The Nottingham City Council Planning Committee convened on Wednesday, 17 September 2025, to discuss planning applications and related matters. The agenda included a review of minutes from a prior meeting and consideration of two significant planning applications concerning developments on Glasshouse Street and Castle Boulevard. This article summarises the information provided to the committee members, outlining the proposals and key issues for each site.

Planning Applications

The committee was scheduled to review two planning applications.

Site Of 51 Glasshouse Street And 1 Cairns Street Nottingham

The committee was scheduled to consider application 23/02062/PFUL3, submitted by Freeths on behalf of Code Students (Nottingham) Limited, Mr Lewis, for the construction of two purpose-built student accommodation blocks at a site on Glasshouse Street and Cairns Street. The proposal included ancillary amenities such as a gymnasium, cinema, and common rooms, along with ground floor commercial units and public realm improvements.

The application was brought to the committee due to its scale and prominent location, as well as significant land-use, design, and heritage considerations.

The Director of Planning and Transport made a recommendation to refuse planning permission for the following reasons:

1. Inadequate Evidence of Need: The report stated that there was a lack of sufficient evidence demonstrating the necessity for the proposed type and design of student accommodation. It was felt that the proposal did not contribute to a mix of housing types and sizes, which was contrary to Policy 8 of the Aligned Core Strategies (ACS) and Policies HO5 and HO6 of the Land and Planning Policies (LAPP).
2. Poor Design and Lack of Context: The report stated that the proposed development failed to consider the local context, create an attractive environment, or enhance positive characteristics of the area. It was considered to be inconsistent with the established scale, massing, and materials of the locality, lacking local context and innovation, and representing a poor standard of design, contrary to Policy 10 of the ACS and Policies DE1 and DE2 of the LAPP.
3. Harm to Heritage Assets: The report stated that the development would fail to conserve or preserve the setting, character, and appearance of various designated heritage assets within the City, causing less than substantial harm that was not outweighed by any benefits of the proposal. This was considered contrary to Policy 11 of the ACS and Policy HE1 of the LAPP.
4. Negative Impact on Public Realm: The report stated that the proposal would fail to make a positive contribution to the public realm or contribute towards the creation of an attractive environment, conflicting with Policy 10 of the ACS and Policy DE2 of the LAPP.
5. Detrimental Impact on Highway Network: The report stated that the access arrangements for the proposed development would have a detrimental impact on the efficient and safe operation of the highway network, contrary to Policies DE2 and TR2 of the LAPP.
6. Unsatisfactory Amenity for Occupiers: The report stated that the proposed development would fail to create a healthy environment and satisfactory level of amenity for occupiers, contrary to Policy 10 of the ACS and Policy DE1 of the LAPP.
7. Prejudice to Future Redevelopment: The report stated that the proposed development would fail to demonstrate how it would avoid prejudicing the future redevelopment of the allocated development site SR52, contrary to Policy SA1 of the LAPP.

The application site, vacant since 2021, is located east of the Victoria Shopping Centre within Nottingham City Centre. It is within a designated Primary Shopping Area and allocated in the Local Plan as part of a Development Site (Site Reference SR52) for retail, leisure, office, and public transport facility development.

The proposed development included two towers of 19 and 27 storeys above a plinth, containing 1,252 student studios and various amenity facilities. The ground floor was planned to house three commercial units.

Concerns were raised during consultations from various parties, including:

• Local businesses objecting to the height and design of the towers, potential overshadowing, and the impact of road closures during construction.
• Nottingham Civic Society objecting to the interruption of visual connections, harm to historical views, and intensification of the pedestrian environment.
• Global Mutual Properties Limited (Asset Managers of Victoria Centre when planning application submitted in December 2023) raising concerns about the quantum of development, lack of public realm, and potential restrictions to Victoria Centre access.
• The University of Nottingham and Nottingham Trent University jointly objecting to the all-studio development, citing affordability and a lack of socialisation opportunities.
• Nottingham Trent Students' Union and University of Nottingham Students' Union jointly objecting to the all-studio development on grounds of affordability and insufficient evidence of student need.

