Hickling Neighbourhood Plan and Drop in Sessions

Hickling Parish Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement February 2021

Table of Contents 1. Introduction ...... 1 Legal Requirements ...... 1 Consultation Process ...... 1 2. Neighbourhood Plan Area ...... 3 Designation ...... 3 3. Initial Public Consultation ...... 5 Overview ...... 5 Who was consulted ...... 5 How were people consulted ...... 5 Issues, priorities and concerns raised ...... 5 Likes – 153 Responses ...... 6 Don’t Like – 111 Responses ...... 6 What people want in the Parish – 141 Responses ...... 6 What people do not want in the Parish – 82 Responses ...... 7 How the Issues, Priorities and Concerns have been considered ...... 7 4. Parish Wide Questionnaire and Drop In Sessions ...... 8 Overview ...... 8 Who was consulted ...... 9 How were people consulted ...... 9 Issues, priorities and concerns raised ...... 9 How the Issues, Priorities and Concerns have been considered ...... 12 5. Pre-Submission Consultation on the Draft Hickling Neighbourhood Plan and Drop In Sessions ...... 13 Overview ...... 13 Who was consulted ...... 14 How were people consulted ...... 14 Issues, priorities and concerns raised ...... 14 How the Issues, Priorities and Concerns have been considered ...... 15 6. Focused Questionnaire– Housing ...... 16 Overview ...... 16 Who was consulted ...... 16 How were people consulted ...... 16 Issues, priorities and concerns raised ...... 16 How the Issues, Priorities and Concerns have been considered ...... 17

7 Conclusion ...... 18 Appendix 1: Pre-submission Hickling Neighbourhood Plan – Consultees ...... 19 Appendix 2: Pre-Submission Hickling Neighbourhood Plan – Representors ...... 20 Appendix 3: Pre-submission Hickling Neighbourhood Plan – Summary of Consultation Responses ...... 21

1. Introduction

Legal Requirements 1.1 This Consultation Statement has been prepared to fulfil the legal requirements of Part 5, Section 15 of the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 by: a) Detailing the persons and bodies who were consulted about the proposed neighbourhood development plan; b) Outlining how these persons and bodies were consulted; c) Providing a summary of the main issues and concerns raised; d) Reviewing how these issues and concerns have been considered and, where relevant, addressed in the proposed neighbourhood development plan.

Consultation Process 1.2 Throughout the process of producing the Hickling Neighbourhood Plan a more in-depth consultation process has been undertaken than the minimum standards set out in the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012. 1.3 The aims of the consultation process were to: ▪ ‘Front-load’ consultation and ensure that the Hickling Neighbourhood Plan was fully informed by the views and priorities of local residents, businesses, and key local stakeholders. ▪ Ensure that detailed consultation took place at all stages of the process, especially where key priorities needed to be set. ▪ Engage with as broad a cross-section of the community as possible, using a variety of consultation and communication techniques. ▪ Ensure consultation results were made publicly available and used to inform subsequent stages of the Neighbourhood Planning process. 1.4 Consultation and preparation of the plan has been led by Hickling Neighbourhood Planning Steering Group as a sub-committee of the Hickling Parish Council with independent professional support from Planit-X Town and Country Planning Services. Throughout the plan preparation process, local people have been informed through the website. Presentations at Parish Council meetings, newsletters and a series of ‘Dear Neighbours’ letters. 1.5 The programme of consultations undertaken throughout the preparation of the Neighbourhood Plan, is summarised below.

Activity Date Initial Public Consultation Autumn 2016 Parish Wide Questionnaire and Drop in July 2017 Sessions Pre-Submission Consultation on the 1 February 2019 – 18 Draft Plan with Drop In Sessions March 2019 Focused Questionnaire – Housing 17 July – 7August 2020 1.6 This Consultation Statement provides an overview of each of the above stages of consultation in accordance with Section 15 (2) of Part 5 of the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012. 1.7 It should be noted that throughout the process, the Parish Council has received advice and assistance from Rushcliffe Borough Council, in accordance with the Neighbourhood Planning Protocol.

2. Neighbourhood Plan Area

Designation 2.1 The Neighbourhood Plan Area comprises the parish of Hickling. It has been designated as a Neighbourhood Area following an application made by Hickling Parish Council in December 2016, under Part 2, Section 5 of the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012. 2.2 A map showing the area to be covered by the plan can be viewed below. 2.3 In accordance with Regulations 5/ 5A of the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 (as amended), the Hickling Neighbourhood Area was formally designated by Rushcliffe Borough Council on 23 February 2017

3. Initial Public Consultation Date Autumn 2016 Venue At a mixture of community events Format Initial Consultation was undertaken at the Scarecrow Weekend (10-11 September 2016), Pub Quiz Night (27 September 2016), Church Coffee Morning (29 September 2016) and Village Breakfast Club (2 October 2016) Publicity Village website, Hickling Standard and Posters displayed at various locations in the village. Circulation Parish Wide Attendees 487 Representations received overall

Overview 3.1 These initial consultation events were primarily held to inform local people about the neighbourhood plan process and receive views on the key issues that the Plan needed to address.

Who was consulted 3.2 The aim was to engage and consult with as many members of the community as possible as well as local businesses. These initial consultation events were advertised on the village website. Posters were also displayed at various locations around the village. The Hickling Standard- the village newsletter for Hickling and Hickling Pastures were circulated throughout the parish to publicise the event.

How were people consulted 3.3 Pre-arranged community events were utilised and used as opportunities to provide parishioners with an introduction and overview of the neighbourhood plan process. Consultation boards were brought along to these events and members of the parish council were on hand to answer any questions.

Issues, priorities and concerns raised 3.4 A total of 487 representations were received in response to the events (of which approximately 350 were gathered at the Scarecrow Weekend). The consultation and engagement concentrated on the four following key areas:- ▪ What people like about the Parish? ▪ What people do not like about the Parish?

▪ What people want in the Parish? ▪ What people do not want in the Parish? The responses were relatively wide ranging overall but there were a number of key issues that stood out and were fairly well supported. A summary of the comments is provided below, along with the level of support for the issue raised. Likes – 153 Responses ▪ The environment (33%) including the rural village, countryside and open spaces and available walks. ▪ Community Spirit (21%) ▪ The lifestyle it offers (16%) including tranquillity, village life and a safe place to live ▪ Pubs and its events (9%) ▪ Grantham Canal (8.5% ▪ Village Events (4%) ▪ Local Businesses (2%)

Don’t Like – 111 Responses ▪ Traffic (48%) including HGV and farm machinery, speeding and poor parking ▪ Dog Mess (14%) ▪ New development and lack of publicity (7%) ▪ Noise (7%) including from traffic, farms and wind turbines ▪ Unmaintained hedges (6%) ▪ Facilities (6%) including poor bus service and lack of post office and sports facilities ▪ Adverse impacts of tourism development (3.6%) ▪ Litter (2.7%)

What people want in the Parish – 141 Responses ▪ Housing (22%) including smaller and affordable homes, protection of existing homes and retirement properties ▪ Development (17%) including development of the wharf, improved sport facilities, airfield ▪ Traffic (13%) including speed limits, more parking and less through traffic ▪ More business opportunities (9.9%) ▪ Rural character (9%) including retention of the village character, a farming village, protection of green spaces and no infilling ▪ No more housing (6%) ▪ Tidy village (5.6%) including more road cleaning and flowers ▪ Improved dining facilities (4.3%) ▪ Better bus services (2.1%) ▪ Greater planning transparency (2.1%)

What people do not want in the Parish – 82 Responses ▪ Housing (61% including big house and large developments ▪ Traffic (11.7%) ▪ Wind turbines and solar farms (10.4%) ▪ Industrialisation (2.6%) ▪ Demolition of old cottages (2.6%) ▪ More helicopters (2.6%) ▪ More dog fouling (2.6%) ▪ Other (6.5%) including loss of farming, tree felling, loss of community spirit

How the Issues, Priorities and Concerns have been considered 3.5 The results gave a first indication of those matters which are important to residents and which need to be addressed by the Hickling Neighbourhood Plan. Responses were also used to inform the preparation of the Parish Wide Questionnaire.

4. Parish Wide Questionnaire and Drop In Sessions Consultation 3 July 2017 – 31 July 2017 Dates Drop In Sessions 4pm – 8pm, Tuesday 18 July 2017. Hickling Village Hall 10am – 4pm, Saturday 22 July 2017 and Sunday 23 July 2017, St Luke’s Church Format Questionnaire Survey Publicity A questionnaire was distributed to all parishioners in the Neighbourhood Area. Responses 199 Completed Questionnaires

Overview 4.1 In July 2017, a questionnaire survey of all those on the electoral register for the parish was undertaken to explore in more detail some of the issues raised by the earlier consultation and to identify the keys issues that the neighbourhood plan needed to look at. It also provided an opportunity for local people to have a further say about the future of the parish. 4.2 The questionnaire was designed to give an opportunity to provide comment and identify views on matters and issues faced by the Parish. It focused on the following issues;

▪ Identification of the three most important key issues for the Neighbourhood Plan to address; ▪ A proposed vision for the Neighbourhood Plan; ▪ The tranquillity of the area along with any concerns relating to noise and light pollution; ▪ Protection of the natural environment and its features including biodiversity woodlands, trees and hedgerows; ▪ Potential forms of Renewable Energy; ▪ The future role and restoration of the Grantham Canal; ▪ Identification of important local views; ▪ Identification of Local Green Space; ▪ Protection of heritage assets; ▪ The use of guidance to assist on the design of new buildings; ▪ The amount of housing that should be provided for in the Parish and how the housing growth should be accommodated; ▪ The type of housing that is needed within the parish and future hosing needs; ▪ The level of support for the use of Rural Exception sites to provide affordable housing; ▪ Identification of traffic issues, such as speeding, inconsiderate parking, and lorries and HGVs travelling in the area; ▪ Protection of, and support for new services and facilities

▪ Support for the rural economy and existing business activity within the parish, and future needs; ▪ Quality of internet connection and broadband speed

Who was consulted 4.3 The aim was to engage and consult with as many members of the local community as possible. Therefore, a paper copy of the questionnaire was distributed to each person on the electoral register for the parish.

How were people consulted 4.4 The questionnaire was prepared by the Hickling Parish Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group. A paper copy of the questionnaire was delivered in July 2017 to every elector in the Parish. All were encouraged to respond. There was also the option to complete the questionnaire online and this was encouraged. The closing date for responses was 31 July 2017.

Issues, priorities and concerns raised 4.5 A total of 199 completed questionnaires were received to this survey and the preliminary findings of the survey were circulated to all local households in September 2017. The key issues that came out of the consultation are summarised below:

Most Important Issues for the Neighbourhood Plan (%)

F l o o d R i s k

Supporting an accessible countryside

Employment Opportunities

Better public transport

The restoration of the Grantham Canal

Retaining the parish's agriculural link

Meeting local housing needs

Conserving local heritage

Preventing Hickling from becoming a …

Improving or retaining local services …

Maintaining Tranqulity

Protecting the Countryside

Protecting green areas of the parish

The impact of vehicular traffic on …

Maintaining the character of the area

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

4.6 Residents were asked the most important issues for the neighbourhood plan to tackle. The issue deemed to be the most important by the largest number of respondents (72%) was ‘Maintaining the rural character of the area. Detailed in Table 1 below are the responses received along with the percentage that identified each of the issues. There was also support for the Neighbourhood Plan’s objectives. 4.7 When considering pollution, responses gave a clear indication that they considered their area to be tranquil although 46% of respondents raised concerns relating to noise. Only 15% considered light pollution to be a problem. 4.8 When asked about biodiversity, there was overwhelming support (90%) for the neighbourhood plan to seek to protect and enhance local biodiversity. Support for the various potential forms of renewable energy development was more mixed. Small scale renewable energy technologies gathered the most support (81%), followed by solar farms (34%), biomass (23%) and wind turbines/farms (15%). 4.9 With reference to the Grantham Canal, there was support there for, the Hickling Basin to be a focal point for visitors (60%). The majority of the respondents (59% agreed that the plan should encourage the restoration of the Grantham Canal to make it navigable for boats and 90% thought it should be promoted as a route for walking, cycling and nature conservation. Only 8% wanted to discourage people from using the Grantham Canal. 4.10 Over 21 local views were identified as being of value and the identification of local views was well received. There was also strong support for the protection of ancient trees and trees of good arboricultural or amenity value (93%). 4.11 The survey suggested the designation of Local Green Spaces in the Neighbourhood Plan and that development on these sites would not be allowed other than on very special circumstance. Five potential Local Green Spaces were identified, and the diagram below illustrates the level of support for each of the identified spaces:

4.12 There was some support for the neighbourhood plan to protect local heritage assets (32%) and several buildings were identified. There was strong support (86%) for the neighbourhood plan to include guidance on the design of new buildings. 4.13 A series of questions relating to housing development followed, the first relating to the number of new homes that should be planned for in the Neighbourhood Plan. The percentage of responses that supported each option are summarised below:

▪ None (20%) ▪ 1-5 homes (28%) ▪ 6-10 homes (22%) ▪ 11-15 homes (10%) ▪ 16-20 homes (13%) ▪ 21-25 homes (4%) ▪ More than 25 homes (3%) 4.14 There was significant support for new housing to be provided either through the conversion of rural buildings (74%), brownfield development (65%) or infill development (51%). Only 8% supported locating new housing on greenfield land. 4.15 With respect to house type the highest level of need was identified for 2- and 3-bedroom properties including houses, bungalows and apartments. This was followed by 1 or 2 bedroomed accommodation for the elderly and then 1-bedroom apartments. 4.16 When asked about future housing needs, 18% of respondents identified that a member of their household would expect to move within the parish within the next ten years. The majority of those expected to move were between 10 to 44 years old in age and on the whole would be looking for 2 and 3 bedroomed properties. Of these it was expected that 68% would be seeking to buy their house

in the open market. Only 12.5% identified they would be looking for specialist housing. 4.17 Support for the use of Rural Exceptions Sites for affordable housing was 49%. 4.18 When asked about highway issues, 72% identified parking as a problem they had experienced, and locations were identified. Speeding was considered a problem by 81% and 64 believed there were too many lorries and HGVs in the area. 4.19 There was strong support for the protection of existing services and facilities (94%) and for the provision of additional services and facilities as detailed below:

4.20 There was also support for the enhancement of the rural economy and a number of economic activities including home working (88%), farm diversification (65%), re-use of rural buildings for business use (75%), new small scale buildings for business use (25%) and new live/work units (18%). 4.21 When looking at business activity, 19% of respondents own their own business, the majority being a micro- business (1-9 employees) and based at home. Of these, 18% suggested they would need additional business space in the next five years.

How the Issues, Priorities and Concerns have been considered 4.22 The responses from the questionnaire were used to inform and help prepare the (Pre-Submission) Draft Version of the Hickling Neighbourhood Plan.

5. Pre-Submission Consultation on the Draft Hickling Neighbourhood Plan and Drop In Sessions Consultation 1 February 2019 – 18 March 2019 Dates Drop in Sessions 9 February 2019 (10am to 1pm) at Hickling Village Hall Format Public consultation Publicity Advertised on the Neighbourhood Plan webpage with a copy of the Pre-Submission Draft of the Plan available to download. Documentation was made available at various locations throughout the Parish, namely the Plough Inn, St Luke’s Church and Hickling Village Hall. A copy was also available on request from the Parish Clerk

A leaflet publicising the Pre-Submission Draft of the Plan was delivered to all premises within the Parish and statutory consultees were also informed. Attendance 26 responses received and a small number of residents attended the Drop-In Sessions

Overview 5.1 As required under Part 5, Section 14 of the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012, the Parish Council undertook a pre- submission consultation on the proposed Neighbourhood Plan. The main aims of this consultation workshop of key local stakeholders were to; 5.2 Within this period the Parish Council: a) Publicised the draft neighbourhood development plan to all that live, work, or do business within the Parish. b) Outlined where and when the draft neighbourhood development plan could be inspected. c) Detailed how to make representations, and the date by which these should be received. d) Consulted any statutory consultation body (referred to in Paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 of the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012) whose interests may be affected by the proposals within the draft neighbourhood development plan. e) Sent a copy of the proposed neighbourhood development plan to the local planning authority.

Who was consulted 5.3 The Parish Council publicised the draft neighbourhood plan to all those that live, work, or do business within the parish and provided a variety of ways to both view the plan and make representations. 5.4 The Parish Council also formally consulted the statutory consultation bodies identified within Paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 of the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012. Appendix 1 sets out the bodies and organisations that were invited to make representations. 5.5 Representations from 26 individuals or organisations were received within the consultation period. A list and summary of these representations is attached in Appendix 2 and 3.

How were people consulted 5.6 A copy of the Pre-Submission Draft of the Neighbourhood Development Plan was made available to download, along with supporting documentation, on the Hickling Parish Council Neighbourhood Plan website. A paper copy of the Draft Neighbourhood Plan was made available at the Plough Inn, the Old Wharf Tea Rooms and St Luke’s Church, Hickling and the Parish Council Office. A leaflet publicising the Pre-Submission Draft of the Plan was also delivered to all premises within the parish. 5.7 In addition, a Drop-in Session was held on Saturday 9th February 2019 at Hickling Village Hall. This provided an opportunity to examine the contents of the Plan and members of the Parish Council and Steering Group were on hand to answer any questions. 5.8 Representations on the draft Plan were invited to be submitted electronically or in writing. 5.9 Statutory consultation bodies and other key stakeholders were contacted individually and invited to make representations on the draft Neighbourhood Plan.

Issues, priorities and concerns raised 5.10 The representations received have been reviewed and the detailed summary of representations (Appendix 3) provides an explanation of why changes have or have not been made to the Neighbourhood Plan. 5.11 Several comments gave rise to changes to the Draft Neighbourhood Plan in relation to a range of issues. These have been incorporated

into the Submission version of the Neighbourhood Plan. The minor changes made can be summarised as amendments to policies, supporting paragraphs, and review of the Appendices and supporting information, to provide detail and clarification. 5.12 However, many of the representations received related to proposals for the redevelopment of the AE Faulks Ltd plant-hire business at The Wharf, Main Street, Hickling. Matters relating to this and the need for new housing proved difficult to resolve and so a further questionnaire survey was undertaken in Summer 2020 to help find an acceptable solution.

How the Issues, Priorities and Concerns have been considered 5.13 All comments received to the Pre-Submission consultation were considered and used to develop and improve the Neighbourhood Plan and the changes made have been incorporated into the Submission Version of the Neighbourhood Plan.

6. Focused Questionnaire– Housing Consultation 17 July 2020 to 7 August 202o Dates Format Questionnaire Survey Publicity A supporting leaflet and paper copy of the questionnaire was delivered to every household in the parish. Responses 253

Overview 6.1 This focused questionnaire survey was arranged following responses made to the Pre-Submission Consultation on the Neighbourhood Plan. Many of the representations received related to proposals for the redevelopment of the A E Faulks Ltd plant-hire business at The Wharf, Main Street, Hickling. The purpose of the questionnaire was to help find an acceptable solution to the redevelopment of this sites and also the need for new housing.

Who was consulted 6.2 The aim was to engage and consult with as many members of the local community as possible. A leaflet publicising the survey, along with a paper copy of the questionnaire, was distributed to each resident of the parish.

How were people consulted 6.3 The questionnaire was prepared by the Hickling Parish Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group. All were encouraged to respond. There was also the option to complete the questionnaire online and this was encouraged.

Issues, priorities and concerns raised 6.4 A total of 253 responses were received to the survey and the results were published on the Neighbourhood Plan Webpage of the Parish Council. The key issues that came out of the consultation are summarised below.

6.5 Based on the questionnaire survey of Summer 2017, it was concluded that up to ten new homes are needed in the Neighbourhood Plan area over the period to 2028 and the results of the questionnaire also showed that many people supported small- scale development. To explore this further a total of 7 questions were asked relating to housing need and the provision of new housing.

6.6 The first question sought to identify the level of support for the Neighbourhood Plan to try and meet local housing need and 70% supported this approach.

6.7 The next three questions related to the Faulks plant-hire businesses. 70% supported the relocation of this business, however only 35% supported the illustrative proposal for the housing development of this site. There was greater support (60%) for the redevelopment of just the brownfield part of this site.

6.8 The following question looked at the level of support for the allocation of The Orchard, Long Lane for up to four additional dwellings. Only 26% supported this approach.

