The Erewash Council Planning Committee met to discuss several planning applications, including proposals for new dwellings, a change of use for an existing property, and the removal of a protected tree. The committee was scheduled to review each application, considering factors such as design, impact on the surrounding area, and compliance with local and national planning policies. Recommendations were made in the report pack for each of the applications.

Planning Applications

32 East Street, Ilkeston

The committee was scheduled to consider a request to change the use of 32 East Street, Ilkeston from a dwelling into a seven-person house in multiple occupation (HMO). The proposals also included building a wraparound dormer extension to the rear and side of the property, and a single-storey rear extension to replace an existing structure.

The report pack noted that Councillor Harrison Broadhurst, Chair of Planning Committee, called the application into planning committee at the request of residents, and that a fellow councillor, named in the report pack as Councillor Snaith, requested the application be called in because bedrooms in the eaves might not have the declared floorspace.

The report pack noted that eight representations from local residents had been received, with concerns raised including:

• Noise and disturbance
• Inadequate parking
• The use being out of character for a predominantly family area
• The proposals undermining community cohesion
• Access for emergency vehicles
• Negative impact on residents of East Street
• Loss of privacy and light
• The dormer window being out of character
• Unsuitable waste management
• Whether occupants would be adequately vetted and managed
• Additional pressure on local services

The report pack stated that the main issues for consideration were the principle of development, living conditions for future occupants, impact on neighbours and surroundings, and impact on parking.

The report pack stated that the proposed gross internal floor area of the HMO would be 140sqm, exceeding the minimum indicative requirement of 133sqm. It also stated that all other Nationally Described Space Standards (NDSS) requirements relevant to the proposal, including minimum bedroom widths and ceiling heights, were also met.

The report pack noted that while the DASH guidelines¹ stipulate 27sqm of kitchen and dining space for shared use, the proposal amount was 25sqm. However, it was considered that the shortfall was mitigated by the kitchen dining space being readily accessible, and each of the two interconnecting rooms proposed for these purposes could be used separately without unduly restricting access to the other.

The report pack stated that the council's Environmental Health team had raised no objection under the DASH standards.

The report pack stated that the applicant had a fall-back position to convert the premises to a six-bedroom, six-person HMO under permitted development rights².

The report pack stated that the Mining Remediation Authority had not objected to the proposals subject to a note to applicant concerning the potential for previous coal mining activities within the site.

16 Carrfield Avenue, Long Eaton

The committee was scheduled to consider a request to build four dwellings at 16 Carrfield Avenue, Long Eaton. The dwellings were proposed to consist of two pairs of semi-detached two-storey dwellings with rooms in the roof, and frontage parking.

The report pack noted that seven representations from nearby occupiers had been received, with concerns raised including:

• Inadequate parking provision
• Noise and disturbance during construction
• The development being out of character with the area
• Poor design quality
• Concerns about a section of boundary treatment
• Loss of trees
• Poor condition of the road may be worsened by construction traffic
• Loss of wildlife
• Overlooking of existing dwellings opposite

The report pack stated that the main issues for consideration were the principle of the development, the design of the development and impact on surroundings, impact upon residential amenity, highway safety, flood risk, and wildlife and biodiversity.

The report pack stated that the site was located within a sustainable location which is served by public transport and with some local facilities, and is also located in fairly close proximity to Long Eaton town centre.

The report pack stated that the proposed dwellings would have off-street frontage parking, which, whilst not ideal aesthetically, could be provided under permitted development allowances.

The report pack stated that the Local Highways Authority had confirmed that they had no objection to the development subject to conditions requiring the parking and manoeuvring space to be available for use prior to occupation of the dwellings.

The report pack stated that because the site is in flood zone 2, the Environment Agency had been consulted, and had not objected to the proposal but had referred the council to their national standing advice. The report pack stated that the sequential test³ requires consideration of alternative sites at lower risk of flooding, but flood risk is so extensive across Long Eaton that there are insufficient alternative sites at a lower risk to provide for the housing need of the town.

The report pack stated that evidence from the submitted Biodiversity Metric suggested that the legally required 10% biodiversity net gain⁴ may not be achievable on-site, but alternative offsite provision could be made, and would in any case be secured by the legally required biodiversity net gain condition.

2 Orchard Way, Sandiacre

The committee was scheduled to consider a request to build five two-storey dwellings at 2 Orchard Way, Sandiacre. Four of the dwellings were proposed to be matching three-bedroom houses fronting Orchard Way, each with two frontage parking spaces, an element of front garden, and private rear gardens. The fifth dwelling would be a five-bedroom house on the corner of Orchard Way and Park Drive, with gardens to the front, side and rear, and three parking spaces accessed off Park Drive.

