A developer has been accused of “taking liberties” with controversial plans for a 45-house development.
The application, for land to the rear of The Vineries, Lower Kirklington Road, Southwell, has seen a 22% increase in bedrooms, and homes are proposed to be closer to existing properties than when it was granted outline planning permission in 2021.
It has sparked concerns about privacy, flooding and overshadowing from neighbours and, following a discussion at its planning committee meeting yesterday (April 3), Southwell Town Council has maintained its objection for a third time.
The application — lodged by Cameron Homes Ltd, Sir John Starkey, Keith Maxey, Katherine Maxey, John Judson, Ann Judson, and Richard Mullard — plans for a mixture of detached, semi detached and terraced properties and bungalows, with associated green spaces and a children’s play area.
The application site is bordered to the east by Private Drive and one resident spoke on behalf of the homes there who have concerns about privacy and the potential loss of a historic hedgerow.
The resident said: “We believe it should be refused and redesigned.
“The outline application ticked every box.”
In the outline application — which developers have the right to deviate from in their reserved matters applications — there were six houses on the east of the development site and the gardens were proposed to have closed board fences enclosing their gardens, leaving the hedge as a protected buffer strip between the development and Private Drive.
In the latest site plan, the resident explained there are eight two storey houses on the same stretch, with windows facing Private Drive, and the hedge used as a boundary to their gardens — meaning it is unprotected and could be removed by the homeowners.
The hedge also has areas of severe damage sustained during clearance of the site, which have raised privacy and security concerns for neighbours.
“These issues could easily be solved by redesigning back to the outline plan,” the resident added.
Tim Wendels, who is a resident of Avondale Lane and whose house backs onto the planned plot 33, again spoke about his concerns with the proposed house which is “far too close” to his property.
The house on plot 33 has been changed from a five bedroom two-storey house to a large bungalow with separate double garage in the latest plan, after he previously raised concerns about a “monster wall” backing onto his property.
He said the decrease in height was welcomed, but reiterated concerns about the proximity to his home. In outline plans the houses occupying the area were 27m from his, but the garage and bungalow are now much closer.
He suggested the bungalow should be moved further south on the site to be 10m away from the boundary with his property, “more like the outline plan”.
He also reiterated concerns about the increased number of bedrooms and houses with an ‘upstairs study’.
Mr Wendels added: “It looks like the applicants are hiding a significant increase in the development behind the 45 house title.”
After hearing the concerns of residents, councillors debated the application.
Gina Adams noted that new site plan, published on March 18, removed references to indicative tree planting — and asked the council to check this was an oversight on the plan rather than the developer choosing not to offset the trees it would be removing.
Roger Blaney added: “Those most affected are more supportive of the outline application… but that is only indicative to show 45 houses can fit on the site.
“There will be a development of 45 houses here, that cannot be stopped. The site has been allocated since 2012.”
He also noted the upstairs study in one house type which “is so obviously a fourth bedroom” and requested the council ask Newark and Sherwood District Council if this would alter the car parking requirements as well as drawing their attention to the lack of indicative tree planting.
Mr Blaney added: “I’m also concerned about the lack of visitor parking, which I think will cause problems.”
He added that there were parts of the development where ten cars would be parked in a row, which he described as unattractive, and that the street scenes provided didn’t give a realistic view as they showed homes with just one car outside.
Malcolm Brock added: “I endorse all the comments made by [residents].
“Outline planning permission is only indicative, but it is exactly that, indicative. The developer has the right to be creative and I think in this case has been particularly creative.”
He suggested they had “taken liberties” which would have a significant adverse impact on neighbouring properties, and added that the continued objection from Nottinghamshire County Council Highways was an “achievement” and not something he’d seen before.
Steve Perry said: “I think one of the biggest worries is the rise in bedrooms. It will have a huge impact on Southwell if they’re all occupied — schools, healthcare, dentists, all the places we value will be under pressure.”
Councillors also noted that the blue line which denotes the land in the control of the applicant was within the red line denoting the application site on the southern boundary — suggesting part of the area of planting would not be in their control unless the developer had permission from the landowner.
Mr Blaney also drew attention to flooding concerns raised by a number of residents through comments on the planning portal, who shared fears the planned ‘pond two’ at the south eastern corner of the site could overflow and affect properties on Springfield Road, which have also suffered flooding in the past.
Councillors unanimously agreed to maintain their objection to the application.
The debate also attracted a general question from a member of the public — who queried why the town’s facilities hadn’t been improved prior to new developments when it had been over a decade since the land was allocated for extra housing.
She raised concerns about shopping, healthcare and school provision, and said the town’s Co-op was “on its knees” because it couldn’t cope with the volume of shoppers.
It was agreed the concerns would be taken on board by the town’s district councillors, as members of the planning authority.