6.9 Finally, 4 housing options were put forward and respondents were asked to rank these in order.

How the Issues, Priorities and Concerns have been considered 6.10 All comments received to the survey were considered and used to develop and improve the Neighbourhood Plan and the changes made have been incorporated into the Submission Version of the Neighbourhood Plan. Consultation responses have been clear that local housing need should not be met through the allocation of a housing site. Therefore, the housing policies of the Neighbourhood Plan allows for the conversion of rural buildings, infill development, infill housing development (supported by a defined Limits to Development to Hickling) and the redevelopment of the brownfield part of the Faulks depot in Hickling.

7 Conclusion 7.1 The publicity, engagement and consultation undertaken to support the preparation of the Hickling Neighbourhood Plan has been open and transparent, with many opportunities provided for those that live, work and do business within the Neighbourhood Area to contribute to the process, make comment, and to raise issues, priorities and concerns. 7.1 All statutory requirements have been met and a significant level of additional consultation, engagement, and research has been completed. 7.2 This Consultation Statement has been produced to document the consultation and engagement process undertaken and are considered to comply with Part 5, Section 15 of the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012

Appendix 1: Pre-submission Hickling Neighbourhood Plan – Consultees Rushcliffe Borough Council Melton Borough Council Leicestershire County Council Nottinghamshire County Council Kenneth Clarke QC MP Councillor Tina Combellack Councillor John Cottee Broughton & Old Dalby Parish Council Upper Broughton Parish Council Parish Council Widmerpool Parish Council Kinoulton Parish Council Colston Bassett Parish Council Clawson Hose and Harby Parish Council The Coal Authority Homes England Natural England Environment Agency Historic England Highways England Network Rail Health and Safety Executive Mobile Operators Association Rushcliffe CCG National Grid Openreach Western Power Distribution Severn Trent Water Rushcliffe Community and Voluntary Service Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust East Midlands Housing Age UK Nottingham & Nottinghamshire Action Deafness Disability Nottinghamshire Ancient Monuments Society CPRE Nottinghamshire Rural Community Action Nottinghamshire Rushcliffe Together Community Cohesion Network National Farmers Union Country Land and Business Association Sport England Federation of Small Businesses Rushcliffe Business Partnership Nottinghamshire Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner Stagecoach Midlands Arriva Midlands AE Faulks Ltd Plough Inn Hickling Cricket Club Hickling Village Hall

Appendix 2: Pre-Submission Hickling Neighbourhood Plan – Representors

James Morley Environment Agency Coal Authority Nottinghamshire Cunty Council Rushcliffe Borough Council Canal and River Trust Mrs Chell Jane Fraser Mark and Caroline Samworth Peter, Amanda, Jack and Michael Playle Severn Trent Nigel Robinson Eillen Granger Mr A Overall Tessa Clark and Vic Brown Victoria and Andrew Baker Brendan Clarke Sarah and Paul Harhand Cathy Hetherington Liz and Michael Smith Richard and Kin Kupfer John Holmes, Oxalis Planning Richard Collishaw Highways England Mr R Page Mr A Thomas

Appendix 3: Pre-submission Hickling Neighbourhood Plan – Summary of Consultation Responses

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy General James Morley Overall I believe the plan reflects my own Noted None feelings and concerns for the future of the village. General Environment We welcome the opportunity to comment Noted None Agency on the Hickling Neighbourhood Plan, as we recognise the key role local planning has in delivering Sustainable Development. General Coal Authority Having reviewed your document, I confirm Noted None that we have no specific comments to make on it. Waste Nottinghamshire The National Planning Policy for Waste The Neighbourhood Plan None County Council (NPPW) sets out the Government’s ambition Area also does not to work towards more sustainable and contain any Mineral efficient resource management in line with Safeguarding or the waste hierarchy. Positive planning is seen Consultation Areas. as key to delivering these waste ambitions Therefore, the plan does through supporting sustainable not pose any sterilisation development. This includes ensuring that risk to mineral resources. waste management is considered alongside other spatial planning concerns and helping to secure the re-use and recovery of waste wherever possible. Paragraph 8 of the NPPW states that: ‘When determining planning applications, all planning authorities should ensure that: • the likely impact of proposed non-waste related development on existing waste management facilities, and on sites and areas allocated for waste management, is acceptable and does not prejudice the implementation of the waste hierarchy and/or the efficient operation of such facilities;

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy • new, non-waste development makes sufficient provision for waste management and promotes good design to secure the integration of waste management facilities with the rest of the development, and, in less developed areas, with the local landscape. This includes providing adequate waste storage facilities at residential premises, for example by ensuring that there is sufficient and discrete provision for bins, to facilitate a high quality, comprehensive and frequent household collection service; - the handling of waste arising from the construction and operation of development maximises reuse/recovery opportunities and minimises off-site disposal.’ In Nottinghamshire, relevant policies are set out in the Nottinghamshire and Nottingham Replacement Waste Local Plan: Part 1 – Waste Core Strategy (December 2013). The adopted Nottinghamshire and Nottingham Replacement Waste Local Plan, Part 1: Waste Core Strategy (adopted 10 December 2013) and the saved, non- replaced policies of the Waste Local Plan (adopted 2002), along with the saved policies of the Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan (adopted 2005), form part of the development plan for the area. As such,

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy relevant policies in these plans need to be considered. In addition, Minerals Safeguarding and Consultation Areas have been identified in Nottinghamshire and in accordance with Policy SP8 of the emerging draft Minerals Local Plan (July 2018) these should be taken into account where proposals for non- minerals development fall within them. As the Minerals and Waste Planning Authority, it is the responsibility of Nottinghamshire County Council to form policies and determine applications relating to minerals and waste. Considering the proposed policies within the Hickling draft Neighbourhood Plan, these do not appear to conflict with the Nottinghamshire and Nottingham Waste Core Strategy and Waste Local Plan. The Neighbourhood Plan boundary area also does not fall within or nearby to any active waste management facilities nor any Mineral Safeguarding and Consultation Areas. Therefore, the plan does not pose any sterilisation risk to either mineral resources nor waste facilities. The County Council therefore does not wish to raise any objections to the neighbourhood plan from a minerals or waste perspective. Minerals Nottinghamshire Section 17 of the National Planning Policy The Neighbourhood Plan None County Council Framework (NPPF) covers the sustainable Area does not contain use of any active waste

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy minerals. Paragraph 203 points out that ‘It is management facilities. essential that there is a sufficient supply of Therefore, the plan does minerals to not pose any sterilisation provide the infrastructure, buildings, energy risk to waste facilities. and goods that the country needs.’ Paragraph 204 states that planning authorities should: - ‘safeguard mineral resources by defining Mineral Safeguarding Areas; and adopt appropriate policies so that known locations of specific minerals resources of local and national importance are not sterilised by non-mineral development where this should be avoided (whilst not creating a presumption that the resources defined will be worked); - set out policies to encourage the prior extraction of minerals, where practical and environmentally feasible, if it is necessary for non-mineral development to take place’. In Nottinghamshire, minerals safeguarding and consultation areas are defined in the emerging Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan (Draft Plan Consultation 2018) and supported by Policy SP8, which also covers prior extraction. In terms of the role of local planning authorities in planning for minerals, paragraph 206 of the NPPF

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy states that: ‘Local planning authorities should not normally permit other development proposals in Mineral Safeguarding Areas if it might constrain potential future use for mineral working’. The national Planning Practice Guidance provides further information on the role of district councils in this regard, stating that ‘they have an important role in safeguarding minerals in 3 ways: - having regard to the local minerals plan when identifying suitable areas for non- mineral development in their local plans. District Councils should show Mineral Safeguarding Areas on their policy maps; - in those areas where a mineral planning authority has defined a Minerals Consultation Area, consulting the mineral planning authority and taking account of the local minerals plan before determining a planning application on any proposal for non-minerals development within it; and- when determining planning applications, doing so in accordance with development policy on minerals safeguarding, and taking account of the views of the mineral planning authority on the risk of preventing minerals extraction.’ The adopted Nottinghamshire and Nottingham Replacement Waste Local Plan, Part 1: Waste Core Strategy (adopted 10

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy December 2013) and the saved, non- replaced policies of the Waste Local Plan (adopted 2002), along with the saved policies of the Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan (adopted 2005), form part of the development plan for the area. As such, relevant policies in these plans need to be considered. In addition, Minerals Safeguarding and Consultation Areas have been identified in Nottinghamshire and in accordance with Policy SP8 of the emerging draft Minerals Local Plan (July 2018) these should be taken into account where proposals for non- minerals development fall within them. As the Minerals and Waste Planning Authority, it is the responsibility of Nottinghamshire County Council to form policies and determine applications relating to minerals and waste. Considering the proposed policies within the Hickling draft Neighbourhood Plan, these do not appear to conflict with the Nottinghamshire and Nottingham Waste Core Strategy and Waste Local Plan. The Neighbourhood Plan boundary area also does not fall within or nearby to any active waste management facilities nor any Mineral Safeguarding and Consultation Areas. Therefore, the plan does not pose any sterilisation risk to either mineral resources nor waste facilities. The County Council

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy therefore does not wish to raise any objections to the neighbourhood plan from a minerals or waste perspective. Health Nottinghamshire Paragraph 91 of the NPPF points out that Noted None County Council ‘Planning policies and decisions should aim to achieve healthy, inclusive and safe places which ....enable and support healthy lifestyles, especially where this would address identified local health and wellbeing needs...’ With regard to public rights of way, paragraph 98 states that they should be protected and enhanced, ‘including taking opportunities to provide better facilities for users, for example by adding links to existing rights of way networks...’ Paragraphs Rushcliffe The Local Plan Part 2 (LP2) was submitted for Agree Paragraphs 1.13-1.14 be 1.13-1.14 Borough Council examination in August 2018 with hearing updated to reflect the sessions for Local Plan Part 2 (LP2) taking latest stage in the place November and December 2018. It is preparation of the Local likely that LP2 will be adopted before Plan Part 2: Land and adoption of the Neighbourhood Plan. Whilst Planning Policies. reference to a stage in the preparation of LP2 provides an update on the current status and this may inform representations on the plan, future iterations of the NP may need to refer to the LP2 policies as adopted. Paragraph 1.25 Rushcliffe As worded the paragraph implies that, if Agree Paragraph 1.25 be Borough Council adopted, the Neighbourhood Plan is the revised as follows: primary policy document. Whereas, both the Planning applications are Local Plan and Neighbourhood Plan will decided in accordance

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy comprise the development plan for the area. with the development In addition, in accordance with Section 38 (6) plan, unless material of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase considerations indicate Act 2004 and section 70 (2) of the Town and otherwise. When the Country Planning Act 1990, proposed Neighbourhood Plan is development that is not in accordance with ‘made’, it will form part of the Neighbourhood Plan can be permitted the development plan where material considerations indicate alongside the Rushcliffe otherwise. This should be made clear in the Local Plan. Rushcliffe plan to ensure stakeholders are aware that Borough Council will development contrary to the plan can be continue to be permitted in certain circumstances. responsible for determining most planning applications. Key Issues Canal and River The restoration of the canal is identified in Neighbourhood Plan None Trust the draft Plan as a key issue for the local paragraph 8.6 states ‘The community, and the vision setting out what restoration of the the Plan aims to achieve includes ensuring Grantham Canal to make that the canal makes a positive contribution it navigable for boats to village life. The Trust is pleased to see that was supported by 59%.’ the local community clearly value the canal and consider it to be an asset to be both used by the local community and protected from harmful development. We do however consider that it would be helpful if the draft Plan clearly set out a position on the future restoration of the canal to navigable status, as neither the Vision nor the Plan policies include any explicit indication of whether the Neighbourhood Plan supports restoration, even in principle.

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy Paragraph 2.11 Rushcliffe Refer to the policy title alongside the policy Agree The last sentence of Borough Council number for ease of reference “…..in paragraph 2.11 be accordance with Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 2 revised by replacing Policy 22 (Development within the ‘Policy 22’ with: Countryside).” Policy 22 (Development within the Countryside) Policy H1: James Morley Observations about the importance of the Noted None Countryside rural landscape, protecting wildlife, tranquility accurately reflect my own feelings about living in Hickling. Policy H2: Mrs Chell Viewpoint across Bogues Field towards the In Summer 2017 we None Locally Standard is not shown. undertook a Important questionnaire survey to Views seek views on local issues. We invited residents to identify the views that they valued. Policy H2 identifies those views and vistas valued by over half of respondents. View 11, from the junction of Clawson Lane and Main Street looking westwards, was valued by 36% of respondents. Policy H2: Jane Fraser Important views; a much smaller number of In Summer 2017 we None Locally views have been identified in the undertook a Important Neighbourhood Plan whereas the questionnaire survey to Views Townscape Appraisal Map shows a range of seek views on local additional views within Hickling village itself; issues. We invited for example, from Mill Lane, from the north residents to identify the

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy and the south ends of the village, from views that they valued Walker’s Green and others. and listed the views identified in the Hickling Conservation Area Townscape Appraisal Map. Policy H2 identifies those views and vistas valued by over half of respondents. View 7 from the end of Mill Lane looking westwards, was valued by 26% of respondents. View 9 From the junction of Bridegate Lane and Main Street looking north- west- 32%. View 16 From the southern end of Main Street, near Elm House, looking southwards- 34%. The views from the north of the village are outside the Neighbourhood Area. Policy H2: Mark Samworth We would amend the following Policies: The Hickling Add new paragraph after Locally Caroline • H2 (Locally Important Views) – to reference Conservation Area 3.12: Important Samworth the importance of additional views that are Townscape Appraisal is Hickling Conservation Views identified in Rushcliffe Borough Council’s a material consideration Area is supported by an 2008 Hickling Conservation Area Townscape in deciding planning Appraisal and Appraisal in order to preserve the character applications. Management Plan and a of the village and to be consistent with the Townscape Appraisal. Hickling Conservation Area Appraisal and Both are material Management Plan 2008

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy consideration in deciding planning applications.

Policy H3: Rushcliffe Tranquillity/noise Part a) of the policy relates Hickling parish is a Policy H3: Tranquillity- Tranquillity Borough Council to noise. An ‘ambient level’ of noise is a tranquil area which has Replace ‘the ambient subjective term and it would be unclear how remained relatively level’ with: this part of the policy could be applied in the undisturbed by noise Lowest Observed Adverse determination of planning applications. and is prized for its Effect Level Further, some of the uses cited e.g. recreational and amenity agricultural uses and recreational uses, are in value for this reason. national policy considered appropriate in the There are two countryside – as acknowledged in paragraph established concepts 2.11. Further, no reference is given to from toxicology that are neighbouring residential amenity – as applied to noise impacts, worded it would apply to all applications in for example, by the the parish, regardless of the distance of the World Health site from neighbouring occupiers. An Organisation. They are: application for a larger scale agricultural use NOEL – No Observed in the parish which could generate additional Effect Level noise may have no impact on neighbouring This is the level below residential amenity due to the distance away which no effect can be from them so refusal on the grounds of noise detected. would be unjustified. LOAEL – Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level This is the level above which adverse effects on health and quality of life can be detected. We Policy H3: Peter Playle, We support policies H3, H4, H6, H8, H9, Noted None Tranquillity Amanda Playle, H12,H13,H14, H15, H16 and the Design Statement.

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy Jack Playle and Michael Playle

Policy H3: James Morley Observations about the importance of the Noted None Tranquillity rural landscape, protecting wildlife, tranquility accurately reflect my own feelings about living in Hickling. Policy H3: Canal and River This policy seeks to restrict development Hickling parish is a Policy H3: Tranquillity- Tranquillity Trust which "reduces local tranquillity" and the tranquil area which has Replace ‘the ambient wording of Criterion A of the policy suggests remained relatively level’ with: that this encompasses any development that undisturbed by noise Lowest Observed Adverse introduces sources of noise above ambient and is prized for its Effect Level levels. Local tranquillity is not defined in the recreational and amenity policy, and in any event appears to us to be value for this reason. very much a matter of subjective individual There are two opinion which is open to different established concepts interpretations. The requirement to measure from toxicology that are noise generated by development against applied to noise impacts, ambient levels is similarly imprecise. For for example, by the example, ambient noise levels vary World Health depending on a range of factors, including Organisation. They are: the time of day and the exact location NOEL – No Observed selected to take measurements (as the Effect Level policy would apply to the entire Plan area, This is the level below ambient noise levels will no doubt vary which no effect can be considerably and be difficult to properly detected. assess and measure) and the nature of the LOAEL – Lowest noise generated by new development can Observed Adverse Effect also vary, in accordance with whether noise Level is constant or intermittent and to what extent This is the level above its effects can be mitigated etc. Almost all which adverse effects on development has the capacity to generate health and quality of life noise to some degree, so it is considered can be detected.

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy that any policy seeking to restrict noisy We activity must provide a clear, consistent and readily measurable baseline against which to judge development proposals, if it is to be effective. We are concerned that Policy H3 lacks the clarity and precision necessary to be an effective or enforceable policy. Nonetheless, we do not consider it reasonable for Policy H3 to seek to restrict all development within the Plan area that could introduce sources of noise above 'the ambient level'. As worded, we consider the policy to be unduly restrictive and is likely to be viewed as seeking to simply restrict almost all new development proposals. The Trust's concern is that this policy would potentially exclude appropriate development associated with the canal or supporting canal-related leisure and recreational activity, or even linked to the restoration of the canal and facilitating its return to navigation, all of which have the capacity to generate noise, but not necessarily excessive or unacceptably intrusive noise. Policies that effectively impose blanket restrictions on development are unlikely to be compatible with the principles set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which provide clear in-principle support for sustainable development. We acknowledge and agree that excessive noise can be extremely harmful, and the NPPF

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy provides advice on the importance of protecting tranquil areas which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise (para. 180). However, whilst the NPPF is also clear that planning policies should ensure that adverse noise impacts should be mitigated or avoided, it does not advocate restricting all development that generates additional noise. By potentially restricting any development linked to restoration of the canal, the policy is also likely to be incompatible with the aims and strategic policies of the emerging Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 2 and would therefore fail to meet all of the Basic Conditions that the Plan has to satisfy. We therefore consider that as written, Policy H3 would not readily provide a practical framework within which decisions on planning applications can be made with a high degree of predictability and efficiency and is unlikely to meet the Basic Conditions. The Trust considers that (in line with para. 180 of the NPPF) it is reasonable to seek to identify tranquil areas within the Plan area and to protect the particular qualities that those areas have. The canal corridor is a potential example of such an area, however, this does not mean that development proposals introducing any source of additional noise will be unacceptable in close proximity to the canal. The criteria applied should take account of the level,

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy frequency and nature of the noise generated, and what impact it has on the canal (for example, whether there is likely to be harm to local wildlife). We also note that the 2017 questionnaire specifically asked whether Hickling Basin should become a focal point for visits to the canal (supported by 59.7% of respondents) and whether people should be discouraged from using the canal (opposed by 92.2% of respondents). This suggests that an overly restrictive policy approach is not likely to reflect the aspirations of the local community to encourage activity at the canal and basin. We therefore suggest that Policy H3 is reconsidered. Policy H3: Mark Samworth We support the Vision of Hickling Parish in Noted None Tranquillity Caroline 2028, Policies H3, H4, H5, H6, H8, H9, H12, Samworth H13, H14, H15, H16, H17 & H18, and the Design Guide. Policy H4: Peter Playle, We support policies H3, H4, H6, H8, H9, Noted None Renewable Amanda Playle, H12,H13,H14, H15, H16 and the Design Energy Jack Playle and Statement. Michael Playle Policy H4: Severn Trent Whilst Severn Trent are supportive of the The National Planning None Renewable principles outlined within Policy H4: Policy Framework sets Energy Renewable Energy and the benefits that strict tests to protect developing sources of sustainable energy people and property provide. The re-development of brownfield from flooding which all sites also provides an opportunity reduce the local planning authorities amount of impermeable surfaces, are expected to follow. encouraging increased biodiversity and Where these tests are

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy amenity within the proposed re- not met, national policy development sites. We would therefore is clear that new recommend that policy H4 recognises the development should not benefits of reducing impermeable area be allowed. would have on flood risk, biodiversity, Neighbourhood plans ground water recharge and reduced reliance are not obliged to on the sewerage system. contain policies It is also acknowledged that the use of land addressing all types of for solar panels does not prevent the grazing development. of Neighbourhood plans livestock such as sheep, where the panels should also avoid are set at an appropriate elevation above the unnecessary duplication ground of policies that apply to level. Therefore there may be additional the area (including benefits to the character of the village by policies in the NPPF and also increasing the impermeable are on Local Plan). these sites. Policy H4: Mark Samworth We support the Vision of Hickling Parish in Noted None Renewable Caroline 2028, Policies H3, H4, H5, H6, H8, H9, H12, Energy Samworth H13, H14, H15, H16, H17 & H18, and the Design Guide. Policy H4: Rushcliffe Renewable Energy Part 2 of Policy 16 A proposed wind None Renewable Borough Council (Renewable Energy) of draft LP2 sets out energy development Energy that wind energy development will be involving one or more permitted provided that: a) the development turbines should not be site is in an area identified as being suitable considered acceptable for wind turbine development in a unless it is in an area neighbourhood plan; or b) the development identified as suitable for site is in an area of low or low-medium wind energy sensitivity to wind turbine development as development in the set out in the Melton and Rushcliffe development plan; and, Landscape Study. The neighbourhood plan following consultation, area falls within two landscape character

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy units as defined by the study: the Vale of it can be demonstrated Belvoir and the Nottinghamshire Wolds that the planning (Widmerpool Clay Wolds). Paragraph 2.20 of impacts identified by the neighbourhood plan acknowledges that the affected local the study identifies these areas are at community have been medium – high and high sensitivity for larger fully addressed and the turbines. It does not however identify that proposal has their these areas are also of low-medium backing. sensitivity for turbines of 25 metres or less. Policy H4 makes it clear These areas would be potentially considered that wind turbines are suitable for smaller wind turbines (subject to not acceptable in assessment against the criteria included at Hickling parish. Part 1 of Policy 16 and Part 2 (c) which requires support of the local community). Paragraphs Rushcliffe The Borough Council’s Sustainability Officer The Neighbourhood Policy H5: Ecology and 2.23-2.25 Borough Council suggests the supporting text to the policy Plan already shows Biodiversity, supporting refers to the Rushcliffe Biodiversity Local Wildlife Sites, but text and maps be Opportunity Mapping Report published by we would like to amended to identify Nottinghamshire Biodiversity Action Group identify other other wildlife/habitat and The Rushcliffe Nature Conservation wildlife/habitat features, including the Strategy as these both of these include features, including the South Rushcliffe useful descriptions of the ecology of the South Rushcliffe Pondscape area and Hickling area. Hickling is identified in the Pondscape area and Green Corridors. Biodiversity Opportunity Mapping Report as Green Corridors. These being partially covered by South Rushcliffe are shown on a series Pondscape focal area and includes recommendations and opportunities to of maps in the improve biodiversity in the area. This is Rushcliffe Nature reflected in Policy 38 of LP2 but cross Conservation Strategy reference to the policy could be included 2016 – 2020 and here. It may be considered appropriate to Rushcliffe Borough show the pondscape focal area on the Council have been “Ecology and Biodiversity” plan (page 19).

