Watch more of our videos on Shots!
and live on Freeview channel 276

A planning application has been submitted to Ashfield Council for two further houses on land at the Linby Boarding Kennels on Church Lane.

The controversial plans had looked set to be rejected back in April of this year as they would have meant building on green belt.

At the time, the council said the applicant, Ian Glenn, would have to pay £86,000 in developer infrastructure contributions in order for the plans to progress.

This included £48,502 for secondary education, £3,500 for bus stop improvements, £22,000 for public open space and £12,000 for public realm improvements.

Plans have been re-submitted for two houses on land at Linby Boarding Kennels. Photo: Google

It was hoped the contributions would make the development more sustainable, having offered to improve various parts of Hucknall in return for the loss of green belt land.

However, Mr Glenn initially refused to pay the Section 106 monies, leading to the prospect of the council’s planning committee rejecting the plans on the grounds of them being an ‘inappropriate’ development on green belt land.

But Mr Glenn later changed his mind and said he would agree to pay the monies.

Trio arrested and drugs and cash seized in two Bulwell house raids

Fresh plans have now been submitted for two four-bedroom houses on land currently used as an area for dog training.

The proposed two houses would be alongside previously-approved applications for four and nine homes on the development.

The plans would mean the loss of more green belt in Hucknall at a time when large chunks of it are under threat from the ongoing concerns over the proposals for 3,000 homes on Whyburn Farm – even though the council is hoping to be able to drop that from its draft local plan – and land at Misk Hills which is also subject to a planning proposal.

Several local residents have commented in favour of the plans on the council’s website.

One said: “I can’t see a problem, the lane needs opening up as it’s overgrown in places, so provision of a frontage/footpath would improve safety.

"It is opposite existing residential developments that already access this lane, so I can’t see the difference.

However, there have also been objections over the ‘intrusive over-development’ of the land and the loss of character.

One posted: “It is not clear how the proposals reflect the needs detaileds in the district and parish local plans.”

Hucknall: Fresh plans submitted for houses on dog kennels land