West Bridgford Victorian buildings saved as council refuses demolition plans

Rushcliffe Borough Council  has refused planning permission for the proposed demolition of Grafton House and Welbeck House on Loughborough Road, West Bridgford.

The application sought to replace the two buildings with a 32-apartment complex, complete with car parking and alterations to the existing vehicular access. However, the council has rejected the proposal, citing significant concerns over heritage preservation, design quality, and the impact on local amenities.

Heritage

The council’s decision was heavily influenced by the heritage value of Grafton House and Welbeck House, which are classified as Non-Designated Heritage Assets (NDHAs). The proposed development would have resulted in the complete demolition of these buildings, which the council deemed would cause “substantial harm” to their historical significance and group value.

In its refusal notice, the council referenced Paragraph 216 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which requires that the effect of an application on the significance of non-designated heritage assets be taken into account. The council concluded that the harm caused by the loss of these buildings was not justified, particularly as the applicant failed to demonstrate clear and compelling reasons for their demolition.

The council also highlighted that the proposal conflicted with Policy 28 of the Local Plan Part 2: Land and Planning Policies, which states that planning permission should not be granted for developments that result in the loss of heritage assets unless the harm is outweighed by substantial public benefits. In this case, the council found no such justification.

- Advertisement -

Design and Visual Impact Criticised

The proposed apartment complex was also criticised for its design, scale, and massing. The council argued that the development would be “dominant” and “overbearing,” significantly altering the character of the street scene. The large footprint of the scheme would fill a substantial portion of the site, resulting in a loss of the current open character and appearing out of keeping with the surrounding built environment.

The council noted that the design failed to meet the criteria set out in Policy 1 of the Local Plan Part 2, which requires that new developments be sympathetic to the character and appearance of neighbouring buildings and the surrounding area. Specifically, the council found that the proposal would lead to an “over-intensive form of development” and would be “overbearing in relation to neighbouring properties.”

Furthermore, the council referenced Paragraph 135 of the NPPF, which emphasises that developments should be visually attractive, function well, and be sympathetic to local character and history. The proposed scheme, however, was deemed to fall short of these standards, with the council concluding that it would not enhance the overall quality of the area.

Over-Intensive Development and Impact on Neighbours

The council also raised concerns about the “cramped and over-intensive” nature of the proposed development. The substantial footprint of the building would leave very limited space for landscaping and amenity areas, as well as inadequate provision for service vehicles such as refuse collection and delivery trucks. This, the council argued, would result in a development that was out of character with the surrounding area and would negatively impact the quality of life for future residents.

In addition, the council highlighted the potential harm to neighbouring properties, particularly Nos. 1a and 1b Patrick Road. The proposed development, due to its height, scale, and proximity, would result in an “overbearing and overshadowing impact” on these properties. The council also noted that the windows in the east and north elevations of the proposed building would lead to a loss of privacy for residents of Nos. 1a-1b Patrick Road and Cambridge Court.

Flood Risk Assessment Found Inadequate

Another key issue raised by the council was the lack of a satisfactory Flood Risk Assessment (FRA). The revised plans did not detail the finished floor levels of the ground floor communal access hallway and bike storage area, and the FRA provided did not comply with the requirements for a site-specific assessment. The council concluded that it had not been adequately demonstrated that the development would not result in flood risk to future occupants and property.

This failure to address flood risk was deemed to be in direct conflict with Paragraph 181 of the NPPF, which requires that applications in Flood Zones 2 and 3 be supported by a site-specific flood risk assessment. The council noted that the FRA provided did not meet the necessary standards, further justifying the refusal of planning permission.

Conclusion: Fundamental Objections Remain

Despite discussions between the council and the applicant’s agent to address some of the issues, the council concluded that there were “fundamental objections” to the proposal that could not be overcome. The refusal notice emphasised that the development would cause significant harm to heritage assets, fail to meet design standards, and negatively impact the amenity of nearby residents.

•  Objections grow on plans to demolish two West Bridgford Victorian buildings