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy The Rushcliffe Nature Conservation Strategy asked to provide describes Hickling “as rich in unimproved further details. pasture, ridge and furrow and species-rich hedgerows with trees... The Rivers Smite … have important riverside habitats with good trees” and provides actions it seeks to implement in the area. Policy H5: Peter Playle, We think future developments should Following consultation Policy H5: Ecology and Ecology and Amanda Playle, include positive habitat creation in order to on mandating Biodiversity be revised to Biodiversity Jack Playle and deliver net gain in biodiversity. For example biodiversity net gain in mandate biodiversity net Michael Playle many housing schemes now include ponds development last year, gain and identify to create valuable wildlife habitat and to the Chancellor has priorities for improving accommodate run off and add flood confirmed that the biodiversity- including protection. Bridegate Lane verges have government will use the verges. suffered from neglect in recent years and forthcoming correct management should be Environment Bill to reintroduced in order to protect wildflowers mandate ‘biodiversity net from disappearing. gain’ – meaning the delivery of much- needed infrastructure and housing is not at the expense of vital biodiversity. We agree that developers should be required to ensure habitats for wildlife are enhanced and left in a measurably better state than they were pre- development.

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy Policy H5: James Morley Observations about the importance of the Noted None Ecology and rural landscape, protecting wildlife, Biodiversity tranquility accurately reflect my own feelings about living in Hickling. Policy H5: Nigel Robinson Map "Ecology and Biodiversity", plot 5) shows Nottinghamshire None Ecology and a proposal to designate approx. 25 acres of Biological & Geological Biodiversity land on the top and southern side of Hickling Records Centre advise Standard as a wildlife site. The justification that the term calcareous given for this is that the land is "...calcareous grassland is generally grassland". used to describe Local There is no calcareous grassland in this Wildlife Sites in location. It is, in fact, heavy clay grassland Nottinghamshire that and, as such, is very similar to most of the support a flora land in Hickling Parish. associated with the Calcareous grassland is shallow, thin, free shallow soils of the draining soil, where the underlying rock, magnesian limestone which may be chalk or limestone, dominates through to base-rich the soil. The heavy clay soils of this location grasslands found on are very deep and poorly drained, and the clays. In this case it may underlying rock is so be better to use the term deep that it barely, if at all, affects the soil. ’base-rich’. The flora Calcareous grassland in England is found on Hickling commonly found in Hampshire, Kent, Standard identifies with Wiltshire, Mendip Hills, Cumbrian Fells, this grassland Yorkshire Dales, and Derbyshire Pennines; community, supporting characterised by outcrops of rock and typical species such as underground caverns and caves; all very Tor-grass, Quaking different to the soil type and character of grass, Dwarf Thistle and Hickling. Salad Burnet. Hickling I would be grateful if the proposed Standard meadow designation of this site is removed from the qualifies as a Local final Neighbourhood Plan. Wildlife Site based on grassland species which

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy are considered to be of county importance irrespective of geology. Policy H5: Severn Trent Severn Trent are supportive on Policy H5: Noted None Ecology and Ecology and Biodiversity, in particular the Biodiversity reference to watercourse within the following statement: “New development will be expected to maintain and enhance existing ecological corridors and landscape features (such as watercourses, hedgerows and tree-lines) for biodiversity thus demonstrating overall net-gain.” Policy H5: Mark Samworth We support the Vision of Hickling Parish in Noted None Ecology and Caroline 2028, Policies H3, H4, H5, H6, H8, H9, H12, Biodiversity Samworth H13, H14, H15, H16, H17 & H18, and the Design Guide. Policy H5: Rushcliffe Ecology and Biodiversity Policy H5 covers The Neighbourhood Plan Policy H5: Ecology and Ecology and Borough Council Local Wildlife Sites, which are sites of county already shows Local Biodiversity, supporting Biodiversity importance, but no assessment has been Wildlife Sites, but we text and maps be made of other potential sites in the locality would like to identify amended to identify that are not designated, which may be of other wildlife/habitat other wildlife/habitat parish importance. The Borough Council’s features, including the features, including the Environmental Sustainability Officer South Rushcliffe South Rushcliffe suggests Colston Bassett’s Neighbourhood Pondscape area and Pondscape area and Plan’s ecological survey as a good example Green Corridors. These Green Corridors. of a local assessment if the NPB wanted to are shown on a series of expand the policy to include local sites. See maps in the Rushcliffe http://www.colstonbassettparishcouncil.co. Nature Conservation uk/wp‐ content/uploads/2018/10/Appdx‐ Strategy 2016 – 2020 6a‐CB‐ Enviromental‐Survey‐August‐18‐ and Rushcliffe Borough v2.pdf

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy http://www.colstonbassettparishcouncil.co. Council have been asked uk/wp‐ content/uploads/2018/10/App‐6b‐ to provide further details. LGS‐process‐and‐ scoring‐summary.doc Please note, this is only a suggestion and there is no requirement to do this. Policy H5 Rushcliffe Ecology and Biodiversity Policy H5 includes The Neighbourhood Policy H5: Ecology and Ecology Borough Council examples of existing ecological corridors Plan already shows Biodiversity, supporting and and landscape features that should be Local Wildlife Sites, but text and maps be Biodiversity maintained and enhanced. The Borough we would like to amended to identify Council’s Sustainability Officer recommends identify other other wildlife/habitat this should include reference to wildlife wildlife/habitat features, including the ponds and species rich grasslands. features, including the South Rushcliffe Opportunities for enhancing features such as South Rushcliffe Pondscape area. bird or bat boxes and amphibian habitats and Pondscape area. These Further examples of refugia, should also be sought in new are shown on a series biodiversity net-gain developments. Also opportunities to of maps in the opportunities to be providing new linkages between sites should be requested. Rushcliffe Nature included. Conservation Strategy 2016 – 2020 and Rushcliffe Borough Council have been asked to provide further details. Policy H6: Peter Playle, We support policies H3, H4, H6, H8, H9, Noted None Trees and Amanda Playle, H12,H13,H14, H15, H16 and the Design Hedges Jack Playle and Statement. Michael Playle Policy H6: Eileen Granger More trees in the village would be good for Noted None Trees and the environment and attractiveness Hedges generally.

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy Policy H6: Mark Samworth We support the Vision of Hickling Parish in Noted None Trees and Caroline 2028, Policies H3, H4, H5, H6, H8, H9, H12, Hedges Samworth H13, H14, H15, H16, H17 & H18, and the Design Guide. Policy H6: Rushcliffe Trees and Hedges To avoid bringing in a We are concerned that a None Trees and Borough Council native tree species that may have been requirement for trees to Hedges sourced from abroad a minor wording be native species of change that refers to native species of local local origin may not origin and provenance is suggested. The use meet the government’s of “affecting” is quite generic and the policy on the use of terminology should be tightened. conditions in planning permissions. Rushcliffe Borough Council’s Developer’s Checklist states ‘Where a development involves works that affect trees a Tree Survey will be required.’ Policy H7: Local Eileen Granger I notice that on the map the field north of the National policy indicates Review proposed Local Green Spaces White House is not marked as a Local Green that local communities Green Spaces to ensure Space. can identify, through they meet relevant I refer to the Hickling Conservation Area neighbourhood plans, criteria. Include field Appraisal and Management Plan September green areas of particular north of the White House 2008 which confirms the ‘special character’ importance to them for in that review. of the Conservation Area. special protection as One of the key characteristics is: The linear Local Green Space form of Hickling Village creates a special (‘LGS’). Areas designated character of the Conservation Area and as LGS will be able to allows views of open countryside from rule out new numerous points along Main Street. development other than Paddocks and fields flow into the street in very special circumstances. This is a

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy scene providing vital green spaces and very strong protection. reinforcing the rural location of the village. As a result, national It goes on to describe the relationship of the policy and planning Conservation Area to its surroundings: policy guidance sets out The linear form of this settlement allows criteria against which to surrounding countryside to have a very judge whether or not an strong relationship with the village. Fields area should be flow seamlessly to Main Street, providing designated as LGS. stunning views outwards and for a number The Hickling of farm houses, these fields roll right up to Conservation Area the doorstep. Townscape Appraisal Development pressures highlighted include: Map pre-dates the Paddocks and fields flow into the street introduction of this scene providing vital visual green spaces national policy and it is and reinforcing the rural location of the unlikely that all the village. The areas coloured in green in the ‘Positive Open Spaces’ Townscape Appraisal map are those identified would qualify. gardens, fields, paddocks and parklands In our 2017 Questionnaire which have a positive impact on views from Survey we identified the public domain such as public footpaths, potential Local Green village roads and lanes on the canal towpath. Spaces and invited These areas are critically important to the residents to suggest setting of the conservation area and they others. Only one person help define its rural character. Many of these nominated the field areas are included in the revised boundary of north of the White House the conservation area. Those areas that fall as a LGS. outside of the revised conservation area also Nonetheless, we will protected from any development that would review the field north of have a negative impact in the conservation the White House to see area (see policy CA15/12 below). whether it could meet However the statutory recommendation is: the criteria for LGS The Council will resist any development that designation. threatens any positive buildings, open

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy spaces or views into and out of the Little weight can be conservation area and does not comply with given to the Rushcliffe the Rushcliffe Non-Statutory Local Plan Non-Statutory Local 2006 (policy EN2) which on page 14 states Plan 2006. that: ‘there will be NO LOSS OF OR PART OR ALL of an open space which contributes to the character or appearance of the conservation area.’ On the Townscape Appraisal Map previously referred to, the open field to the north of The White House is identified as being a ‘Positive Open Space’ and is therefore critical to the character of the Conservation Area, along with the other identified Positive Open Spaces. Development on any of these spaces is contrary to policy and would be considered as detrimental to the character of the Conservation Area. I do not understand, in fact, I am at a loss what to make of your decision not to include the field, unlike all the others, and for the above reason strongly recommend that it be included. Local green spaces are essential for the rural character of the village – once gone they are gone forever. Policy H7: Local Mr A. Overall The land opposite The Rectory and between National policy indicates Review proposed Local Green Spaces The White House and Ivy House needs to be that local communities Green Spaces to ensure designated as protected green space. can identify, through they meet relevant neighbourhood plans, criteria. Include field green areas of particular north of the White House importance to them for in that review. special protection as

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy Local Green Space (‘LGS’). Areas designated as LGS will be able to rule out new development other than in very special circumstances. This is a very strong protection. As a result, national policy and planning policy guidance sets out criteria against which to judge whether or not an area should be designated as LGS. The Hickling Conservation Area Townscape Appraisal Map pre-dates the introduction of this national policy and it is unlikely that all the ‘Positive Open Spaces’ identified would qualify. In our 2017 Questionnaire Survey we identified potential Local Green Spaces and invited residents to suggest others. Only one person nominated the field north of the White House as a LGS.

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy Nonetheless, we will review the field north of the White House to see whether it could meet the criteria for LGS designation. Policy H7: Local Tessa Clark and It would be good to see the field between National policy indicates Review proposed Local Green Spaces Vic Brown The White House and Ivy Cottage included that local communities Green Spaces to ensure in the list of Local Green Spaces, its inclusion can identify, through they meet relevant would be consistent with the rationale for neighbourhood plans, criteria. Include field including the other spaces on the list and green areas of particular north of the White House there are few remaining spaces like this in importance to them for in that review. the village. To exclude it from the list of special protection as Local Green Spaces is to be inconsistent and Local Green Space increases the risk of development on the (‘LGS’). Areas designated site, even though it sits outside the Limits of as LGS will be able to Development. rule out new development other than in very special circumstances. This is a very strong protection. As a result, national policy and planning policy guidance sets out criteria against which to judge whether or not an area should be designated as LGS. The Hickling Conservation Area Townscape Appraisal Map pre-dates the introduction of this

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy national policy and it is unlikely that all the ‘Positive Open Spaces’ identified would qualify. In our 2017 Questionnaire Survey we identified potential Local Green Spaces and invited residents to suggest others. Only one person nominated the field north of the White House as a LGS. Nonetheless, we will review the field north of the White House to see whether it could meet the criteria for LGS designation. Policy H7: Local Peter Playle, We strongly recommend an amendment to National policy indicates Review proposed Local Green Spaces Amanda Playle, include the green space opposite our that local communities Green Spaces to ensure Jack Playle and property, Glebe Farm that lies between the can identify, through they meet relevant Michael Playle White House and Ivy Cottage. We firmly neighbourhood plans, criteria. Include field believe it qualifies for the same status as green areas of particular north of the White House other green spaces on the list and excluding importance to them for in that review. it is unwarranted and inconsistent with the special protection as rationale for including said other spaces. Local Green Space Rushcliffe Borough Council Conservation (‘LGS’). Areas designated and Design Officer recognises the value of as LGS will be able to this space when opposing a recent planning rule out new application on the site in June 2018. development other than It is the only field which provides in very special uninterrupted views into the wider circumstances. This is a

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy countryside between Walkers Green and the very strong protection. Basin and as such should also be recognised As a result, national for its contribution to the rural character of policy and planning the village. The fact it is temporarily policy guidance sets out unkempt is not a reason to exclude it and a criteria against which to failure to list the field increases the risk of judge whether or not an development on the site. area should be designated as LGS. The Hickling Conservation Area Townscape Appraisal Map pre-dates the introduction of this national policy and it is unlikely that all the ‘Positive Open Spaces’ identified would qualify. In our 2017 Questionnaire Survey we identified potential Local Green Spaces and invited residents to suggest others. Only one person nominated the field north of the White House as a LGS. Nonetheless, we will review the field north of the White House to see whether it could meet the criteria for LGS designation.

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy Policy H7: Local Victoria Baker What is the overall principle of allocating an National policy indicates Review proposed Local Green Spaces Andrew Baker area as 'Local Green Space'? We can that local communities Green Spaces to ensure understand the spaces that are used by all can identify, through they meet relevant e.g. the church, the basin and the cemetery. neighbourhood plans, criteria. Include field However there are other sites listed that are green areas of particular north of the White House not for public use - should all green space importance to them for in that review. be included for consistency e.g. the paddock special protection as next to Ivy House? especially as this is the Local Green Space only gap along the west side of the north of (‘LGS’). Areas designated the village 'helping to break the linear as LGS will be able to development along main street' (just as rule out new Walkers Green gives westerly views in the development other than middle of the village and The Paddock in very special opposite Long Clawson Lane gives westerly circumstances. This is a views from the south of the village). very strong protection. As a result, national Action requested: The HPNP should define policy and planning all green spaces policy guidance sets out criteria against which to judge whether or not an area should be designated as LGS. The Hickling Conservation Area Townscape Appraisal Map pre-dates the introduction of this national policy and it is unlikely that all the ‘Positive Open Spaces’ identified would qualify. In our 2017 Questionnaire Survey we identified

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy potential Local Green Spaces and invited residents to suggest others. Only one person nominated the field north of the White House as a LGS. Nonetheless, we will review the field north of the White House to see whether it could meet the criteria for LGS designation. Policy H7: Local Brendan Clarke ‘Heritage and Design` in the Draft Plan states National policy indicates Review proposed Local Green Spaces :- Protect spaces between buildings that that local communities Green Spaces to ensure allow for views of the surrounding can identify, through they meet relevant countryside from within the built-up areas of neighbourhood plans, criteria. Include field Hickling & Hickling Pastures. green areas of particular north of the White House importance to them for in that review. On the current Draft Plan the field to the special protection as north of The White House is not indicated as Local Green Space a Local Green Space. This field/paddock is (‘LGS’). Areas designated important since it has similar attributes and as LGS will be able to contributes in the same way as those Local rule out new Green Spaces indicated and listed in the development other than Draft Plan - it gives views out of the village in very special from Main Street and allows open circumstances. This is a countryside to flow seamlessly into the very strong protection. village) - I suggest therefore that the Draft As a result, national Plan be amended and this site protected and policy and planning given similar status to those Local Green policy guidance sets out Spaces already listed in the Draft Plan. criteria against which to judge whether or not an

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy area should be designated as LGS. The Hickling Conservation Area Townscape Appraisal Map pre-dates the introduction of this national policy and it is unlikely that all the ‘Positive Open Spaces’ identified would qualify. In our 2017 Questionnaire Survey we identified potential Local Green Spaces and invited residents to suggest others. Only one person nominated the field north of the White House as a LGS. Nonetheless, we will review the field north of the White House to see whether it could meet the criteria for LGS designation. Policy H7: Local Our other point relates to the paddock National policy indicates Review proposed Local Green Spaces opposite The Old Rectory (in between Ivy that local communities Green Spaces to ensure House and the White House) which we feel can identify, through they meet relevant should be included as protected green neighbourhood plans, criteria. Include field space on the neighbourhood plan. green areas of particular north of the White House importance to them for in that review. special protection as

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy Nonetheless, we will review the field north of the White House to see whether it could meet the criteria for LGS designation. Policy H7: Local Sarah Hartland With this in mind, the paddock between Ivy National policy indicates Review proposed Local Green Spaces Paul Hartland House and The White House needs be that local communities Green Spaces to ensure included as protected green space. This is can identify, through they meet relevant important green land leading from the open neighbourhood plans, criteria. Include field countryside beyond directly onto Main Street green areas of particular north of the White House helping break the linear development along importance to them for in that review. Main Street and maintaining the open special protection as character of the village. Local Green Space (‘LGS’). Areas designated as LGS will be able to rule out new development other than in very special circumstances. This is a very strong protection. As a result, national policy and planning policy guidance sets out criteria against which to judge whether or not an area should be designated as LGS. The Hickling Conservation Area Townscape Appraisal Map pre-dates the introduction of this

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy national policy and it is unlikely that all the ‘Positive Open Spaces’ identified would qualify. In our 2017 Questionnaire Survey we identified potential Local Green Spaces and invited residents to suggest others. Only one person nominated the field north of the White House as a LGS. Nonetheless, we will review the field north of the White House to see whether it could meet the criteria for LGS designation. Policy H7: Local Jane Fraser Under the current Conservation Area system National policy indicates Review proposed Local Green Spaces a number of green open spaces were that local communities Green Spaces to ensure identified as integral to the character of the can identify, through they meet relevant village and designated for neighbourhood plans, criteria. Include field protection/preservation in to the future. green areas of particular north of the White House Only one of these spaces hasn’t carried importance to them for in that review. through to the emerging Neighbourhood special protection as Plan; the paddock opposite the Old Rectory Local Green Space (although I recognise that it is also not (‘LGS’). Areas designated included within the red lines where as LGS will be able to development might be appropriate). rule out new Over the last 10 years or so, this paddock has development other than been badly neglected and the paddock in very special along with the positive buildings to the side circumstances. This is a

