The Rushcliffe Borough Council Planning Committee is scheduled to meet to discuss several planning applications, including tree preservation orders and a hybrid planning application for a rural exception development. The committee will also note the planning appeal decisions.

Land at Main Street, Flintham

The committee will be considering a hybrid planning application for land at Main Street, Flintham, which seeks permission for a rural exception development. The application includes full planning permission for 14 affordable dwellings, including six discount market sales dwellings, with associated car parking, open space, landscaping, access, and infrastructure works. It also includes outline planning permission for three self-build market dwelling plots.

The application is a resubmission of a previous scheme that was refused planning permission, a decision upheld by the Planning Inspectorate. According to the report pack, the applicants believe that there are now changes to the Development Plan and several other different material considerations since the previous decision, including:

• The Greater Nottinghamshire Strategic Plan
• The new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) adopted on 12 December 2024
• The anticipated adoption of the Rushcliffe Design Code SPD¹

The Director – Development and Economic Growth is recommending that planning permission be refused. Reasons for the recommendation to refuse planning permission include:

• The application site has been assessed as not falling into the definition of a rural exception site by virtue of its size.
• The submitted Housing Needs Survey is neither robust or up-to-date, and, therefore, it has not been demonstrated that there is a local need for the proposed development.
• There has also been identified harm to the rural character of the site and surrounding countryside as well as impact to heritage assets in the form of adverse impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
• The application is also not in compliance with the adopted Rushcliffe Design Code.

The report pack notes that Councillor Simms has not commented on the application. Flintham Parish Council objects to the application on the grounds of preserving the mature orchard, dangerous site access, and lack of safe pedestrian passage to village amenities.

The report pack states that RBC Planning Policy and Strategic Housing Officer have provided detailed comments on the supporting information regarding housing need, concluding that the submitted Housing Needs Survey is neither robust nor up to date and that the applicant has not demonstrated that a local need exists to justify a rural exception site in Flintham.

The Rushcliffe Borough Council Conservation officer does not consider that the proposal would cause harm to the significance of the Listed Buildings or their settings, but has strong concerns about the proposal and does not support it for the same reasons the previous scheme was unsupported.

The RBC Design and Landscape Officer has provided detailed comments in relation to the loss of trees and impact on the character of the area.

The RBC Ecology and Sustainability Officer has raised concerns, stating that a bat activity survey has been recommended by the consultant ecologist, and that it is not possible to determine if this development will have a detrimental impact on populations of protected species at this time. They also note that a statutory Biodiversity Metric has been supplied, which demonstrates a net loss of -22.1 habitat units (-100%) and a net loss of - 2.87 hedgerow units (100.0%), which does not currently meet the regulations.

NCC Planning has commented on the proximity of the site to bus stops, and that a bus stop infrastructure contribution of £5,400 would be required, as well as a request of £35,000 towards the cost of improving pedestrian access to the village. A secondary education contribution of £90,810 and a post 16 education contribution of £30,270 are also sought.

Nottinghamshire Area Ramblers objects to the application, citing the negative impact on the rural character and conservation area of Flintham, the mature orchard with Tree Preservation Orders, and the damage to the amenity value of Flintham Footpath 4.

The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) objects to the application, given the negative impact on the rural character and conservation area of Flintham, and questions remain over the housing needs requirement in Flintham.

Tree Preservation Orders

The committee will also be considering two Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs):

Tollerton No.2 Tree Preservation Order 2025

The Tollerton No.2 Tree Preservation Order (TPO) 2025 covers trees at 147 Tollerton Lane, Tollerton. The TPO was made on 7 May 2025 and needs to be confirmed within six months. The trees protected are sited in the front garden of the property, which is described as a characterful property constructed in the 1940s with a large mature garden.

According to the report pack, a potential purchaser (who now owns the property) called the council to check if trees on the site were protected and was advised that they were not. Within a couple of weeks of this enquiry, the council received calls from two other members of the public raising concerns that a developer was buying the house and that the trees were at risk.

The TPO protects two large Cedar trees (T1 and T2) close to the driveway, along with two young Maple trees (T3 and T4) that had been planted in the front garden in a prominent location.

The new owner of the property has objected to the TPO in relation to T1, the Cedar tree located midway along the drive, citing property damage, limited amenity value, and health and safety concerns. They also reserve the right to object to T2, the Cedar at the front of the property, and question whether the tree's amenity value outweighs the cost and liability of ongoing damage.

The Director – Development and Economic Growth is recommending that the Tollerton No.2 Tree Preservation Order (TPO) 2025 be confirmed without modification.

East Bridgford No.1 Tree Preservation Order 2025

The East Bridgford No.1 Tree Preservation Order (TPO) 2025 covers a Spruce tree in the front garden of 2 Cherryholt Close, East Bridgford. The TPO was made on 18 June 2025 and needs to be confirmed within six months. The property is located within the conservation area, and this part of the village has a strong character due to mature trees.

According to the report pack, a conservation area tree notice was received in September 2024 to fell the Spruce but was allowed to lapse without a formal decision being made. A second notice was received in April 2025, again to fell the Spruce, and this resulted in the decision to make the Tree Preservation Order.

Objections to the TPO have been received from the owner of the tree and their immediate neighbour at No. 4, citing that the tree is visually out of keeping with the surrounding area, that no neighbouring residents have expressed a desire to see the tree retained, and that the tree was planted far too close to the house with little regard to the size it would reach.

The Director – Development and Economic Growth is recommending that the East Bridgford No.1 Tree Preservation Order (TPO) 2025 be confirmed without modification.

Seatoller Close, West Bridgford

The committee will be considering an application for a first floor side extension and single storey rear extension at 9 Seatoller Close, West Bridgford.

According to the report pack, the applicant is related to a Rushcliffe Borough Council employee.

One Ward Councillor (Councillor J Wheeler) objects to the proposal, stating that the loss of light and privacy will have an impact upon the neighbouring property.

One representation from a neighbour (no 7 Seatoller Close) was received raising concerns about loss of light, lack of privacy, and the need for a full daylight/ sunlight assessment.

The Director – Development and Economic Growth is recommending that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.

Planning Appeals

The committee will note the planning appeal decisions for September, including an appeal regarding the demolition of an existing front boundary wall and gate and the construction of a two-storey extension to form a new dwelling at 91 Main Street, East Leake, which was allowed.