Eggleshaw 652213

Richard Mapletoft

From: Roy Eggleshaw <>05 March 2017 13:45 Sent: Localdevelopment To: New houses for Gotham Subject:

Dearsirs, IhavejustreceivedmycopyoftheGothamNewsissuedbytheGothamParishCounciland IamdeeplyconcernedabouttheproposalforthedevelopmentofsiteGOT4forhousing, whilstIagreethathousinginthecountryasawholeisdesperatelyneededtheideaof accesstothissitefromHallDriveisabsolutelyinsane. HallDrivenormallyhasvehiclesparkedinvarioussituationsoneithersideoftheroadand youmustagreethisisnotaverywideroadandwhenparentsaredroppingoffand collectingchildrenfromtheschooltheparkingonthisroadandKegworthRoadis absolutelyunbelieveablewhichmakesgettingontoKegworthRoadbycarfrommyhome onPygallAvenuedifficultandsometimesadangerousmanoeuvreduetothefactthat whenturningrightfromHallDriveontoKegworthRoadonehastobeinthecentreofthe roadtobeabletoseeanytrafficapproachingfromNottinghamRoadwhichisnotalways necessarilyslow. WhilstIappreciatethatyouareobligedtocontactresidentsforcommentsregardingthis matterparticularlyasthisisa“GreenBelt”andnota“Brownfield”development,being somewhatcynicalIfeelthattheauthoritiesdecisionhasalreadybeenmade. Yoursfaithfully, MrE.R.Eggleshaw, 8,PygallAvenue, Gotham, NottinghamNG110JW

Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect y Outlo ok prev ented au tomatic download of this picture fr In ternet. Virus-free. www.avg.com

1

Elder 1092716

Phil Marshall

From: Elder Victoria <> Sent: 31 March 2017 21:55 To: Localdevelopment Subject: Rushcliffe local plan part 2 land and building policies - adBolton lane

Towholeitmayconcern

Iamwritingtostatemyobjectionabouttheproposalswithintheplanfordevelopmentoftheadboltonlanefields. Thelocalamenitiesarealreadyfittobursting,mychildhaveaportalcabinasaclassroomwithconcretetorun aroundonduringhisbreaks.Theyusethecorridorsforqueuingintothelunchhall,aswellasalibraryandaswellas acomputerareaplusasacorridortowalkdownandaccessthetoilets.Thisismuchthesameasajourneydown Trentboulevard.Itisalreadywaytobusyespeciallyfora20mphareawithalloftheparkedcars,largelyduetothe ageofthepropertiesinladybay.TrentboulevardwillbecomebusierwiththedevelopmentofthenewcoͲopstore andwillbeunderahugestrainfromlargervehiclesanddeliveryvansatalltimesduringtheday/night/earlier mornings.PeoplespeedthroughTrentboulevardtogettothefastroadatHolmepierrepontaswellasbypassing Radclifferoad.

Please,pleasedonotbuildanyadditionalshops/homesetcthatwillmakethesituationevenworse.Carsaregetting damagedandtheroadsarebecomingreallydangerouswithyoungchildrenaroundandelderlypeople.The infrastructurejustisn'tthereintheversmalllandscapeofladybaytobuildfurther.Buildusanewschoolonthe schoolfieldsattheendnotmorehouses!

Regards

Victoria

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ NHSBloodandTransplant DosomethingamazingtodayͲGiveBlood. Organdonation.Thegiftoflife. Youcanvisitusatwww.nhsbt.nhs.uk +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ TheviewsexpressedinthiseͲmailarethoseofthesender,andnotnecessarilythoseofNHSBloodandTransplant. ThistextconfirmsthatthiseͲmailmessageanditsattachmentshavebeensweptforthepresenceofcomputer virusesbyNHSBloodandTransplant,howeverwecannotguaranteethattheyarevirusfree. AlleͲmailsandtheirattachmentstoandfromthenhsbt.nhs.ukdomainmaybearchived,andtheircontents monitored.

1 Elliott 1073086 Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 2: Land and Planning Policies – Further Options

Response Form

Please return by 5pm on Friday 31 March 2017 to: Planning Policy, Rushcliffe Borough Council Rushcliffe Arena, Rugby Road Nottingham. NG2 7YG Or to: [email protected]

Please note that your comments can be directly entered through the Borough Council’s online consultation system: http://rushcliffe-consult.objective.co.uk/portal

Your Details Agent details (where applicable)

Richard Elliott Name Clickheretoentertext.

6 Sutherland Drive Address Clickheretoentertext. West Bridgford Nottingham NG2 7BX

ri E-mail Clickheretoentertext.

Housing Development

Housing Land Supply

Question 1: Do you agree with the Council’s assessment of the present housing supply situation and that enough land will need to be identified by Local Plan Part 2 to accommodate around 2,000 new homes?

Yes ……………………………………………………………………………..

No ……………………………………………………………………………. 

Don’t ……………………………………………………………………………. Y know

1 Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your response.

IbelievetheCouncil’sassessmentmaybecorrect,butIdonothavesufficientdatatoenablemeto unequivocallysupporttheassessment.Inmyresponsesbelow,Ihavethereforeassumedthatthe figureof2000newhomesiscorrect.

Housing Sites adjacent to the Main Urban Area

Question 2: Do you agree with the Council’s view that none of the three strategic allocations (Melton Road, Edwalton; South of Clifton; and East of Gamston/North of Tollerton) should be expanded as part of resolving the current shortfall in the amount of land that is available for housing development over the next few years?

Yes …………………………………………………………………………….. Y

No ……………………………………………………………………………. 

Don’t ……………………………………………………………………………  know …..

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your response.

It seems clear that further development of these sites, even if it was possible,would have no impact at all on the more immediate (predicted) housing land shortfall.

Question 3: Do you support housing development at:

 Yes – Yes – No all of but site only part of site Site HOL1 – Simkins Farm, Adbolton Lane, West Y   Bridgford (potential capacity around 40 homes) Any other location (please specify which)   



 2 Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers. This could include comments on the services and facilities required to support development and the design, mix and layout of development.

Provided appropriate flood risk assessments have been made.

Housing Development at the 'Key Settlements'

Bingham

Question 4: Do you agree that Local Plan Part 2 should not allocate further greenfield land for housing development at Bingham in the plan period (up to 2028)?

Yes …………………………………………………………………………….. Y 

No ……………………………………………………………………………. 

Don’t ……………………………………………………………………………  know …..

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your response.

Clickheretoentertext.

Cotgrave

Question 5: Do you agree that Local Plan Part 2 should allocate greenfield land for housing development at Cotgrave in the plan period (up to 2028)?

Yes …………………………………………………………………………….. Y

No ……………………………………………………………………………. 

Don’t ……………………………………………………………………………  know …..  3 Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your response.

Cotgrave is a significant existing development with relatively good local facilities. On this basis, I believe it could support a proportion (1/3rd) of the proposed additional housing. I do not support any further development, as it would be constrained by the poor local transport infrastructure (the lack of river crossings, the lack of a suitable rail network and the extremely overcrowded nature of the existing highway infrastructure).

Question 6: Do you have a view on the total number of new homes that should be accommodated on greenfield sites at Cotgrave up to 2028? If possible, please give reasons for your answer.

500,see comments to Q5 above.

Question 7: Do you support housing development at:

 Yes – Yes – No all of but site only part of site Site COT1 – Land rear of Mill Lane/The Old Park    (potential capacity around 240 homes) Site COT2 – Land at Main Road (potential capacity    around 50 homes) Site COT3 – Land rear of and to the west of Main    Road (potential capacity around 125 homes)

Site COT4 Land off Woodgate Lane (potential    capacity around 80 homes)

Site COT5 – Bakers Hollow (potential capacity    around 60 homes)

Site COT6 – The Brickyard, Owthorpe Road    (potential capacity around 100 homes)

 4 Yes – Yes – No all of but site only part of site Site COT7– Land behind Firdale (2) (potential    capacity around 65 homes)

Site COT8 – Land behind Firdale (potential capacity    around 95 homes)

Site COT9 – Land south of Hollygate Lane (1)    (potential capacity around 140 homes)

Site COT10 – Land south of Hollygate Lane (2)    (potential capacity around 40 homes)

Site COT11 – Land south of Hollygate Lane (3)    (potential capacity around 250 homes )

Site COT12– Land south of Plumtree Lane    (potential capacity around 250 homes)

Any other location (please specify which)   



Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers. This could include comments on the services and facilities required to support development and the design, mix and layout of development.

I support the proposed development of 500 new homes, see comments to Q5 above. I do not have sufficient data to support specific sites.

East Leake

Question 8: Do you agree that, apart from those eight sites that already have planning permission for housing development (sites EL1 to EL8 as shown at Figure 5), further greenfield land should not be allocated for housing development at East Leake?

 5 Yes ……………………………………………………………………………..

No ……………………………………………………………………………. N

Don’t ……………………………………………………………………………..  know

Please provide any comments you wish to make in support of your response.

East Leake is a significant existing development with relatively good local facilities. On this basis, I believe it could support a proportion (1/3rd) of the proposed additional housing. I do not support any further development, as it would be constrained by the poor local transport infrastructure (the lack of river crossings, the lack of a suitable rail network and the extremely overcrowded nature of the existing highway infrastructure).

Question 9: Do you support housing development at:

 Yes – Yes – No all of but site only part of site Site EL9 –Land south of West Leake Road    (potential capacity around 50 homes) Site EL10 – Land north of West Leake Road    (potential capacity around 75 homes) Site EL11 – Brook Furlong Farm(potential capacity    around 70 homes) Site EL12 – Land off Rempstone Road (north)    (potential capacity around 235 homes)

Site EL13 – Land off Rempstone Road (south)    (potential capacity around 120 homes) Site EL14 – Land north of Lantern Lane (2)    (potential capacity around 360 homes)

Any other location (please specify which)   



Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers. For any  6 of the sites, this could include comments on the services and facilities required to support development and the design, mix and layout of development.

I support the proposed development of 300 new homes, see comments to Q8 above. I do not have sufficient data to support specific sites.

Keyworth

Question 10: Do you have a view on the total number of new homes that should be built on greenfield sites at Keyworth up to 2028? If possible, please give reasons for your answer.

Keyworth is a significant existing development with relatively good local facilities. On this basis, I believe it could support a proportion (15%) of the proposed additional housing without seriously influencing coalescence with adjacent settlements. To mitigate coalescence, I do not support any further development, which would also be constrained by the poor local transport infrastructure (the lack of river crossings, the lack of a suitable rail network and the extremely overcrowded nature of the existing highway infrastructure).

Question 11: Do you support housing development at:

 Yes – Yes – No all of but site only part of site Site KEY1 – Land east of Willow Brook (potential    capacity around 40 homes) Site KEY2 – Land off Selby Lane and Willowbrook    (potential capacity around 15 homes) Site KEY3 – Land south of Selby Lane (potential    capacity around 60 homes) Site KEY4 – Land off Nicker Hill (potential capacity    around 450 homes)

Site KEY5 – Hill Top Farm, Platt Lane (1) (potential    capacity around 50 homes)

 7 Yes – Yes – No all of but site only part of site Site KEY6 – Hill Top Farm, Platt Lane (2) (potential    capacity around 80 homes)

Site KEY7 – Shelton Farm, Platt Lane (potential    capacity around 160 homes)

Site KEY8 – Land between Platt Lane and Station    Road (potential capacity around 180 homes)

Site KEY9 – Land north of Debdale Lane (1)    (potential capacity around 110 homes)

Site KEY10 – Land south of Debdale Lane (1)    (potential capacity around 230 homes)

Site KEY11 – Land south of Debdale Lane (2)    (potential capacity around 200 homes)

Site KEY12 – Land north of Debdale Lane (2)    (potential capacity around 160 homes)

Site KEY13 – Hillside Farm (potential capacity    around 60 homes)

Site KEY14 – Land south of Bunny Lane (potential    capacity around 410 homes)

Any other location (please specify which)   



Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers. For any of the sites, this could include comments on the services and facilities required to support development and the design, mix and layout of development.

I support the proposed development of 300 new homes, see comments to Q10 above. I do not have sufficient data to support specific sites.

Radcliffe on Trent

 8 Question 12: Do you have a view on the total number of new homes that should be built on greenfield sites at Radcliffe on Trent up to 2028? If possible, please give reasons for your answer.

Radcliffe on Trent is a significant existing development with relatively good local facilities. On this basis, I believe it could support a proportion (1/3rd) of the proposed additional housing. I do not support any further development because it would be constrained by the poor local transport infrastructure (the lack of river crossings, the lack of a suitable rail network and the extremely overcrowded nature of the existing highway infrastructure).

Question 13: Do you support housing development at:

 Yes – Yes – No all of but site only part of site Site RAD11 – North of Holme Lane (potential    capacity around 115 homes) Site RAD12 – Land to the north of Shelford Road    (potential capacity around 180 homes)

Any other location (please specify which)   



Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers. For any of the sites, this could include comments on the services and facilities required to support development and the design, mix and layout of development.