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy of the paddock have become overgrown very strong protection. and turned in to a general dumping ground. As a result, national I attach photographs to show what the area policy and planning used to be like not long ago; it is clear from policy guidance sets out these why the paddock and buildings were criteria against which to previously viewed in the same way as, for judge whether or not an example, the paddock on the Clawson Lane area should be junction. designated as LGS. The paddock and the buildings may not look The Hickling great just now but this is superficial and is Conservation Area hopefully a temporary situation – they could Townscape Appraisal easily be restored to their previous attractive Map pre-dates the (and usable) state. introduction of this Just because they aren’t looked after at this national policy and it is moment in time, doesn’t diminish their unlikely that all the essential value as an open green space ‘Positive Open Spaces’ where the countryside flows in to the village. identified would qualify. This is particularly important just now In our 2017 Questionnaire because this is the only open space Survey we identified identified in the Conservation Area Appraisal potential Local Green that is currently under an active threat. The Spaces and invited paddock was subject to an application for an residents to suggest intensive housing development in 2018, the others. Only one person applicants were advised to withdraw but it is nominated the field entirely reasonable to expect a new/revised north of the White House application in due course. as a LGS. By not including this open space in the Nonetheless, we will Neighbourhood Plan, is the Parish Council review the field north of (on behalf of the community) saying that it the White House to see might be acceptable to develop this site next whether it could meet time an application is submitted? the criteria for LGS (As an aside, the green/open space around designation. the canal basin has also already been

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy compromised, however, it is quite rightly still included in the Neighbourhood Plan open spaces list.) The inclusion of the paddock across from the Old Rectory on the list of local green/open spaces to ensure its ongoing protection and to facilitate the option of working with the owners to reverse its current state of neglect. a clear commitment within the Neighbourhood Plan to endorse and uphold both the principles and the detail of the protections put in place through the Conservation Area Appraisal document and the associated Townscape Appraisal map to prevent any of those protections slipping through the gaps. The Paddock/Green Space between The White House and Ivy House (update). At a meeting with James Parkes on March 3rd, we were informed that a revised application for housing on this paddock is about to be submitted; the issue of protection for this location is, once again, urgent. The current neglected state of this green space is a choice that has been made by the landowners; in the draft Plan the state of the hedge at Glebe Cottage is described as temporary and the state of the Church Farm paddock is of the same nature. The Conservation Area Officer is aware of neighbours’ wishes to see the restoration of

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy this open green space & the protected building to the side of it and he is aware of a willingness within the community to help to achieve this. Policy H7: Local Mark Samworth We would amend the following Policies: National policy indicates Review proposed Local Green Spaces Caroline • H7 (Local Green Spaces) – to include the that local communities Green Spaces to ensure Samworth agricultural field to the west of Main Street can identify, through they meet relevant between neighbourhood plans, criteria. Include field The White House and Ivy Cottage in order to green areas of particular north of the White House preserve then character of the village and to importance to them for in that review. be special protection as consistent with the Hickling Conservation Local Green Space Area Appraisal and Management Plan (‘LGS’). Areas designated as LGS will be able to rule out new development other than in very special circumstances. This is a very strong protection. As a result, national policy and planning policy guidance sets out criteria against which to judge whether or not an area should be designated as LGS. The Hickling Conservation Area Townscape Appraisal Map pre-dates the introduction of this national policy and it is unlikely that all the

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy ‘Positive Open Spaces’ identified would qualify. In our 2017 Questionnaire Survey we identified potential Local Green Spaces and invited residents to suggest others. Only one person nominated the field north of the White House as a LGS. Nonetheless, we will review the field north of the White House to see whether it could meet the criteria for LGS designation. Policy H7: Local Cathy The land opposite the Old Rectory (a number National policy indicates Review proposed Local Green Spaces Hetherington 29 is on the map) is not within the proposed that local communities Green Spaces to ensure development boundary, however we notice can identify, through they meet relevant that this is not designated as a 'Green Space' neighbourhood plans, criteria. Include field either. This gap in the buildings affords green areas of particular north of the White House views to the open countryside and towards importance to them for in that review. Hickling Pastures. With these views in mind, special protection as should it therefore be considered instead as Local Green Space 'Local Green Space'? (‘LGS’). Areas designated as LGS will be able to rule out new development other than in very special circumstances. This is a very strong protection. As a result, national

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy policy and planning policy guidance sets out criteria against which to judge whether or not an area should be designated as LGS. The Hickling Conservation Area Townscape Appraisal Map pre-dates the introduction of this national policy and it is unlikely that all the ‘Positive Open Spaces’ identified would qualify. In our 2017 Questionnaire Survey we identified potential Local Green Spaces and invited residents to suggest others. Only one person nominated the field north of the White House as a LGS. Nonetheless, we will review the field north of the White House to see whether it could meet the criteria for LGS designation. Policy H7: Local Liz Smith Why is the land between Ivy House and The National policy indicates Review proposed Local Green Spaces Michael Smith White House no longer a designated green that local communities Green Spaces to ensure space? It has always been a green space and can identify, through they meet relevant

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy should remain as such to preserve some neighbourhood plans, criteria. Include field open spaces and open views in this linear green areas of particular north of the White House village, with the countryside flowing into the importance to them for in that review. Main Street. We ask that this is re-marked as special protection as a green space. Local Green Space (‘LGS’). Areas designated as LGS will be able to rule out new development other than in very special circumstances. This is a very strong protection. As a result, national policy and planning policy guidance sets out criteria against which to judge whether or not an area should be designated as LGS. The Hickling Conservation Area Townscape Appraisal Map pre-dates the introduction of this national policy and it is unlikely that all the ‘Positive Open Spaces’ identified would qualify. In our 2017 Questionnaire Survey we identified potential Local Green Spaces and invited residents to suggest

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy others. Only one person nominated the field north of the White House as a LGS. Nonetheless, we will review the field north of the White House to see whether it could meet the criteria for LGS designation. Policy H7: Local Canal and River Policy H7 of the draft Plan proposes the National policy indicates Review proposed Local Green Spaces Trust designation of Hickling Basin as a Local that local communities Green Spaces to ensure Green Space. The Trust does not consider can identify, through they meet relevant that seeking a Local Green Space neighbourhood plans, criteria. designation for the basin (and a section of green areas of particular the adjacent canal and towpath) is necessary importance to them for given the substantial protection already special protection as provided through the existing conservation Local Green Space area and Local Wildlife Site designations. A (‘LGS’). Local Green Space designation would have In our 2017 Questionnaire the effect of giving the basin and adjoining Survey, 93% of stretch of canal equivalent status to the respondents agreed that Green Belt when determining planning the canal basin should applications located within the designated be identified as a Local Space. The policy resists all development Green proposals that will undermine the essential Space. open character of a space, unless there are Areas designated as LGS exceptional circumstances to justify why will be able to rule out consent should be granted. The designation new development other would not be a factor in assessing than in very special development proposals beyond its boundary circumstances. This is a which could nonetheless still have a very strong protection. significant impact on the character and As a result, national

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy setting of the space (whereas conservation policy and planning area status does require consideration of policy guidance sets out impacts from development proposals criteria against which to beyond its boundaries). judge whether or not an Unlike the existing protection provided by area should be conservation area and Local Wildlife Site designated as LGS. status, Local Green Space status would Notwithstanding the serve to restrict almost all potential strong local support for development at or around the basin, rather the protection of the than only inappropriate development. canal basin, we will Furthermore, this may restrict the ability of review the LGS the Canal 8 River Trust to provide facilities at designation. or adjacent to the basin that support active and thriving waterways. Examples may include outdoor sports and recreation facilities where it could be considered that they in some way impinge on openness. It may also restrict the ability of the Trust to provide facilities to support and encourage boaters to use the canal if it is restored to navigation. The designation may affect the restoration of the canal and its future return to navigable status by restricting the ability to provide facilities associated with moorings in the vicinity of the basin. Restoration of the Grantham Canal is explicitly supported by Rushcliffe Borough Council and the emerging Local Plan Part 2 (which is now at an advanced stage, post- examination) includes within the wording of Policy 31: Sustainable Tourism and Leisure, the following: Rushcliffe Borough Council

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy supports the restoration of the Grantham Canal, including the proposed link between the Grantham Canal and River Trent which is safeguarded for this purpose and identified in the Policies Map. Development which would prevent the future implementation of this link will not be supported. The supporting text to the policy also says: The Council will continue to be actively engaged with bodies engaged in re-instating the Grantham Canal as a navigable leisure route between Grantham and the River Trent. The Trust is concerned that including the basin and part of the canal within Policy H 7 will create a conflict with longer-term aspirations to achieve restoration of the canal, and in the shorter-term will prevent opportunities to utilise it for leisure and recreational purposes. The policy would not therefore be compatible with the aims and strategic policies of the emerging Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 2 (which specifically identifies the route of the Grantham Canal as being safeguarded for restoration) and would fail to meet all the Basic Conditions that the Plan has to satisfy. The Plan does not provide a clear explanation of the rationale for seeking to add Local Green Space status to the existing conservation area and Local Wildlife Site designations that already apply, or why it is considered to be necessary or appropriate. The summary of reasons for designation set

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy out in Appendix 2 does not offer any reasons for the designation and is purely descriptive. The Plan does not articulate the particular significance of the basin in terms of why Local Green Space status is needed to ensure that such significance is protected, and no commentary is provided to identify why existing designations do not already achieve adequate protection. Policy H7 is stated to contribute to achieving the Plan Vision by ensuring that the canal makes a positive contribution to village life. We do not see how seeking to effectively prevent any development at or adjacent to the basin can assist in allowing the canal to make a positive contribution to village life, and rather seems more likely to serve only to limit its use and value as a recreational resource. This would not appear to reflect the views expressed by the local community in the 2017 questionnaire which, as already noted, suggests support for positive use of the canal and basin. We would further comment that if the aim is to require the basin itself to remain as an open and empty waterspace, then we do not consider a Local Green Space designation to be appropriate, as it cannot achieve such an aim. As a statutory undertaker, the Trust can moor workboats in the basin whenever required to carry out work and indeed, the mooring of boats on a canal (even a 'remainder' waterway) does not in itself

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy require planning permission, nor does the recreational use of the basin by canoes, kayaks etc. Should the canal be returned to navigable status, a Local Green Space designation would not prevent the mooring of boats within Hickling Basin. Government advice set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that designating land as a Local Green Space should be consistent with the local planning of sustainable development (para. 99). The NPPF defines three overarching objectives for the planning system in achieving sustainable development which are interdependent and need to be pursued in mutually supportive ways (para. 8). The objectives are economic, social and environmental, and all three should be considered; in plan-making this means that plans should positively seek opportunities to meet the development needs of their area (para. 11). The draft Plan does not explain how the designation of Hickling Basin as a Local Green Space takes account of these objectives. We are concerned that the designation, by effectively restricting any development, ignores the social and economic objectives and thus risks preventing development that is both sustainable and compatible with the environmental importance of the canal and basin. The Basic Conditions which Neighbourhood Plans must satisfy include

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy contributing to the achievement of sustainable development, and we do not consider that the proposed designation meets this requirement We therefore suggest that Hickling Basin and the adjacent stretch of canal is removed from any proposed Local Green Space designation put forward under Policy H 7. Policy H7: Local Rushcliffe Local Green Spaces Further justification of National policy indicates Review proposed Local Green Spaces Borough Council why the green spaces identified have been that local communities Green Spaces to ensure designated is required in order to be can identify, through they meet relevant consistent with NPPF para 100. This states neighbourhood plans, criteria. that: “The Local Green Space designation green areas of particular should only be used where the green space importance to them for is: special protection as a) in reasonably close proximity to the Local Green Space community it serves; (‘LGS’). Areas designated b) demonstrably special to a local as LGS will be able to community and holds a particular local rule out new significance, for example because of its development other than beauty, historic significance, recreational in very special value (including as a playing field), circumstances. This is a tranquillity or richness of its wildlife; very strong protection. and c) local in character and is not an As a result, national extensive tract of land.” Appendix 2 should policy and planning refer more explicitly to paragraph 100 and policy guidance sets out include more detailed consideration against criteria against which to criterion b. In particular, further explanation judge whether or not an and justification is needed for site 6 and 7. area should be Both the Radcliffe on Trent Neighbourhood designated as LGS. Plan and East Leake Neighbourhood Plan local green space designations were subject

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy to detailed consideration by their respective examiner's based on the NPPF criteria.

Policy H7: Local Rushcliffe The landowners of the proposed local green A Local Green Space Contact be made with Green Spaces Borough Council space designations should be consulted as does not need to be in landowners about part of the plan making process. This should public ownership. Local proposals to designate be reported in any future Consultation people have been any part of their land as Statement. consulted on proposals Local Green Space to See Paragraph: 019 Reference ID: 37-019- to designate Local Green provide a further 20140306 of the Guidance. Space from an early opportunity to make stage. However, contact representations. will be made with landowners about proposals to designate any part of their land as Local Green Space to provide a further opportunity to make representations. Paragraph 3.12 Mr A. Overall It would be good to show how the plan is Decisions on planning Add new paragraph after authored and in lock step with the other key applications will be 3.12: documents relating to the Village. made using both the Hickling Conservation Specifically the Conservation area appraisal Local Plan and the Area is supported by an document. If there is contradictory guidance Neighbourhood Plan, Appraisal and then what takes precedence. and any other material Management Plan and a considerations. The Townscape Appraisal. Hickling Conservation Both are material Area Appraisal and consideration in deciding Management Plan is a planning applications. material consideration. Paragraph 3.12 Sarah Hartland I would like to see more consistency Decisions on planning Add new paragraph after Paul Hartland between Hickling Conservation Area applications will be 3.12: Appraisal and Management Plan and the NP made using both the

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy and this could be achieved by adopting the Local Plan and the Hickling Conservation Hickling Conservation Area Appraisal Plan. Neighbourhood Plan, Area is supported by an and any other material Appraisal and considerations. The Management Plan and a Hickling Conservation Townscape Appraisal. Area Appraisal and Both are material Management Plan is a consideration in deciding material consideration. planning applications. Paragraph 3.12 Jane Fraser I would like to offer a couple of comments; a Decisions on planning Add new paragraph after general comment about the link to the applications will be 3.12: Conservation Area Appraisal documents and made using both the Hickling Conservation a specific comment about extending the Local Plan and the Area is supported by an envelope of the village. Neighbourhood Plan, Appraisal and At the moment, the Conservation Area and any other material Management Plan and a Appraisal document is the ‘go to’ place for considerations. The Townscape Appraisal. local planning applications but I’m not sure Hickling Conservation Both are material how this changes when the Neighbourhood Area Appraisal and consideration in deciding Plan is adopted; does either take priority over Management Plan is a planning applications. the other? material consideration. There seems to be different terminology National policy indicates being used across the two documents; the that local communities Conservation Area Appraisal & Townscape can identify, through Map refer to ‘positive open spaces’ whereas neighbourhood plans, the Neighbourhood Plan refers to green areas of particular ‘designated green spaces’ and ‘local green importance to them for spaces’ – they seem to be the same thing? If special protection as not, what are the differences? Local Green Space My concern is that if the two documents (‘LGS’). Areas designated don’t fit together precisely or clearly as LGS will be able to reference each other, then we may find rule out new ourselves in a situation where one document development other than could be viewed as more important than the in very special circumstances. This is a

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy other – creating a kind of hierarchy or very strong protection. implied priorities. As a result, national For example, what would happen in a future policy and planning planning scenario involving a positive open policy guidance sets out space which is designated in the criteria against which to Conservation Area Appraisal and not the judge whether or not an Neighbourhood Plan? Would it be argued area should be that, since the Neighbourhood Plan is more designated as LGS. recent and is based on recent community The Hickling consultation, that such an open space is less Conservation Area important, is no longer considered worth Townscape Appraisal protection and can be allowed to disappear? Map pre-dates the Under the current Conservation Area system introduction of this a number of green open spaces were national policy and it is identified as integral to the character of the unlikely that all the village and designated for ‘Positive Open Spaces’ protection/preservation in to the future. identified would qualify. A difference in terminology (‘positive buildings’ in the Conservation Area Appraisal & The Townscape Appraisal and ‘features of local heritage interest’ in the Neighbourhood Plan) could create perceived levels of relative importance – I’m not arguing that all positive buildings and features need to be individually listed (the lists in the Neighbourhood Plan look great) but a reference to the importance of designations in the Conservation Area Appraisal & Townscape Appraisal would stop them being viewed as of secondary importance. I am definitely not against change and I like the way that the village is evolving in lots of ways – it isn’t a static museum piece. There

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy is a place for interesting new architecture and the village does need to remain vibrant and alive. But the principle of the Conservation Area is to preserve the fundamental character of the village and to ensure that we don’t lose the best of what we have. We do have an issue that the Conservation Area Appraisal is now 12 years old and that the village has moved on and changed in that time; either through neglect (Church Farm paddock) or because farming practices have changed (larger indoor units) or through case-by-case permissions (Wharf area). There are protected/positive views and buildings which have deteriorated since the adoption of the Conservation Area Appraisal document but that doesn’t mean that those locations should be removed from the protections currently in place; rather we should be trying to protect them from further deterioration. A reference within the Neighbourhood Plan explicitly upholding the entirety of the Conservation Area Appraisal document and the associated Townscape Appraisal map. A clear commitment within the Neighbourhood Plan not to endorse, as policy, development that encroaches on open countryside/green spaces; where landowners wish to apply for this kind of development it should be considered as

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy exceptional and be dealt with through a separate and rigorous planning process.

