Plans rejected for commercial units at old Bilsthorpe Colliery site

The authority’s planning committee said the “employment benefits alone are not enough to outweigh the fact the development is unacceptable as a matter of principle and does not justify non-policy compliant development in the open countryside”.

The plans, put forward by The Impact Branch, were for the creation of flexible commercial/industrial units on land adjacent to Bilsthorpe Business Park.

In a supporting letter, the applicants said: “The strength of demand for warehouse space over the past 12 to 24 months has meant availabiliy has now reached critically low levels in the district of Newark & Sherwood, and indeed, much wider afield.

“Opportunities like Bilsthorpe could allow businesses the opportunity to buy a plot of land each and expand their business.

“Bilsthorpe is just this type of location that will local companies to grow their business and take the next step in owning and building their own property.”

However, the council’s planning committee said employment aspects alone were not enough to justfy giving the project the green light.

It said: “The site falls outside of the defined village envelope of Bilsthorpe as defined in the Allocations and Development Management Development Plan Document.

“Notwithstanding that parts of the site are subject to an extant permission for industrial uses, it falls for the proposal as a whole to be assessed under policy DM8 (development in the open countryside) of the DPD.

“The proposed development is not considered to be small in scale nor does it represent a proportionate expansion of an existing business and therefore does not meet the exception for employment development under the criteria of this policy.

“The proposed development therefore represents a departure from the development plan.

“If approved the development could undermine the strategic objectives and targets for sustainable growth set out in the development plan.

“Although the proposal would bring meaningful economic benefits to the district, these are not considered sufficient to outweigh the harm identified or to justify a departure from the development plan.”