Beeston and District Civic Society, along with more than 96 individual comments and a petition of more than 500 signatories, objected to this development as submitted in application 23/00447/FUL to Broxtowe Borough Council.

Construct 29 apartments with associated parking and landscaping
Riverside Close Riverside Road Beeston Nottinghamshire
APPEAL REFERENCE: APP/J3015/W/25/3363990
APPEAL STARTING DATE: 22 April 2025
APPELLANT’S NAME: Beeston Marina Ltd
Contact: planning@beestoncivicsociety.org.uk
Cc to: juliet.campbell.mp@parliament.uk (MP for Broxtowe), Cllr Shaun Dannheimer (Beeston Rylands Ward), Cllr Sarah Webb (Beeston Rylands Ward), pabc@broxtowe.gov.uk, Ryan Dawson (Head of BrBC Planning), north3@planninginspectorate.gov.uk.

The Civic Society was disappointed to see it recommended for approval by the Planning Officer. This was not a recommendation we could support. We fully agreed that it should be put before Committee. Here it was seen for what it was: the wrong building in the wrong place. It was unanimously refused. Certainly, the Council gave three strong reasons for refusal. We feel these could have had been even more comprehensive in relation to planning policy involved in the decision – however, Broxtowe’s Local Plan has been developed to reflect local circumstances and builds on the national framework (NPPF). It is consistent with NPPF and as such its weight should not be undervalued. 

The Council’s refusal also had very sound understanding in terms of material considerations for the site, the setting, and indeed surrounding area – including the distinct needs of the local community.

This application is for 29 luxury apartments. The Civic Society believes that the irreversible detrimental impact on the surrounding area, heritage setting, and character of the area does outweigh the ‘housing stock on brown belt’ reported to be on offer here. In addition, the precedence it will set for further overdevelopment along the canal and river concerns us greatly. Once the damage is done, and the impact is realised it is irredeemable.

Site Visit Essential 
As much of the reason for refusal – and local objection to the development – centres around the location, character, and the heritage setting, we would wish to emphasise the need for a personal visit to the site by the Inspectorate. The applicants state in their application, and repeat in their Statement of Case for Appeal that “there is no defining character around the site”. Seeking to minimise the location character and heritage aspects of the setting are aspects we challenge most strongly. Therefore, desk-based assessment may fail to fully appreciate these aspects, and we believe a visit would be essential.

Community
Through our experience of 50 years as a Civic Society, it is our opinion that public engagement with this development has been very high indeed. Beeston Rylands and Marina have a very close and engaged local community which has repeatedly come together in support of each other during difficult times such as Covid and flooding (like that experienced as recently as 2024), as well as in celebration. Its elected Councillors are visible, active and inherent members of this community.

Two local Community meetings have been convened during the consideration and decision period of this application. Both very well attended by residents, our own members, and the wider local community who use and love the lock-side tow path and its links to the River Trent, and Canalside Heritage Centre.  Both meetings reflected and confirmed our own feelings about the development: we do not object to any development of this site, but it must be the right sort of development. It should meet a local need; integrate with the local context and character; be sympathetic to and protective of the irreplaceable heritage and history of the setting. Not only does this development not do these, it contravenes planning policy directly, as outlined in our detailed objection – which we attach at the end of this submission.

Out of Character
By virtue of its scale and massing, the proposed development is out of place; its poor design and materials fails to enhance the setting even through a ‘contrast’ of well designed modernity sited beside heritage architecture. 

The applicants cite developments on “Beeston Canal” (sic) in their defence of the scale and massing – but these are in the urban centre of the City, on the Nottingham Canal – an altogether different setting. They take reference, in design and materials, from the urban, industrial and post-industrial buildings around them. Aside from a canal, the proposal bears no relation to that landscape, architecture or character, it is therefore a baseless – and possibly misleading – comparison.


In the Statement of Case, the applicant goes on,

“The surrounding area is varied in character with a mix of static caravans, bungalows and semi-detached properties. The wider Beeston Rylands area beyond is also characterised by urban development and suburban residential uses of varying eras and design styles contained by the mainline railway to the north, the Nottingham Canal to the south, the nature reserve and former gravel extraction to the west and the Boots industrial campus to the east.”

What they fail to mention is that the local character is of two storey and single storey brick buildings; all with pitched roofs. Newer developments not visible from this site have been higher but still maintain a pitched roof. Windows are appropriate to the brick elevations being domestic in scale. The building of particular interest here is the Canalside Heritage Centre; which was once a series of cottages for people working on the canal. The windows here are particularly special being horizontal sliding sash (Yorkshire Sash) windows.

Currently there is no approved ‘local list’ for Beeston, but draft lists include the immediately adjacent heritage assets: the Canalside Heritage Centre (CHC); Lock Keepers cottage; Beeston Cut, and the Lock.  Together these assets represent an important late C18th heritage grouping that is recorded on the Nottinghamshire Historic Environment Record. (Notts HER for Beeston Canal (M461) https://her.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/Monument/MNT12776;  Notts HER for Beeston Lock Cottages (M18615) https://her.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/Monument/MNT26268)

The restoration of CHC was supported by the Heritage Lottery Fund; who have continued to support the centre. Its most recent funding has supported restoration of one of the cottages to what it would have looked like 200 years ago.

People enjoy the space around here with its views across the Trent to the Gotham Ridge beyond. There is a relaxed open feel with the canal and the river nearby. 