Paragraph 3.12 Mark Samworth We would add a Policy that adopted the Decisions on planning Add new paragraph after Caroline Hickling Conservation Area Appraisal and applications will be 3.12: Samworth Management Plan as part of the Plan. made using both the Hickling Conservation Local Plan and the Area is supported by an Neighbourhood Plan, Appraisal and and any other material Management Plan and a considerations. The Townscape Appraisal. Hickling Conservation Both are material Area Appraisal and consideration in deciding Management Plan is a planning applications. material consideration. Policy H8: Peter Playle, We support policies H3, H4, H6, H8, H9, H12, Noted None Features of Amanda Playle, H13, H14, H15, H16 and the Design Statement. Local Heritage Jack Playle and Interest Michael Playle Policy H8: Victoria Baker What is the overall principle/rationale of There are buildings, Review properties in Features of Andrew Baker allocating something as a 'Local Heritage monuments or sites Appendix 3 using Local Heritage Interest'? There are some houses on the list identified as having a Rushcliffe Borough Interest (our own included; Rosedene) which don't degree of significance Council’s criteria to have any commentary in the appendix meriting consideration in determine whether they summary table. Rosedene has already lost planning decisions, but should be identified as a its 'heritage' with >50% of its footprint not which are not formally non-designated heritage being original. Whilst we support the idea of designated heritage asset. protecting sites of interest, it is not clear how assets. sites were decided for inclusion and A substantial majority of therefore, what other sites may be missing. It buildings have little or no is also not clear what impact there will be on heritage significance and the owners when wanting to make any thus do not constitute alterations or sell their property. heritage assets. Only a minority have enough

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy Action requested: The HPNP should define heritage interest for their the principle for identifying 'Local Heritage significance to be a Interest' material consideration in the planning process. We will review the list of properties in Appendix 3 using Rushcliffe Borough Council’s criteria to determine whether each is a non-designated heritage asset. Policy H8: Richard Kupfer I am not sure why April Cottage has been There are buildings, Review properties in Features of Kim Kupfer included as a Feature of Local Heritage monuments or sites Appendix 3 using Local Heritage Interest. This is a rendered brick cottage, identified as having a Rushcliffe Borough Interest similar in appearance and constuction to degree of significance Council’s criteria to neighbouring houses in Bridegate Lane and meriting consideration in determine whether they I'm not sure why it has been singled out; the planning decisions, but should be identified as a neighbouring houses have not been which are not formally non-designated heritage included in this category. designated heritage asset. The problem is that being in the category of assets. Feature of Local Heritage Interest implies a A substantial majority of restriction on development, the draft plan buildings have little or no comments that "although such features may heritage significance and not be nationally designated they may be thus do not constitute offered some level of protection through the heritage assets. Only a plan" . As owners of April cottage we minority have enough appreciate that there is a need to carry out heritage interest for their improvements and limited development significance to be a here and would not wish to be restricted material consideration in beyond the normal planning process. We the planning process. would ask that April cottage be removed We will review the list of from the category of Feature of Local properties in Appendix 3 Heritage Interest. using Rushcliffe Borough

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy Council’s criteria to determine whether each is a non-designated heritage asset. Policy H8: Mark Samworth We support the Vision of Hickling Parish in Noted None Features of Caroline 2028, Policies H3, H4, H5, H6, H8, H9, H12, Local Heritage Samworth H13, H14, H15, H16, H17 & H18, and the Interest Design Guide. Policy H8: Rushcliffe Policy 28 states that a non-designated There are buildings, Review properties in Features of Borough Council heritage asset must: monuments or sites Appendix 3 using Local Heritage Remain as a largely intact or identified as having a Rushcliffe Borough Interest retrievable example of its degree of significance Council’s criteria to architectural style innovation and meriting consideration in determine whether they craftsmanship or period or build; planning decisions, but should be identified as a and which are not formally non-designated heritage Be prominent or visible by virtue of its designated heritage asset. position within the townscape or assets. landscape. A substantial majority of Policy H8: Features of Paragraph 9.15 states that it should also buildings have little or no Local Heritage Interest possess two of the following qualities: heritage significance and be amended by adding a. The building is the work or a particular thus do not constitute the following paragraph: architect or regional or local note; heritage assets. Only a The above features of b. It has qualities of age, style, materials or minority have enough local heritage interest any other characteristics which reflect those heritage interest for their fulfil Rushcliffe Borough of at least a substantial number of buildings significance to be a Council’s criteria for non- in the wider settlement; material consideration in designated heritage c. It relates by age, materials or in any other the planning process. assets. Other non- significant way to adjacent listed buildings We will review the list of designated heritage and contributes positively to their setting; properties in Appendix 3 assets will be identified by d. Individually, or as part of a group, it using Rushcliffe Borough application of the criteria serves as a reminder of the gradual Council’s criteria to on an ongoing basis. development of the settlement in which it determine whether each stands, or of an earlier phase of its growth;

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy e. It has a significant historic association is a non-designated with established features of a settlement heritage asset. such as road layout, open spaces, a town park or a landscape feature; and f. The building has landmark quality or contributions towards the quality of recognisable spaces, including exteriors or open spaces within a complex of public buildings. We would encourage Appendix 3, which includes descriptions of each of the features included on the list, to be adapted to refer directly to the LP2 policy 28 criteria. Currently it is unclear what, if any, criteria has been used to establish the list. There is a risk that if a list is published without establishing a set of criteria, structures could potentially be missed, with no further opportunity to amend the list once published. The most flexible approach is “here are the criteria for non-designated heritage assets and here is a shortlist of buildings which have been identified as fulfilling those criteria, other examples will exist and will be identified by application of the criteria on an ongoing basis.” Policy H9: Local Peter Playle, We support policies H3, H4, H6, H8, H9, Noted None Design Amanda Playle, H12,H13,H14, H15, H16 and the Design Jack Playle and Statement. Michael Playle Policy H9: Local James Morley I agree that new developments should Noted None Design reflect the existing character of the village.

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy Policy H9: Local Mark Samworth We support the Vision of Hickling Parish in Noted None Design Caroline 2028, Policies H3, H4, H5, H6, H8, H9, H12, Samworth H13, H14, H15, H16, H17 & H18, and the Design Guide. Policy H9: Local Rushcliffe Policy H9 sets out policy for local design. It Policy H9 does not None Design Borough Council sets a number of criteria by which each prevent innovative application would be assessed. design. This is made Part (a) states scale, form and character must clear on page 91 of the be in-keeping. No allowance is given Design Guide that states for innovation as set out in NPPF section 12, ‘Innovative, para 127 part c). It must be acknowledged contemporary design that NPPF allows for increased densities, and that which and there maybe conflict between this policy incorporates energy- and the Neighbourhood Plan’s housing size saving or generating policies set later in the document, given that features will be there are predominantly larger dwellings welcomed where it sizes throughout the settlement at present. respects and enhances Part b) and c) wording should be more its surroundings.’ flexible to acknowledge there may be other Policy H9 is also clearly reasons that require some losses. written and Part e) light pollution. How will this be unambiguous, so it is measured and evidenced? evident how a decision Part f). Highway safety is a concern and maker should react to dealt with by Nottinghamshire County development proposals. Council, with volume of traffic and parking a There has been no part of wider highway safety implications. objection to criterion F How would this be realistically assessed in from the Highway any application? This part of the policy will Authority. need to comply with NPPF para 109 which sets out that development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy impacts on the road network would be severe. Would this part of the policy be better linked to an appropriate parking requirement? Policy H10: Rushcliffe It is unclear what factors have influenced A methodology for The methodology for Housing Borough Council how the ‘limits to development’ red line has defining the settlement defining the Limits to Provision been drawn. Some explanatory text would boundaries and its Development and its be useful in the supporting paragraphs to application for Hickling application for Hickling explain the methodology used. This policy is has been prepared. be published on the to identify where Policy 22 (Development Generally, open areas of Neighbourhood Plan within the Countryside) of the emerging LP2 countryside- agricultural website. applies and does not. Policy 22 identifies land, paddocks, countryside as ‘land beyond the physical meadows, woodland, edge of settlements’. We are unsure that rivers and lakes, and sites such as the wharf building, or land other greenfield land north of the white house (18/00987/FUL), (except for residential two areas that are drawn outside the curtilages)- lie outside proposed settlement boundary in the Limits to Development. neighbourhood plan, could readily sit within Boundaries generally the description of ‘beyond the physical edge follow the curtilage of of settlement’. properties. In the case of Conversely, several large gardens extending residential gardens, beyond the built form are included within the occasionally the proposed settlement boundary, and this curtilage of the property policy would then effectively be as is not well defined or so described, include further explanation as to large that it appears to how the boundary has been drawn in the form part of the supporting text to the policy. identifying countryside surrounding these gardens as land within the settlement the settlement. In these suitable for further development (policy 11 of cases, the boundary is LPP2 applicable). An example of this is the defined to protect the residential curtilage of Longridge on the landscape setting of the north side of Clawson Lane. Two applications settlement.

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy for dwellings have been refused on this site and an appeal dismissed (13/00714/FUL) with the Inspector concluding that the proposed dwellings would create the beginnings of a ribbon of development, that the existing bungalow represents the built edge of the village and that the site of the proposed dwelling does not form part of the built up area. The proposed boundary should therefore be very carefully considered and evidenced. Policy H10: John Holmes We have outlined, in red, an area of land at Noted. The site is within None Housing Oxalis Planning the junction of Main Street and Long Lane the proposed ‘Limits to Provision which we propose to you as a potential site Development’ and there for new housing development. The site is are no intentions of within the defined ‘limits to development’. modifying the boundary At this stage, we are seeking simply a in this location. recognition that the principle of some new housing would be acceptable; we hope that details of the type and scale of housing could emerge, to mutual acceptance, during discussions between us in the future. At this stage, we have indicated how the site could accommodate three small dwellings to the rear of the existing house, with an additional unit (perhaps a bungalow) to the front of the plot. We understand that detailed design will be crucial consideration. Policy H10: Cathy 1.Why is the land to the west of the last A methodology for The methodology for Housing Hetherington house on the map (Meadow Croft?) included defining the settlement defining the settlement Provision within the boundary? Any development boundaries and its boundaries and its would require the removal of a significant application for Hickling application for Hickling number of mature trees, and most likely a has been prepared. be published on the

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy new access road which would need to be Generally, open areas of Neighbourhood Plan laid in the Green Belt? countryside- agricultural website. land, paddocks, The Limits to 2. The proposed boundary line is not drawn meadows, woodland, Development for around the land/garden of the last house on rivers and lakes, and Hickling be amended by: the South side of Mill Lane (which also other greenfield land Removing the area to contains many mature trees). This is (except for residential the rear of Meadowgate, inconsistent with the above. curtilages)- lie outside Main Street so that it lies Limits to Development. outside the boundary; 5. Land to the East of the last house on the Boundaries generally The built footprint only North side of Clawson Lane (Long Ridge): follow the curtilage of of Little Orchard on Mill any development here would extend the properties. In the case of Lane to be included village boundary Eastwards. residential gardens, within the settlement occasionally the boundary; 6. Land at the East end of Harles Acres: why curtilage of the property Removing the garden has the proposed development boundary is not well defined or so area to the east of line be drawn around the garden/field rather large that it appears to Longridge, Clawson than at the current end of the road? form part of the Lane so that it lies countryside surrounding outside the boundary; the settlement. In these Removing garden area cases, the boundary is to east of 27 Harles defined to protect the Acres. landscape setting of the settlement. The development of land to the rear of Meadow View, Main Street, would extend the built-up area of the village into the countryside setting of the village.

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy Little Orchard on Mill Lane has been excluded from the settlement boundary. Although development of the whole site would be detrimental to the landscape setting of Hickling, the dwelling should be included as it relates well to the other buildings on the south side of Mill Lane. Planning permission for the erection of dwelling at Longridge, Clawson Lane (13/00714/FUL) was refused on 19 July 2013. The subsequent appeal was dismissed. The garden area associated with 27 Harles Acres extends beyond the limits of the existing built-up area of the village in this location. Further development towards here would be detrimental to the landscape setting of the village. It is worth noting that much of the garden

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy area lies within Flood Zone 2 or 3.

Policy H10: Richard In terms of relevance to the Neighbourhood A methodology for The methodology for Housing Colllishaw Plan, I would like to have the opportunity to defining the settlement defining the settlement Provision build a farm workers house in the near boundaries and its boundaries and its future. My preferred and proposed site is on application for Hickling application for Hickling land currently outside of the “red line” on the has been prepared. be published on the Housing map contained within the Plan. Generally, open areas of Neighbourhood Plan The Plan expresses Limits to Development in countryside- agricultural website. a range of ways, but equally recognises the land, paddocks, need to maintain the parish’s farming meadows, woodland, heritage and thus the need to allow farm rivers and lakes, and worker accommodation. other greenfield land The site for development that I have in mind (except for residential and indeed suggest to the Steering Group is curtilages)- lie outside located adjacent to and north of the Clawson Limits to Development. Lane immediately out of the village. The Boundaries generally small field, known as “Doctor’s Close” also follow the curtilage of adjoins the Dalby brook, two paddocks properties. owned by others and sits to the east of the The proposed extension garden of “Longridge”. Whilst the field in to the Limits to question appears to be some distance from Development does not the dairy buildings at Waterlane Farm, it is form part of the built actually only 130 metres away as measured environment of Hickling along the public footpath, and directly and its inclusion would accesses pastoral land that is used on a daily not comply with the basis for working farm practices. Clearly, I methodology. would not be expecting the “red line” to be Even though our Plan moved to include all of the field, more allows new homes to be typically an area, say, roughly a quarter of built for rural workers in the field would be suitable and sufficient to the countryside, it is worth noting that most

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy provide for one family dwelling for a farm of the site lies within worker. Flood Zone 2 or 3. Should the Steering Group feel able to Sites that are to be support the inclusion of this plot in the Limits allocated for to Development, the Borough Council would development should be look more favourably on an application. I included within would willingly adhere to your Design Guide settlement boundaries. and aim to use traditional materials, traditional design features and layouts. I am very conscious that should a dwelling be built on the said site it would be “focal” for those looking on and therefore should enhance the village of Hickling in every way and crucially achieve the expectations set out in Policy H9: Local Design. The Plan sets out many positive signals towards the provision of Rural Worker Accommodation and aims to give “genuine opportunities to influence the future of the places where people live”. Also set out is that “Neither Hickling nor Hickling Pastures are expected to accommodate development other than to meet local needs”. I believe I can conclusively demonstrate a local need and therefore request to the Steering Group that the Limits to Development be considered to capture and include the parcel of land necessary to provide accommodation as previously stated. I am confident that I satisfy all the criteria set out in the Plan regarding Rural Worker Accommodation 7.8-7.14 and also, undoubtedly I would look for your support

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy with confidence that I satisfy all of Policy H17: Rural Worker Accommodation. I attach for reference an extract from the Housing: Hickling map upon which I have drawn the suggested alteration to the “red line”. The area within the newly drawn line is specific and relevant to all the narrative above. I notice that within the Plan and within the timeframe of the Plan that Limits to Development have been extended into Green Field area to facilitate the redevelopment of the AE Faulks business. Although their business is not in farming, clearly a precedent has been set in that the Plan is open to flexibility in it’s formation. More closely aligned to my request is the precedent already granted at Outline planning stage for a farm workers dwelling situated at Malt House Farm, Hickling. At this point I would welcome and appreciate an opportunity to have a meeting with the members of the Steering Group to provide further clarity on the requested proposed changes to the Limits to Development to ensure that I have provided all the necessary information required. Policy H10: Liz Smith Being designated a conservation village A methodology for None Housing Michael Smith ensures that the genuinely rural character of defining the settlement Provision Hickling village is retained. With this in mind boundaries and its we ask that you ensure that the building line application for Hickling is kept (and clearly marked to be) within the has been prepared. existing area of building limits (the current

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy settlement boundary) and not extending into Generally, open areas open countryside, which would risk opening of countryside- up the potential for other (future) agricultural land, development spreading far beyond the paddocks, meadows, existing building line, using any current woodland, rivers and exceptions as a new precedent for future lakes, and other development. The maps should carefully greenfield land (except and accurately reflect this - at present, the for residential maps do not do this. Can they be corrected, curtilages)- lie outside please, as the resulting final document will Limits to Development. be an important source of reference for Boundaries generally years to come? We would like the words "supported" in H10 follow the curtilage of and H18 to be replaced by "considered". properties. In the case of residential gardens, occasionally the curtilage of the property is not well defined or so large that it appears to form part of the countryside surrounding the settlement. In these cases, the boundary is defined to protect the landscape setting of the settlement. Policies should be clearly written and unambiguous, so it is evident how a

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy decision maker should react to development proposals. Policy H10: Mark Samworth We fundamentally object to Policies H1 A methodology for The methodology for Housing Caroline (Countryside) and H10 (Housing Provision) defining the settlement defining the settlement Provision Samworth because they seek to push residential boundaries and its boundaries and its development into what is now open application for Hickling application for Hickling countryside outside the physical boundaries has been prepared. be published on the of the village. This is important because: Generally, open areas of Neighbourhood Plan • It is not made clear in the Plan that the countryside- agricultural website. Hickling Limits to Development have been land, paddocks, pushed out to include open countryside to meadows, woodland, the east of the A.E. Faulks site (“The Wharf”), rivers and lakes, and undermining any effective consultation on other greenfield land the Plan; (except for residential • Worse, the Plan is materially misleading curtilages)- lie outside and misdirects consultees away from the Limits to Development. fact that Limits to Development the Limits to Development have been drawn are extended to include outside the settlement boundary; peripheral sites where • The drawing of the line in the open there is an extant countryside is arbitrary and without planning permission for justification; residential or • Its arbitrary nature means that any employment developer of The Wharf site will be development. Similarly, encouraged to extend sites that are to be into the field still further; allocated for • Any development to the east of The Wharf development, as in this will negatively impact the countryside and case, are included within the settlement boundaries. character of the conservation area, and will Also see separate report. be contrary to many national and local planning

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy policies, including those proposed in this Plan; • Any development to the east of The Wharf will negatively impact the setting of and views to and from the Church of St. Luke, and the setting of other Listed Buildings; • Any development to the east of The Wharf will significantly damage the amenity of its neighbours through overlooking and loss of privacy; • The precedent will be set for development in the open countryside outside the settlement boundary. If the Parish Council itself is seen to support an arbitrary extension of the Limits to Development on behalf of A.E. Faulks then it can expect other landowners to seek the same treatment, to the detriment of the whole village of Hickling. (The full details relating to these comments can be found on the attached document) Policy H10: Rushcliffe Policy H10 sets out the types of Policy H10: Housing None Housing Borough Council development that are considered Provision quite clearly Provision acceptable outside the limits to concerns housing development plan. This development and does is considered to be in conflict with both not apply to the other national policy and the strategic policies of forms of development the Local Plan, specifically emerging Policy mentioned. 22 which allows for additional uses not The limited need for named in the policy (expansion of business additional affordable and enterprise uses including new buildings, homes means that there small scale employment generating is no immediate

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy development, retail and farm diversification, requirement to allow community services and facilities, recreation planning permission to wildlife conservation, leisure and tourism be granted for which requires a countryside location, rural affordable housing on a exceptions sites). ‘Rural Exception Site’, Rural exceptions sites Paragraph 4.23 makes it Policy 3 and policy 8 of the LP1 Core clear that Hickling Parish Strategy (both strategic policies) allows for Council will review the rural exceptions developments in smaller evidence of housing settlements where there is an identified need once local data need. Although it is acknowledged that a from the 2021 Census survey has been carried out as part of the has been published and evidence base for the development of the thereafter every five neighbourhood plan, and this only identified years to ensure that the a potential need for 2 affordable units, this is Plan continues to meet only a snapshot in time and the situation the needs of people could change during the lifetime of the living locally. Evidence of neighbourhood plan. In order to be in a significant change in accordance with LP1 Policy 8, reference to circumstance may a rural exceptions site should be included as trigger a full or partial an acceptable use under Policy H10, but review of the Plan. with the provision that need would have to Policy H10 provides for have been established through an up to the development of date needs survey. previously used The policy includes reference to the (brownfield) land that is “settlement of Hickling Pastures”. well-related to the settlement of Hickling Pastures. Policy H10: Sarah Hartland As I am aware, once the Neighbourhood Policies should be None Housing Paul Hartland Plan is adopted, it becomes a legal clearly written and Provision reference point for all planning decisions and unambiguous, so it is therefore wording is very important. Within evident how a the policies, I feel that, the phrase ‘will be

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy supported’ should be replaced with ‘will be decision maker should considered’. This is essential in policies H10 react to development and H18 as each planning application will proposals. need to be viewed on an individual basis to avoid disastrous results. Policy H10: Environment It is clearly important to reuse land for Noted. The potential for None Housing Agency development and so reduce pressure on contamination Provision greenfield sites. associated with the However, brownfield sites often have redevelopment of The complex issues and it is important that land Wharf, Main Street, contamination and flood risk are fully Hickling is recognised in assessed before the site is deemed suitable Policy H11. for new development. We support the inclusion of policies that promote the effective and appropriate management and reuse of brownfield sites. Policy H10: Highways The adopted Core Strategy sets out no Noted None Housing England housing allocation targets for villages such Provision as the Parish of Hickling. The emerging Rushcliffe Local Plan specifies that development in Hickling, unless under special circumstances or involving conversion of existing properties, should not exceed the settlement boundary of the Parish. Accordingly, the Neighbourhood Plan has accommodated the guidance set out in the Local Plan, allocating small scale infill development within the settlement boundary, in addition to plans for the conversion of existing rural buildings.

