Newark and Sherwood District Council approve plans to build 142 new houses on land at Lowfield Lane, Balderton, despite opposition from residents and environmental protesters
Shouts of “shame” were directed at councillors after they approved controversial plans to build houses on a village green space.
Newark and Sherwood District Council’s planning committee met on Monday evening to discuss plans put forward by the council’s own development company, Arkwood, to build 142 homes on land off Lowfield Lane in Balderton.
The land was allocated for housing back in 2013 as part of the council’s Development Plan to show that there would be adequate future housing provision in the district. Plans were first put forward three years ago and have since been amended multiple times in response to public feedback.
During a lengthy and contentious debate, arguments were heard from members of the public as details were poured over by members of the planning committee.
Addressing the dozens of concerned residents who turned out to demonstrate their opposition to the development, committee chairman Andy Freeman began by saying: “The planning committee is not a political committee.
“We are all individual members, our duty is to take decisions based on planning policy, not on politics.”
One of the biggest concerns and the main focus of protests is the loss of green space and wildlife habitat at Lowfield.
The site is made up of several grassland fields, hundreds of metres of mature hedgerows, as well as a wetland area to the south, and has previously been described as a wildlife haven for animals such as badgers, bats, hedgehogs, foxes, owls, and deer.
A representative of Arkwood Development explained that the original plans had been altered in response to these concerns.
The number of houses has been reduced from a proposed 151 to 142, and wildlife habitats would be incorporated into the “environmentally rich” scheme. This includes the retention of a field, as well as many of the original hedgerows and field boundaries.
Additional planting, the use of bee bricks, and bat and bird nesting boxes have also been included in the plans.
It was argued that the housing density of 19.8 houses per hectare being significantly lower than the standard minimum practice of 30 houses per hectre was a positive factor for development as this would help to protect some existing natural features.
The need for additional housing in the district was also raised, with the council required to build hundreds of new homes before 2033.
There is also pressure from the government, which aims to build 1.5m new homes nationally over the next five years through planning reforms, releasing green belt land for development, and establishing mandatory housing targets for local authorities.
Homes to be build include a mixture of bungalows, maisonettes, flats, and houses, with a split of 70% rented and 30% home ownership.
However, councillors, including Johno Lee and Peter Harris, were critical of the lack of affordable housing being considered.
Usual council policy asks that new developments include 30% affordable housing — the plans at Lowfield only include 10%, which is the minimum requirement.
This affordable housing is also clustered together in the north east corner of the site, rather than being spread throughout the development.
More than 2,300 people signed a petition calling for a meeting of full council to debate the plans before a decision was taken by the planning committee, and over 110 people have written to the council directly about the application.
At the meeting, Balderton resident Des Kay spoke passionately in opposition to the plans on behalf of his fellow campaigners.
He said: “This application in contravention of the council’s own policy on biodiversity and is in conflict with a key piece of government legislation, the environmental improvement plan, which commits to leaving nature in a better than we found it.
“Please listen to your constituents. This is the last remaining country lane in the village.
“It would be a sad day for the environment, for Balderton, and democracy if this development is allowed to proceed in its current form.
“Green areas provide a great therapy for many people — please don’t destroy it and rip the heart out of the community.”
The council’s own portfolio holder for climate and the environment, Emma Oldham, thanked the developers for engaging and willing to make changes to the original plans but remained concerned, stating that Nottinghamshire had already lost 97% to 99% of its grassland habitats.
Other members of the public raised concerns about the amount of housing being built in Balderton and the surrounding areas of Middlebeck and Fernwood, but a lack of services to support an increase a further increase in the population.
The issue of flooding was also raised. Sue Saddington was a member the previous Conservative-led council, when the land was initially allocated for development back in 2013, but said that recent events including significant floods within the past year had changed her perspective on the site.
She said: “What applied in 2013 doesn’t apply now. It is called Lowfield Lane for a reason — it is low.
“It floods, it is boggy, it is waterlogged. What are we doing putting 142 new houses on this site? Are we crazy?
“I need to be convinced that we are not adding to the problem.”
The developers state that flooding measures have been incorporated into the plans including filter drains, swales, bioretention systems, permeable paving, verges and basins to absorb water, ponds and wetlands, and housing would be built above the 1 in 1000 year flood level.
The two authorities responsible for flooding within the district, Nottinghamshire County Council and the Environment Agency, raised no objections to the plans.
Planning officers explained that as the plans had been recommended for approval and had not received any statutory objections, the council would not be able to defend a decision of refusal if the developer Arkwood was to go to appeal.
Committee chairman Andy Freeman said: “With my planning head on, this is an allocated site.
“From what it was, to what it is now, is a substantial improvement.”
Peter Harris said he was opposed to the plans as whole and hoped that the site would be de-allocated to avoid any future applications being made.
Others were torn, but pragmatic, including Linda Dales who said that planning policy meant the council was required to build hundreds of new homes, and that “wherever we put them, it will be on land where there are currently no houses.”
The committee vice-chairman David Moore, said: “There are lots of ifs, buts, and maybes. But these are only opinions.
“What are the material reasons for approval or refusal? That is the long and short of it.
“We need to take the emotion out of it.”
Traffic management and parking was also raised, with the council admitting that the number of allocated parking spaces was not enough to meet the needs of the proposed houses. However, it was said that non-allocated parking would meet this deficit.
After all was said and done, following 3 hours of debate, the plans were ultimately approved by recorded vote.
Four councillors voted against the plans; Adrian Amer, Peter Harris, Keith Melton, and Emma Oldham.
Six voted for approval; Linda Dales, Andy Freeman, David Moore, Penny Rainbow, Linda Tift, and Tim Wildgust.
Simon Forde and Sue Saddington abstained from the vote, and Maurice Shakeshaft was absent from the vote.
As the result of the vote was read out, shouts of “shame on you” were heard from the many residents in attendance. Others promised that this “isn’t the end” and that they would “keep fighting”.
Now that the plans have been approved, there is an opportunity for a meeting of full council to now debate the topic.
