Developers have lodged revised plans for 10 apartments to be built alongside the Grantham Canal.
The plans are to demolish an empty bungalow and build 10 dwellings with associated parking in a revised scheme.
On 15th March 2018 the original scheme was refused by Rushcliffe Borough Council Planning Committee, a spokesperson for the council said at the time:
‘The application for Kendal Court was refused by Planning Committee as they considered it would represent overintensive development and would have an overbearing impact on properties 9-12 of Kendal Court, as it would result in a loss of outlook and would have an undue impact due to the excessive height of the proposed building.’
The video below was filmed in June 2018 when the first application was lodged, note the different appearance of the apartments in the earlier plans.
The applications has 90 objections from local residents and none in support.
Here are a few of them:
‘The noise, pollution and occupation of the proposed dwelling will have a detrimental impact on the surrounding wildlife, and is not in keeping with the environment of a popular quiet local natural spot. The additional traffic onto Radcliffe Road will also be detrimental to local residents’
‘As a user of the canal I have considered the application on 2 of the 3 main issues for the inspector when the previous appeal was dismissed; character of the area and affect on the canal.
My views have not changed .
I consider the 3 story development along the canalside to be overbearing and out of character with the area. It will have a significant adverse affect on the enjoyment for users of this green corridor. Green space is at a premium and should be protected in built up areas. It is a green corridor not a green canyon.’
‘We object to this proposal on the basis of:
1) Negative effect on the amenity of neighbours and canal users, particularly in respect of overlooking and loss of privacy due to high-level balconies and living spaces, together with overshadowing and loss of light to surrounding properties and the canal due to the height of the proposed development.
2) Over-development of the site, which is a narrow strip of land in a small cul-del-sac directly abutting the canal.
3) Adverse visual impact on the canal vista due to the height and proximity of the proposed development to the canal side, with no environmental buffer.
4) Sheer scale and mass of the overall design, which is overbearing and out of character with surrounding properties.
We therefore respectfully request that this revised application is refused.’
‘I write to advise you of my objections to the proposed development. Simply put, the development is completely out of context with the narrow strip of land on which the apartments are planned to be sited.
The development has been designed to maximise the use of the land for economic gain – with little consideration to the area, its use, traffic, parking, the proximity to the Grantham Canal, and adjacent properties to the front, side and rear.
I am disappointed that the applicant has appealed and grudgingly has only recently reinstated the hedge that the applicant asked the contractors to grub out.
The one benefit of the open site is that it emphasises the minimal size of the site in relation to the dwellings that are proposed.
I would advise that there were sound reasons as to why this narrow plot of land has been used to build a bungalow. It used the available space in the most considered way – with minimal impact.
It would be preferable that the low level of the existing dwelling should be replicated and low rise ‘lifetime’ residences be suggested. In addition, the Trent-side development more than over caters for the provision of apartments.
21 Kendal Court (the bungalow), placed behind the hawthorn hedge maintained privacy for all parties. Users of the adjacent canal tow path, residents of Rutland Road (that are predominantly 2/3 storey homes) – with an emphasis of limited views for all parties.
The proximity of the planned development to the existing apartments is of concern; as is the notion of ‘associated parking’ as the saturation of the site with accommodation renders the notion of adequate parking as a spurious afterthought.’
Most are along similar lines.
Here are some images of the site