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy Policy H10: Nottinghamshire Nottinghamshire County Council are Noted None Housing County Council responsible for the provision of bus stops Provision and associated infrastructure within its administrative area. It is noted that any development proposals are of modest scale, and it is unlikely that TTS will be able to request developer contributions towards improved public transport infrastructure. Therefore, any funding will have to be found from other sources. It is suggested that sites/schemes that afford access to existing public transport facilities should be given priority for development. Paragraph 4.13 Mr R Page Won’t deter HGVs The weight restriction One of the key issues for None should be included in 4.13 and 6.3 – page 42 the area is transport, but there is sometimes confusion over what kinds of transport issues a neighbourhood plan can address. Many traffic matters fall outside the scope of planning. For example, changes to traffic management on existing transport networks are usually a matter for the highway authority to deal with. So changes to parking restrictions, speed limits, signage, weight restrictions, traffic

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy circulation usually fall outside the scope of our neighbourhood plan. It should be noted that lorries requiring access, and in some cases for local deliveries, are exempt from environmental weight restrictions. Policy H11: The Eileen Granger AE Faulkes Brownfield site: on the draft plan The company is Policy H11 (The Wharf, Wharf, Main the site has been extended by approximately receptive to Main Street, Hickling) be Street, Hickling 20m beyond the settlement boundary into redevelopment as it modified to reflect the the greenfield behind the yard to the east i.e. would facilitate the community’s preference into open countryside. This 20 meters needs business’ relocation to for the redevelopment of to excluded from the plan, Views from the Station Road, Old Dalby the site to be limited to village and the towpath need to be where it has had brownfield land. protected. planning permission for a new depot. However, the company has made it clear that it will not redevelop the site without an element of greenfield land and wants a greenfield extension of almost 50m. The Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group considered this to be excessive and many residents object to the idea of allowing any

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy extension of the site onto the fields behind the site. Illustrative proposals for ‘The Wharf’ site in Hickling, Nottinghamshire were produced by AECOM as part of a Locality led, Government-funded neighbourhood planning support programme. AECOM were of the view that an element of greenfield development is needed to mitigate the constraints of the site. For example, a public sewer runs through the site which cannot be built over. The encroachment onto the undeveloped greenfield land to the rear of the site would have an average depth of 10m and be used as garden space. 65.9% of respondents to our 2020 Questionnaire Survey did not support AECOM’s illustrative proposal. However, 60.1% do support the

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy redevelopment of just the brownfield part of the site for housing. Policy H11: The Mr A. Overall Development proposals for the Faulks site The company is Policy H11 (The Wharf, Wharf, Main are welcomed. It looks from the pictures that receptive to Main Street, Hickling) be Street, Hickling the proposal extends onto land not within redevelopment as it modified to reflect the the perimeter of the existing site. This maybe would facilitate the community’s preference a mistake on the drawing of course but if not business’ relocation to for the redevelopment of then the concern would be that the village Station Road, Old Dalby the site to be limited to endorses building on green land. That would where it has had brownfield land. be a dangerous precedent with so much planning permission for a scope for this to be a reality on other sites new depot. However, the within the village. company has made it clear that it will not redevelop the site without an element of greenfield land and wants a greenfield extension of almost 50m. The Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group considered this to be excessive and many residents object to the idea of allowing any extension of the site onto the fields behind the site. Illustrative proposals for ‘The Wharf’ site in Hickling, Nottinghamshire were produced by AECOM as part of a Locality led,

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy Government-funded neighbourhood planning support programme. AECOM were of the view that an element of greenfield development is needed to mitigate the constraints of the site. For example, a public sewer runs through the site which cannot be built over. The encroachment onto the undeveloped greenfield land to the rear of the site would have an average depth of 10m and be used as garden space. 65.9% of respondents to our 2020 Questionnaire Survey did not support AECOM’s illustrative proposal. However, 60.1% do support the redevelopment of just the brownfield part of the site for housing. Policy H11: The Tessa Clark and Proposed development area extension at A The company is Policy H11 (The Wharf, Wharf, Main Vic Brown E Faulks. receptive to Main Street, Hickling) be Street, Hickling The present village boundary line is redevelopment as it modified to reflect the misleading because it has been extended would facilitate the community’s preference (by at least 20 metres) into the green field business’ relocation to for the redevelopment of

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy behind the yard/industrial land and beyond Station Road, Old Dalby the site to be limited to the current boundary of the village into open where it has had brownfield land. countryside. The draft plan fails to bring this planning permission for a extension to any one’s attention, no detail is new depot. However, the given, no explanation or justification is given; company has made it the vast majority of people in the plan survey clear that it will not voted against greenfield development and redevelop the site showed commitment to protecting views without an element of from the basin and towpath. greenfield land and The decision to allow new development in a wants a greenfield greenfield site could set a precedent for extension of almost 50m. other building projects on greenfield sites in The Neighbourhood Plan and around the village. Steering Group The Draft Plan should therefore be amended considered this to be to exclude the area extended into the open excessive and many countryside or bring this extension to the residents object to the attention of the village for proper idea of allowing any consultation. extension of the site onto the fields behind the site. Illustrative proposals for ‘The Wharf’ site in Hickling, Nottinghamshire were produced by AECOM as part of a Locality led, Government-funded neighbourhood planning support programme. AECOM were of the view that an element of greenfield development is needed to mitigate the constraints of the site.

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy For example, a public sewer runs through the site which cannot be built over. The encroachment onto the undeveloped greenfield land to the rear of the site would have an average depth of 10m and be used as garden space. 65.9% of respondents to our 2020 Questionnaire Survey did not support AECOM’s illustrative proposal. However, 60.1% do support the redevelopment of just the brownfield part of the site for housing. Policy H11: The Peter Playle, We oppose policy H11 (the Wharf) on the The company is Policy H11 (The Wharf, Wharf, Main Amanda Playle, grounds that it includes a serious mistake, receptive to Main Street, Hickling) be Street, Hickling Jack Playle and one which undermines the integrity and redevelopment as it modified to reflect the Michael Playle validity of the plan itself and could have far would facilitate the community’s preference reaching consequences which would work business’ relocation to for the redevelopment of to destroy what we all seek to preserve. Station Road, Old Dalby the site to be limited to We strongly object because the proposed where it has had brownfield land. development site encroaches into open planning permission for a countryside. This is wholly unacceptable for new depot. However, the the following reasons company has made it The survey results show the vast majority of clear that it will not people do not want to build on greenfield redevelop the site sites. without an element of

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy Popular views such as St Lukes Church from greenfield land and the towpath, Hickling Basin and the canal wants a greenfield from Main Street could be severely extension of almost 50m. impacted by such development. The Neighbourhood Plan Neighbouring properties notably ours, and Steering Group The Old Rectory would suffer loss of privacy considered this to be and will be greatly overlooked. excessive and many The most important issue highlighted by the residents object to the Plan was to ‘maintain rural character’, no 3 idea of allowing any was to protect green areas and No 4 was to extension of the site onto protect the countryside. This proposal is to the fields behind the site. the detriment of all three. Illustrative proposals for We question the need to overdevelop the ‘The Wharf’ site in Wharf site and encroach into open country Hickling, side. There are several other potential Nottinghamshire were development sites in less sensitive locations produced by AECOM as within the Parish, why does the Plan only part of a Locality led, identify one site? Government-funded The negative impact of A E Faulks Ltd has neighbourhood planning been overstated. In particular, the statement support programme. 4.13 ‘The redevelopment would remove HGV AECOM were of the view traffic through the village’, is simply untrue. that an element of It ignores daily tractor and trailer traffic, feed greenfield development lorries, milk tankers, seasonal contractors, is needed to mitigate the delivery lorries etc. In addition, the recent constraints of the site. Noise Abatement Notice served on A E For example, a public Faulks has substantially reduced the sewer runs through the nuisance impact of the business and site which cannot be successfully curtails vehicle movements to built over. The and from the site. encroachment onto the Our most damning criticism however is the undeveloped greenfield failure to mention anywhere within the plan land to the rear of the how the proposal to redevelop the Wharf site would have an

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy site seeks to develop beyond the current average depth of 10m industrial area and into greenfield space. and be used as garden The text talks only of redeveloping a space. brownfield site. One could easily be forgiven 65.9% of respondents to for thinking the proposal has been our 2020 Questionnaire deliberately hidden from scrutiny. Survey did not support Alarmingly it appears on the ‘red line’ AECOM’s illustrative development map as a single site shaded in proposal. However, brown. There is no indication of 60.1% do support the development onto a green field site. This redevelopment of just lack of clarity in both the text and on the map the brownfield part of means only ourselves and our neighbours, the site for housing. the Samworths, could have realistically spotted the mistake. This omission will have no doubt led to support for the development which may not have been given if people had been made aware of the extension into open countryside. Clearly the map should have shown the development site specifically marked as both brownfield and part green field. We would argue this mistake undermines the whole purpose of the Plan – to deliver what the community wants and brings into question the entire integrity of the consultation process. Furthermore no reason is given for the proposal to develop into the greenfield and appears to have been made on an arbitrary basis and to the potential material benefit of A E Faulks. Why is an extension of

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy approximately 18 metres no less acceptable than 100 metres? Crucially, developers of the site could and would use the arbitrary nature of this newly created boundary to push for it to be extended further into open countryside on the grounds that they have, through the Plan, been given the support of the Parish Council. So there it is, Policy H11 supports the principle of building into open countryside. It is only reasonable to expect other landowners to take advantage of this new policy and they can argue a precedent has been set. In complete contradiction to its stated aims, the Plan, in its current form appears to favour development over and above the protection of open countryside. Policy H11: The Victoria Baker The development area on page 32 of the The company is Policy H11 (The Wharf, Wharf, Main Andrew Baker draft plan shows its border going beyond the receptive to Main Street, Hickling) be Street, Hickling existing industrial border. We had wrongly redevelopment as it modified to reflect the assumed that this was a mistake and were would facilitate the community’s preference going to ask for it to be corrected in the final business’ relocation to for the redevelopment of submission (we had assumed that no-one Station Road, Old Dalby the site to be limited to would support the use of green space for where it has had brownfield land. housing - including the authors). It has since planning permission for a been brought to our attention that it is not a new depot. However, the mistake. company has made it This leads us to two separate comments; clear that it will not Only immediate neighbours would be aware redevelop the site that the boundary has changed as it's not without an element of mentioned in any of the commentary (only a greenfield land and small line drawn on the map) meaning that wants a greenfield extension of almost 50m.

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy everyone else in the village may not realise The Neighbourhood Plan what they are signing up to. Steering Group Further still, it makes us nervous as to what is considered this to be planned for other areas of the village that we excessive and many don't know so well – are changes like this residents object to the 'hidden' (not intentionally) throughout the idea of allowing any plan? extension of the site onto We object to the basic principle of extending the fields behind the site. the border of the parish, into green space, for Illustrative proposals for housing and can only assume that this is why ‘The Wharf’ site in the current plan states 'nine dwellings' when Hickling, the previously withdrawn planning Nottinghamshire were application was for six? Nine dwellings on produced by AECOM as green space is certainly not anything we part of a Locality led, would support – six dwellings on the existing Government-funded industrial land would seem far more neighbourhood planning appropriate, and therefore we would support support programme. the neighbourhood plan if it were amended AECOM were of the view accordingly. that an element of Action requested: The HPNP should define greenfield development all changes to the 'Limits to Development' is needed to mitigate the boundary constraints of the site. For example, a public sewer runs through the site which cannot be built over. The encroachment onto the undeveloped greenfield land to the rear of the site would have an average depth of 10m and be used as garden space.

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy 65.9% of respondents to our 2020 Questionnaire Survey did not support AECOM’s illustrative proposal. However, 60.1% do support the redevelopment of just the brownfield part of the site for housing. Policy H11: The James Morley I agree with the proposals for small scale The company is Policy H11 (The Wharf, Wharf, Main housing provision, conversion of Faulks site receptive to Main Street, Hickling) be Street, Hickling seems logical, conversion of agricultural redevelopment as it modified to reflect the (rural) buildings to residential and sensitive would facilitate the community’s preference replacement of existing dwellings. business’ relocation to for the redevelopment of Station Road, Old Dalby the site to be limited to where it has had brownfield land. planning permission for a new depot. However, the company has made it clear that it will not redevelop the site without an element of greenfield land and wants a greenfield extension of almost 50m. The Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group considered this to be excessive and many residents object to the idea of allowing any extension of the site onto the fields behind the site.

100

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy Illustrative proposals for ‘The Wharf’ site in Hickling, Nottinghamshire were produced by AECOM as part of a Locality led, Government-funded neighbourhood planning support programme. AECOM were of the view that an element of greenfield development is needed to mitigate the constraints of the site. For example, a public sewer runs through the site which cannot be built over. The encroachment onto the undeveloped greenfield land to the rear of the site would have an average depth of 10m and be used as garden space. 65.9% of respondents to our 2020 Questionnaire Survey did not support AECOM’s illustrative proposal. However, 60.1% do support the redevelopment of just

101

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy the brownfield part of the site for housing.

Policy H11: The Brendan Clarke Any development proposals on this site The company is Policy H11 (The Wharf, Wharf, Main should be limited, proportionate in scale and receptive to Main Street, Hickling) be Street, Hickling should respect the adjacent amenities of the redevelopment as it modified to reflect the Wharf Basin particularly the special views would facilitate the community’s preference from the village out into open countryside, business’ relocation to for the redevelopment of together with views of adjacent listed Station Road, Old Dalby the site to be limited to buildings and the church. The Draft Plan where it has had brownfield land. indicates an area of the Brown Field site planning permission for a extending to the east beyond the settlment new depot. However, the boundary. Surely this field is `open company has made it countryside`. Any development within that clear that it will not field however small would set a precedent redevelop the site for any potential future development on without an element of other similar sites within the village. The greenfield land and Draft Plan should therefore be amended to wants a greenfield exclude that area from the Brown Field site extension of almost 50m. and any development limited to the west The Neighbourhood Plan side of that field boundary. Steering Group considered this to be excessive and many residents object to the idea of allowing any extension of the site onto the fields behind the site. Illustrative proposals for ‘The Wharf’ site in Hickling, Nottinghamshire were produced by AECOM as part of a Locality led,

102

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy Government-funded neighbourhood planning support programme. AECOM were of the view that an element of greenfield development is needed to mitigate the constraints of the site. For example, a public sewer runs through the site which cannot be built over. The encroachment onto the undeveloped greenfield land to the rear of the site would have an average depth of 10m and be used as garden space. 65.9% of respondents to our 2020 Questionnaire Survey did not support AECOM’s illustrative proposal. However, 60.1% do support the redevelopment of just the brownfield part of the site for housing. Policy H11: The The first is in regards to the proposed The company is Policy H11 (The Wharf, Wharf, Main development on the A.E Faulks site; whilst receptive to Main Street, Hickling) be Street, Hickling we would support some development we redevelopment as it modified to reflect the would strongly object to the use of green would facilitate the community’s preference field/open country side for this. We feel that business’ relocation to for the redevelopment of

103

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy any development should be limited to the Station Road, Old Dalby the site to be limited to existing brownfield site and that this where it has had brownfield land. boundary should not be extended (as is planning permission for a marked on the proposed village plan); new depot. However, the permitting development on green field company has made it spaces sets a dangerous precedent! We also clear that it will not feel that 9 properties is too many and would redevelop the site encroach on the views we have of the without an element of countryside from the front aspect of our greenfield land and house; we feel that 4 is a more appropriate wants a greenfield number of houses. extension of almost 50m. The Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group considered this to be excessive and many residents object to the idea of allowing any extension of the site onto the fields behind the site. Illustrative proposals for ‘The Wharf’ site in Hickling, Nottinghamshire were produced by AECOM as part of a Locality led, Government-funded neighbourhood planning support programme. AECOM were of the view that an element of greenfield development is needed to mitigate the constraints of the site.

104

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy For example, a public sewer runs through the site which cannot be built over. The encroachment onto the undeveloped greenfield land to the rear of the site would have an average depth of 10m and be used as garden space. 65.9% of respondents to our 2020 Questionnaire Survey did not support AECOM’s illustrative proposal. However, 60.1% do support the redevelopment of just the brownfield part of the site for housing. Policy H11: The Cathy The proposed development boundary line in There is no Green Belt in See separate report. Wharf, Main Hetherington the land to the East of A.E. Faulks' yard looks Hickling parish. See Street, Hickling to have been extended by some way into separate report. the field behind the 'Brownfield' site and into the Green Belt. Why? Is this an error. Policy H11: The Sarah Hartland I would like to support the development of The company is Policy H11 (The Wharf, Wharf, Main Paul Hartland some affordable houses being built on the receptive to Main Street, Hickling) be Street, Hickling current yard of AE Faulks however I feel that redevelopment as it modified to reflect the nine dwellings are too many for the site and would facilitate the community’s preference this village and are not reasonable and business’ relocation to for the redevelopment of proportionate. I feel that all the houses that Station Road, Old Dalby the site to be limited to are built should be 2/3 bedroomed to be where it has had brownfield land. sold as part ownership houses to enable planning permission for a

105

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy young / elderly people to stay in the village new depot. However, the (similar to the successful houses built company has made it opposite Kinoulton cricket club. Six houses clear that it will not were an adequate number there and redevelop the site Hickling is a smaller village with less need). I without an element of feel five houses would be sufficient and greenfield land and would avoid the need for a new access. wants a greenfield This proposed redevelopment should not extension of almost 50m. include ANY open countryside/ green field The Neighbourhood Plan site and should be limited to brownfield. This Steering Group will help to preserve the character of the considered this to be village, limit the impact of protected views excessive and many from the canal, basin, listed buildings and the residents object to the church and more importantly than that, not idea of allowing any set a precedent for others. I think there extension of the site onto appears to be an error within the boundary the fields behind the site. which extends into open countryside/ green Illustrative proposals for space site and this is misleading and will ‘The Wharf’ site in have led to false support for this Hickling, development. Nottinghamshire were produced by AECOM as part of a Locality led, Government-funded neighbourhood planning support programme. AECOM were of the view that an element of greenfield development is needed to mitigate the constraints of the site. For example, a public sewer runs through the site which cannot be

106

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy built over. The encroachment onto the undeveloped greenfield land to the rear of the site would have an average depth of 10m and be used as garden space. 65.9% of respondents to our 2020 Questionnaire Survey did not support AECOM’s illustrative proposal. However, 60.1% do support the redevelopment of just the brownfield part of the site for housing. Policy H11: The Environment It is clearly important to reuse land for Noted. Criterion F of None Wharf, Main Agency development and so reduce pressure on Policy H11 ensures that Street, Hickling greenfield sites. any contamination However brownfield sites often have present shall be safely complex issues and it is important that land remediated prior to the contamination and flood risk are fully commencement of any assessed before the site is deemed suitable development. for new development. We support the inclusion of policies that promote the effective and appropriate management and reuse of brownfield sites. Policy H11: The Jane Fraser It is good to see planning ideas being put The company is Policy H11 (The Wharf, Wharf, Main forward for the AE Faulks Ltd site and it will receptive to Main Street, Hickling) be Street, Hickling be interesting to see how this develops in redevelopment as it modified to reflect the due course. I do have one concern, though. would facilitate the community’s preference The description refers to the Policy Map and business’ relocation to for the redevelopment of

107

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy the ‘limits to development’ line appears to Station Road, Old Dalby the site to be limited to extend beyond the current envelope of the where it has had brownfield land. village. planning permission for a The principle of not extending the envelope new depot. However, the of the village is crucial; once it is company has made it compromised by one development it sets a clear that it will not precedent for other ‘exceptions’ elsewhere redevelop the site in the village which would be difficult to without an element of resist. greenfield land and If the development does extend as far as the wants a greenfield map seems to indicate (ie. beyond the extension of almost 50m. footprint of the current brown field site and The Neighbourhood Plan in to the agricultural land beyond) then there Steering Group would be serious impacts on the views from considered this to be the canal basin, wharf building and the canal excessive and many towpath. residents object to the If the development extends further than the idea of allowing any current site there would also be a much extension of the site onto greater impact on the residential amenity of the fields behind the site. neighbours of the site, particularly in terms Illustrative proposals for of overlooking. ‘The Wharf’ site in We do strongly support the Neighbourhood Hickling, Plan and all that it stands for and we also Nottinghamshire were very much appreciate all the hard work that produced by AECOM as has gone in to bringing it in to existence. part of a Locality led, However, the endorsement within the plan Government-funded of development on a sensitive green field neighbourhood planning site means that we would struggle to vote support programme. for the plan (as it now stands) at the AECOM were of the view referendum stages. that an element of In my original message, I raised a concern greenfield development about the development of the AE Faulks is needed to mitigate the brown field site; this development continues constraints of the site.

108

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy to be welcomed but we are worried about its For example, a public status within the draft Plan. As we sewer runs through the understand it, part of the proposed site which cannot be development site is currently a green field built over. The site and not brown field as indicated on the encroachment onto the development boundaries map: undeveloped greenfield Firstly, only 8% of respondents to the land to the rear of the Questionnaire felt that development in open site would have an countryside was acceptable (and, average depth of 10m consequently, 92% do not). and be used as garden There is a very important distinction between space. a principle endorsed within a statutory policy 65.9% of respondents to document (like the Neighbourhood Plan) and our 2020 Questionnaire an individual compromise on a single Survey did not support exceptional case which has gone through AECOM’s illustrative thorough planning consultation processes. proposal. However, We believe the Neighbourhood Plan should 60.1% do support the uphold the principle of protecting green redevelopment of just field/open countryside from development. the brownfield part of Once the principle has been compromised the site for housing. for one landowner in a policy document, it cannot reasonably be upheld for others – each landowner would be sure to feel that they can also argue exceptional circumstances ... Any encroachment endorsed by the NP (particularly on this sensitive site) is significant because it demonstrates a willingness to negotiate green and open countryside sites; in other words, the Plan would be saying that it can be acceptable to develop in to open countryside/green space, acceptable to extend the envelope of

109

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy the village and acceptable to compromise heritage views of the canal, listed buildings and the Church. If/when the Faulks brown field site redevelopment comes to formal planning, that is the time for the landowners to propose a change of use for green field sites bordering the existing yard; it seems wholly inappropriate for this element to be part of a policy document which sets parameters for future planning decisions once adopted. We feel very strongly that the red development line, in line with the principles laid out elsewhere in the text of the Plan, should not include any pockets of land which are currently designated (under land registration and planning law) as anything other than private house and garden or public buildings and their environs (such as the Church and the Village Hall). Obviously, we’re not familiar (!!!) with the status of the various pockets of land around the edges of the village that are shown inside the red development line (and there are some quirky looking bits); is it safe to assume that there are no other examples of green field/open countryside (as opposed to garden) being included inside the development line? If there are, these should also be clearly marked as such. We are very concerned that the development site is not marked clearly enough on the map attached to the draft

110

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy Neighbourhood Plan: the site, as marked, looks as if it is all brown field but part of it is, I understand, open countryside/green field. The site should be partially shaded brown and partially green which would be a clearer and more accurate representation; similarly, the text should clearly explain the two distinct land types. In its present form it is misleading. Because of the lack of clarity within this section many residents will look at it (as we did) and assume the development site covers only the existing yard/brown field site; this undermines the integrity of the consultation process and surely means that any support that is expressed for the development has to be viewed on the understanding that respondents may not have fully understood what they were agreeing to (re: the 8% figure, above). Also, on the development site: It is not true to say that a housing development on this site will remove HGV traffic from the village; it will only reduce HGV traffic. There is a significant difference between proposing 9 properties and less than 6; the infrastructure needs of developing 6 or properties is unsustainable in terms of the site itself and also the wider village; particularly as there is no recognised need for higher levels of housing.

