The residents claim the structure, at the rear of a property on Nottingham Road, is ‘five times larger in volume than the maximum allowed under permitted development rights’.
The original application, back in 2022, was also met with objections by both the residents and Greasley Council on the grounds that the proposal ‘did not accord with local development plan (LDP) policies or the aligned core strategy (ACS) policies that protect the environment’.
But the project was approved by a planning officer under delegated powers, despite residents saying is ‘totally inappropriate’ for the surrounding garden areas.
And planning officers say the application will not be revisited with their only outstanding concern being of the choice of materials being used for construction – something they are considering looking to have changed.
This will be considered by the planning committee in June.
In a series of emails, between residents and the council, seen by your Advertiser, angry residents say the building now being constructed does not, in their view, resemble that which the original application detailed and permission was granted for, making the whole application invalid as, they say, changes have been made to the dimensions and location of the proposed building and the application has had ‘several unannotated amendments without formal registration or recognition’.
Nigel Lowe, speaking on behalf of the residents, said: “It is apparent that the original proposal has changed completely and that the applicant has now confirmed that their intention has always been to construct a steel portal framed industrial unit faced in industrial standard CR32 cladding.
"This simply cannot be classed as a domestic garage.
"Therefore, before going any further, and with reference to all the previous substantial number of representations and neighbour and parish council opposition submitted initially in 2022, how can Broxtowe’s planning department still continue to support this proposal which clearly now conflicts with the National Planning Policy Framework and local development plan for the area?”
In a statement, the council said: The previous application reference 22/00675/FUL has got planning permission and was assessed in line with the relevant planning policies.
"This decision went through the relevant statutory processes at the time, and this decision cannot be revisited.
"The council followed the relevant legislation and national planning policy guidance in respect of the application for a non-material amendment. 25/00222/NMA amended the approved plans by amending the position of the building so it is no longer located directly on the side (south-east) boundary of the application site, resulting in the width of the building being reduced by approximately 0.15m.
"Variation 25/00223/VOC is currently under consideration and will be reported to the planning committee who will make the final decision.
"Concerns relating to how the council has dealt with the applications are subject to the council’s complaints procedures."