Southwell Civic Society raises concerns as 45-house housing development at rear of The Vineries, Southwell, appears underway before flood and road safety conditions discharged

Concerns have been raised as work on 45-home development appears to have started before a road safety condition was met.

Southwell Civic Society raised its concerns — which also relate to flood mitigation at the site — at a meeting of Southwell Town Council’s planning committee on Wednesday, November 6.

The issues relate to plans for former allotment and agricultural land to the rear of The Vineries, off Lower Kirklington Road, submitted by Cameron Homes Ltd, Sir John Starkey, Keith Maxey, Katherine Maxey, John Judson, Ann Judson, and Richard Mullard. The scheme was approved in its seventh iteration following a number of alterations and disputes.

At this week’s meeting it was agreed that the civic society would send a letter to the planning authority, Newark and Sherwood District Council, regarding its concerns and requesting a meeting between a planning officer, the civic society, flood forum, and the town council, who will also contact the district council in support of setting up the meeting.

A spokesperson for the civic society said: “We have some concerns over the way business was handled.”

The suggestion is that work seems to have begun on the development with no public evidence that two important conditions — one and four — attached to the application have been ‘discharged’.

Condition one of the reserved matters application stated: “No part of the development hereby permitted shall take place until details of the new road have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, to include longitudinal and cross-sectional gradients, street lighting, drainage and outfall proposals, construction specification, provision of and diversion of utilities services, and any proposed structural works. The development shall be implemented in accordance with these details to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority prior to first occupation.”

The reason given was to ensure the development is constructed to safe and adoptable standards.

However, the civic society could find no record of this plan, a request for discharge of the condition, or agreement of the discharge, which was corroborated by town councillors present.

Condition four, from the original outline application, stated: “No part of the development hereby approved shall commence until a detailed surface water drainage scheme… has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority in consultation with the lead local flood authority.”

In the reserved matters application, condition four references only the need for a drainage scheme for driveways on the site — prompting the civic society to fear the request for proper flood mitigation has been ‘lost’ in the process, as it could see no evidence of the outline application’s condition having been discharged.

A member of the society said: “Not only has the flooding condition not been complied with, so has the highways condition.”

The society also suggested that the council’s reliance on conditions was not an ideal way to deal with applications, and suggested the process “ought to work better for our community”, and that the application had been rushed through to a decision to avoid exceeding the time limit.

Concerns about the planning process where further echoed by Peter Harris, who also represents the town as a district councillor.

He said: “It was really concerning in the [district council planning] meeting that officers didn’t like me challenging conditions.”

He suggested that officers had not been in favour of adding further conditions due to them being ‘difficult to enforce’ or ‘hard to word’.

“The issues which have been raised this evening are important,” he added.

Roger Blaney added that the decision to push the decision through quickly did not have to be done, as it would not necessarily have been in the applicants’ interest to send it to appeal rather than agree to an extension of the time, as the appeal process can be slow.

He added: “If condition one has not been followed, that would be reason for enforcement action.

“I do think we should ask for a joint meeting with the officer responsible.”

Malcolm Brock, chairman of the town council’s planning and highways committee, added that they were ‘legitimate concerns’.

A letter from the developer, Cameron Homes Ltd, to the district council said: “I can confirm that works will be commencing on the above referenced development on October 24, 2024”, and work is underway at the site.

In a statement provided to the Advertiser, Andy Freeman, chairman of the planning committee at Newark and Sherwood District Council, said: “As a planning authority, we have a duty to investigate reports of potential breaches of planning when raised to us by the community. There is a set process for this where people can submit a report via our website.

“In terms of discussions regarding the application on the Land Rear of the Vineries, Lower Kirklington Road in Southwell, it had been well discussed at planning committee both during the August and again in the September planning committee when it has been deferred as members requested further information. The report had also been amended a number of times in response to consultation from officers before it was discussed by members at planning committee.

“Councillors discussed at length on the final decision, and it is well documented in the minutes of both committees which are available for the public to view online.

“As with any planning application, this one was thoroughly examined by officers and councillors during committees including a site visit in August. There was sufficient information provided to members on the planning committee to make a final decision.”