111

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy If/when a formal planning application is put forward for the AE Faulks site, it is really important that the decision doesn’t appear to have already been made and that the community is offered full and proper consultation rights/opportunities which aren’t compromised or undermined by the Neighbourhood Plan. It is too significant a site for there to be ‘Oh, whoops!’ moments at a later stage; we’ve had too many of those in the village already - hence the heightened levels of sensitivity evident just now! Fundamentally, we are keen to support AE Faulks in the redevelopment of this site and we are keen to support the AE Faulks business in their next steps; so, it would be much better for an application, when it is submitted, to be reasonable and proportionate from the beginning so that there is a good chance that everyone will be able to support it. Policy H11: The Richard Kupfer Firstly I would support the redevelopment of The company is Policy H11 (The Wharf, Wharf, Main Kim Kupfer the Faulkes, brown field site but I think it receptive to Main Street, Hickling) be Street, Hickling sould be important that the proposed redevelopment as it modified to reflect the residential development does not extend would facilitate the community’s preference beyond the current brownfield site. business’ relocation to for the redevelopment of Station Road, Old Dalby the site to be limited to where it has had brownfield land. planning permission for a new depot. However, the company has made it clear that it will not

112

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy redevelop the site without an element of greenfield land and wants a greenfield extension of almost 50m. The Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group considered this to be excessive and many residents object to the idea of allowing any extension of the site onto the fields behind the site. Illustrative proposals for ‘The Wharf’ site in Hickling, Nottinghamshire were produced by AECOM as part of a Locality led, Government-funded neighbourhood planning support programme. AECOM were of the view that an element of greenfield development is needed to mitigate the constraints of the site. For example, a public sewer runs through the site which cannot be built over. The encroachment onto the undeveloped greenfield

113

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy land to the rear of the site would have an average depth of 10m and be used as garden space. 65.9% of respondents to our 2020 Questionnaire Survey did not support AECOM’s illustrative proposal. However, 60.1% do support the redevelopment of just the brownfield part of the site for housing. Policy H11: The Liz Smith We certainly do support the sensible The company is Policy H11 (The Wharf, Wharf, Main Michael Smith development of Faulkes' brownfield site in receptive to Main Street, Hickling) be Street, Hickling return for moving the current business to a redevelopment as it modified to reflect the new site elsewhere, but do not support the would facilitate the community’s preference need to move the entrance to accommodate business’ relocation to for the redevelopment of the alleged increase in traffic. This entrance Station Road, Old Dalby the site to be limited to has, for many years, been perfectly where it has had brownfield land. adequate for (daily) 14 heavy goods vehicles, planning permission for a 4 trailers and a substantial amount of other new depot. However, the normal and heavy plant equipment - which company has made it plainly amounts to significantly greater traffic clear that it will not than would be produced by a relatively redevelop the site small number of residential houses. We feel without an element of very firmly that the entrance should remain greenfield land and located next to the Wharf, as there is wants a greenfield actually no need at all to relocate it. Moving extension of almost 50m. it would be damaging to the village. The Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group considered this to be

114

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy We presume that this development will only excessive and many be on the existing brownfield site. residents object to the idea of allowing any extension of the site onto the fields behind the site. Illustrative proposals for ‘The Wharf’ site in Hickling, Nottinghamshire were produced by AECOM as part of a Locality led, Government-funded neighbourhood planning support programme. AECOM were of the view that an element of greenfield development is needed to mitigate the constraints of the site. For example, a public sewer runs through the site which cannot be built over. The encroachment onto the undeveloped greenfield land to the rear of the site would have an average depth of 10m and be used as garden space. 65.9% of respondents to our 2020 Questionnaire Survey did not support

115

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy AECOM’s illustrative proposal. However, 60.1% do support the redevelopment of just the brownfield part of the site for housing. Policy H11: The Mark Samworth We fundamentally object to Policies H1 The company is Policy H11 (The Wharf, Wharf, Main Caroline (Countryside) and H10 (Housing Provision) receptive to Main Street, Hickling) be Street, Hickling Samworth because they seek to push residential redevelopment as it modified to reflect the development into what is now open would facilitate the community’s preference countryside outside the physical boundaries business’ relocation to for the redevelopment of of the village. This is important because: Station Road, Old Dalby the site to be limited to • It is not made clear in the Plan that the where it has had brownfield land. Hickling Limits to Development have been planning permission for a pushed out to include open countryside to new depot. However, the the east of the A.E. Faulks site (“The Wharf”), company has made it undermining any effective consultation on clear that it will not the Plan; redevelop the site • Worse, the Plan is materially misleading without an element of and misdirects consultees away from the greenfield land and fact that the Limits to Development have wants a greenfield been drawn outside the settlement extension of almost 50m. boundary; The Neighbourhood Plan • The drawing of the line in the open Steering Group countryside is arbitrary and without considered this to be justification; excessive and many • Its arbitrary nature means that any residents object to the developer of The Wharf site will be idea of allowing any encouraged to extend into the field still extension of the site onto further; the fields behind the site. • Any development to the east of The Wharf Illustrative proposals for will negatively impact the countryside and ‘The Wharf’ site in the character of the conservation area, and Hickling,

116

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy will be contrary to many national and local Nottinghamshire were planning policies, including those proposed produced by AECOM as in this Plan; part of a Locality led, • Any development to the east of The Wharf Government-funded will negatively impact the setting of and neighbourhood planning views to and from the Church of St. Luke, support programme. and the setting of other Listed Buildings; AECOM were of the view • Any development to the east of The Wharf that an element of will significantly damage the amenity of its greenfield development neighbours through overlooking and loss of is needed to mitigate the privacy; constraints of the site. • The precedent will be set for development For example, a public in the open countryside outside the sewer runs through the settlement boundary. If the Parish Council site which cannot be itself is seen to support an arbitrary built over. The extension of the Limits to Development on encroachment onto the behalf of A.E. Faulks then it can expect other undeveloped greenfield landowners to seek the same treatment, to land to the rear of the the detriment of the whole village of site would have an Hickling. average depth of 10m and be used as garden space. 65.9% of respondents to our 2020 Questionnaire Survey did not support AECOM’s illustrative proposal. However, 60.1% do support the redevelopment of just the brownfield part of the site for housing.

117

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy Policy H11: The Rushcliffe The Wharf Policy H11 seeks to allocate the The company is Policy H11 (The Wharf, Wharf, Main Borough Council Wharf site for up to nine dwellings. The receptive to Main Street, Hickling) be Street, Hickling Borough redevelopment as it modified to reflect the Council has supplied pre-application would facilitate the community’s preference comments based on this and we refer back business’ relocation to for the redevelopment of to these comments. Although the principle Station Road, Old Dalby the site to be limited to of where it has had brownfield land. the redevelopment of the site for residential planning permission for a development may be acceptable, new depot. However, the consideration needs to be given to any company has made it detailed layout and potential implications in clear that it will not terms of impact on the setting of the redevelop the site conservation area, the potential loss of without an element of views of St Luke’s Church from the canal greenfield land and towpath, the loss of a building identified in wants a greenfield the Conservation Area Townscape extension of almost 50m. Appraisal as a “positive building with special The Neighbourhood Plan architectural or historic character” and the Steering Group extension of the built up area into an area considered this to be identified in the Townscape Appraisal as a excessive and many “positive open space”. Concern through the residents object to the pre-application process was also raised idea of allowing any about extending development into the open extension of the site onto countryside to the east beyond the site of the fields behind the site. the yard. Illustrative proposals for The Borough Council would welcome any ‘The Wharf’ site in further discussion with the Neighbourhood Hickling, Plan body in formulating any future design Nottinghamshire were proposals. produced by AECOM as In addition, Environmental Health express part of a Locality led, their support of the policy stating that Government-funded enforcement action has been taken on the neighbourhood planning operators that restricts their operations at support programme.

118

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy the site and encourages them to relocate to AECOM were of the view the site that they have purchased and have that an element of planning permission for at Old Dalby. They greenfield development state that the change of use on the site is needed to mitigate the would provide a significant improvement to constraints of the site. the local environment for a number of For example, a public households. sewer runs through the Criterion a) of the policy requires that no site which cannot be more than two dwellings shall have more built over. The than three bedrooms with permitted encroachment onto the development rights being withdrawn to undeveloped greenfield ensure there is control over the creation of land to the rear of the additional bedrooms. Although the Council site would have an could withhold permitted development average depth of 10m rights and be used as garden from the scheme, the number of bedrooms space. is an internal layout. PD rights would only 65.9% of respondents to relate to external alterations. We could not our 2020 Questionnaire prevent the sub-division of internal rooms Survey did not support after permission was granted. AECOM’s illustrative Further, the policy notes the area of the site proposal. However, to be 0.5 hectares. In line with national 60.1% do support the policy, affordable housing provision would redevelopment of just be sought on sites over 0.5 hectares. the brownfield part of the site for housing. Policy H11: The Rushcliffe The site is in close proximity to the canal Agreed. Policy H11: The Wharf, Wharf, Main Borough Council which is a LWS and there are records of Main Street, Hickling- Street, Hickling protected and priority species on adjacent Replace criterion G with: land. A landscaping scheme should be implemented to include the planting of trees and hedgerows along the boundaries of

119

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy the site and the creation of links to the Grantham Canal green corridor; and A new criterion be added: The neighbouring Local Wildlife Site should not be adversely affected, and the development should deliver net-gains in biodiversity.

Paragraph 4.18 Rushcliffe Conversion of rural buildings to dwellings Curtilage is an important None Borough Council Paragraph 4.18 relates to the conversion of legal concept when it rural buildings to dwellings: comes to property and “Any extensions or alterations should land. respect the form and character of the existing building and not extend beyond the existing curtilage…” Concern is raised over the use of the term “curtilage” in this regard. One interpretation may be that an agricultural building does not in fact have its own curtilage as it would be subservient to a farm so would be within the farm’s curtilage. Another interpretation is that the curtilage could be considered to include the paddock/agricultural land to which it relates. This could cover a relatively extensive area. As currently worded, it could not be effectively applied to have the effect intended (i.e. to limit the size of extensions) and could have the opposite effect to that intended.

120

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy Policy H12: Peter Playle, We support policies H3, H4, H6, H8, H9, Noted None Residential Amanda Playle, H12,H13,H14, H15, H16 and the Design Conversion of Jack Playle and Statement. Rural Buildings Michael Playle Policy H12: Mark Samworth We support the Vision of Hickling Parish in Noted None Residential Caroline 2028, Policies H3, H4, H5, H6, H8, H9, H12, Conversion of Samworth H13, H14, H15, H16, H17 & H18, and the Rural Buildings Design Guide. Policy H12: Rushcliffe Conversion of rural buildings to dwellings When considering a None Residential Borough Council Appropriate access has not been considered development proposal, Conversion of as part of the policy. An additional criteria all the relevant policies Rural Buildings could be included to address this if of the Neighbourhood considered appropriate. Plan will be applied. Part a) requires the building to be of Policy H9: Local Design architectural and historic interest for a requires development to conversion to be considered policy have safe and suitable compliant. Is this wording correct? Surely it access. should be structurally capable of conversion Policy H12: Residential as with part (b), and any architectural/ Conversion of Rural historic qualities are retained? Buildings and Policy H16: The Re-use of Rural Buildings for Business Use are subtly different to encourage buildings that are not of architectural and historical interest to be converted to business use rather than residential. Policy H13: Peter Playle, We support policies H3, H4, H6, H8, H9, Noted None Replacement Amanda Playle, H12,H13,H14, H15, H16 and the Design Dwellings Statement.

121

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy Jack Playle and Michael Playle

Policy H13: Mark Samworth We support the Vision of Hickling Parish in Noted None Replacement Caroline 2028, Policies H3, H4, H5, H6, H8, H9, H12, Dwellings Samworth H13, H14, H15, H16, H17 & H18, and the Design Guide. Paragraph 4.24 Rushcliffe Space standards Paragraph 4.24 requires Paragraph 4.24 be Borough Council Paragraph 4.24 refers to the nationally clarification. Its intention revised as follows: described space standards and states that it is not to set space Policy H14 makes clear would be expected for a new three bedroom standards, which are in that new houses of more house to be built to these standards (84-120 any event outside the than three bedrooms sqm). scope of neighbourhood require special The space standard can only be applied plans, but to support the justification for planning where there is a local plan policy based on operational permission to be granted. evidence of local need and where the implementation of Policy However, alterations viability of development is not compromised. H14. affecting only the interior The Planning Practice Guidance states that Policy H14 makes clear of the building do not this evidence should be based on the size that new houses of more require planning and type of dwellings currently being built, than three bedrooms permission. To help viability of imposing the standards, and require special detect potential abuse of timing to allow a reasonable transitional justification for planning Policy 14 through the period. The nationally described space permission to be development of over- standard has not been included as a granted. However, sized ‘three-bed’ requirement in LP2 as the vast majority of alterations affecting only dwellings which are later house types of recent schemes in Rushcliffe the interior of the altered to become four- are built to within or in excess of the building do not require bed (or more), new standards. Further information see the planning permission. To dwellings of Gross Housing Standards Background Paper for help detect potential Internal (floor) Area of the LP2. No evidence has been provided in abuse of Policy 14 more than 842 will be the neighbourhood plan to justify the through the subject to special requirement of the national space standard development of over- scrutiny. The for new properties in Hickling. Evidence sized ‘three-bed’ (or less) requirements of Policy

122

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy needs to be provided to justify the inclusion dwellings which are later H14 could also be of the standard. This would have to show altered to become four- circumvented by using that recent developments have been built to bed (or more), paragraph ‘permitted development below the standards referred to. 4.24 of the rights’ to increase the size Neighbourhood Plan of new homes once they expects new dwellings have been built, without of Gross Internal (floor) the need for planning Area of more than 84- permission. Therefore, 120m2 to be subject to permitted development special scrutiny. The rights may be withdrawn requirements of Policy for a temporary (e.g. H14 could also be three-year) period to circumvented by using deter this abuse. ‘permitted development rights’ to increase the size of new homes once they have been built, without the need for planning permission. Policy H14: Peter Playle, We support policies H3, H4, H6, H8, H9, Noted None Housing Mix Amanda Playle, H12,H13,H14, H15, H16 and the Design Jack Playle and Statement. Michael Playle Policy H14: Mark Samworth We support the Vision of Hickling Parish in Noted None Housing Mix Caroline 2028, Policies H3, H4, H5, H6, H8, H9, H12, Samworth H13, H14, H15, H16, H17 & H18, and the Design Guide. Policy H14: Rushcliffe Minor typo. Part B of the policy refers to Agree Policy H14: Housing Mix Housing Mix Borough Council Policy H10 (Conversion of Rural Buildings), criterion B be amended however that is policy H12. by replacing ‘H10’ with “B. It is necessary to make best use of a ‘H12’. redundant or disused rural building in accordance with Policy H10 H12

123

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy (Residential Conversion of Rural Buildings)” Policy H14: Rushcliffe Housing mix The principal concern Policy H14: Housing Mix Housing Mix Borough Council Part A of the policy states that the being addressed by criterion A be amended development of housing with more than criterion A is the by replacing three bedrooms will only be supported if it is economic viability of a ‘undeliverable’ with ‘not demonstrated that the development would site. economically viable’. otherwise be undeliverable. While 84% of dwellings It is unclear what is meant by being in the parish are undeliverable and the concern is that it is detached, there are too open to interpretation. If it is intended to many examples of refer to financial viability, this should be traditional 2/3 bed made more explicit within the policy. cottages that provide There is also a potential contradiction with inspiration for the design design policy H9 (see above comments). of smaller, new homes. The requirement would likely result in smaller properties at odds with Policy H9 as currently drafted, given the character of predominantly detached dwellings evidenced in supporting text. Paragraph 4.25 Rushcliffe The definition of affordable housing Paragraph 4.25 reflects None Borough Council definition is set through the NPPF. Reference the NPPF definition of should be made to the NPPF in this affordable housing. paragraph. Policy H15: Peter Playle, We support policies H3, H4, H6, H8, H9, Noted None Community Amanda Playle, H12,H13,H14, H15, H16 and the Design Services and Jack Playle and Statement. Facilities Michael Playle Policy H15: Mark Samworth We support the Vision of Hickling Parish in Noted None Community Caroline 2028, Policies H3, H4, H5, H6, H8, H9, H12, Services and Samworth H13, H14, H15, H16, H17 & H18, and the Facilities Design Guide.

124

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy Policy H15: Rushcliffe Community Services and Facilities There is no word None Community Borough Council Typo – it is unclear what the second missing. Services and community facility named under the policy is Facilities as there is a word missing (“Development Community that would result in the loss of the Plough Services Inn, Hickling or Hickling Village Hall and Facilities Paragraph 5.6 Rushcliffe Update the text to reflect the designation of Assets of Community Paragraph 5.6 be revised Borough Council the Horse and Plough as an Asset of Value (ACV) form a part as follows: Community Value in June 2018. of the Community Right The Plough at Hickling is to Bid. It acts as the first an attractive village pub, stage in identifying and just opposite Hickling nominating buildings or Basin in the heart of other assets such as land Hickling. A good range of that have a main use or food served lunch time purpose of furthering the and evenings. The Plough social wellbeing or social Inn was designated as an interests of the local Assets of Community community, and could Value (AVC) in June 2018 do so into the future. so that we can then use The Plough Inn and The the Community Right to Old Wharf Tea Rooms Bid if it ever comes up for are AVCs. sale. This means that the community can have up to six months to raise the funds to bid for it and at the end of the period, the owner may sell it to whoever and at whatever price they choose. The Old Wharf Tea Rooms is also an AVC.

