Parish Council Menu

Village Magazine

Catch up with what is happening in your village in our Village Magazine.

Find the latest issues here >>>


Totally Locally

Open your eyes to the great independent shops and businesses in Edwinstowe.

Find out more >>>
Visit Totally Locally

Edwinstowe Parish Planning Meeting 23 January 2017

Present: Cllrs Tattersall, Brown, Peacock, Troop, Ayre

Absent: Cllr Benson - Ill Health, Cllr McLaughlin - Not available, Cllr J Peck - County Council Business, Cllr K Peck - Working, Cllr Starbrook - Ill Health

17/1 WELCOME BY CHAIRMAN INCLUDING ANY ANNOUNCEMENTS AND INTENTION TO RECORD NOTICE

The Chair opened the meeting and welcomed all present. 1 member of the public declared they were recording the meeting.

17/2 RECEIVE ANY APOLOGIES AND REASONS FOR ABSENCE

Reasons were approved unanimously.

17/3 DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS BY MEMBERS (AND EMPLOYEES) IN ITEMS ON THE AGENDA

None.

17/4 TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING OF THE COUNCIL HELD ON 30TH NOVEMBER 2016

Minutes were approved unanimously and signed by the Chair

17/5 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION - THERE WILL BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO MAKE COMMENTS.

Please refer to guidance provided (also available on the Parish Council Website) - 1 minute per person - 15 minutes in total.

17/6 Agenda

AMENDED PLANNING APPLICATION

1. Application No: 16/01436/RMAM
Applicant: Woodheads
Proposal: Land at Rufford Road, Edwinstowe, Notts
Site Address: Amendments to planning application as follows:

  1. Additional hedging has been proposed on the Northern Boundary in between existing and proposed bungalow properties to soften the transition in between the two.
    POINTS RAISED BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC: Further information is sought in relation to the type of hedging and who will be responsible for maintenance.

    COUNCILLORS COMMENTS: Details regarding the type of hedging is required. Woodheads should consult with individual residents effected and clarify who will be responsible for maintaining the hedges. The gap between residents' boundaries and Woodheads' boundary needs to be sufficient for people/equipment to maintain the boundaries.

  2. The Bungalow's rear gardens have increased in size from 6m and vary now in between 7.6 and 8.2 m to allow for generous green spaces and also appropriate drainage.
    POINTS RAISED BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC: Concerns were raised that the boundaries were too close to one another. A resident of Robin Hood Avenue was concerned about loss of privacy and would prefer a "buffer zone" between their house and the new ones. Concerns raised about established trees on the boundary. Residents suggested that NSDC Planning Officers visited their properties to hear their concerns.

    COUNCILLORS COMMENTS: It is understood that Woodheads commissioned a report on trees.

  3. Additional landscaping has been added to the Southern Boundary to soften the visual/ acoustic impact both from the main road looking towards the development but also from the rear of properties looking into the gardens.
    POINTS RAISED BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC: It was suggested that the play area be re located to the area next to the properties on Robin Hood Avenue, which would create a "buffer zone". The plans show the play area will be at the lowest point of the development so will get very muddy.

    COUNCILLORS COMMENTS: Concerns for health and safety were raised regarding locating a children's play area next to a busy road; is the fence between the play area and the road sufficient to protect children should a car leave the road? Will pollution/fumes from vehicles cause health problems for children/users? It was suggested that the speed limit be reduced to 30 mph before motorists enter the area and alongside the development. Could Woodheads utilize some of the open spaces on the development for housing and site the play area next to Robin Hood Avenue? Concerns were raised about siting the play area near the septic tanks/sewage pumping system.

  4. The overall Green Infrastructure area has been revised to incorporate additional parking space and NCC Highways' comments without affecting the total area of 0.4 ha.
    POINTS RAISED BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC: The configuration of additional parking will encourage people to park on the roads/paths.

    COUNCILLORS COMMENTS: Clarification needed in relation to which roads will be adopted by NCC Highways, and who will be responsible for maintenance of any private roads, as this can be complicated and costly for residents effected. Assurance that all roads will be constructed to a sufficient standard requested.

  5. Landscape elements have been altered to accommodate Visibility Splays in line with NCC Highways' feedback.
    POINTS RAISED BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC: None.

    COUNCILLORS COMMENTS: None.

  6. Private drives and footways have been widen in response to NCC Highways’ comments.
    POINTS RAISED BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC: Will private drives be long enough for safe loading/unloading of vehicles?

    COUNCILLORS COMMENTS: None.

  7. The Secondary Road (Plots 26 - 24) and Private Drives (Plot 3, Plot 42, Plot 62) have been extended to allow for additional parking spaces.
    POINTS RAISED BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC: Concerns re access for emergency vehicles if roads are congested.

    COUNCILLORS COMMENTS: There appears to be sufficient parking spaces for residents, but will there be enough for visitors to park? This could lead to congestion on roads/paths and access issues for residents and emergency vehicles.

  8. The number of Car Ports has increased from 9 to 18 hence improving the parking facilities and preventing on-street parking.
    POINTS RAISED BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC: The plans do not allow for access to build garages at the rear - parking space is at the front of many of the houses. Building car ports does not increase car parking space, as there would have been car park spaces there anyway.

    COUNCILLORS COMMENTS: Concerns raised that car ports will not be used and residents will park on the roads because it is easier. Why have garages not been built? Will this lead to residents applying for planning permission to build garages and will this lead to the development feeling cramped?

  9. Additional Bin Collection Points have been located to serve the units accessed from the private Drive Ways.
    POINTS RAISED BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC: Concerns raised that bin lorries won't get access to empty bins if numerous cars parked on the roads.

    COUNCILLORS COMMENTS: Space for bin lorries to turn around is restricted.

  10. The Pumping Station has been relocated to allow for on-site access from within the Development rather than from B6030 which would potentially obstruct the existing traffic.
    POINTS RAISED BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC: It is understood that Woodheads will maintain the pumps for 3 years then Severn Trent will maintain them. Assuming they require regular maintenance, concern was raised regarding maintenance vehicles accessing the pumping station.

    COUNCILLORS COMMENTS: Concerns that the pumping station is near the children's play area reiterated. Is it usual for this type of sewage system to be used on a new housing development?

  11. The Ownership Outline has been altered on the Northern Boundary in line with the Topographical Site Survey provided by the Client.
    POINTS RAISED BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC: None.

    COUNCILLORS COMMENTS: As previously stated, there should be a sufficient gap between the boundary of existing properties and the new homes so that there is access for maintenance of the boundaries.

  12. Plots have been amended to allow for more generous gardens and better parking facilities.
    POINTS RAISED BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC: None.

    COUNCILLORS COMMENTS: Nothing further to add.

EPC DECISION: Object to proposed amendments - unanimous

Web Design by JKE Web Design