I support the proposed development of 100 new homes, see comments to Q12 above. I do not have sufficient data to support specific sites.

Ruddington

 9 Question 14: Do you have a view on the total number of new homes that should be accommodated on greenfield sites at Ruddington up to 2028? If possible, please give reasons for your answer.

I do not support further development in Ruddington because it would adversely impact coalescence with adjacent settlements.

Question 15: Do you support housing development at:

 Yes – Yes – No all of but site only part of site Site RUD11 – Old Loughborough Road (potential   N capacity around 40 homes) Site RUD12 – Land to the east side of   N Loughborough Road (potential capacity around 60 homes) Site RUD13 – Land opposite Mere Way (potential   capacity around 170 homes) N Site RUD14 – Croft House (potential capacity   N around 25 homes) Any other location (please specify which)   N



Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers. For any of the sites, this could include comments on the services and facilities required to support development and the design, mix and layout of development.

I do not support further development in Ruddington because it would adversely impact coalescence with adjacent settlements.

Housing development at ‘other villages’

 10 Question 16: Do you agree that, apart from the site to the south of Abbey Road, Aslockton with planning permission for up to 75 new homes, Local Plan Part 2 should not allocate greenfield land for housing development at Aslockton and Whatton in the plan period (up to 2028)?

Yes …………………………………………………………………………….. Y

No ……………………………………………………………………………. 

Don’t ……………………………………………………………………………  know …..

Please provide any comments you wish to make in support of your response.

Clickheretoentertext.

Question 17: Should Local Plan Part 2 identify the following ‘other’ villages as suitable for a limited level of housing growth on greenfileld sites?

 Don’t Yes No know

Cropwell Bishop Y  

East Bridgford Y  

Gotham Y  

Sutton Bonington Y  

Tollerton N  

Any other settlement (please specify which)   

  11 Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers.

I do not support further development in Tollerton because it would adversely impact coalescence with adjacent settlements.

Cropwell Bishop

Question 18: If greenfield land is allocated for housing development at Cropwell Bishop, do you have a view on the total number of new homes that should be built up to 2028? If possible, please give reasons for your answer.

Cropwell Bishop does not have all the facilities of some of the larger surrounding settlements. On this basis, I believe if new housing is to be considered, it needs to be sufficient (at least 50% of the proposed additional housing) to justify further development of local facilities. I do not support any further development because it would be constrained by the poor local transport infrastructure (the lack of river crossings, the lack of a suitable rail network and the extremely overcrowded nature of the existing highway infrastructure).

Question 19: Do you support housing development at:

 Yes – Yes – No all of but site only part of site Site CBI1 – Land to the south of Nottingham Road    and east of Kinoulton Road (potential capacity around 30 homes) Site CBI2 – Land north of Memorial Hall (1)    (potential capacity around 75 homes) Site CBI3– Land north of Memorial Hall (2)    (potential capacity around 60 homes) Site CBI4 – Land north of Fern Road (2) (potential    capacity around 30 homes)

 12 Yes – Yes – No all of but site only part of site Site CBI5 – Land north of Fern Road (1) (potential    capacity around 250 homes) Site CBI6 – Land to the north of Fern Road (3)    (potential capacity around 70 homes)

Any other location (please specify which)   



Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers. For any of the sites, this could include comments on the services and facilities required to support development and the design, mix and layout of development.

I support the proposed development of 250 new homes, see comments to Q18 above. I do not have sufficient data to support specific sites.

East Bridgford

Question 20: If greenfield land is allocated for housing development at East Bridgford, do you have a view on the total number of new homes that should be built up to 2028? If possible, please give reasons for your answer.

East Bridgford does not have all the facilities of some of the larger surrounding settlements. On this basis, I believe if new housing is to be considered, it needs to be sufficient (at least 50% of the proposed additional housing) to justify further development of local facilities. I do not support any further development because it would be constrained by the poor local transport infrastructure (the lack of river crossings, the lack of a suitable rail network and the extremely overcrowded nature of the existing highway infrastructure).

Question 21: Do you support housing development at:

 Yes – Yes – No all of but site only part of site

 13 Yes – Yes – No all of but site only part of site Site EBR1 – Land behind Kirk Hill (east) (potential    capacity around 15 homes) Site EBR2 – Land behind Kirk Hill (west) (potential    capacity around 70 homes) Site EBR3 – Land north of Kneeton Road (1)    (potential capacity around 95 homes) Site EBR4 – Land north of Kneeton Road (2)    (potential capacity around 150 homes)

Site EBR5 – Land at Lammas Lane (potential    capacity around 40 homes) Site EBR6 – Closes Side Lane (west) (potential    capacity around 20 homes) Site EBR7 – Closes Side Lane (east) (potential    capacity around 20 homes) Site EBR8 – Land to the north of Butt Lane    (potential capacity around 20 homes) Site EBR9 – Land to the south of Springdale Lane    (potential capacity around 30 homes)

Any other location (please specify which)   



Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers. For any of the sites, this could include comments on the services and facilities required to support development and the design, mix and layout of development.

I support the proposed development of 250 new homes, see comments to Q20 above. I do not have sufficient data to support specific sites

Gotham

 14 Question 22: If greenfield land is allocated for housing development at Gotham, do you have a view on the total number of new homes that should be built up to 2028? If possible, please give reasons for your answer.

Gotham does not have all the facilities of some of the larger surrounding settlements. On this basis, I believe if new housing is to be considered, it needs to be sufficient (at least 50% of the proposed additional housing) to justify further development of local facilities. I do not support any further development because it would be constrained by the poor local transport infrastructure (the lack of river crossings, the lack of a suitable rail network and the extremely overcrowded nature of the existing highway infrastructure).

Question 23: Do you support housing development at:

 Yes – Yes – No all of but site only part of site Site GOT1 – Land to the rear of former British    Legion (potential capacity around 25 homes) Site GOT2 – Land north of Kegworth Road/Home    Farm (west) (potential capacity around 50 homes) Site GOT3 – Land north of Kegworth Road/Home    Farm (east) (potential capacity around 20 homes) Site GOT4 – The Orchards, Leake Road (potential    capacity around 50 homes)

Site GOT5 – Land east of Gypsum Way/The    Orchards (potential capacity around 200 homes) Site GOT6 – East of Leake Road (potential capacity    around 45 homes) Site GOT7 – Land east of Hill Road (potential    capacity around 160 homes) Site GOT8 – Land south of Moor Lane (potential    capacity around 15 homes)

Any other location (please specify which)   



 15 Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers. For any of the sites, this could include comments on the services and facilities required to support development and the design, mix and layout of development.

I support the proposed development of 250 new homes, see comments to Q22 above. I do not have sufficient data to support specific sites.

Sutton Bonington

Question 24: If greenfield land is allocated for housing development at Sutton Bonington, do you have a view on the total number of new homes that should be built up to 2028? If possible, please give reasons for your answer.

140

Question 25: Do you support housing development at:

 Yes – Yes – No all of but site only part of site Site SUT1 – Land north of Park Lane (potential Y   capacity around 140 homes) Any other location (please specify which)   



Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers. For any of the sites, this could include comments on the services and facilities required to support development and the design, mix and layout of development.

Clickheretoentertext.

 16 Tollerton

Question 26: If greenfield land is allocated for housing development at Tollerton, do you have a view on the total number of new homes that should be built up to 2028? If possible, please give reasons for your answer.

Given the existing approved new housing adjacent to Tollerton, I do not support further development because it would adversely impact coalescence with adjacent settlements.

Question 27: Do you support housing development at:

 Yes – Yes – No all of but site only part of site Site TOL1 – Land at Burnside Grove (potential   N capacity around 180 homes) Site TOL2 – West of Tollerton Lane and North of   N Medina Drive (potential capacity around 360 homes) Site TOL3 – Land east of Tollerton Lane (potential   N capacity around 50 homes) Any other location (please specify which)   N



Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers. For any of the sites, this could include comments on the services and facilities required to support development and the design, mix and layout of development.

Given the existing approved new housing adjacent to Tollerton, I do not support further development because it would adversely impact coalescence with adjacent settlements.

 17 Other issues

Question 28: Please identify any matters related to housing development which are not covered here or elsewhere.

Clickheretoentertext.

Please return by 5pm on Friday 31 March 2017 to:

Planning Policy Rushcliffe Borough Council Rushcliffe Arena Rugby Road Nottingham. NG2 7YG

Or to: [email protected]

Please note that your comments can be directly entered through the Borough Council’s online consultation system: http://rushcliffe-consult.objective.co.uk/portal

Data protection: The details you submit to the Borough Council will be used in the Local Plan preparation and associated processes. Please note that comments and personal details cannot be treated as confidential and may be made available for public inspection both physically and/or through the Borough Council’s website. We may publish all names, addresses and comments received, including on our website. We will use our best endeavours to not publish signatures, personal telephone numbers or email addresses.

 18 Rushcliffe Green Belt Review Part 2 (b) – Additional Sites (Draft for consultation) Response Form

Your Details Agent details (where applicable)

Richard Elliott Name 6 Sutherland Drive Address West Bridgford Nottingham NG2 7BX

E-mail 1. Green Belt Review Part 2 (b): Additional sites review

Do you agree or disagree with the review of the additional Green Belt sites around Rushcliffe’s Key Settlements and other villages against the purposes for including land within the Green Belt? If you disagree, state why the assessment is incorrect and provide your Green Belt score and conclusions on Green Belt importance. Your comment should focus on the land’s performance against Green Belt purposes.

Generally, yes. However, any review of Green Belt sites cannot be considered in isolation. One of the many influencing factors on potential housing sites is the transport infrastructure and its limitations for sites south of the River Trent, in particular the lack of river crossings, the lack of a suitable rail network and the extremely overcrowded nature of the existing highway infrastructure. In considering the Local Plan Part 2 Further Options Consultation, I have therefore considered transport in particular when providing my responses.

(please continue on a separate sheet if necessary) 2. Please provide any others comments you wish to make

One of the many reasons why I support the Council’s view that the strategic housing allocation at Melton Road, Edwalton (together with the other strategic allocations South of Clifton and East of Gamston/North of Tollerton) should not be expanded as part of resolving the current (predicted) housing shortfall is that it is critical that the land to the west of the Local Nature Reserve (LNR) of Sharphill Wood remains green belt; this land is the last remaining link for wild life between Sharphill Wood and Old Road and the woodland south of Wilford Cemetry. Building on this land would sever this link, dramatically affecting the LNR’s biodiversity and the value of the amenity to the local population.

(please continue on a separate sheet if necessary)

Please return by 5pm 31 March 2017 to: Planning Policy Rushcliffe Borough Council Rushcliffe Arena Rugby Road West Bridgford Nottingham NG2 7YG

Or to: [email protected]

Please note that your comments can be directly entered through the Borough Council’s online consultation system: http://rushcliffe-consult.objective.co.uk/portal

Data protection: The details you submit to the Borough Council will be used in the Local Plan preparation and associated processes. Please note that comments and personal details cannot be treated as confidential and may be made available for public inspection both physically and/or through the Borough Council’s website. We may publish all names, addresses and comments received, including on our website. We will use our best endeavours to not publish signatures, personal telephone numbers or email addresses. Elwell 1072605 Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 2: Land and Planning Policies – Further Options

Response Form

Please return by 5pm on Friday 31 March 2017 to: Planning Policy, Rushcliffe Borough Council Rushcliffe Arena, Rugby Road Nottingham. NG2 7YG Or to: [email protected]

Please note that your comments can be directly entered through the Borough Council’s online consultation system: http://rushcliffe-consult.objective.co.uk/portal

Your Details Agent details (where applicable)

John Elwell Name Clickheretoentertext.

36 Bisham Drive, NG2 6LT Address Clickheretoentertext.

J E-mail Clickheretoentertext.

Housing Development

Housing Land Supply

Question 1: Do you agree with the Council’s assessment of the present housing supply situation and that enough land will need to be identified by Local Plan Part 2 to accommodate around 2,000 new homes?

Yes …………………………………………………………………………….. 

No ……………………………………………………………………………. 

Don’t ……………………………………………………………………………. 3 know

1 Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your response.

Clickheretoentertext.

Housing Sites adjacent to the Main Urban Area

Question 2: Do you agree with the Council’s view that none of the three strategic allocations (Melton Road, Edwalton; South of Clifton; and East of Gamston/North of Tollerton) should be expanded as part of resolving the current shortfall in the amount of land that is available for housing development over the next few years?

Yes …………………………………………………………………………….. 3

No ……………………………………………………………………………. 

Don’t ……………………………………………………………………………  know …..

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your response.

The Edwalton allocation is in my opinion already too large, and any addition would further erode the valuable green space in and around Sharphill Wood, which is the main green space remaining inside the ring road (A52).

