A new apartment block can be built on a “shabby” car park in Beeston after councillors gave the reluctant go-ahead.
Developer Willmark Ltd submitted plans to Broxtowe Borough Council in February to build a set of eight one-bed apartments off Portland Street in the town centre.
The patch of paved land falls behind 1A to 1D Willoughby Street and is currently used for informal parking, sandwiched between an office block and the Beeston Oasis Christian Centre.
Now, the “scruffy” site will be used to build a new flat block, after proposals were approved by the borough council’s planning committee on Wednesday (June 10) despite councillors raising concerns about the lack of parking.
The apartments will be set across three floors, with three apartments on the ground floor, three on the first and two on the second.
Portland Street and the surrounding roads are narrow, where nearby terraced homes lack driveways, and the on-street parking is sparse. Original proposals included two parking spaces but an updated plan says there is no on-site parking.
A number of similar schemes in the town centre vicinity were previously approved with no parking, such as nine houses in multiple occupation (HMO) in Wollaton Road, a four-storey block for eight apartments in Vernon Avenue and 15 flats with two maisonettes being approved in Villa Street.
Speaking in Wednesday’s meeting, Councillor David K Watts (Lib Dem) asked: “Will there ever come a point at which we say we have reached our capacity of developments within the town centre with no parking?”
Ryan Dawson, director of planning and economic development at the council, replied: “I think there will be and I think there’s a trend at the moment, more with HMOs than there is actually with flat developments, where we’re getting less HMOs at the moment in Beeston because there’s less demand for them.
“It’s a little bit hard to gauge… I think there might come a point when you tip the balance but at the moment it’s more based on economics and capitalism I think, rather than planning, but how on earth we do a study on that I have no idea.”
Cllr Gabrielle Bunn (Brox Alliance), who called the application in to be scrutinised by the committee, said: “The fact that we’ve been allowing this before doesn’t make it acceptable. It’s something we keep raising at planning committee… this has exacerbated the problem that is there [in several areas].”
Cllr Steve Carr (Ind) said Beeston’s good transport links only work if someone is travelling “from east to west”, either to Toton, towards Long Eaton, or Nottingham city centre, with a lack of easy connections to the north and beyond.
He said: “We have this tendency to say ‘oh people won’t want to bring cars’, but the reality is that they do bring cars. I just wonder whether we should be taking a bit of a stand now… where we need to say ‘really? Do we really want to build more and more houses without car parking spaces?’”
The committee was told by Cllr Philip Owen (Con) that it “shouldn’t be afraid” to reject the plans on the basis the authority has lost some planning appeals in the past.
He said: “Given that these aren’t intended as student flats, then it’s even more likely that people will come with cars or want cars.”
Cllr Owen added the project would “decant” parking problems elsewhere due to future residents not being able to park outside.
Some members offered support to the proposed apartments, where Cllr Lydia Ball (Con) called the land “scruffy” and said it was ideal to build on.
She said: “There is a car park just further down. I noticed on the opposite side are really nice built houses and I didn’t see any cars there at all, so I don’t know whether people park their cars somewhere else.”
Peter Bales (Lab) reminded the group if plans were refused, the site is “no use” to anyone and a different developer could return with plans for more student accommodation in the town.
Under planning policy, applications should only be refused on highway grounds if their impacts are “severe”. In this case, Nottinghamshire County Council, as the highway authority, raised no objections to the plans regarding the lack of parking.
The plans were voted through with nine votes for and four against.