Green light for 124 homes in Teversal after Government Inspector overrules council

Watch more of our videos on ShotsTV.com 
and on Freeview 262 or Freely 565
Visit Shots! now
Plans to build 124 new homes in Teversal have been given the go-ahead after the Government Planning Inspectorate overturned Ashfield Council’s original decision to refuse them.

In its report, the inspectorate said the council had ‘failed to substantiate its concerns regarding character and appearance, flood risk and drainage’ and that its reasons for refusal ‘did not stand up to scrutiny’.

The scheme, for a mix of two, three and four-bedroom homes built on land off Fackley Road and Crompton Street, was recommended for approval by council officers back in December 2023, but was rejected by the planning committee on the grounds of flood risk and highway safety.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

However, developers Persimmon Homes, Nouveau Homes & Land Ltd and Locheil Homes & Developments Ltd appealed the ruling and the case was passed to the Planning Inspectorate.

The Planning Inspectorate has ruled plans for 124 new homes on land off Crompton Street and Fackley Road in Teversal can go ahead. Photo: GoogleThe Planning Inspectorate has ruled plans for 124 new homes on land off Crompton Street and Fackley Road in Teversal can go ahead. Photo: Google
The Planning Inspectorate has ruled plans for 124 new homes on land off Crompton Street and Fackley Road in Teversal can go ahead. Photo: Google

Now, the Inspectorate has published its findings and ruled that the scheme can go ahead and also awarded costs the housing companies.

The report said: “The council’s planning committee refused the proposal against the advice of officers as it was entitled to do so.

“Nevertheless, the committee must be able to clearly articulate and substantiate its decision, especially when departing from professional advice.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

"The reasons for refusal are multifaceted and could have been clearer.

"The first concern relates to the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

"The council does not object to the principle of the development so it must be accepted that some visual impact of the built form would occur.

“The council failed to produce sufficient objective analysis to substantiate its reason for refusal in respect of the effects of the development on the character and appearance of the area, and this was unreasonable.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

“At the time of writing its appeal statement, the council withdrew concerns about prematurity, highway safety and anti-social behaviour.

“It said it would be difficult to evidence the potential impacts and provide sufficient level of proof to justify refusal.

"It was unreasonable of the council to refuse planning permission on matters it could not justify.

"The technical evidence submitted with the application confirmed that surface water run-off rates would not be increased because of the development and the council officer’s report to committee judged that based on surface water mitigation proposed, the development would likely reduce flood risk.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

"The Local Lead Flood Team (LLFT) did not object to the proposals.

"While noting the concerns raised by interested parties about flooding along Fackley Road it is not clear from the council’s decision notice or the minutes of the committee meeting what led the council to conclude that there was a lack of evidence regarding flooding.

"The overall conclusion was the same that flood risk was low or very low and surface water run-off would be attenuated.

"In its statement the council did not seek the views of the LLFT, nor was any substantive evidence provided at the hearing that the proposals would lead to flooding in the area – this was unreasonable.”

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Members of the ruling Ashfield Independents at the council were also angry that the inspector awarded costs to the developers and claimed the they had refused the council’s request for more than £300,000 of improvements in broadband and in the nearest shopping area – Stanton Hill High Street.

But the inspector addressed this too, saying: “The applicants did not object to the contributions to public realm and broadband improvements at application stage.

"This was not a matter on which the application was refused.

"I agree with the applicants that these contributions do not meet all the relevant tests of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) regulations.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

"The onus is on the decision-maker to be satisfied that any contributions meet the relevant tests and the council unreasonably sought these without properly evidencing the need for them.

“I conclude that the council has failed to substantiate its concerns regarding character and appearance, flood risk and drainage.

"It also caused the applicants to submit evidence regarding prematurity, highway safety and anti-social behaviour, matters which the council could not justify and later withdrew.

“The onus was on the council to justify the appropriateness of contributions having regard to the CIL tests.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

"The reasons for refusal do not stand up to scrutiny on their planning merits.

"A full award of costs is therefore justified.”

Coun Helen-Ann Smith (Ash Ind), council deputy leader, slammed the decision, saying: “I am angered that the Planning Inspectorate has overturned a clear decision from the democratically-elected planning committee at Ashfield Council.

"This decision will change historic Teversal forever and that is unforgiveable.

"This is a green space that floods regularly, public transport is a thing of the past and I cannot think of anywhere less suited to build houses.

"To overturn our democratic decision is devastating.”

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

“This decision is all down to the Government’s insistence on house-building, whatever the damage caused.

"The Labour Party is determined to bulldoze every green space we hold so dear and local councillors simply cannot do anything to stop them.”

Comment Guidelines

National World encourages reader discussion on our stories. User feedback, insights and back-and-forth exchanges add a rich layer of context to reporting. Please review our Community Guidelines before commenting.

News you can trust since 1952
Follow us
©National World Publishing Ltd. All rights reserved.Cookie SettingsTerms and ConditionsPrivacy notice