Amendments to previously approved plans, which have been subject to flooding fears, have been approved.
Newark and Sherwood District Council’s planning committee met to discuss plans relating to layout revisions for the approved project at Millgate Field, adjoining Newark Marina.
The plans came before the committee after Newark Town Council expressed their concerns that ongoing development could contribute towards flooding in the area.
The project is split into phases of construction and includes health facilities and an extension to the marina, however the subject of the variations relates to 11 houses which will be built on the site.
The initial plans were submitted in 2013 and were previously approved by the district council, however construction has not been completed and the project has since been bought by another developer, Cairns Heritage Homes Ltd.
Changes to the layouts of the properties and design of the scheme, including the use of standardised elements such as the sizes of windows and doors in a bid to make it more viable and speed up the process were proposed by the applicant.
These changes are considered more in line with the designs of other properties in the conservation area
The site neighbours several properties on Millgate which have experienced flooding in the past year — an area of concern highlighted by Newark Town Council.
Sue Saddington said: “This was approved a long time ago and I dare say I was probably on the planning committee.
“But if I was looking to approve it today I certainly wouldn’t do after recent events.
“Things have changed so much and especially in the last six months that area has been extremely waterlogged and I have great concern.”
While recent flooding in the area has highlighted the potential negative aspects of the project, the council cannot overturn a previous decision to approve the plans.
However, council officers have reached out to the developers to review the drainage strategy in order to ascertain whether the design was contributing towards flooding and engagement is ongoing to see if a solution can be found.
A slight variation in the layout of an access way was also queried as it meant the removal of a mature tree, however the tree removal was stated in the original approved plans and not the application for design variation — it was also written into the conditions that a tree would be planted elsewhere in its place.
David Moore, said: “One of the problems for the residents is with the easement, but that is a civil matter, so it’s down to the developer and the residents to work something out.”
As the council had previously approved the plans and no objections were raised to the design amendments being discussed, the changes were approved by the planning committee.
