# Site 64c001, Golf Drive, Nuneaton (junction trigger variation)

- **Decision:** refused, 1 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Council planning committee: NBBC Planning Applications Committee (Cllr K Wilson, Chair)
- **Authority:** Nuneaton and Bedworth (West Midlands)
- **Application reference:** 041303
- **Procedure:** committee
- **Development:** Variation of condition 33 of a 621-dwelling permission to move the junction signalisation trigger from the 150th to the 225th occupation
- **Homes:** 621
- **Site context:** settlement-edge
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** TR6(4)
- **Development plan policies:** Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Plan Review 2021-2039 (adopted Dec 2025) DS1, DS2, DS3, DS4, BE3
- **Main issues:** highway capacity before mitigation, condition trigger
- **Tags:** overturned-officer-rec, highways-severe, condition-variation, member-refusal, large-scheme, old-wording-slip

## Summary
This was an application to vary a condition on a 621-home greenfield permission at Golf Drive, Nuneaton, so that 225 homes, not 150, could be occupied before the Lutterworth Road / Golf Drive junction was signalised. Officers relied on the County Highway Authority's acceptance of 225 and on TR6(4) to recommend approval. The committee refused against that recommendation, finding the extra 75 occupations "likely to cause a severe adverse impact on the highway network". Members made this TR6(4) finding against the technical advice, after asking for and hearing a presentation from County Highways at the meeting.

## Issues and findings
- **Highway capacity, TR6(4): officers PASS, members FAIL.** Officers quoted TR6(4) in full and concluded: "Based on the response from the Highway Authority, the occupation of 225 dwellings would not result in an unacceptable impact on highway safety and therefore, as per Policy TR6 Paragraph 4, the development should not be prevented or refused on highways grounds" (Report ¶1.8). The modelling showed 300 occupations would cause "an unacceptable increase in journey times and queue lengths, particularly along Lutterworth Road" (¶1.6), and that "pedestrian activity will increase, yet necessary pedestrian safety improvements at the junction will remain absent" (¶1.6).
- **Committee decision:** "this application be refused due to the harm created by the occupation of 75 additional houses prior to the completion of the highway junction improvements which is likely to cause a severe adverse impact on the highway network" (Minutes, Schedule item 1).

## Planning balance
There was no wider balance. The principle was fixed by the 2022 permission, and the only question was the TR6(4) "severe" threshold. Officers set the Highway Authority's no-objection against residents' objections, and members preferred their own reading of the cumulative position.

## What made the difference
The Highway Authority's own evidence conceded that the network could not cope at 300 occupations without the junction and that pedestrian safety measures would be missing until it was built. Members took that as a basis for finding that an interim 225 would also be "severe". The County had been absent at the first hearing, which led to the deferral and to a letter of complaint from the Chair to the County portfolio holder, and that history coloured the debate. On appeal the Council would have to show a severe impact from 75 homes against a statutory consultee's no-objection. The minutes do not record any alternative technical evidence.

## Transferable points
- Officers treat TR6(4) as a bar to refusal where the Highway Authority does not object ("the development should not be prevented or refused on highways grounds", ¶1.8).
- The Highway Authority's own finding that a higher trigger (300) would be unacceptable can be used to argue that the network is already close to its limit before mitigation arrives.
- Officers' "Reasons for approval" still cited "the National Planning Policy Framework (2024)" although the report body applied the 2026 Framework: an old-wording slip on the day's papers.

## Policy findings
- **TR6(4): fail.** members found that occupying 75 more homes before the Golf Drive/B4112/B4114 junction works were built "is likely to cause a severe adverse impact on the highway network"; officers and the County Highway Authority had found no severe impact

## Key facts
- Hybrid permission 037112 (2022) for 621 homes; condition 33 required the junction to be signalised before the 150th occupation
- The application first sought a 300th-occupation trigger; County modelling showed 300 would be unacceptable (queues and journey times on Lutterworth Road), so it was cut to 225
- The Highway Authority accepted 225 as a "moderate increase" with no significant adverse impact; officers recommended approval
- 87 legal completions by 12 Aug 2026; 150 occupations were expected by early 2027 while the s278 works were still being processed
- Deferred on 21 Jul 2026 so a County Highways officer could attend and present the modelling; a WCC highways presentation was given on 1 Sep
- Refused against the officer recommendation for one reason, severe adverse impact on the highway network

## Sources
- https://www.nuneatonandbedworth.gov.uk/meetings/meeting/816/planning-applications-committee
- https://www.nuneatonandbedworth.gov.uk/download/meetings/id/1750/Download%2520the%2520Agenda%252C%2520reports%2520and%2520appendices
- https://www.nuneatonandbedworth.gov.uk/download/meetings/id/1762/Download%2520the%2520Minutes

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/nuneaton-041303.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the officer report. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.