The report pack noted that Councillor Mick Pace had no objections to the proposals but added that it seemed remiss not to include EV charging points and rooftop solar panels.

The report pack noted that Sandiacre Parish Council had objected to the proposals, stating that the scale and height of the houses is too large for the site, and raising concerns over appearance, density and layout also resulting in harm to neighbouring amenity as a result of loss of light and overlooking.

The report pack noted that representations had been received, with concerns raised including:

• More traffic and concerns around highway safety
• Park Drive already being used as a cut through
• The area being a quiet area of predominantly bungalows
• Overdevelopment of the site
• The proposals being out of scale and character with the rest of the development on Orchard Way
• Overlooking from the large front windows to the bungalows opposite
• The proposed buildings being too close to a boundary
• The proposed dwellings being 2m in front of a house exceeding the building line
• Privacy being compromised
• Additional on-street parking
• Noise and disturbance from construction

The report pack stated that the main issues for consideration were the principle of the development, the design of the development, impact upon residential amenity, highway safety/parking, and other matters.

The report pack stated that the highways authority consider that the proposal provides for suitable access and parking arrangements and would not lead to an unacceptable impact on highway safety or severe impact on congestion.

The report pack stated that the submitted Statutory Biodiversity Metric appears to appropriately assess the biodiversity baseline of the site, but does not present the required net gain in the biodiversity units identified on site.

Land adjacent 2 Moor Lane, Little Eaton

The committee was scheduled to consider a request to build a detached two-storey dwelling on land adjacent to 2 Moor Lane, Little Eaton. The first floor was proposed to be contained within the roof space.

The report pack noted that Little Eaton Parish Council had objected to the proposal, stating that it is outside the village settlement and therefore contrary to national and local policies.

The report pack stated that the site is located within the Green Belt⁵ and the bank to the rear is covered by a woodland Tree Preservation Order.

The report pack stated that the National Planning Policy Framework establishes a presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

The report pack stated that previous refusals have relied on the argument that the development is outside the settlement boundary and within the open countryside, but recent appeals have acknowledged that the settlement boundary on a map does not in itself define what constitutes the village and a deeper appreciation of the characteristics of the place is necessary.

The report pack stated that as the application site is a small area of land sandwiched between two existing dwellings in the village of Little Eaton it could reasonably constitute limited infill development as defined by paragraph 154 part (g) of the NPPF and is therefore considered to be appropriate development within the Green Belt.

The report pack stated that Policy BE1: Housing Provision supports small scale housing developments in Little Eaton where appropriately located and designed, outside of the Green Belt, but reasons for a departure from this policy are given above.

53 Belper Street, Ilkeston

The committee was scheduled to consider a request to remove a protected Lime tree at The Skittles, 53 Belper Street, Ilkeston.

The report pack noted that Councillor Harrison Broadhurst requested that the application be brought before the planning committee on the grounds that a wider discussion on the merits and loss of the tree was desirable.

The reasons given for the works included:

• Structural and safety concerns due to pronounced lean and root exposure
• Environmental and health impacts from sap, wasps attracted to the sap, pigeon droppings and pollen that aggravates one of the owners' asthma
• Maintenance issues, including leaf fall, moss growing on shaded surfaces, and the regular cost of trimming branches clear of nearby telephone lines
• Amenity impact, as due to its size the tree is out of character with the area and shades over 50% of the front of the owners' property

The report pack stated that the applicants had advised that they would replant an approximately 5m evergreen in place of the Lime tree if permission were granted for its removal, with the preference for a conifer being on the assumption that it would require less maintenance.

The report pack stated that the Local Planning Authority's Tree Officer had objected to the works, stating that the tree is in good condition and has a high amenity value, and that replanting the tree with a young Pine tree would not replace the amenity value or environmental contribution that the existing mature tree offers. The Tree Officer recommended reducing the crown to previous pruning points and crown lift to 4m from ground level.

The report pack stated that the tree is sited in a prominent location and is visible from the highway thus forming part of the street scene on Belper Street.

The report pack stated that the other issues raised, leaf fall, sap, moss, pollen, bird droppings etc, are ubiquitous effects of trees, and previous appeals have found that these do not constitute valid reasons for felling a tree protected by a Tree Preservation Order.

Minutes of Previous Meeting

The committee was scheduled to approve the minutes of the previous meeting held 13 August 2025.