Housing in Linby deemed 'inappropriate for green belt' to be refused over lack of developer contributions

Plans to build two more homes near boarding kennels in Hucknall are not likely to be given the go-ahead by councillors after being deemed an "inappropriate" development on greenbelt land.

Ashfield District Council had previously granted outline permission for the two houses, at the Linby Boarding Kennels, in Church Lane, to couple other small developments on the land.

Previously-approved plans on the land include applications for four and nine homes, with the two further houses requested in this development planned for the south-east corner of the site.

The houses would be based on land currently used as an area for dog training, documents confirm.

However, in approving the application last year, the authority requested substantial section 106 developer contributions totalling £86,002 to "justify the development" going ahead.

This included £48,502 for secondary education, £3,500 for bus stop improvements, £22,000 for public open space and £12,000 for public realm improvements.

It was hoped the contributions would make the development more sustainable, having offered to improve various parts of Hucknall in return for the loss of greenbelt land.

But now the council has confirmed it plans to refuse permission at its meeting on April 13 after the applicant Ian Glenn, who has been supported by planning agent PP&D Planning Consultants, did not agree to the section 106 deal.

The authority said: "The proposal is considered to represent an inappropriate form of development which is harmful to the fundamental aims and purposes of the Green Belt.

"[This], amongst other things, seeks to prevent urban sprawl and safeguard the countryside from inappropriate encroachment.

"Although members had previously indicated acceptance of the proposal this was subject to contributions towards infrastructure and affordable housing being agreed to overcome the previously recommended reasons for refusal.

"No other exception circumstances have been presented to justify the development.

"It should be noted that the above contributions have been requested but not agreed, and no justification has been provided as to why the contributions cannot be met."

The authority added: "It is the officers view that the proposal is not sustainable without such contributions, [and] referral to the Secretary of State for determination would be required if planning permission is not refused."

It comes after the application received positive feedback from residents living near the kennels, with some responses to the initial planning application describing it as a "benefit to the area".

One resident response said: "I fully support the application of the two dwellings.

"To remove the noise of the kennels would be a benefit to the area. A small plot with well built and designed homes to suit within the area is perfect."

Another resident added: "Two more houses on the site of Linby Boarding Kennels won't have an adverse affect on Linby or Hucknall, but will help achieve the relocation of the kennels to a more suitable location.

"I fully support the application and hope the council approve it."

Objections to the initial plans included "intrusive over-development" of the land and damage to the "characteristics" of the area.