Question 3: Do you support housing development at:

 Yes – Yes – No all of but site only part of site Site HOL1 – Simkins Farm, Adbolton Lane, West    Bridgford (potential capacity around 40 homes) Any other location (please specify which)   



 2 Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers. This could include comments on the services and facilities required to support development and the design, mix and layout of development.

Clickheretoentertext.

Housing Development at the 'Key Settlements'

Bingham

Question 4: Do you agree that Local Plan Part 2 should not allocate further greenfield land for housing development at Bingham in the plan period (up to 2028)?

Yes …………………………………………………………………………….. 

No ……………………………………………………………………………. 

Don’t ……………………………………………………………………………  know …..

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your response.

Clickheretoentertext.

Cotgrave

Question 5: Do you agree that Local Plan Part 2 should allocate greenfield land for housing development at Cotgrave in the plan period (up to 2028)?

Yes …………………………………………………………………………….. 

No ……………………………………………………………………………. 

Don’t ……………………………………………………………………………  know …..

 3 Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your response.

Clickheretoentertext.

Question 6: Do you have a view on the total number of new homes that should be accommodated on greenfield sites at Cotgrave up to 2028? If possible, please give reasons for your answer.

Clickheretoentertext.

Question 7: Do you support housing development at:

Yes – Yes – No all of but site only part of site Site COT1 – Land rear of Mill Lane/The Old Park    (potential capacity around 240 homes) Site COT2 – Land at Main Road (potential capacity    around 50 homes) Site COT3 – Land rear of and to the west of Main    Road (potential capacity around 125 homes)

Site COT4 Land off Woodgate Lane (potential    capacity around 80 homes)

Site COT5 – Bakers Hollow (potential capacity    around 60 homes)

Site COT6 – The Brickyard, Owthorpe Road    (potential capacity around 100 homes)

Site COT7– Land behind Firdale (2) (potential    capacity around 65 homes)

4 Yes – Yes – No all of but site only part of site Site COT8 – Land behind Firdale (potential capacity    around 95 homes)

Site COT9 – Land south of Hollygate Lane (1)    (potential capacity around 140 homes)

Site COT10 – Land south of Hollygate Lane (2)    (potential capacity around 40 homes)

Site COT11 – Land south of Hollygate Lane (3)    (potential capacity around 250 homes )

Site COT12– Land south of Plumtree Lane    (potential capacity around 250 homes)

Any other location (please specify which)   

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers. This could include comments on the services and facilities required to support development and the design, mix and layout of development.

Clickheretoentertext.

East Leake

Question 8: Do you agree that, apart from those eight sites that already have planning permission for housing development (sites EL1 to EL8 as shown at Figure 5), further greenfield land should not be allocated for housing development at East Leake?

Yes …………………………………………………………………………….. 

No ……………………………………………………………………………. 

5 Don’t ……………………………………………………………………………..  know

Please provide any comments you wish to make in support of your response.

Clickheretoentertext.

Question 9: Do you support housing development at:

 Yes – Yes – No all of but site only part of site Site EL9 –Land south of West Leake Road    (potential capacity around 50 homes) Site EL10 – Land north of West Leake Road    (potential capacity around 75 homes) Site EL11 – Brook Furlong Farm(potential capacity    around 70 homes) Site EL12 – Land off Rempstone Road (north)    (potential capacity around 235 homes)

Site EL13 – Land off Rempstone Road (south)    (potential capacity around 120 homes) Site EL14 – Land north of Lantern Lane (2)    (potential capacity around 360 homes)

Any other location (please specify which)   



Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers. For any of the sites, this could include comments on the services and facilities required to support development and the design, mix and layout of development.

Clickheretoentertext.

 6 Keyworth

Question 10: Do you have a view on the total number of new homes that should be built on greenfield sites at Keyworth up to 2028? If possible, please give reasons for your answer.

Clickheretoentertext.

Question 11: Do you support housing development at:

 Yes – Yes – No all of but site only part of site Site KEY1 – Land east of Willow Brook (potential    capacity around 40 homes) Site KEY2 – Land off Selby Lane and Willowbrook    (potential capacity around 15 homes) Site KEY3 – Land south of Selby Lane (potential    capacity around 60 homes) Site KEY4 – Land off Nicker Hill (potential capacity    around 450 homes)

Site KEY5 – Hill Top Farm, Platt Lane (1) (potential    capacity around 50 homes) Site KEY6 – Hill Top Farm, Platt Lane (2) (potential    capacity around 80 homes)

Site KEY7 – Shelton Farm, Platt Lane (potential    capacity around 160 homes)

Site KEY8 – Land between Platt Lane and Station    Road (potential capacity around 180 homes)

Site KEY9 – Land north of Debdale Lane (1)    (potential capacity around 110 homes)

Site KEY10 – Land south of Debdale Lane (1)    (potential capacity around 230 homes)

 7 Yes – Yes – No all of but site only part of site Site KEY11 – Land south of Debdale Lane (2)    (potential capacity around 200 homes)

Site KEY12 – Land north of Debdale Lane (2)    (potential capacity around 160 homes)

Site KEY13 – Hillside Farm (potential capacity    around 60 homes)

Site KEY14 – Land south of Bunny Lane (potential    capacity around 410 homes)

Any other location (please specify which)   



Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers. For any of the sites, this could include comments on the services and facilities required to support development and the design, mix and layout of development.

Clickheretoentertext.

Radcliffe on Trent

Question 12: Do you have a view on the total number of new homes that should be built on greenfield sites at Radcliffe on Trent up to 2028? If possible, please give reasons for your answer.

Clickheretoentertext.

Question 13: Do you support housing development at:



 8 Yes – Yes – No all of but site only part of site Site RAD11 – North of Holme Lane (potential    capacity around 115 homes) Site RAD12 – Land to the north of Shelford Road    (potential capacity around 180 homes)

Any other location (please specify which)   



Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers. For any of the sites, this could include comments on the services and facilities required to support development and the design, mix and layout of development.

Clickheretoentertext.

Ruddington

Question 14: Do you have a view on the total number of new homes that should be accommodated on greenfield sites at Ruddington up to 2028? If possible, please give reasons for your answer.

Clickheretoentertext.

Question 15: Do you support housing development at:

 Yes – Yes – No all of but site only part of site Site RUD11 – Old Loughborough Road (potential    capacity around 40 homes)

 9 Yes – Yes – No all of but site only part of site Site RUD12 – Land to the east side of    Loughborough Road (potential capacity around 60 homes) Site RUD13 – Land opposite Mere Way (potential    capacity around 170 homes) Site RUD14 – Croft House (potential capacity    around 25 homes)

Any other location (please specify which)   



Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers. For any of the sites, this could include comments on the services and facilities required to support development and the design, mix and layout of development.

Clickheretoentertext.

Housing development at ‘other villages’

Question 16: Do you agree that, apart from the site to the south of Abbey Road, Aslockton with planning permission for up to 75 new homes, Local Plan Part 2 should not allocate greenfield land for housing development at Aslockton and Whatton in the plan period (up to 2028)?

Yes …………………………………………………………………………….. 

No ……………………………………………………………………………. 

Don’t ……………………………………………………………………………  know …..

Please provide any comments you wish to make in support of your response.

Clickheretoentertext.  10 Question 17: Should Local Plan Part 2 identify the following ‘other’ villages as suitable for a limited level of housing growth on greenfileld sites?

 Don’t Yes No know

Cropwell Bishop   

East Bridgford   

Gotham   

Sutton Bonington   

Tollerton   

Any other settlement (please specify which)   



Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers.

Clickheretoentertext.

Cropwell Bishop

Question 18: If greenfield land is allocated for housing development at Cropwell Bishop, do you have a view on the total number of new homes that should be built up to 2028? If possible, please give reasons for your answer.

Clickheretoentertext.

 11 Question 19: Do you support housing development at:

Yes – Yes – No all of but site only part of site Site CBI1 – Land to the south of Nottingham Road    and east of Kinoulton Road (potential capacity around 30 homes) Site CBI2 – Land north of Memorial Hall (1)    (potential capacity around 75 homes) Site CBI3– Land north of Memorial Hall (2)    (potential capacity around 60 homes) Site CBI4 – Land north of Fern Road (2) (potential    capacity around 30 homes)

Site CBI5 – Land north of Fern Road (1) (potential    capacity around 250 homes) Site CBI6 – Land to the north of Fern Road (3)    (potential capacity around 70 homes)

Any other location (please specify which)   

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers. For any of the sites, this could include comments on the services and facilities required to support development and the design, mix and layout of development.

Clickheretoentertext.

East Bridgford

Question 20: If greenfield land is allocated for housing development at East

12 Bridgford, do you have a view on the total number of new homes that should be built up to 2028? If possible, please give reasons for your answer.

Clickheretoentertext.

Question 21: Do you support housing development at:

 Yes – Yes – No all of but site only part of site Site EBR1 – Land behind Kirk Hill (east) (potential    capacity around 15 homes) Site EBR2 – Land behind Kirk Hill (west) (potential    capacity around 70 homes) Site EBR3 – Land north of Kneeton Road (1)    (potential capacity around 95 homes) Site EBR4 – Land north of Kneeton Road (2)    (potential capacity around 150 homes)

Site EBR5 – Land at Lammas Lane (potential    capacity around 40 homes) Site EBR6 – Closes Side Lane (west) (potential    capacity around 20 homes) Site EBR7 – Closes Side Lane (east) (potential    capacity around 20 homes) Site EBR8 – Land to the north of Butt Lane    (potential capacity around 20 homes) Site EBR9 – Land to the south of Springdale Lane    (potential capacity around 30 homes)

Any other location (please specify which)   



Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers. For any of the sites, this could include comments on the services and facilities required to support development and the design, mix and layout of development.

 13 Clickheretoentertext.

Gotham

Question 22: If greenfield land is allocated for housing development at Gotham, do you have a view on the total number of new homes that should be built up to 2028? If possible, please give reasons for your answer.

Clickheretoentertext.

Question 23: Do you support housing development at:

 Yes – Yes – No all of but site only part of site Site GOT1 – Land to the rear of former British    Legion (potential capacity around 25 homes) Site GOT2 – Land north of Kegworth Road/Home    Farm (west) (potential capacity around 50 homes) Site GOT3 – Land north of Kegworth Road/Home    Farm (east) (potential capacity around 20 homes) Site GOT4 – The Orchards, Leake Road (potential    capacity around 50 homes)

Site GOT5 – Land east of Gypsum Way/The    Orchards (potential capacity around 200 homes) Site GOT6 – East of Leake Road (potential capacity    around 45 homes) Site GOT7 – Land east of Hill Road (potential    capacity around 160 homes)

 14 Yes – Yes – No all of but site only part of site Site GOT8 – Land south of Moor Lane (potential    capacity around 15 homes)

Any other location (please specify which)   

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers. For any of the sites, this could include comments on the services and facilities required to support development and the design, mix and layout of development.

Clickheretoentertext.

Sutton Bonington

Question 24: If greenfield land is allocated for housing development at Sutton Bonington, do you have a view on the total number of new homes that should be built up to 2028? If possible, please give reasons for your answer.

Clickheretoentertext.

Question 25: Do you support housing development at:

Yes – Yes – No all of but site only part of site Site SUT1 – Land north of Park Lane (potential    capacity around 140 homes) Any other location (please specify which)   

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers. For any of the sites, this could include comments on the services and facilities required to

15 support development and the design, mix and layout of development.

Clickheretoentertext.

Tollerton

Question 26: If greenfield land is allocated for housing development at Tollerton, do you have a view on the total number of new homes that should be built up to 2028? If possible, please give reasons for your answer.

Clickheretoentertext.

Question 27: Do you support housing development at:

Yes – Yes – No all of but site only part of site Site TOL1 – Land at Burnside Grove (potential    capacity around 180 homes) Site TOL2 – West of Tollerton Lane and North of    Medina Drive (potential capacity around 360 homes) Site TOL3 – Land east of Tollerton Lane (potential    capacity around 50 homes) Any other location (please specify which)   

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers. For any of the sites, this could include comments on the services and facilities required to support development and the design, mix and layout of development.

16 Clickheretoentertext.

Other issues

Question 28: Please identify any matters related to housing development which are not covered here or elsewhere.

Clickheretoentertext.

Please return by 5pm on Friday 31 March 2017 to:

Planning Policy Rushcliffe Borough Council Rushcliffe Arena Rugby Road Nottingham. NG2 7YG

Or to: [email protected]

Please note that your comments can be directly entered through the Borough Council’s online consultation system: http://rushcliffe-consult.objective.co.uk/portal

Data protection: The details you submit to the Borough Council will be used in the Local Plan preparation and associated processes. Please note that comments and personal details cannot be treated as confidential and may be made available for public inspection both physically and/or through the Borough Council’s website. We may publish all names, addresses and comments received, including on our website. We will use our best endeavours to not publish signatures, personal telephone numbers or email addresses.