125

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy Infrastructure Environment As an organization responsible for improving The National Planning None Agency the environment, delivering essential Policy Framework sets infrastructure and supplying key sources of strict tests to protect data, we are keen to support you in people and property delivering the plan. To this end we have set from flooding which all out below policy areas we consider are local planning authorities important to ensure the plan enhances the are expected to follow. environment, as well supporting appropriate Where these tests are development and necessary environmental not met, national policy infrastructure. is clear that new Water development should not Water is a fundamental requirement and a be allowed. major consideration for all new Neighbourhood plans development. Water are not obliged to services such as water for supply for waste contain policies water management are provided by Water addressing all types of Companies. Each water company produces development. a long-term plan to make sure services are Neighbourhood plans available to development in a way that does should also avoid not cause environmental damage. There can unnecessary duplication however still be local problems with of policies that apply to infrastructure or capacity which may impact the area (including on a development or the timing of a policies in the NPPF and development. We suggest that water Local Plan). infrastructure availability is carefully considered for all proposed development sites and developers liaise closely with the water companies at an early stage in the development. Where there are issues with water infrastructure capacity we suggest a Water Cycle Study is produced. The UK must meet the requirement of the European Water Framework Directive (WFD)

126

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy which aims to bring all water-bodies to a ‘good ecological potential or status’ by 2027. Local Planning Authorities have a duty to contribute to the achievement of the Directive. How these improvements are to be achieved for Rushcliffe Borough Council is set out in the Lower Trent & Erewash River Basin Management Plan. Currently the two water bodies within this parish, Grantham Canal and Dalby Brook, are classed as having ‘Moderate ecological status’. Good Neighbourhood plan policies which support sustainable drainage, ‘daylighting’ of streams and rivers and the sensitive integration of water in a development can improve the water quality and the water environment. Making space for water in a development can also protect people from flooding while increasing the value and desirability of a development. Flood Risk Recent high profile flooding events highlight the need for development to be directed away from areas of current or future flood risk and which do not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere. Local plan policies can support better flood risk management in many ways. Local plan policies which support a sequential approach to land allocation will ensure land at lowest risk is developed first. The local plan could also promote the use of indicative

127

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy drainage strategies on developments. We propose the plan supports more natural systems of flood risk management which would control surface water run-off near to its source and to greenfield run-off rates. We see a need for policies which promote the reinstatement of the natural flood plain and retention and restoration of watercourses. Policies in the Neighbourhood Plan should encourage developers to have regard to all relevant Catchment Flood Management Plans and the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy. We consider developers should also be advised to check areas at risk of flooding with the Environment Agency to determine the extent and nature of the flooding anticipated. Infrastructure Severn Trent The retention of watercourses, ditches and The National Planning None land drainage are essential to facilitate Policy Framework sets sustainable strict tests to protect drainage of surface water for new people and property development and for future generations. It is from flooding which all recommended that watercourses are retain local planning authorities within open space to enable access for are expected to follow. maintenance, preventing Where these tests are encroachment and improved biodiversity. not met, national policy Where possible any new is clear that new driveways/driveway alterations should also development should not be constructed using a be allowed. permeable construction method. Neighbourhood plans It is noted that the sewerage system within are not obliged to Hickling consisted of separate foul and contain policies surface water sewers, therefore connectivity addressing all types of

128

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy of surface water to the foul network should development. not be permitted. Neighbourhood plans Please keep us informed when your plans should also avoid are further developed when we will be able unnecessary duplication to offer more detailed comments and advice. of policies that apply to the area (including policies in the NPPF and Local Plan). Paragraph 5.2 Nottinghamshire Section 9 of the NPPF addresses the issue of There have been Paragraph 5.2 be revised County Council sustainable transport. The NPPF, in changes to local bus as follows: paragraph 111,requires all developments services since the Plan Hickling Pastures is which will generate significant amounts of was prepared and, as served by the Centrebus movement to provide a travel plan and the some changes are now Number 19 bus service application for such a development to be necessary. between Nottingham, ‘supported by a transport statement or The 2011 Census shows Melton Mowbray and transport assessment so that the likely that there were no Oakham. This is a two- impacts of the proposal can be assessed’. It residents aged 16 to 74 hourly, daytime service also states, in paragraph 108, that it should who travelled to work by with no evening nor be ensured that ‘appropriate opportunities to taxi. Sunday service. Hickling promote sustainable transport modes can be village is served by the – or have been – taken up, given the type of NottsBus 853 service that location and its location’ and ‘any significant provides three off-peak impacts from the development on the journeys to and from transport network (in terms of capacity and Morrisons store at congestion), or on highway safety, can be Gamston. There is also cost effectively mitigated to an acceptable one journey in each degree’. direction to West Transport and Flood Risk Management Bridgford where The County Council as Highway Authority passengers can access and Local Lead Flood Authority is a statutory regular bus services to consultee to Local Planning Authorities and Nottingham. Community therefore makes separate responses on the transport services are relevant highway and flood risk technical

129

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy aspects for planning applications. In dealing provided in the Hickling with planning applications the Highway area by Rushcliffe CVS. Authority and Local Lead Flood Authority will evaluate the applicants proposals specifically related to highway and flood risk matters only. As a consequence developers may in cases where their initial proposal raise concern or are unacceptable amend their initial plans to incorporate revisions to the highway and flood risk measures that they propose. The process behind this can be lengthy and therefore any initial comments on these matters may eventually be different to those finally made to the Local Planning Authority. In view of this and to avoid misleading information comments on planning applications made by the Highway Authority and Local Lead Flood Authority will not be incorporated into this letter. However should further information on the highway and flood risk elements be required contact should be made directly with the Highway Development Control Team and the Flood Risk Management Team to discuss this matter further with the relevant officers dealing with the application. Strategic Transport The County Council does not have any strategic transport planning observations to make. Transport and Travel Services Nottinghamshire County Council Transport and Travel Services (TTS) wish the following

130

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy observations to be considered as part of the consultation in respect of the Hickling Parish Neighbourhood Plan. Background The Transport Act 1985 places a duty on Nottinghamshire County Council to secure a “Socially necessary” bus network. Local bus operators provide services that they consider as commercial, and the Council provide revenue subsidies to provide additional services to ensure communities have access to essential services including education, work, shopping and leisure. The level of revenue funding available to the Council to provide supported services is diminishing. Therefore, other funding sources are required to enable the council to maintain a socially necessary and sustainable network. Current Hickling Bus Network Centrebus Service 19 operates along the A606, so does not serve Hickling Village. Service 853 which serves Hickling is currently being revised and from late February 2019 will be operated by Nottinghamshire County Council Fleet. The service is funded by the local Authority and provides 3 off peak journeys to and from Gamston Morrisons store. One journey in each direction will continue to West Bridgford where passengers can access regular bus services to Nottingham. Neighbourhood Plan

131

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy TTS have reviewed the draft plan and welcome the draft Plan and the emphasis on sustainable development including the reference in the Foreword to “Our Plan sets out a vision for our Parish until 2028 and aims to contribute to sustainable development in three key areas - economic, social and environmental”. It is noted that ‘Better public transport’ was one of the key Issues arising from the community consultation. Any reference to how the identified issue is to be addressed is not included in the Plan. It is suggested that reference is included to working in partnership with Nottinghamshire County Council to maintain public transport provision. Section 5 ‘Services, Facilities and Infrastructure’ refers to Centrebus Service 19 between Nottingham, Melton Mowbray and Oakham. This service operates along the A606, does not serve Hickling Village, and now operates only to Melton Mowbray to a reduced 2-hourly frequency. The reference to NottsBus 832 is incorrect and should be removed. Community Transport Community transport services are provided in the Hickling area by Rushcliffe CVS. It is suggested

132

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy that reference to their work is included within the Plan, together with the potential for Community Transport and related services i.e. taxi buses to complement the local bus network. Taxis. There is no reference in the document to the role of taxis, which are licensed by Rushcliffe Borough Council and play an import role in the local economy. It is suggested reference to the role of taxis is included in the plan. Paragraph 6.3 Mr A. Overall Consideration needs to be given to traffic One of the key issues for None and parking especially at the Basin end of the area is transport, but the village. Main Street is a significant there is sometimes thoroughfare with all manner of commercial confusion over what traffic passing through. At particularly busy kinds of transport issues times when farm traffic is significant I would a neighbourhood plan like to see a community agreement that can address. Many traffic Farm Contractor vehicles adhere to the safe matters fall outside the limits of speed which should be no more scope of planning. For than 20mph. We don’t have the speeding example, changes to issue with farmers themselves. Parking traffic management on needs to have a policy for control and existing transport management. networks are usually a matter for the highway authority to deal with. So changes to parking restrictions, speed limits, signage, weight restrictions, traffic circulation usually fall outside the scope of our neighbourhood plan.

133

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy However, our plan does highlight localised traffic and parking issues that need to be addressed when considering development proposals. For example, Policy H11: The Wharf, Main Street, Hickling encourages the provision of additional car parking spaces for visitors to Hickling basin and Policy H18: Grantham Canal and Hickling Basin requires development proposals to take account of traffic management and car parking. Paragraph 6.5 Mr A Thomas Typing error in Paragraph 6.5 which refers to This is addressed in the None H17, this should be amended to H18. latest version of the Neighbourhood Plan. Paragraph 6.5 Eileen Granger Could some plan be formed to deal with One of the key issues for None excessive parking to the north of the village? the area is transport, but there is sometimes confusion over what kinds of transport issues a neighbourhood plan can address. Many traffic matters fall outside the scope of planning. For example, changes to traffic management on

134

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy existing transport networks are usually a matter for the highway authority to deal with. So changes to parking restrictions, speed limits, signage, weight restrictions, traffic circulation usually fall outside the scope of our neighbourhood plan. However, our plan does highlight localised traffic and parking issues that need to be addressed when considering development proposals. For example, Policy H11: The Wharf, Main Street, Hickling encourages the provision of additional car parking spaces for visitors to Hickling basin and Policy H18: Grantham Canal and Hickling Basin requires development proposals to take account of traffic management and car parking. Paragraph 6.5 Peter Playle, We recommend the introduction of a new One of the key issues for None Amanda Playle, policy. Traffic and parking. This is one of the the area is transport, but most important issues and challenges the there is sometimes

135

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy Jack Playle and Parish faces and yet it appears to have been confusion over what Michael Playle overlooked. kinds of transport issues a neighbourhood plan can address. Many traffic matters fall outside the scope of planning. For example, changes to traffic management on existing transport networks are usually a matter for the highway authority to deal with. So changes to parking restrictions, speed limits, signage, weight restrictions, traffic circulation usually fall outside the scope of our neighbourhood plan. However, our plan does highlight localised traffic and parking issues that need to be addressed when considering development proposals. For example, Policy H11: The Wharf, Main Street, Hickling encourages the provision of additional car parking spaces for visitors to Hickling basin and Policy H18: Grantham Canal and

136

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy Hickling Basin requires development proposals to take account of traffic management and car parking. Paragraph 6.5 Sarah Hartland Parking and traffic are key issues in the One of the key issues for None Paul Hartland village and these were highlighted as the the area is transport, but 2nd most important issue for residents ( and there is sometimes parking is now more difficult). I wondered if confusion over what there should be a separate policy for this? kinds of transport issues a neighbourhood plan can address. Many traffic matters fall outside the scope of planning. For example, changes to traffic management on existing transport networks are usually a matter for the highway authority to deal with. So changes to parking restrictions, speed limits, signage, weight restrictions, traffic circulation usually fall outside the scope of our neighbourhood plan. However, our plan does highlight localised traffic and parking issues that need to be addressed when considering development proposals.

137

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy For example, Policy H11: The Wharf, Main Street, Hickling encourages the provision of additional car parking spaces for visitors to Hickling basin and Policy H18: Grantham Canal and Hickling Basin requires development proposals to take account of traffic management and car parking. Policy H16: The Peter Playle, We support policies H3, H4, H6, H8, H9, Noted None Re-use of Rural Amanda Playle, H12,H13,H14, H15, H16 and the Design Buildings for Jack Playle and Statement. Business Use Michael Playle Policy H16: The Severn Trent Severn Trent do not object to principles The National Planning None Re-use of Rural outlined within Policy H16, we would Policy Framework sets Buildings for however, note that strict tests to protect Business Use urban creep has been identified as a major people and property contributor to surface water flooding. from flooding which all Extensions and impermeable driveways can local planning authorities result in increased flows entering the are expected to follow. sewerage and drainage systems. Where these tests are We would therefore recommend that any not met, national policy policy regarding the extension of a building is clear that new identifies the need to manage surface water development should not sustainably. It is accepted that individual be allowed. extensions are unlike to have a significant Neighbourhood plans impact, but that the cumulative impact can are not obliged to be significant. Whilst it will not be contain policies appropriate for individual developments to addressing all types of

138

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy be designed to incorporate a full SuDS development. scheme, the use of soakaways and Neighbourhood plans discharges to watercourse should be should also avoid prioritised in accordance with Planning unnecessary duplication Practice Guidance paragraph 80. Policy H16 of policies that apply to provides an opportunity to promote this the area (including industry best practice further, supporting policies in the NPPF and growth in a sustainable way. Local Plan). Policy H16: The Mark Samworth We support the Vision of Hickling Parish in Noted None Re-use of Rural Caroline 2028, Policies H3, H4, H5, H6, H8, H9, H12, Buildings for Samworth H13, H14, H15, H16, H17 & H18, and the Business Use Design Guide. Policy H17: Mark Samworth We support the Vision of Hickling Parish in Noted None Rural Worker Caroline 2028, Policies H3, H4, H5, H6, H8, H9, H12, Accommodatio Samworth H13, H14, H15, H16, H17 & H18, and the n Design Guide. Policy H18: Mr A Thomas Would like this report to make a much One of the key issues for None Grantham stronger case to deal with the problem of the area is transport, but Canal and Car Parking at the Wharf. The problem there is sometimes Hickling Basin already exists and it steadily becoming confusion over what worse. The recent public meeting to discuss kinds of transport issues the proposals for canal barges showed quite a neighbourhood plan clearly the annoyance to everyone caused can address. Many traffic by parked cars. If this report is have matters fall outside the credibility in this, it must show how it plans to scope of planning. For deal with the problem, and simply stating the example, changes to traffic implications will be “fully assessed and traffic management on addressed” is insufficient. In Policy H18, it existing transport should be made clear what “car parking networks are usually a improvements” really means. Many villages matter for the highway that are popular with visitors arriving by car, authority to deal with. So have solved the problem by having a car changes to parking park just outside the village. Surely finding restrictions, speed limits,

139

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy such a suitable location for Hickling should signage, weight be included in the neighbourhood plan> It is restrictions, traffic an “elephant in the room” and surely should circulation usually fall not be ignored. Surely no one wants double outside the scope of our yellow lines all over the place? neighbourhood plan. However, our plan does highlight localised traffic and parking issues that need to be addressed when considering development proposals. For example, Policy H11: The Wharf, Main Street, Hickling encourages the provision of additional car parking spaces for visitors to Hickling basin and Policy H18: Grantham Canal and Hickling Basin requires development proposals to take account of traffic management and car parking. Policy H18: Tessa Clark and There is no plan for parking but this is One of the key issues for None Grantham Vic Brown already a problem around the canal on some the area is transport, but Canal and days, should the plan include how Hickling there is sometimes Hickling Basin might handle parking in the future? confusion over what kinds of transport issues a neighbourhood plan can address. Many traffic matters fall outside the scope of planning. For

140

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy example, changes to traffic management on existing transport networks are usually a matter for the highway authority to deal with. So changes to parking restrictions, speed limits, signage, weight restrictions, traffic circulation usually fall outside the scope of our neighbourhood plan. However, our plan does highlight localised traffic and parking issues that need to be addressed when considering development proposals. For example, Policy H11: The Wharf, Main Street, Hickling encourages the provision of additional car parking spaces for visitors to Hickling basin and Policy H18: Grantham Canal and Hickling Basin requires development proposals to take account of traffic management and car parking.

141

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy Policy H18: Peter Playle, We would amend Policy H18 Grantham Policies should be None Grantham Amanda Playle, Canal and Hickling Basin. We recommend clearly written and Canal and Jack Playle and amending the word ‘supported’ for unambiguous, so it is Hickling Basin Michael Playle ‘considered’. evident how a decision maker should react to development proposals. Policy H18: Sarah Hartland As I am aware, once the Neighbourhood Policies should be None Grantham Paul Hartland Plan is adopted, it becomes a legal clearly written and Canal and reference point for all planning decisions and unambiguous, so it is Hickling Basin therefore wording is very important. Within evident how a the policies, I feel that, the phrase ‘will be decision maker should supported’ should be replaced with ‘will be react to development considered’. This is essential in policies H10 proposals. and H18 as each planning application will need to be viewed on an individual basis to avoid disastrous results. Policy H18: Liz Smith We would like the words "supported" in H10 Policies should be None Grantham Michael Smith and H18 to be replaced by "considered". clearly written and Canal and unambiguous, so it is Hickling Basin evident how a decision maker should react to development proposals. Policy H18: Canal and River The supporting text to Policy H18 refers to In our 2017 Policy H18: Grantham Grantham Trust the outcome of the 2017 questionnaire and Questionnaire, the Canal and Hickling Basin Canal and indicates that 90% of respondents supported restoration of the be revised to add the Hickling Basin promotion of the canal as a route for walking, Grantham Canal to make following first sentence: cycling and nature conservation and 59% it navigable for boats The restoration of the supported restoration of the canal to was supported by 59%. Grantham Canal to make facilitate navigation. 92% of respondents Noise needs to be it navigable for boats is oppose discouraging use of the canal. Policy considered when new supported. H18 does not however provide any indication developments may

142

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy as to whether restoration of the canal is create additional noise. A new criterion D be supported by the draft Plan. As already The canal basin lies added as follows: noted above, the Trust considers that the within a residential area Residential amenities are Plan should set out a clear position on and we are keen to protected. In particular, whether it does support restoration, and it ensure that the overall noise exposure would be extremely helpful to understand amenities of residents should be no greater than whether policy H18 is proposed in the are protected. Tourist the lowest observed context of supporting the aspirations for activities including adverse effect level. eventually achieving restoration of the canal. accommodation are not Whilst Policy H18 supports appropriate always compatible with development associated with the canal and residential amenities. basin, the Trust is concerned that the Following consultation wording of the policy introduces ambiguities on mandating and a lack of clarity which we consider need biodiversity net gain in to be addressed. In particular, the policy development last year, prioritises "quiet" recreational enjoyment of the Chancellor has the canal and basin. The term "quiet" is confirmed that the imprecise and a very subjective matter to government will use the seek to judge. The policy provides no forthcoming guidance to assist in identifying how this Environment Bill to should be measured, and therefore how the mandate ‘biodiversity net policy is expected to be applied in a fair and gain’ – meaning the consistent manner. The policy is therefore delivery of much- likely to be open to different interpretations needed infrastructure and could be applied in an overly restrictive and housing is not at the way which might seek to simply prevent all expense of vital development. This would be incompatible biodiversity. with the principles set out in the NPPF, which We agree that acknowledge the general appropriateness of developers should be sustainable development. We therefore required to ensure consider that in its current format, Policy H18 habitats for wildlife are would not readily provide a practical enhanced and left in a framework within which decisions on measurably better state

143

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy planning applications can be made with a than they were pre- high degree of predictability and efficiency. development and that We suggest that the word "quiet" is omitted would include from Policy H18. development associated Criterion B of Policy H18 requires proposals with the Grantham Canal to enhance the ecological value of the canal and Hickling Basin. and its landscape features in order to be supported. We consider that it would be more appropriate to require proposals to demonstrate that they protect and enhance the ecological value of the canal, as this would more closely reflect government guidance set out in paragraph 174 of the NPPF. Policy H18: Mark Samworth We support the Vision of Hickling Parish in Noted None Grantham Caroline 2028, Policies H3, H4, H5, H6, H8, H9, H12, Canal and Samworth H13, H14, H15, H16, H17 & H18, and the Hickling Basin Design Guide. Policy H18: Rushcliffe Grantham Canal and Hickling Basin Policy H18: Grantham None Grantham Borough Council Second part of part C, is not worded Canal and Hickling Basin Canal and correctly. The first part, ensuring traffic criterion C only require Hickling Basin implications are assessed and addressed is traffic management and reasonable. The second part specifies traffic car parking management and parking improvements improvements to be which would seem pre-emptive. considered. Page 59 Mr R Page Village Hall, Page 59 needs to made clear Noted. Village Hall, Main Street, that the school building was owned by the Hickling description be Church - never by a council. Query was it a revised to: council school or a school run by the The Village Hall was built church? in 1874 as a village school on what was formerly the village green. Hickling School was closed by the

144

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy Local Education Authority in 1966. The building is now the village hall, complete with bell tower but with a later extension on the north side for modern toilet facilities. Page 59 Mrs Chell Some of the photographs are out of date Not all the photos are None particularly the Village Hall, it does not show current; some show the the new extension. buildings as they looked in the past. Appendix 4: Peter Playle, We support policies H3, H4, H6, H8, H9, Noted None Design Guide Amanda Playle, H12,H13,H14, H15, H16 and the Design Jack Playle and Statement. Michael Playle Appendix 4: Severn Trent Identifying Development Constraints and The National Planning None Design Guide Opportunities - Page 89 bullet point 3, Policy Framework sets details a number of features that should be strict tests to protect protected and used to influence site design. people and property Severn Trent would also like to see open from flooding which all watercourses and ditches identified within local planning authorities this section as they are vital to enabling are expected to follow. sustainable surface water outfalls for Where these tests are development and future generations. There not met, national policy may also be opportunities to daylight is clear that new culverted watercourses re-instating historic development should not blue corridors that could enhance be allowed. biodiversity and the nature of the area and Neighbourhood plans convey surface water flows from new are not obliged to development. contain policies addressing all types of development. Neighbourhood plans

145

Paragraph/ Representor Representation Response Proposed revisions Policy should also avoid unnecessary duplication of policies that apply to the area (including policies in the NPPF and Local Plan). Appendix 4: Mark Samworth We support the Vision of Hickling Parish in Noted None Design Guide Caroline 2028, Policies H3, H4, H5, H6, H8, H9, H12, Samworth H13, H14, H15, H16, H17 & H18, and the Design Guide.

146