Additional consultations with various officers and organisations revealed further concerns and considerations, including:

• The City Archaeologist requiring a condition for the completion of all works in the approved Written Scheme of Investigation.
• The Conservation Officer objecting to the cumulative massing and design causing undue harm to numerous significant views of various conservation areas and heritage assets.
• Historic England expressing concern regarding the level of harm the development would cause to multiple highly graded assets and the dilution of the prominence Nottingham Castle has within the city skyline.
• The Highways Team stating that the proposed servicing bay was insufficient and the development would have a detrimental impact on the efficient and safe operation of the highway network.

Dominion House, Castle Boulevard

The committee was also scheduled to discuss application 25/00065/PFUL3, submitted by Mr Chris Waumsley on behalf of David Pownall, for the partial redevelopment of Dominion House, Castle Boulevard. The proposal included the creation of purpose-built student accommodation and retail units, while retaining the existing facade to Castle Boulevard and 49/51 Fishpond Drive.

The application was brought to the committee due to its status as a major application on a prominent site that had generated significant public interest contrary to the officer recommendation.

The Director of Planning and Regeneration recommended granting planning permission, subject to a Section 106 Planning Obligation to secure:

• £289,017 towards affordable housing in lieu of on-site provision.
• £174,805 towards off-site public open space/public realm enhancement.
• £14,210 towards local employment and training.
• Employment and skills recruitment targets at the construction phase.
• A student management plan and restriction on occupants keeping private vehicles within the City.

The site is located west of the city centre, between Castle Boulevard and Fishpond Drive. It comprises a collection of buildings, most recently occupied by 'Zoo Interiors,' and half of an existing hard-surfaced carpark. The surrounding area is mixed-use, with commercial properties to the east and west, and student accommodation blocks to the south. The site is within the Nottingham Canal Conservation Area, and the Park Conservation Area is adjacent to the north.

The proposed scheme included retaining the existing gabled façade fronting Castle Boulevard and the existing two-storey HMO, along with constructing new-build purpose-built student accommodation. The building would be four storeys in height and primarily constructed from red brick. The ground floor would provide shared amenity space, meeting space, study space, and refuse and bike storage. The development proposed 137 bed spaces over the four floors, including cluster bedrooms, studios, and accessible studios.

During consultations, 121 letters of representation were received, with 114 objecting to the proposal, 4 in support, and 3 expressing neither support nor objection. A petition signed by 50 residents was also received.

Comments in support highlighted the potential for the development to improve the look of the street and the character of Castle Boulevard, as well as the welcoming addition of new retail stores.

Objections raised concerns about:

• The principle of further PBSA development, citing declining student enrolment and existing vacancies.
• The impact on the character of the area, with concerns about the scale and massing of the proposed building and its effect on the Park Conservation Area.
• The impact on amenity, including potential noise and disturbance from student residents and the loss of privacy and daylight for neighbouring properties.
• Parking and traffic congestion, with concerns about how the building would be serviced and how student arrivals and departures would be managed.

Additional consultations with various officers and organisations revealed further considerations, including:

• Historic England raising no objection.
• The Conservation Officer stating that the proposed development responds positively to the established urban grain and architectural character of Castle Boulevard.
• The City Archaeologist stating that no archaeological work would be required.
• The Lead Local Flood Authority raising no objection.
• The Biodiversity Officer stating that the development is exempt from BNG but the applicant is looking at achieving 0.07 habitat and 0.18 hedgerow units onsite as part of the landscape design which is good.
• NCC Highways raising no objection to the proposal.
• Nottingham Trent and University of Nottingham raising no objection to the proposed accommodation.

The committee was expected to consider these factors when discussing the application.

Minutes

The committee was scheduled to confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 20 August 2025, which included discussions and resolutions regarding a planning application for a change of use at Devon Court, 15A Villa Road, from residential to a supported living care home for young people.