17 Etches P&J 1092659 Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 2: Land and Planning Policies – Further Options

Response Form

Please return by 5pm on Friday 31 March 2017 to: Planning Policy, Rushcliffe Borough Council Rushcliffe Arena, Rugby Road Nottingham. NG2 7YG Or to: [email protected]

Please note that your comments can be directly entered through the Borough Council’s online consultation system: http://rushcliffe-consult.objective.co.uk/portal

Your Details Agent details (where applicable)

Patrick & Jacqui Etches Name Clickheretoentertext.

Clickheretoentertext. Address 2A Medina Drive Tollerton NG12 4EP

Clickheretoentertext. E-mail

Housing Development

Housing Land Supply

Question 1: Do you agree with the Council’s assessment of the present housing supply situation and that enough land will need to be identified by Local Plan Part 2 to accommodate around 2,000 new homes?

Yes …………………………………………………………………………….. 

No ……………………………………………………………………………. 3

Don’t …………………………………………………………………………….  know

1 Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your response.

The no.of homes required has already been identified and planning approved for housing at the Gamston/Lings Bar site – why not persue that avenue and build the housing on that site rather than expand into greenfield sites?

Housing Sites adjacent to the Main Urban Area

Question 2: Do you agree with the Council’s view that none of the three strategic allocations (Melton Road, Edwalton; South of Clifton; and East of Gamston/North of Tollerton) should be expanded as part of resolving the current shortfall in the amount of land that is available for housing development over the next few years?

Yes …………………………………………………………………………….. 

No ……………………………………………………………………………. 3

Don’t ……………………………………………………………………………  know …..

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your response.

Clickheretoentertext.

Question 3: Do you support housing development at:

Yes – Yes – No all of but site only part of site Site HOL1 – Simkins Farm, Adbolton Lane, West    Bridgford (potential capacity around 40 homes) Any other location (please specify which)   

2 Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers. This could include comments on the services and facilities required to support development and the design, mix and layout of development.

Clickheretoentertext.

Housing Development at the 'Key Settlements'

Bingham

Question 4: Do you agree that Local Plan Part 2 should not allocate further greenfield land for housing development at Bingham in the plan period (up to 2028)?

Yes …………………………………………………………………………….. 

No ……………………………………………………………………………. 

Don’t ……………………………………………………………………………  know …..

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your response.

Clickheretoentertext.

Cotgrave

Question 5: Do you agree that Local Plan Part 2 should allocate greenfield land for housing development at Cotgrave in the plan period (up to 2028)?

Yes …………………………………………………………………………….. 

No ……………………………………………………………………………. 

Don’t ……………………………………………………………………………  know …..

 3 Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your response.

Clickheretoentertext.

Question 6: Do you have a view on the total number of new homes that should be accommodated on greenfield sites at Cotgrave up to 2028? If possible, please give reasons for your answer.

Clickheretoentertext.

Question 7: Do you support housing development at:

Yes – Yes – No all of but site only part of site Site COT1 – Land rear of Mill Lane/The Old Park    (potential capacity around 240 homes) Site COT2 – Land at Main Road (potential capacity    around 50 homes) Site COT3 – Land rear of and to the west of Main    Road (potential capacity around 125 homes)

Site COT4 Land off Woodgate Lane (potential    capacity around 80 homes)

Site COT5 – Bakers Hollow (potential capacity    around 60 homes)

Site COT6 – The Brickyard, Owthorpe Road    (potential capacity around 100 homes)

Site COT7– Land behind Firdale (2) (potential    capacity around 65 homes)

4 Yes – Yes – No all of but site only part of site Site COT8 – Land behind Firdale (potential capacity    around 95 homes)

Site COT9 – Land south of Hollygate Lane (1)    (potential capacity around 140 homes)

Site COT10 – Land south of Hollygate Lane (2)    (potential capacity around 40 homes)

Site COT11 – Land south of Hollygate Lane (3)    (potential capacity around 250 homes )

Site COT12– Land south of Plumtree Lane    (potential capacity around 250 homes)

Any other location (please specify which)   



Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers. This could include comments on the services and facilities required to support development and the design, mix and layout of development.

Clickheretoentertext.

East Leake

Question 8: Do you agree that, apart from those eight sites that already have planning permission for housing development (sites EL1 to EL8 as shown at Figure 5), further greenfield land should not be allocated for housing development at East Leake?

Yes …………………………………………………………………………….. 

No ……………………………………………………………………………. 

 5 Don’t ……………………………………………………………………………..  know

Please provide any comments you wish to make in support of your response.

Clickheretoentertext.

Question 9: Do you support housing development at:

Yes – Yes – No all of but site only part of site Site EL9 –Land south of West Leake Road    (potential capacity around 50 homes) Site EL10 – Land north of West Leake Road    (potential capacity around 75 homes) Site EL11 – Brook Furlong Farm(potential capacity    around 70 homes) Site EL12 – Land off Rempstone Road (north)    (potential capacity around 235 homes)

Site EL13 – Land off Rempstone Road (south)    (potential capacity around 120 homes) Site EL14 – Land north of Lantern Lane (2)    (potential capacity around 360 homes)

Any other location (please specify which)   

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers. For any of the sites, this could include comments on the services and facilities required to support development and the design, mix and layout of development.

Clickheretoentertext.

6 Keyworth

Question 10: Do you have a view on the total number of new homes that should be built on greenfield sites at Keyworth up to 2028? If possible, please give reasons for your answer.

Clickheretoentertext.

Question 11: Do you support housing development at:

 Yes – Yes – No all of but site only part of site Site KEY1 – Land east of Willow Brook (potential    capacity around 40 homes) Site KEY2 – Land off Selby Lane and Willowbrook    (potential capacity around 15 homes) Site KEY3 – Land south of Selby Lane (potential    capacity around 60 homes) Site KEY4 – Land off Nicker Hill (potential capacity    around 450 homes)

Site KEY5 – Hill Top Farm, Platt Lane (1) (potential    capacity around 50 homes) Site KEY6 – Hill Top Farm, Platt Lane (2) (potential    capacity around 80 homes)

Site KEY7 – Shelton Farm, Platt Lane (potential    capacity around 160 homes)

Site KEY8 – Land between Platt Lane and Station    Road (potential capacity around 180 homes)

Site KEY9 – Land north of Debdale Lane (1)    (potential capacity around 110 homes)

Site KEY10 – Land south of Debdale Lane (1)    (potential capacity around 230 homes)

 7 Yes – Yes – No all of but site only part of site Site KEY11 – Land south of Debdale Lane (2)    (potential capacity around 200 homes)

Site KEY12 – Land north of Debdale Lane (2)    (potential capacity around 160 homes)

Site KEY13 – Hillside Farm (potential capacity    around 60 homes)

Site KEY14 – Land south of Bunny Lane (potential    capacity around 410 homes)

Any other location (please specify which)   



Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers. For any of the sites, this could include comments on the services and facilities required to support development and the design, mix and layout of development.

Clickheretoentertext.

Radcliffe on Trent

Question 12: Do you have a view on the total number of new homes that should be built on greenfield sites at Radcliffe on Trent up to 2028? If possible, please give reasons for your answer.

Clickheretoentertext.

Question 13: Do you support housing development at:



 8 Yes – Yes – No all of but site only part of site Site RAD11 – North of Holme Lane (potential    capacity around 115 homes) Site RAD12 – Land to the north of Shelford Road    (potential capacity around 180 homes)

Any other location (please specify which)   



Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers. For any of the sites, this could include comments on the services and facilities required to support development and the design, mix and layout of development.

Clickheretoentertext.

Ruddington

Question 14: Do you have a view on the total number of new homes that should be accommodated on greenfield sites at Ruddington up to 2028? If possible, please give reasons for your answer.

Clickheretoentertext.

Question 15: Do you support housing development at:

 Yes – Yes – No all of but site only part of site Site RUD11 – Old Loughborough Road (potential    capacity around 40 homes)

 9 Yes – Yes – No all of but site only part of site Site RUD12 – Land to the east side of    Loughborough Road (potential capacity around 60 homes) Site RUD13 – Land opposite Mere Way (potential    capacity around 170 homes) Site RUD14 – Croft House (potential capacity    around 25 homes)

Any other location (please specify which)   



Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers. For any of the sites, this could include comments on the services and facilities required to support development and the design, mix and layout of development.

Clickheretoentertext.

Housing development at ‘other villages’

Question 16: Do you agree that, apart from the site to the south of Abbey Road, Aslockton with planning permission for up to 75 new homes, Local Plan Part 2 should not allocate greenfield land for housing development at Aslockton and Whatton in the plan period (up to 2028)?

Yes …………………………………………………………………………….. 

No ……………………………………………………………………………. 

Don’t ……………………………………………………………………………  know …..

Please provide any comments you wish to make in support of your response.

Clickheretoentertext.  10 Question 17: Should Local Plan Part 2 identify the following ‘other’ villages as suitable for a limited level of housing growth on greenfileld sites?

 Don’t Yes No know

Cropwell Bishop   

East Bridgford   

Gotham   

Sutton Bonington   

Tollerton   

Any other settlement (please specify which)   



Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers.

Clickheretoentertext.

Cropwell Bishop

Question 18: If greenfield land is allocated for housing development at Cropwell Bishop, do you have a view on the total number of new homes that should be built up to 2028? If possible, please give reasons for your answer.

Clickheretoentertext.

 11 Question 19: Do you support housing development at:

 Yes – Yes – No all of but site only part of site Site CBI1 – Land to the south of Nottingham Road    and east of Kinoulton Road (potential capacity around 30 homes) Site CBI2 – Land north of Memorial Hall (1)    (potential capacity around 75 homes) Site CBI3– Land north of Memorial Hall (2)    (potential capacity around 60 homes) Site CBI4 – Land north of Fern Road (2) (potential    capacity around 30 homes)

Site CBI5 – Land north of Fern Road (1) (potential    capacity around 250 homes) Site CBI6 – Land to the north of Fern Road (3)    (potential capacity around 70 homes)

Any other location (please specify which)   



Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers. For any of the sites, this could include comments on the services and facilities required to support development and the design, mix and layout of development.

Clickheretoentertext.

East Bridgford

Question 20: If greenfield land is allocated for housing development at East

 12 Bridgford, do you have a view on the total number of new homes that should be built up to 2028? If possible, please give reasons for your answer.

Clickheretoentertext.

Question 21: Do you support housing development at:

 Yes – Yes – No all of but site only part of site Site EBR1 – Land behind Kirk Hill (east) (potential    capacity around 15 homes) Site EBR2 – Land behind Kirk Hill (west) (potential    capacity around 70 homes) Site EBR3 – Land north of Kneeton Road (1)    (potential capacity around 95 homes) Site EBR4 – Land north of Kneeton Road (2)    (potential capacity around 150 homes)

Site EBR5 – Land at Lammas Lane (potential    capacity around 40 homes) Site EBR6 – Closes Side Lane (west) (potential    capacity around 20 homes) Site EBR7 – Closes Side Lane (east) (potential    capacity around 20 homes) Site EBR8 – Land to the north of Butt Lane    (potential capacity around 20 homes) Site EBR9 – Land to the south of Springdale Lane    (potential capacity around 30 homes)

Any other location (please specify which)   



Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers. For any of the sites, this could include comments on the services and facilities required to support development and the design, mix and layout of development.

 13 Clickheretoentertext.

Gotham

Question 22: If greenfield land is allocated for housing development at Gotham, do you have a view on the total number of new homes that should be built up to 2028? If possible, please give reasons for your answer.

Clickheretoentertext.

Question 23: Do you support housing development at:

 Yes – Yes – No all of but site only part of site Site GOT1 – Land to the rear of former British    Legion (potential capacity around 25 homes) Site GOT2 – Land north of Kegworth Road/Home    Farm (west) (potential capacity around 50 homes) Site GOT3 – Land north of Kegworth Road/Home    Farm (east) (potential capacity around 20 homes) Site GOT4 – The Orchards, Leake Road (potential    capacity around 50 homes)

Site GOT5 – Land east of Gypsum Way/The    Orchards (potential capacity around 200 homes) Site GOT6 – East of Leake Road (potential capacity    around 45 homes) Site GOT7 – Land east of Hill Road (potential    capacity around 160 homes)

 14 Yes – Yes – No all of but site only part of site Site GOT8 – Land south of Moor Lane (potential    capacity around 15 homes)

Any other location (please specify which)   



Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers. For any of the sites, this could include comments on the services and facilities required to support development and the design, mix and layout of development.

Clickheretoentertext.

Sutton Bonington

Question 24: If greenfield land is allocated for housing development at Sutton Bonington, do you have a view on the total number of new homes that should be built up to 2028? If possible, please give reasons for your answer.

Clickheretoentertext.

