Decision details

Application No. 2020/0108 - Redhill Pavilion, Thornton Avenue, Redhill

Reference: D1062

Decision Maker: Planning Committee

Decision status: For Determination

Is Key decision?: No

Is subject to call in?: No


Change of use of pavilion building and Groundsman's cottage to day nursery along with external alterations to the building, a single storey extension, erection of 2.4m palisade fencing, change of use of farmland to a car park associated with the day nursery and creation of new footpath adjacent to existing Bridleway.


A written representation from Philippa Fisher, a local resident in objection to the application, was read by Caroline McCleary, Democratic Services Officer.


Najoua O'Brien, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.


The Assistant Director – Planning and Regeneration informed Members that further to the publication of the report, it had been brought to his attention that a late submission had been circulated to members of the planning committee by the agent acting on behalf of the applicant, which set out what they considered to be the very special circumstances relevant to the proposal which were as follows:


Re- use and regeneration of a vacant semi-derelict site

Re-use of brownfield land

Reduction in the likelihood of antisocial behaviour

Provision of a new facility and business

Employment of local people and the creation of apprenticeships

Increased provision of early years provision

An opportunity to provide outdoor class rooms in a rural setting

An opportunity to create a Covid-19 resilient learning environment

Their existing facility is constrained, shared with other users and temporary – it will close without a suitable alternative

The re-use of the building itself does not require permission

A 2m high fence would not require permission, in any materials.


It was not accepted that these amounted to very special circumstances and the position set out in the report remained unchanged.


He added that the applicant’s agent had referred to factual inaccuracies within the report, namely that the proposed fencing would be a paladin fence and not a palisade fence, paragraph 7.9 is inaccurate, fencing of up to 2m in height does not need permission and the information on trip generation is incorrect.  

The details in the report were checked were in accordance with the details provided by the applicant on the submitted plans and advice provided by the Highways Authority.


In terms of the erection of boundary treatments, a 2m high boundary fence could not be erected adjacent to the bridleway under permitted development – the height would be restricted to 1m.


Having regard to the NPPF and Local Planning Document Policy 12, the reuse of the former building is appropriate development in the Green Belt, as is the proposed extension, which would increase the floor-space by approximately 18%, so significantly less than 50%.  The extensions would be single storey in nature and would appear subservient to the host building. I’m therefore of the opinion that the extensions would not have an undue impact upon openness. 


The proposed use would not be limited to the extended building. It was proposed to extend the curtilage by approximately 730 square metres to create a carpark extension and a new footpath extending some 100m adjacent to the existing bridleway to satisfy the highways authority. In addition, it was proposed to erect a 2.4m high fence to secure the site.


Those aspects of the development were inappropriate, which was by definition, harmful. The site would become more urban and engineered in appearance, and as detailed in the report, those aspects of the development were considered to have an undue impact upon the openness of the Green Belt.


He concluded that the very special circumstances advanced by the applicant did not, in his view, outweigh the harm to the Green Belt.




That Committee delegate authority to the Assistant Director – Planning and Regeneration to refuse planning permission, subject to there being no new material planning considerations raised during the period of consultation triggered by the advertisement of this application as a departure from the development plan on 10 October 2020. Should any new material planning considerations be raised during the period of consultation triggered by the advertisement of this application as a departure from the development plan on 10 October 2020 that the matter come back before Committee for determination.



1          The proposed development would include the change of use of agricultural land and engineering works to create a car park and pedestrian footpath in association with the proposed nursery along with the erection of a palisade fence around the proposed planning unit. These forms of development are, by definition, inappropriate development within the Green Belt and therefore would be harmful to the openness of the Nottingham-Derby Green Belt. There are no very special circumstances or other material considerations that would outweigh this harm and therefore the proposal would be contrary to the aims of Section 13 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2019) and LPD12


8.2       Notes to Applicant


1          You are advised that as of 16th October 2015, the Gedling Borough Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Charging Schedule came into effect. Whilst the above application has been refused by the Local Planning Authority you are advised that CIL applies to all planning permissions granted on or after this date.  Thus any successful appeal against this decision may therefore be subject to CIL (depending on the location and type of development proposed). Full details are available on the Council's website.


2          Planning Statement - The application is clearly contrary to the Development Plan and other material planning considerations, as detailed in the above reason for refusal. However the local planning authority has worked positively and proactively with the applicant to make some revisions to the proposal. Whilst not all problems arising can be overcome, several potential reasons for refusal have been negated.





Councillor Barnes and Councillor Wheeler left the meeting.

Report author: Christopher Russell

Publication date: 10/11/2020

Date of decision: 21/10/2020

Decided at meeting: 21/10/2020 - Planning Committee

Accompanying Documents: