 and H15 of adopted Local Plan allow for house extensions
     provided that there is no significant adverse effect on the amenities of
     adjoining and nearby properties and the location, design, scale, height and
     materials respect the character of the property and surrounding area. Policy
     H14 allows for the extension of houses to provide “Granny Flats” provided

                                        61
     that there is no loss of amenity and the property remains as one unit of
     occupation.

7.   05/00416/FUL was refused as it was considered that the height, which would
     have been the same as the main property, (5.4 metres) and the design,
     which incorporated a raised eaves height, would have appeared as a
     discordant addition which would not respect the character of the property or
     the surrounding area. The plans approved under 05/00641/FUL incorporated
     a shallow pitched roof with a ridge height of 3.8 metres; however the roof has
     been constructed with a ridge height of 4.7 metres. As it remains lower than
     the original property and maintains a similar eaves height, it is considered
     that the increase in the roof height and the design, appearance and materials
     are acceptable.

8.   It is also considered that there would be no significant adverse effect on the
     amenities of the adjacent or nearby properties and use of the accommodation
     as a separate dwelling can be prevented by condition.

9.   The proposal would respect the character of the property and surrounding
     area and there would be no significant adverse effect on the amenities of the
     adjacent or nearby properties by virtue of its design, scale, height or location.

     RECOMMENDATION – Grant planning permission subject to the
     following conditions:-

     1.     The extension (building) hereby permitted shall not be occupied at any
            time other than for purposes ancillary to the residential use of the
            dwelling known as 69B Wilford Road.

            [It is not considered that the site possesses sufficient amenities or is
            otherwise suitable to accommodate an additional independent dwelling
            and to comply with policy ENV1 (General Amenity & Design) of the
            Rushcliffe Borough Local Plan].

     NOTES TO APPLICANT

     This permission does not give any legal right for any work on, over or under
     land or buildings outside the application site ownership or affecting
     neighbouring property, including buildings, walls, fences and vegetation
     within that property. If any such work is anticipated, the consent of the
     adjoining land owner must first be obtained. The responsibility for meeting
     any claims for damage to such features lies with the applicant.

     This grant of planning permission does not alter the private legal situation
     with regard to the carrying out of any works involving land which you do not
     own or control. You will need the consent of the owner(s) involved before any
     such works are started.




                                        62
PLAN REFERENCE NO:         05/01155/FUL

APPLICANT:                 Miss R A Thurman & Mrs G A Robinson

PROPOSAL:                  First floor extension

LOCATION:                  Adbolton Day Nursery , Adbolton Lane, Holme Pierrepont

WARD                       Gamston

1.   The applicants propose to extend the first floor of Adbolton Day Nursery by
     incorporating a flat roof section of the premises within the building. The area
     to be enclosed would have a footprint area of 2.2m by 8.7m and have a
     pitched roof.

2.   Adbolton Day Nursery is a buff brick premises with a tiled roof. There is a
     hedge approximately 2m tall to the property front with mature trees up to
     4/5m tall separating the Nursery and Simkins Farm. A conifer hedge and the
     facing wall of an adjacent outbuilding, combined with a 1.8m boarded fence,
     mark the property boundary with the front lawn of Adbolton Hall.

3.   The Parish Council do not object to the application.

4.   One Ward Member does not object to the application. One Ward Member
     has declared a personal interest.

5.   Policies ENV1 (General amenity and design) and ENV16 (Green Belt) of the
     Rushcliffe Borough Local Plan are pertinent in the determination of this
     application. The policies state that planning permission will not be granted
     for inappropriate development within the greenbelt; appropriate development
     includes extensions to existing buildings that are in keeping with the scale
     and character of the surrounding area.

6.   The proposed extension would not increase the footprint of the premises. In
     addition, the extension would be set some 20m from Adbolton Lane and not
     have a significant impact upon the character of the greenbelt or surrounding
     area.

7.   It is considered that the proposal respects the character of the existing
     building and surrounding area by virtue of its design, scale, location and
     materials and would not have a significantly adverse effect on neighbouring
     properties by overshadowing, overbearing effect or loss of privacy. In
     addition, the extension is not considered to have a detrimental impact upon
     the character of the green belt.

     RECOMMENDATION – Grant planning permission subject to the
     following conditions:-

     2.     This permission shall relate only to the submitted application as
            amended by the revised plan(s) received on 31 October.



                                        63
      [For the avoidance of doubt and to comply with policy ENV1 (General
      Amenity & Design) of the Rushcliffe Borough Local Plan].


NOTES TO APPLICANT

This granting of planning permission does not in anyway affect the number of
children that can be cared for on the premises.




                                 64

								
To top