Question 25: Do you support housing development at:

 Yes – Yes – No all of but site only part of site Site SUT1 – Land north of Park Lane (potential    capacity around 140 homes) Any other location (please specify which)   



Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers. For any of the sites, this could include comments on the services and facilities required to  15 support development and the design, mix and layout of development.

Clickheretoentertext.

Tollerton

Question 26: If greenfield land is allocated for housing development at Tollerton, do you have a view on the total number of new homes that should be built up to 2028? If possible, please give reasons for your answer.

The current situation with regard to the traffic and lack of amenities in Tollerton makes ANY further building of homes unsustainable.

Question 27: Do you support housing development at:

 Yes – Yes – No all of but site only part of site Site TOL1 – Land at Burnside Grove (potential   3 capacity around 180 homes) Site TOL2 – West of Tollerton Lane and North of   3 Medina Drive (potential capacity around 360 homes) Site TOL3 – Land east of Tollerton Lane (potential   3 capacity around 50 homes) Any other location (please specify which)   3



Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers. For any of the sites, this could include comments on the services and facilities required to

 16 support development and the design, mix and layout of development.

There are currently no facilities in Tollerton (i.e. shops, Doctors, bus service to serve the entire village) therefore any futurehousing development would need to receive far greater provision of facilities than developers would be likely to provide.

Other issues

Question 28: Please identify any matters related to housing development which are not covered here or elsewhere.

In the case of Tollerton, over the past 2 years residents have had to deal with considerable inconvenience on the roads through the village, in particular Tollerton Lane to Lings Bar due to the development of the Spires Hospital and latterly the demolition of the airport buildings to make way for a Business Park: further inconvenience has been caused due to the roadworks at the Wheatcroft Island due to the housing developments in that area. It would seem totally unfair for Tollerton to once again be subjected to major upheaval on the already conjested roads should further developments be allowed in the village: and of course any further developments would inevitably mean increases in road traffic which Tollerton Lane in particular would be unable to deal with. There is also concern about the provision of schooling in the village, as there is no possibility of the school being increased in size.

Please return by 5pm on Friday 31 March 2017 to:

Planning Policy Rushcliffe Borough Council Rushcliffe Arena Rugby Road Nottingham. NG2 7YG

Or to: [email protected]

Please note that your comments can be directly entered through the Borough Council’s online consultation system: http://rushcliffe-consult.objective.co.uk/portal

Data protection: The details you submit to the Borough Council will be used in the Local Plan preparation and associated processes. Please note that comments and personal details cannot be treated as confidential and may be made available for public inspection both physically and/or

17 through the Borough Council’s website. We may publish all names, addresses and comments received, including on our website. We will use our best endeavours to not publish signatures, personal telephone numbers or email addresses.

18 Comment.

Consultee Mr Geoffrey Evans (1071455)

Email Address

Address 27A Hall Drive Gotham Nottingham NG11 0JT

Event Name Local Plan Part 2 Further Options

Comment by Mr Geoffrey Evans

Comment ID 27

Response Date 21/03/17 10:48

Status Submitted

Submission Type Web

Version 0.1

Question 1

Do you agree with the Council’s assessment of Don't know the present housing supply situation and that enough land will need to be identified by Local Plan Part 2 to accommodate around 2,000 new homes?

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your response. Firstly RBC should force the commencement of the Clifton South development. If the Council underestimated their needs after that plan was passed why should we believe that their latest assessment is correct.

Question 2

Do you agree with the Council’s view that none of No the three strategic allocations (Melton Road, Edwalton; South of Clifton; and East of Gamston/North of Tollerton) should be expanded as part of resolving the current shortfall in the amount of land that is available for housing development over the next few years?

Question 3

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 1 There is, in our view, just one site on the edge of West Bridgford or Clifton that may be suitable for housing development and which could help tackle the current housing land supply shortfall. This is land at Simkins Farm at Adbolton Lane, West Bridgford, which has a potential capacity of around 40 homes.The site is shown on Figure 2 below. We would like to know whether or not you think it is suitable for housing development. A number of other sites on the edge of West Bridgford or Clifton have been ruled out at this stage because they are not considered capable of being developed. If, however, you think there are any sites that should be developed we would like to know. It may be useful to refer to our Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) which identifies all those sites that have been put forward by developers and others as potentially suitable for housing development – please see http://www.rushcliffe.gov.uk/planningpolicy/localplan/supportingstudies/strategiclandavailabilityassessment/ Do you support housing development at:

Site HOL1 - Simkins Farm, Adbolton Lane, West Yes - all of site Bridgford (potential capacity around 40 homes)

Question 4

Do you agree that Local Plan Part 2 should not No allocate further greenfield land for housing development at Bingham in the plan period (up to 2028)?

Question 5

Do you agree that Local Plan Part 2 should Don't know allocate greenfield land for housing development at Cotgrave in the plan period (up to 2028)?

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers. For any of the sites, this could include comments on the services and facilities required to support development and the design, mix and layout of development. It would be unfair for me to comment as I do not live in the area and therefore have no knowledge of any potential advantages or or otherwise.

Question 8

Do you agree that, apart from those eight sites Ye s that already have planning permission for housing development (sites EL1 to EL8 as shown below), further greenfield land should not be allocated for housing development at East Leake?

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers. For any of the sites, this could include comments on the services and facilities required to support development and the design, mix and layout of development. As far as I am aware East Leake's infrastructure is reaching capacity.

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers. For any of the sites, this could include comments on the services and facilities required to support development and the design, mix and layout of development. It would be unfair for me to comment as I do not live in the area and therefore have no knowledge of any potential advantages or or otherwise.

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 2 Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers. For any of the sites, this could include comments on the services and facilities required to support development and the design, mix and layout of development. It would be unfair for me to comment as I do not live in the area and therefore have no knowledge of any potential advantages or or otherwise.

Question 17

The villages which we have identified as potentially suitable to accommodate a limited level of housing development on greenfield sites are as follows: Cropwell Bishop; East Bridgford; Gotham; Sutton Bonington; and Tollerton These particular villages have been identified because, while they do not provide for a full range of facilities as is the case at West Bridgford and the key settlements, the basic level of facilities (e,g. schools; doctors’ surgery) that are available are deemed capable of potentially supporting a relatively limited level of housing growth without compromising the strategy set out in Local Plan Part 1 (Core Strategy) for the distribution of new housing. Should Local Plan Part 2 identify the following ‘other’ villages as suitable for a limited level of housing growth on greenfileld sites?

Cropwell Bishop Don't know

East Bridgford Don't know

Gotham No

Sutton Bonington Don't know

Tollerton Don't know

Any other settlement (please specify which) Don't know

Question 19

There are a number of sites that have been put forward by developers and others as potentially suitable for housing development at Cropwell Bishop. These are shown on the plan below. Most of the sites, if identified as suitable for housing development, should be able to deliver new homes relatively quickly and, therefore, contribute to resolving the current shortfall in the amount of land that is available for housing development over the next few years. We would like to know what you think about the suitability of each of those individual sites shown on the plan below and whether, in each case, the site should or should not be allocated for housing development. For any one site, it should be noted that there may be the option to develop only part of the site rather than its whole. The development of any one of these sites would be likely to result in impacts which require mitigation and also opportunities to improve the local area. We would need to consider the facilities and services required, the type and design of housing, and how the site would be accessed by car and public transport, amongst a number of other issues. Do you support housing development at:

Site CBI1 – Land to the south of Nottingham Road and east of Kinoulton Road (potential capacity around 30 homes)

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 3 Site CBI2 – Land north of Memorial Hall (1) (potential capacity around 75 homes)

Site CBI3– Land north of Memorial Hall (2) (potential capacity around 60 homes)

Site CBI4 – Land north of Fern Road (2) (potential capacity around 30 homes)

Site CBI5 – Land north of Fern Road (1) (potential capacity around 250 homes)

Site CBI6 – Land to the north of Fern Road (3) (potential capacity around 70 homes)

Any other location (please specify which)

Question 21

There are a number of sites that have been put forward by developers and others as potentially suitable for housing development at East Bridgford. These are shown on the plan below. Most of the sites, if identified as suitable for housing development, should be able to deliver new homes relatively quickly and, therefore, contribute to resolving the current shortfall in the amount of land that is available for housing development over the next few years. We would like to know what you think about the suitability of each of those individual sites shown on the plan below and whether, in each case, the site should or should not be allocated for housing development. For any one site, it should be noted that there may be the option to develop only part of the site rather than its whole. The development of any one of these sites would be likely to result in impacts which require mitigation and also opportunities to improve the local area. We would need to consider the facilities and services required, the type and design of housing, and how the site would be accessed by car and public transport, amongst a number of other issues. Do you support housing development at:

Site EBR1 – Land behind Kirk Hill (east) (potential capacity around 15 homes)

Site EBR2 – Land behind Kirk Hill (west) (potential capacity around 70 homes)

Site EBR3 – Land north of Kneeton Road (1) (potential capacity around 95 homes)

Site EBR4 – Land north of Kneeton Road (2) (potential capacity around 150 homes)

Site EBR5 – Land at Lammas Lane (potential capacity around 40 homes)

Site EBR6 – Closes Side Lane (west) (potential capacity around 20 homes)

Site EBR7 – Closes Side Lane (east) (potential capacity around 20 homes)

Site EBR8 – Land to the north of Butt Lane (potential capacity around 20 homes)

Site EBR9 – Land to the south of Springdale Lane (potential capacity around 30 homes)

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 4 Any other location (please specify which)

Question 23

There are a number of sites that have been put forward by developers and others as potentially suitable for housing development at Gotham. These are shown on the plan below. Most of the sites, if identified as suitable for housing development, should be able to deliver new homes relatively quickly and, therefore, contribute to resolving the current shortfall in the amount of land that is available for housing development over the next few years. We would like to know what you think about the suitability of each of those individual sites shown on the plan below and whether, in each case, the site should or should not be allocated for housing development. For any one site, it should be noted that there may be the option to develop only part of the site rather than its whole. The development of any one of these sites would be likely to result in impacts which require mitigation and also opportunities to improve the local area. We would need to consider the facilities and services required, the type and design of housing, and how the site would be accessed by car and public transport, amongst a number of other issues. Do you support housing development at:

Site GOT1 – Land to the rear of former British Yes - all of site Legion (potential capacity around 25 homes)

Site GOT2 – Land north of Kegworth Road/Home No Farm (west) (potential capacity around 50 homes)

Site GOT3 – Land north of Kegworth Road/Home No Farm (east) (potential capacity around 20 homes)

Site GOT4 – The Orchards, Leake Road (potential No capacity around 50 homes)

Site GOT5 – Land east of Gypsum Way/The No Orchards (potential capacity around 200 homes)

Site GOT6 – East of Leake Road (potential capacity No around 45 homes)

Site GOT7 – Land east of Hill Road (potential No capacity around 160 homes)

Site GOT8 – Land south of Moor Lane (potential No capacity around 15 homes)

Any other location (please specify which) No

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers. For any of the sites, this could include comments on the services and facilities required to support development and the design, mix and layout of development. The infrastructure is not available to support any number of new houses in Gotham. Our primary school is full, the doctor's surgery too small and road traffic is increasing.The traffic would of course be severely increaseed if further development takes place in East Leake. I feel very strongly that no further development should take place in Gotham until the planned South Clifton plan is completed. I am annoyed that after a three year fight to stop that plan, which we lost, NOTHING has been done yet. No work has started and the land lies empty. RBC should withdraw any developers applications if work is not commenced within a further 6 months. GOT2 &3 There is a covenant on this land.

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 5 GOT4 Access would be impossible to construction traffic. At certain times of the day it is difficult for cars to gain access to Kegworth Road and Hall Drive. GOT 6 is Church Land GOT 7 Floods and has 2 high voltage electricity pylons in situ.

Question 24

If greenfield land is allocated for housing development at Sutton Bonington, do you have a view on the total number of new homes that should be built up to 2028? If possible, please give reasons for your answer. It would be unfair for me to comment as I do not live in the area and therefore have no knowledge of any potential advantages or or otherwise.

Question 25

There is one site that has been put forward by a landowner as potentially suitable for housing development at Sutton Bonington. This is shown on the plan below. The site, if identified as suitable for housing development, should be able to deliver new homes relatively quickly and, therefore, contribute to resolving the current shortfall in the amount of land that is available for housing development over the next few years. We would like to know what you think about the suitability of the site shown on the plan below and whether it should or should not be allocated for housing development. For any one site, it should be noted that there may be the option to develop only part of the site rather than its whole. The development of the site would be likely to result in impacts which require mitigation and also opportunities to improve the local area. We would need to consider the facilities and services required, the type and design of housing, and how the site would be accessed by car and public transport, amongst a number of other issues. Do you support housing development at:

Site SUT1 – Land north of Park Lane (potential capacity around 140 homes)

Any other location (please specify which)

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers. For any of the sites, this could include comments on the services and facilities required to support development and the design, mix and layout of development. It would be unfair for me to comment as I do not live in the area and therefore have no knowledge of any potential advantages or or otherwise.

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 6

Farley 1075707

Elizabeth Beardsley

From: Clare Farley <> Sent: 30 March 2017 21:25 To: Localdevelopment Cc: Neil Clarke; tollertontabu@; Hubby James Farley Response Subject: to consultation re Tollerton housing proposals

Towhomitmayconcern,

IamwritingtoexpressmyconcernatRushcliffeBoroughCouncil'scurrentproposalsforfurtherhousing developmentinTollertonandCotgrave.IbelievethesewillhaveanegativeimpactontheareainwhichIlive.

The4,000newhousesallocatedjustnorthofTollertonis,inmyview,ahugelydisproportionatedevelopmentin suchcloseproximitytothevillage.ToexpectTollertontoincorporateafurther600housesundercurrentproposals seemsveryunfair.SurelythereareothersitesacrosstheBoroughthatcanͲandshouldͲtaketheirfairshare.

Theproposalstoremovethesitesfromthegreenbeltalsoconcernme. Thenewhouseswouldbevisiblefromafar,changingthelookandfeelofthisruralsetting.MyhusbandandImoved toCotgraveRoadthreeandahalfyearsago,andchosethelocationforthecountrysideandthequalityoflifeit wouldofferourgrowingfamily.MorehousingͲparticularlyinTollertonͲwillturntheareaintoaNottingham suburb(exactlywhatwemovedawayfrom),ratherthanaruralvillage,(whichiswhatappealedtousabout Tollertoninthefirstplace).

Iamalsoconcernedabouttheimpactmorehousingwillhaveontheexistinginfrastructure.Accessibilitytoless oversubscribedprimaryschoolsawayfromtheWestBridgford/Edwalton/Gamstonareaswasakeyfactorinour decisiontomove.IfearTollertonPrimarySchool(andotherlocalschools)won’tbeabletomeetdemandforplaces withadditionalhousesinthearea,norwillexistinglocalhealthserviceswhicharealreadyunderpressure.

TrafficisalreadyamajorissueinandaroundTollerton.Idonotseehowthecurrentroadnetworkwillcopewith morecars,whichwillinevitablycomewithnewhouseholds,sincethereisalreadyalackofalternativetransport options.

Roadsafetyisalsoaconcern.OnCotgraveRoadalone,manydriversdonotsticktothespeedlimits.Iamoften overtakenbyimpatientdriversasIslowdowntopullintomydrive.Iregularlyseecarstryingtoovertakethe numerouslorries,vans,tractorsandgroupsofcyclistswhoallfrequentlyusethelocalroadnetwork,andfearitwill onlybeamatteroftimebeforeanotheraccidentoccurs(CotgraveRoadhasseenthreefatalitiesinrecentyears). Thereiscurrentlyverylittleinplacebywayofspeedcamerasorspeedbumpstodeterrecklessdriversandmanage trafficflow.Thiswillonlygetworsewithmorehousesandmoreroadusers.

IhopethattheseviewsaregivendueconsiderationwhenRushcliffeBoroughCouncilmakesadecisionontheir currentproposals.Theremustbemoresuitable,alternativebrownfieldorlesssensitivegreenbeltsitestoconsider thanthoseidentifiedinTollerton/Cotgrave.

Yoursfaithfully,

MrsClareLFarley 14CotgraveRoad NG125NX

SentfrommyiPad

1 Ferguson C 771415

Richard Mapletoft

From: Colin Ferguson <> Sent: 29 March 2017 20:07 To: Localdevelopment Cc: cl New houses in Tollerton Subject:

YouaskedformyviewsontheproposeddevelopmentsinTollerton.IhavelivedatMedinaDrivefornearly36years ͲmychildrengrewuphereandwenttoTollertonSchoolandtheyhaveveryfondandaffectionatememoriesofthe place.Wemovedherebecauseoftherurallocation(mywifeisafarmer'sdaughter)andtheproximityto,but distinctseparationfromNottingham.Thevillagehasalwayshaditsownidentityandcharacterandwedon'twantit swallowedupbygreaterNottingham. Idon'townmyviewandIacceptthatIdon'thavetherighttoenjoyit,butIurgeyoutothinkhardbeforeyou destroyanotherpieceofbeautifulagriculturalland.Withthecurrentdevelopmentattheairport,thetraffic situationisalreadycritical.Tollertonschoolisoversubscribed;wherewillnewchildrengo? Theproposeddevelopmentseemstobearesponsetodelaystothealreadyagreedhousingdevelopmentnearthe airport.Thenewsitemaybeavailablequickly,butwhat'stherush? ColinFerguson 68,MedinaDrive. 01159375056

SentfrommyiPad

1 Ferguson M 776258 Richard Mapletoft

From: Colin Ferguson Sent: 29 March 2017 20:26 To: Localdevelopment Cc: New houses in Tollerton Subject:

ImovedtoTollertonwithmyfamilynearly36yearsago.Asafarmer'sdaughterIwasattractedtoTollertonbyits ruralaspectͲIwantedtoraisemytwosonsinthecountryside.Theywalkedtothelocalschoolontheirownand hadaveryhappychildhoodhere. MuchofTollerton'sattractionliesinitsproximityto,butseparationfromNottingham.ItisaniceͲsizedvillagewith arealcommunityspirit.TheproposeddevelopmentwilldoubleTollerton'ssizeandclogitsroadswithtraffic. Wherewillthechildrengotoschool? PleasethinkcarefullybeforeyoubuildonbeautifulfarmlandintheGreenBeltͲIdon'town,orhaveanyrighttomy view,butitmeansagreatdealtomeandIwouldhatetohaveitdestroyed. MargaretFerguson 68,MedinaDrive.

SentfrommyiPad

1 Filsell 1073128 Richard Mapletoft

From: Stuart Filsell 25 March 2017 Sent: 16:28Localdevelopment To: Tollerton Housing Consultation. Subject:

From: Stuart Filsell [mailto:st] Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2017 3:37 PM To: '[email protected]' Cc: 'Cl Subject: Tollerton Housing Consultation.

@All: WehavelivedonthecornerofCotgraveLane&TollertonLaneinTollertonVillagesince1973. OurdisabledsonusesthebusfromTollertonLaneeveryworkingdaytogotoWestBridgfordandfrequentlyhas difficultycrossingtheLaneduetothespeedandvolumeoftraffic. Thetrafficjamonthecorner,goingintoNottinghamstartsbefore8am,simultaneouslytrafficontheothersideof thelaneissubstantialandoftenspeedsroundthecorner. Thereforetheproposaltoincreasethehousingandconsequentincreaseoftrafficisunacceptabletous,and potentialdangertoourson. Wewouldalsoliketomakethefollowingobjections:

1. Theinfrastructureissimplyincapableofabsorbingtheimpactofupto5000newhomes. 2. Wewillundoubtedlyloseourvillagestatusandbecomejustanothersuburb. 3. Pollutionandspeedingtrafficwillincrease. 4. HGV’swillcausedamagetobuildingsandroads. 5. Wearealreadyinlineforatleast4000newhomeswereallycannotbeexpectedtoabsorbyetmore. 6. Therewillbeamajorimpactonthegreenbeltinthearea. 7. Increaseddangertochildrenatthelocalschool

WetrustthatyouwillthinklongandhardbeforeallowingthisillthoughtͲoutproposaltoproceed.

Yourssincerely TheFilsellfamily. Middlemarch CotgraveLane Tollerton.

1 Firth C 777133

Richard Mapletoft

From: Chrissie Firth Sent: 30 March 2017 13:22 To: Localdevelopment Subject: Housing Consultation - Rushcliffe Borough Council's proposals to build up to 600 additional houses at three sites in Tollerton

4000newhouseshavealreadybeenallocatedtoTollertonͲWithsuchanimmensequantityalreadyallocatedto Tollertonitshouldnotbeconsideredfortheadditionalallocationofhousingitwouldbefairertolookatother proposedsites.

TrafficisalreadythemostmajorissueinTollerton. TollertonisavillageanditsmainaccessisaLANE!whichisinkeepingandcharacteristicofthevillageofTollerton thatdoesnotcopewiththetrafficincreasesithasseeninrecentyearsandisNOTasuitablehighwayssolutionfor increasedtrafficthatfurtherhousingwouldbringontopoftheincreasedtrafficfromtheproposednew developmentof4000housesandSpiresHospitalwiththeadditionaltrafficitwillcreate,issuesofroadsafetyand publictransportwouldnotbeabletofacilitateextraservicesthatwouldberequired.

Tollertonasavillagewouldbelost,becomingjustanothersuburbofNottinghamͲTollertonhasbeenpromiseda greenbufferbyRushcliffeBoroughCouncilbetweenTollertonandnewdevelopmentof4000housestosafeguard thevillageanditsidentityͲProposalsincludebuildinghousesincloseproximitytothenewdevelopmentof4000 houseswhichwouldcauseTollertontoalmostmergewiththenewsettlement.Ifhousesweretobebuiltonthese sitestheywouldbevisiblefromalongwayawaysohousingshouldnotbedevelopedonthesesites,theyshould remaingreenbelt.

Tollertonhascharacteristicviewsofopencountrysidewhichtheproposedsiteswouldremove.Tollerton'sgreen beltisvaluableasgreenbeltandshouldnotbeconvertibleforhousingdevelopment.GreenBeltshouldremain GreenbeltandvillageidentityshouldbeprotectedasthisisakeycharacteristicofTollerton.

ResidentsofTollertonhavechosentoliveinTollertonforareasonͲremovalofgreenbeltforhousingdemeans thoseveryreasons.Tollertonisavillagenotasuburb,thegreenbeltshouldremaingreenwithopenviews characteristictoitsheritage.Tollertondoesnothavethebasicleveloffacilitiesofothervillagestoaccommodate additionalgrowth,inparticularGPPractisesorSchoolcapacitywithinthevillagetowarrantinclusioninthisreview whencomparedtoothersettlements.

ChristineFirth SentfrommyiPad

1 Firth G 777136

Elizabeth Beardsley

From: Georgia Firth <>31 March 2017 12:00 Sent: Localdevelopment To: New building Subject:

4000 new houses have already been allocated to Tollerton - With such an immense quantity already allocated to Tollerton it should not be considered for the additional allocation of housing it would be fairer to look at other proposed sites.

Traffic is already the most major issue in Tollerton. Tollerton is a village and its main access is a LANE ! which is in keeping and characteristic of the village of Tollerton that does not cope with the traffic increases it has seen in recent years and is NOT a suitable highways solution for increased traffic that further housing would bring on top of the increased traffic from the proposed new development of 4000 houses and Spires Hospital with the additional traffic it will create, issues of road safety and public transport would not be able to facilitate extra services that would be required.

Tollerton as a village would be lost, becoming just another suburb of Nottingham - Tollerton has been promised a green buffer by Rushcliffe Borough Council between Tollerton and new development of 4000 houses to safeguard the village and its identity - Proposals include building houses in close proximity to the new development of 4000 houses which would cause Tollerton to almost merge with the new settlement. If houses were to be built on these sites they would be visible from a long way away so housing should not be developed on these sites, they should remain green belt.

Tollerton has characteristic views of open countryside which the proposed sites would remove. Tollerton's green belt is valuable as green belt and should not be convertible for housing development. Green Belt should remain Green belt and village identity should be protected as this is a key characteristic of Tollerton.

Residents of Tollerton have chosen to live in Tollerton for a reason - removal of green belt for housing demeans those very reasons. Tollerton is a village not a suburb, the green belt should remain green with open views characteristic to its heritage. Tollerton does not have the basic level of facilities of other villages to accommodate additional growth, in particular GP Practises or School capacity within the village to warrant inclusion in this review when compared to other settlements.

Kind regards Georgia firth

Sent from my iPhone

1 Firth J 426076

Elizabeth Beardsley

From: John Firth 31 March 2017 11:31 Sent: Localdevelopment To: Tollerton proposed 600 additional houses Subject:

Subject: Housing Consultation - Rushcliffe Borough Council's proposals to build up to 600 additional houses at three sites in Tollerton

4000 new houses have already been allocated to Tollerton - With such an immense quantity already allocated to Tollerton it should not be considered for the additional allocation of housing it would be fairer to look at other proposed sites.

Traffic is already the most major issue in Tollerton. Tollerton is a village and its main access is a LANE that does not cope with the traffic increases it has seen in recent years and is NOT a suitable highways solution for increased traffic that further housing would bring on top of the increased traffic from the proposed new development of 4000 houses and Spires Hospital with the additional traffic it will create, issues of road safety and public transport would not be able to facilitate extra services that would be required.

Tollerton as a village would be lost, becoming just another suburb of Nottingham - Tollerton has been promised a green buffer by Rushcliffe Borough Council between Tollerton and new development of 4000 houses to safeguard the village and its identity - Proposals include building houses in close proximity to the new development of 4000 houses which would cause Tollerton to almost merge with the new settlement. If houses were to be built on these sites they would be visible from a long way away so housing should not be developed on these sites, they should remain green belt.

