Nottingham City Council planners are recommending approval for the relocation and expansion of part of the city’s district heating network, despite concerns that the new infrastructure would block a protected view of St Mary’s Church and harm the setting of several historic buildings.
The application, which will be considered by Nottingham City Council’s Planning Committee on Wednesday 22 July, covers land around Station Street, London Road, the railway and the Nottingham and Beeston Canal.
The council is seeking full planning permission to relocate an existing steam main and electrical cables, install additional district heating pipes and construct a new enclosed gantry over the railway. A new services bridge would also be built across the canal.
Planning officers have recommended that permission is granted, subject to the Environment Agency confirming that the proposed flood protection measures are satisfactory.
The Nottingham District Heat Network supplies heating to around 5,000 homes as well as a number of commercial properties. The section covered by the application forms a connection between the Eastcroft incinerator and the London Road Heat Station.
The existing network runs from a culvert near the junction of Station Street and London Road, across land and the railway, beneath London Road and over the canal on a disused railway bridge. It then continues eastwards towards the Eastcroft site.
Council documents say the infrastructure must be relocated because Network Rail land beneath the current route could be used for residential development. The existing equipment must also comply with railway clearance requirements, including provision for the possible future electrification of the line.
Network Rail has the contractual power to require the existing equipment to be removed, according to the planning report.
The replacement system would operate in the same way as the current network but would have greater capacity and flexibility. This could allow the district heating network to be extended to future developments south of the railway.
The elevated section would be at least 5.4 metres above the railway and would be fully enclosed to prevent objects or materials falling onto the tracks. Maintenance walkways would also be provided.
The structure would be positioned at least three metres from the London Road railway bridge to preserve access for maintenance. The new crossing over the canal would maintain at least the same clearance above the towpath as the existing structure.
Ground-level pipes would be protected by security fencing and vehicle barriers. The final colour and external finish of the enclosed gantry have not yet been agreed and would be controlled through a planning condition.
The removal of the existing pipes and gantry is not included in the application because the work can be undertaken through permitted development rights. Any equipment that becomes redundant would be removed after the new route becomes operational and following consultation with Network Rail.
Part of the site is within the Station Conservation Area and is close to several listed structures, including the Grade II* Nottingham railway station, the Grade II former London Road railway station and Grade II-listed canal structures.
Planning officers acknowledge that the proposed gantry would be substantially larger than the existing structure. It would be taller, enclosed in cladding and positioned closer to London Road, creating what the report describes as a significant visual intrusion on one of the main approaches into the city centre from the south.
The structure would also block a view of the Grade I-listed St Mary’s Church from the western side of London Road bridge for pedestrians and motorists travelling towards the city centre.
The view was deliberately retained when the Leonardo Hotel and Waterfront House were designed in the early 2000s. A gap was incorporated between the buildings to frame St Mary’s as part of Nottingham’s historic skyline when viewed from the Trent Valley.
Nottingham Civic Society has objected to the plans, arguing that the new gantry would obstruct the protected view, harm the Station Conservation Area and conflict with local heritage and design policies.
The society supports the provision of sustainable energy infrastructure but says the pipes should remain on their current alignment to preserve the view of the church.
The council’s conservation officer also concluded that the structure would harm the view of St Mary’s and add further visual clutter to the corridor. Possible measures suggested included moving the structure, reducing its scale or using a more appropriate treatment for the cladding.
The applicant considered alternative routes, including two that would preserve the church view, but concluded that none was realistic or deliverable.
According to the report, the alternatives would require agreements with several third-party landowners, involve additional engineering work and risk missing Network Rail’s timescale for moving the existing infrastructure. One option would also require railway signalling equipment to be relocated.
Keeping the pipes broadly along their current route was also rejected because it would not allow the network to expand and could require another replacement in the medium term to accommodate railway electrification.
Planning officers have classified the effects on the conservation area, Nottingham railway station and St Mary’s Church as “less than substantial” heritage harm, although the impact is considered to be towards the middle or upper end of that category.
They concluded that the harm would be outweighed by the public benefits of protecting the continued operation of the district heating network, increasing its capacity and supporting future development.
The design of the external cladding could be refined before construction. The report suggests that the perforated metal panels could potentially include a pattern inspired by Nottingham lace to reduce the structure’s effect on its surroundings, although no final design has been approved.
The Environment Agency initially objected because the submitted flood risk assessment did not contain enough information about the height of the proposed bridge structures above predicted flood levels.
Most of the site is in Flood Zone 1, but sections beside the canal are within Flood Zones 2 and 3.
Additional information has since been submitted showing the proposed bridge clearance levels. However, the Environment Agency’s objection remained in place when the committee report was prepared because the new details were still being reviewed.
Planning officers are therefore recommending that the final decision is delegated to the council’s director of planning and transport once written confirmation has been received that the development would remain safe throughout its lifetime and would not increase flood risk elsewhere.
The council’s biodiversity officer has also raised concerns about missing habitat and bat survey information. The biodiversity assessment submitted with the application indicates a total loss of the site’s existing biodiversity units and does not currently demonstrate the required 10 per cent net gain.
Officers say this could be addressed through planning conditions requiring a biodiversity gain plan, updated ecological assessments and a habitat management and monitoring plan. Any new or improved habitat would have to be managed for 30 years.
A construction environmental management plan would also be required to control noise, dust, pollution and lighting and protect birds, bats, otters and other wildlife around the canal.
Construction access would be taken from Station Street for the western part of the site and through the council’s Eastcroft depot for the eastern section. Temporary disruption to the canal towpath could occur during construction but would have to be managed through the approved works plan.
The upgraded network would not be open to the public and is not expected to generate significant traffic once operational, other than occasional maintenance visits.
No planning permission has yet been granted. If committee members support the recommendation, approval would remain dependent on the Environment Agency withdrawing its objection and the final planning conditions being agreed by officers.
