Council gears up for fight with developer over plans for 149 homes

However, Ashfield District Council failed to decide the application within the relevant timeframe – something which is known as non-determination of an application – and the developer has since appealed to the Planning Inspectorate for a decision.

A number of plans have been submitted for the site in the past, including one application for 142 homes in 2020, and another for 141 homes in 2022.

These were both rejected over fears the homes would result in “significant harm” to the character of Brand Lane and the wider area, while concerns were also raised that it would lead to “further encroachment of development into the open countryside”.

Fears were also raised over the resulting “significant volumes of traffic without significant improvements” being made in the area.

The council is again planning to advance that planning permission is refused, on those same grounds, and defend its decision.

Documents point towards non-determination being the result of issues with part of the application, which the council says it had sought to resolve, before Countryside Properties (UK) Limited made its appeal.

Councillors will discuss its plans to defend against non-determination at a meeting next Wednesday (March 4th).

Documents note the council does not have enough housing sites for the next five years, however the authority has argued the harm would not outweigh this need.

Documents state the homes would “result in significant harm” to the area’s character by way of the “intrusive visual impact of the houses” and “encroachment of development into the open countryside”.

They add: “Local highway authority objects to the application because the surrounding highway network, which all traffic would have to use to gain access to the site, is not capable of safely accommodating any additional traffic without significant improvements or additional access points.

“The development also results in a car-dependent urban sprawl which gives rise to significant concerns about the level of sustainability of the proposal.”

The council does acknowledge the homes would help “contribute towards the council’s shortfall in five-year housing supply” and help provide “10 per cent affordable housing”, but it said these would not be “outweighed” by the harms outlined by officials.

Documents add: “It is therefore considered that the application would have been recommended to be refused if the council had the opportunity to consider the application once corrected to be a valid submission.”