Tollerton has characteristic views of open countryside which the proposed sites would remove. Tollerton's green belt is valuable as green belt and should not be convertible for housing development. Green Belt should remain Green belt and village identity should be protected as this is a key characteristic of Tollerton.

Tollerton does not have the basic level of facilities of other villages to accommodate additional growth, in particular GP Practises or School capacity within the village to warrant inclusion in this review when compared to other settlements.

John Firth

1 Ford D 1074764

Richard Mapletoft

From: David Ford Sent: 30 March 2017 09:49 To: Localdevelopment Cc: Cllr D Mason; Cllr R L Butler; tomObjection Tollerton Subject: Local Plan

DearCouncillors

IemailtomakemyviewsknownregardingtheproposedplanstoturnourbeautifulruralvillageintoanewͲbuild suburbofNottingham.

WepurchasedourhometwoyearsagohereinTollertonandchosetomovetothisvillageduetoitsruralnature withcloseproximitytoourplaceofwork,withanexcellentschool.

Wearedevastatedbythenewsthatourvillageissettoexpandtomorethanquadrupleinsizewithnewbuilds. Whymustthislovelyvillagebeturnedfromvillagestatusintoatown,andnotaprettytownbutanewbuildone.

Itishighlydisappointingandweareconsideringmovingiftheseplansgoahead.

Wealreadystruggletodoour13minutecommutetoQMCinrushhour(itbecomes45minutes),Trafficisamajor issueinandaroundTollerton.

Pleasepleasetakethetimetoconsiderhowyouwouldbedestroyingthisbeautifulvillage.Opencountrysideisa majorcharacteristicofourvillageandnewhouseswouldbevisiblefromalongwayaway.

PleasereconsiderͲwhynotexpandexistingtownsͲGamston,Bingham,Radcliffe,ruddington,keyworthͲwhy removeoneofthesmallvillagesthatstillexists.

Regards

MrDavidFord 46BentinckAvenue SentfrommyiPhone

1 Ford L 1074762 Richard Mapletoft

From: Laura Ford Sent: 30 March 2017 09:37 To: Localdevelopment Cc: Cllr D Mason; CllrmObjection to new home proposal Subject:

DearCouncillors

IwritewithstrongobjectionstotheplansIhavebeenmadeawareoftoturnourbeautifulruralvillageintoanewͲ buildsuburbofNottingham.

Wepurchasedourhometwoyearsagoandchosetomovetothisbeautifulvillageduetoitsruralnaturewithclose proximitytoourplaceofwork,withanexcellentschool.

WearedevastatedbythenewsthatourvillageissettoexpandtobeaslargeasKeyworthandruddingtonͲwhycan gamstonorKeyworth,alreadylargerareasnotjustbeexpandedfurther?Whymustthislovelyvillagebeturned fromvillagestatusintoatown,andnotaprettytownbutanewbuildone.

Itishighlydisappointingandweareconsideringmovingiftheseplansgoahead.

Wealreadystruggletodoour13minutecommutetoQMCinrushhour(itbecomes45minutes),Idreadtothink whatimpactthiswillhave,letalonethelossofopencountryside.

Pleasepleasetakethetimetoconsiderhowyouwouldbedestroyingthisbeautifulvillage.

Regards

LauraFord 46BentinckAvenue Tollerton

1 Comment.

Consultee Mr John Fox (1074332)

Email Address

Address "The Willows" 2 College street East Bridgford NG13 8LE

Event Name Local Plan Part 2 Further Options

Comment by Mr John Fox

Comment ID 79

Response Date 30/03/17 17:32

Status Submitted

Submission Type Web

Version 0.1

Question 1

Do you agree with the Council’s assessment of No the present housing supply situation and that enough land will need to be identified by Local Plan Part 2 to accommodate around 2,000 new homes?

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your response. I think there is a significant risk that the housing need has been over-estimated as immigration should fall substantially when we leave the EU. Uncontrolled population growth needs to be tackled as a bigger and more urgent priority than new housing. Also, existing houses that are unoccupied need to be brought back into use. So, there is a lot of uncertainty about housing needs caused by recent events and reassessment is needed. The current rate of population growth is not sustainable. We don't have a housing shortage, we don't have a problem with our NHS or schools etc. What we do have is too many people making demands on services, many of them immigrants. It has got to stop. In just my lifetime the population of the UK has grown by more than 20%. That cannot continue and is the main reason I voted to leave the EU. Otherwise we will build on every scrap of spare land and there will be no farmland or countryside left. We will need our farms more than ever in the future because of the environmental cost of transporting food long distances and because of the cost of buying from European countries once we are out of the EU. I moved to a small village because I wanted to live somewhere a bit exclusive, isolated from large populated areas and enjoy a bit of peace and quiet. Most people that move from the city to a village do so because they can afford it because they have worked hard in their careers. Living somewhere

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 1 nice is part of the incentive to work hard. Lose that and we lose a massive part of the quality of life, the incentive to be better than average.

Question 2

Do you agree with the Council’s view that none of No the three strategic allocations (Melton Road, Edwalton; South of Clifton; and East of Gamston/North of Tollerton) should be expanded as part of resolving the current shortfall in the amount of land that is available for housing development over the next few years?

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your response These are ideal sites because they simply expand an already large area of population served by substantial infrastructure. Building here does not impact on the identity and separation of small villages that have infrastructure bordering on the inadequate already. These areas are also served by adequate public transport links to the city.

Question 3

There is, in our view, just one site on the edge of West Bridgford or Clifton that may be suitable for housing development and which could help tackle the current housing land supply shortfall. This is land at Simkins Farm at Adbolton Lane, West Bridgford, which has a potential capacity of around 40 homes.The site is shown on Figure 2 below. We would like to know whether or not you think it is suitable for housing development. A number of other sites on the edge of West Bridgford or Clifton have been ruled out at this stage because they are not considered capable of being developed. If, however, you think there are any sites that should be developed we would like to know. It may be useful to refer to our Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) which identifies all those sites that have been put forward by developers and others as potentially suitable for housing development – please see http://www.rushcliffe.gov.uk/planningpolicy/localplan/supportingstudies/strategiclandavailabilityassessment/ Do you support housing development at:

Site HOL1 - Simkins Farm, Adbolton Lane, West No Bridgford (potential capacity around 40 homes)

Any other location (please specify where in box No below)

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers.This could include comments on the services and facilities required to support development and the design, mix and layout of development. The Holme Pierrepont site is unsuitable as it would destroy the rural feel of what is effectively a hamlet. Also, there are no amenities within walking distance.

Question 4

Do you agree that Local Plan Part 2 should not Ye s allocate further greenfield land for housing development at Bingham in the plan period (up to 2028)?

Please provide any comments you wish to make in support of your response.

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 2 Bingham is already too big and threatens the villages of Newton, Scarrington and East Bridgford.

Question 5

Do you agree that Local Plan Part 2 should Ye s allocate greenfield land for housing development at Cotgrave in the plan period (up to 2028)?

Please provide any comments you wish to make in support of your response. The identity and separation of Clipston should be preserved.

Question 6

If Local Plan Part 2 does allocate land at Cotgrave for housing development, the total amount identified will be dependent on a range of factors including the capacity of local facilities (e.g. schools, doctors’ surgery) and infrastructure (e.g. local roads) to sustain new homes, the potential physical impact of development on locations around the town, including how the Green Belt would be affected, and how quickly particular sites would be able to deliver new homes. It will become clearer as development proposals become more certain what new or improved services and facilities are required to support new housing. The views of service providers such as Nottinghamshire County Council will be important in identifying what is required.

Do you have a view on the total number of new homes that should be accommodated on greenfield sites at Cotgrave up to 2028? If possible, please give reasons for your answer. Not sufficiently familiar with the area to comment.

Question 7

There are a number of sites that have been put forward by developers and others as potentially suitable for housing development. These are shown below. Most of the sites, if identified as suitable for housing development, should be able to deliver new homes relatively quickly and, therefore, contribute to resolving the current shortfall in the amount of land that is available for housing development over the next few years. We would like to know what you think about the suitability of each of those individual sites shown on Figure 4 and whether, in each case, the site should or should not be allocated for housing development. For any one site, it should be noted that there may be the option to develop only part of the site rather than its whole. The development of any one of these sites would be likely to result in impacts which require mitigation and also opportunities to improve the local area. We would need to consider the facilities and services required, the type and design of housing, and how the site would be accessed by car and public transport, amongst a number of other issues. Do you support housing development at:

Site COT1 - Land rear of Mill Lane/The Old Park Yes - all of site (potential capacity around 240 homes)

Site COT2 - Land at Main Road (potential capacity Yes - all of site around 50 homes)

Site COT3 – Land rear of and to the west of Main No Road (potential capacity around 125 homes)

COT4 - Land off Woodgate Lane (potential capacity No around 80 homes)

Site COT5 – Bakers Hollow (potential capacity No around 60 homes)

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 3 Site COT6 – The Brickyard, Owthorpe Road No (potential capacity around 100 homes)

Site COT7– Land behind Firdale (2) (potential Yes - all of site capacity around 65 homes)

Site COT8 – Land behind Firdale (potential Yes - all of site capacity around 95 homes)

Site COT9 – Land south of Hollygate Lane (1) Yes - all of site (potential capacity around 140 homes)

Site COT10 – Land south of Hollygate Lane (2) Yes - all of site (potential capacity around 40 homes)

Site COT11 – Land south of Hollygate Lane (3) Yes - all of site (potential capacity around 250 homes)

Site COT12– Land south of Plumtree Lane No (potential capacity around 250 homes)

Any other location (please specify which) No

Question 8

Do you agree that, apart from those eight sites Ye s that already have planning permission for housing development (sites EL1 to EL8 as shown below), further greenfield land should not be allocated for housing development at East Leake?

Question 9

If, however, extra housing land does need to be allocated at East Leake, there are a number of sites that have been put forward by developers and others as potentially suitable for housing development. These are also shown below (sites EL9 to EL14). We would like to know what you think about the suitability of each of the six sites and whether each one should or should not be allocated for housing development. For any one site, it should be noted that there may be the option to develop only part of the site rather than its whole. The development of any one of these sites would be likely to result in impacts which require mitigation and also opportunities to improve the local area. We would need to consider the facilities and services required, the type and design of housing, and how the site would be accessed by car and public transport, amongst a number of other issues. Do you support housing development at:

Site EL9 –Land south of West Leake Road No (potential capacity around 50 homes)

Site EL10 – Land north of West Leake Road No (potential capacity around 75 homes)

Site EL11 – Brook Furlong Farm(potential capacity No around 70 homes)

Site EL12 – Land off Rempstone Road (north) No (potential capacity around 235 homes)

Site EL13 – Land off Rempstone Road (south) No (potential capacity around 120 homes)

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 4 Site EL14 – Land north of Lantern Lane (2) No (potential capacity around 360 homes)

Any other location (please specify which) No

Question 11

There are a number of sites that have been put forward by developers and others as potentially suitable for housing development. These are shown below. When we previously consulted on potential sites for housing development early last year, the sites recommended for development in the draft Keyworth Neighbourhood Plan were, at the time, part of site KEY4, KEY6 and part of site KEY10. In December 2016, Keyworth Parish Council approved its final draft Neighbourhood Plan and the sites recommended for development had changed to part of site KEY4, KEY8 and part of site KEY10. To add to the comments already received when we consulted early last year, we would like to know what you think about the suitability of each of those individual sites shown on Figure 6 and whether each one should or should not be allocated for housing development. For any one site, it should be noted that there may be the option to develop only part of the site rather than its whole. The development of any one of these sites would be likely to result in impacts which require mitigation and also opportunities to improve the local area. We would need to consider the facilities and services required, the type and design of housing, and how the site would be accessed by car and public transport, amongst a number of other issues. Do you support housing development at:

Site KEY1 – Land east of Willow Brook (potential Yes - all of site capacity around 40 homes)

Site KEY2 – Land off Selby Lane and Willowbrook Yes - all of site (potential capacity around 15 homes)

Site KEY3 – Land south of Selby Lane (potential Yes - all of site capacity around 60 homes)

Site KEY4 – Land off Nicker Hill (potential capacity No around 450 homes)

Site KEY5 – Hill Top Farm, Platt Lane (1) (potential No capacity around 50 homes)

Site KEY6 – Hill Top Farm, Platt Lane (2) (potential No capacity around 80 homes)

Site KEY7 – Shelton Farm, Platt Lane (potential No capacity around 160 homes)

Site KEY8 – Land between Platt Lane and Station No Road (potential capacity around 180 homes)

Site KEY9 – Land north of Debdale Lane (1) No (potential capacity around 110 homes)

Site KEY10 – Land south of Debdale Lane (1) No (potential capacity around 230 homes)

Site KEY11 – Land south of Debdale Lane (2) No (potential capacity around 200 homes)

Site KEY12 – Land north of Debdale Lane (2) No (potential capacity around 160 homes)

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 5 Site KEY13 – Hillside Farm (potential capacity No around 60 homes)

Site KEY14 – Land south of Bunny Lane (potential No capacity around 410 homes)

Any other location (please specify which) No

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers. For any of the sites, this could include comments on the services and facilities required to support development and the design, mix and layout of development. I oppose any development that threatens the identity and separation of Plumtree, Normanton-on-the-Wolds, Stanton-on-the Wolds, Whysall, Widmerpool and Bradmore.