The proposed elevations for the new build are of red and very dark brown brick with vertical windows. The ground floor is actually the wall to the basement, and so there is no active frontage at ground level. 

NPPF 189 states,

“[Heritage] assets are an irreplaceable resource, and should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of existing and future generations.”

The assessment of impacts on these heritage asset is a three-stage process: to establish the importance (or sensitivity) of the asset and its setting; to make an assessment of magnitude of change based on the location of development in relation to the cultural heritage feature; and to make an assessment of the significance of that change.

Broxtowe Local Plan Part 2, Policy 23 heritage assets (including non-designated) states,

‘’Proposals that affect heritage assets will be required to demonstrate an understanding of the significance of the assets and their settings, identify the impact of the development upon them and provide a clear justification for the development in order that a decision can be made as to whether the merits of the proposals for the site bring public benefits which decisively outweigh the harm arising from the proposals.” [our emphasis]

Broxtowe Part 2 Local Plan, Policy 30

“All developments within, or affecting the setting of, the local landscape character areas listed below [includes Attenborough Wetlands, which Beeston Lock boundaries] should make a positive contribution to the quality and local distinctiveness of the landscape. They should therefore be consistent with the ‘landscape actions’ for the area concerned.”

The action for the Attenborough Wetlands area is to enhance it.


Detrimental Impact to Surrounding Area
The Civic Society fully appreciates the need for housing (especially affordable housing). However, incredibly close to this application are large housing developments recently completed, including Beeston Maltings (62), Canalside (604) and Trentside (319). There are more high-quality developments in the pipeline.

Flooding
Riverside Close is within an area at high risk of flooding. Indeed this area from the Marina to the Weir Field flooded significantly when the Trent breached the bank just last year (4 photos below). The Environment Agency maintain their objection to the application.

Environment Agency states,

“The site lies within Flood Zone 3a [Applicant documentation says Zone 2], which is land defined by the PPG as having a high probability of flooding. […] the basement carpark is still at risk and has been the reason for our prior objections. […] The Environment Agency believes the basement carpark adds unnecessary risk and would like to see it removed or raised.”

Parking & Highway Safety
A bus stop is cited as the justification for no improvement to infrastructure being required, however any local resident will tell you that this bus stop is for a bus unreliable and limited in its timetable, especially at weekends. It is not, therefore “good access to public transport to help reduce car dependency” (Local Plan Appendix 2.3). The service is not County Council supported so the bus company running the service could close it within 2 weeks if it was considered unprofitable.

The proposals are for 29 apartments (11 one bed, 18 two bed) which are out of the centre of Beeston. This location is not “well served by public transport” (NPPF) 16 car parking spaces in an area where a car ownership is high because it is necessary is not “taking into account local car ownership levels” (NPPF 107) 

The fact that there is not designated parking for all residents does not mean that ‘not all residents will use a car’ – the poor bus service will mean a vehicle or bike is required, because Rylands are poorly served for amenities. People will have further to travel for amenities and health/social services because these are not nearby.  The nearest shop is a small convenience store on Trent Road – at least 10 minutes’ walk away. Parked cars will therefore spill on to the Riverside Close – a place already with restricted parking because of existing parking.

Developments over 10 homes are usually required to provide a Green Travel Plan – this application has no such plan.

The Highways assessment is focused on Riverside Road which is a wide road with no strong parking demand on either side of the road. Getting to and from the flats would be through narrow Rylands roads with schools, parking on either side of the road and junctions with poor visibility. The development offers the opportunity to enhance road safety and reduce carbon emissions by introducing a 20-mph limit on traffic speeds throughout the Rylands.

Electrical Infrastructure
The application states that National Grid are satisfied that the proposed building would not impact their operations. However NG’s written general advice is that buildings should not be constructed under HV overhead lines. Our view is that the proposed construction, without any diversions either overhead or underground will adversely affect supply security, make maintenance more complex and impact electrical safety for tenants and other residents in the area. Noise from the power lines is already apparent, and any local resident will be happy to detail the issues they face.

Waterway
The Civic Society is concerned about the potential for polluting Beeston Canal and River Trent during building work – and excavations for the proposed underground parking. We are also concerned about the proximity of the development to the canal edge, and the possibility of the integrity of the bank and other canal side assets being compromised.

The canal infrastructure alongside the site is over 200 years old – there is great concern the heritage assets will not withstand the major construction development proposed.

In Conclusion…
The Local Planning Authority was correct to recognise the proposal as controversial and put it to Committee. Committee finding it inappropriate and potentially damaging development for the location was well founded and backed up by planning policy. They were right to unanimously refuse the application as submitted and call for amendments to be made. Further assistance and consultation was explicitly offered by Councillors, the community, CHC, and Beeston Civic Society – but this was not taken up by the applicants.

As mentioned, Beeston – and Beeston Rylands especially – has significant new development on offer, and more to come. It simply couldn’t be argued that Beeston isn’t doing its upmost to deliver new homes; or that objection is merely ‘anti-development’ NIMBY-ism. We most certainly are not. 

Understanding the need for more local homes, the Civic Society would welcome a proposal of high quality riverside dwellings which sympathetically reflect and enhance the unique character of the setting, as well as meet the needs of local community. The right building in the right place.

We sincerely hope you will consider these points, and the view of the local community, and uphold the refusal of this application as submitted.