Question 13

The plan below identifies sites on the edge of Radcliffe on Trent that have been put forward by developers and others as potentially suitable for housing development. We have already asked for views on the suitability for development of sites RAD1 to RAD10 as part of the Issues and Options consultation stage which we undertook early last year. Since last year’s consultation a further two sites (RAD11 and RAD12) have been put forward by developers and others as potentially suitable for housing development. We would also like to know what you think about the suitability of each of these two sites (as shown on the plan below) and whether each one should or should not be allocated for housing development. For any one site, it should be noted that there may be the option to develop only part of the site rather than its whole. The development of any one of these sites would be likely to result in impacts which require mitigation and also opportunities to improve the local area. We would need to consider the facilities and services required, the type and design of housing, and how the site would be accessed by car and public transport, amongst a number of other issues. Do you support housing development at:

Site RAD11 – North of Holme Lane (potential No capacity around 115 homes)

Site RAD12 – Land to the north of Shelford Road No (potential capacity around 180 homes)

Any other location (please specify which) No

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers. For any of the sites, this could include comments on the services and facilities required to support development and the design, mix and layout of development. The A52 cannot cope with any more traffic. Radcliffe-on-Trent is as big now as it can be.

Question 15

The plan below identifies sites on the edge of Ruddington that have been put forward by developers and others as potentially suitable for housing development. We have already asked for views on the suitability for development of sites RUD1 to RUD10 as part of the Issues and Options consultation stage which we undertook early last year. Since last year’s consultation a further three sites (RUD11 to RUD14) have been put forward by developers and others as potentially suitable for housing development. We would also like to know what your views as to whether each one should or should not be allocated for housing development. For any one site, it should be noted that there may be the option to develop only part of the site rather than its whole.

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 6 The development of any one of these sites would be likely to result in impacts which require mitigation and also opportunities to improve the local area. We would need to consider the facilities and services required, the type and design of housing, and how the site would be accessed by car and public transport, amongst a number of other issues. Do you support housing development at:

Site RUD11 – Old Loughborough Road (potential No capacity around 40 homes)

Site RUD12 – Land to the east side of No Loughborough Road (potential capacity around 60 homes)

Site RUD13 – Land opposite Mere Way (potential No capacity around 170 homes)

Site RUD14 – Croft House (potential capacity No around 25 homes)

Any other location (please specify which) No

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers. For any of the sites, this could include comments on the services and facilities required to support development and the design, mix and layout of development. No further development should be undertaken at Ruddington otherwise it will just merge with Clifton and West Bridgford and will lose its village identity and appeal as a desirable place to live.

Question 16

Do you agree that, apart from the site to the south Ye s of Abbey Lane, Aslockton with planning permission for up to 75 new homes, Local Plan Part 2 should not allocate greenfield land for housing development at Aslockton and Whatton in the plan period (up to 2028)?

Question 17

The villages which we have identified as potentially suitable to accommodate a limited level of housing development on greenfield sites are as follows: Cropwell Bishop; East Bridgford; Gotham; Sutton Bonington; and Tollerton These particular villages have been identified because, while they do not provide for a full range of facilities as is the case at West Bridgford and the key settlements, the basic level of facilities (e,g. schools; doctors’ surgery) that are available are deemed capable of potentially supporting a relatively limited level of housing growth without compromising the strategy set out in Local Plan Part 1 (Core Strategy) for the distribution of new housing. Should Local Plan Part 2 identify the following ‘other’ villages as suitable for a limited level of housing growth on greenfileld sites?

Cropwell Bishop No

East Bridgford No

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 7 Gotham No

Sutton Bonington No

Tollerton No

Any other settlement (please specify which) No

Please provide any comments you wish to make in support of your response. None of these villages are suitable for further development, otherwise they cease to be villages. development should only take place adjacent to the main conurbation of Nottingham.

Question 19

There are a number of sites that have been put forward by developers and others as potentially suitable for housing development at Cropwell Bishop. These are shown on the plan below. Most of the sites, if identified as suitable for housing development, should be able to deliver new homes relatively quickly and, therefore, contribute to resolving the current shortfall in the amount of land that is available for housing development over the next few years. We would like to know what you think about the suitability of each of those individual sites shown on the plan below and whether, in each case, the site should or should not be allocated for housing development. For any one site, it should be noted that there may be the option to develop only part of the site rather than its whole. The development of any one of these sites would be likely to result in impacts which require mitigation and also opportunities to improve the local area. We would need to consider the facilities and services required, the type and design of housing, and how the site would be accessed by car and public transport, amongst a number of other issues. Do you support housing development at:

Site CBI1 – Land to the south of Nottingham Road No and east of Kinoulton Road (potential capacity around 30 homes)

Site CBI2 – Land north of Memorial Hall (1) No (potential capacity around 75 homes)

Site CBI3– Land north of Memorial Hall (2) No (potential capacity around 60 homes)

Site CBI4 – Land north of Fern Road (2) (potential No capacity around 30 homes)

Site CBI5 – Land north of Fern Road (1) (potential No capacity around 250 homes)

Site CBI6 – Land to the north of Fern Road (3) No (potential capacity around 70 homes)

Any other location (please specify which) No

Question 20

If greenfield land is allocated for housing development at East Bridgford, do you have a view on the total number of new homes that should be built up to 2028? If possible, please give reasons for your answer. None!

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 8 Question 21

There are a number of sites that have been put forward by developers and others as potentially suitable for housing development at East Bridgford. These are shown on the plan below. Most of the sites, if identified as suitable for housing development, should be able to deliver new homes relatively quickly and, therefore, contribute to resolving the current shortfall in the amount of land that is available for housing development over the next few years. We would like to know what you think about the suitability of each of those individual sites shown on the plan below and whether, in each case, the site should or should not be allocated for housing development. For any one site, it should be noted that there may be the option to develop only part of the site rather than its whole. The development of any one of these sites would be likely to result in impacts which require mitigation and also opportunities to improve the local area. We would need to consider the facilities and services required, the type and design of housing, and how the site would be accessed by car and public transport, amongst a number of other issues. Do you support housing development at:

Site EBR1 – Land behind Kirk Hill (east) (potential No capacity around 15 homes)

Site EBR2 – Land behind Kirk Hill (west) (potential No capacity around 70 homes)

Site EBR3 – Land north of Kneeton Road (1) No (potential capacity around 95 homes)

Site EBR4 – Land north of Kneeton Road (2) No (potential capacity around 150 homes)

Site EBR5 – Land at Lammas Lane (potential No capacity around 40 homes)

Site EBR6 – Closes Side Lane (west) (potential No capacity around 20 homes)

Site EBR7 – Closes Side Lane (east) (potential No capacity around 20 homes)

Site EBR8 – Land to the north of Butt Lane No (potential capacity around 20 homes)

Site EBR9 – Land to the south of Springdale Lane No (potential capacity around 30 homes)

Any other location (please specify which) No

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers. For any of the sites, this could include comments on the services and facilities required to support development and the design, mix and layout of development. East Bridgford cannot cope with any further development. The school has already been extended and is full. There is no room for further extension on the site. The medical centre serves several villages in the area and has just been extended to cope with existing demand. The roads in and out of the village and specifically the A6097 do not cope with current traffic levels. East Bridgford is used as a "rat-run" to avoid the queues on the A6097 to the detriment of public safety and a quiet environment. Bingham is getting ever closer and the new development at Newton threatens to bridge the gap between East Bridgford and Radcliffe-on-Trent. I moved to East Bridgford because I wanted separation from major areas of population to give myself some respite from traffic noise and crowding. Building on

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 9 green belt land cannot continue at its present rate. After Brexit the demand for home grown crops will increase so farm land will be needed more than ever.

Question 23

There are a number of sites that have been put forward by developers and others as potentially suitable for housing development at Gotham. These are shown on the plan below. Most of the sites, if identified as suitable for housing development, should be able to deliver new homes relatively quickly and, therefore, contribute to resolving the current shortfall in the amount of land that is available for housing development over the next few years. We would like to know what you think about the suitability of each of those individual sites shown on the plan below and whether, in each case, the site should or should not be allocated for housing development. For any one site, it should be noted that there may be the option to develop only part of the site rather than its whole. The development of any one of these sites would be likely to result in impacts which require mitigation and also opportunities to improve the local area. We would need to consider the facilities and services required, the type and design of housing, and how the site would be accessed by car and public transport, amongst a number of other issues. Do you support housing development at:

Site GOT1 – Land to the rear of former British No Legion (potential capacity around 25 homes)

Site GOT2 – Land north of Kegworth Road/Home No Farm (west) (potential capacity around 50 homes)

Site GOT3 – Land north of Kegworth Road/Home No Farm (east) (potential capacity around 20 homes)

Site GOT4 – The Orchards, Leake Road (potential No capacity around 50 homes)

Site GOT5 – Land east of Gypsum Way/The No Orchards (potential capacity around 200 homes)

Site GOT6 – East of Leake Road (potential capacity No around 45 homes)

Site GOT7 – Land east of Hill Road (potential No capacity around 160 homes)

Site GOT8 – Land south of Moor Lane (potential No capacity around 15 homes)

Any other location (please specify which) No

Question 25

There is one site that has been put forward by a landowner as potentially suitable for housing development at Sutton Bonington. This is shown on the plan below. The site, if identified as suitable for housing development, should be able to deliver new homes relatively quickly and, therefore, contribute to resolving the current shortfall in the amount of land that is available for housing development over the next few years. We would like to know what you think about the suitability of the site shown on the plan below and whether it should or should not be allocated for housing development. For any one site, it should be noted that there may be the option to develop only part of the site rather than its whole. The development of the site would be likely to result in impacts which require mitigation and also opportunities to improve the local area. We would need to consider the facilities and services required, the type and design

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 10 of housing, and how the site would be accessed by car and public transport, amongst a number of other issues. Do you support housing development at:

Site SUT1 – Land north of Park Lane (potential No capacity around 140 homes)

Any other location (please specify which) No

Question 27

There are a number of sites that have been put forward by developers and others as potentially suitable for housing development at Tollerton. These are shown on the plan below. Most of the sites, if identified as suitable for housing development, should be able to deliver new homes relatively quickly and, therefore, contribute to resolving the current shortfall in the amount of land that is available for housing development over the next few years. We would like to know what you think about the suitability of each of those individual sites shown on the plan below and whether, in each case, the site should or should not be allocated for housing development. For any one site, it should be noted that there may be the option to develop only part of the site rather than its whole. The development of any one of these sites would be likely to result in impacts which require mitigation and also opportunities to improve the local area. We would need to consider the facilities and services required, the type and design of housing, and how the site would be accessed by car and public transport, amongst a number of other issues. Do you support housing development at:

Site TOL1 – Land at Burnside Grove (potential No capacity around 180 homes)

Site TOL2 – West of Tollerton Lane and North of No Medina Drive (potential capacity around 360 homes)

Site TOL3 – Land east of Tollerton Lane (potential No capacity around 50 homes)

Any other location (please specify which) No

Please identify any matters related to housing development which are not covered here or elsewhere. Single parent families used to be the exception but not any more. They are an inefficient way of using housing and need to be discouraged. There should be significant tax incentives for living as a married couple.

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 11 Frampton 776658

ProposedHousingDevelopmentinTollertonͲTol1,Tol2andTol3

Wewishtoobjecttotheproposalstobuild600housesinTollerton.

Howanyonecouldproposethat600housesbebuiltinTollertonwhenpermissionhas alreadybeengrantedfor4000housestobebuiltontheairportsiteisbeyondbelief.Surely wearetakingfarmorethanoursharewiththe4000.Topropose600moreisway,wayout oforder.ThereareplentymoreplacesinRushcliffeforthis600tobebuilt.

TheexistingtrafficflowinandaroundTollertoncausesproblems.TollertonLaneand BurnsideGrovearetoonarrow.Atschoolstartandfinishtimesbothcanbeimpassable. TollertonLaneisdangerousontheapproachtoBurnsideGroveinbothdirectionsandin particularfromtheMeltonRdend.Herecarsparkedbyparentscollectingchildrenfromthe schoolblockonesideoftheroadandcarstravellingtowardstheschoolhavetodriveonthe oppositesideapproachingablindbend.Adeepbreathandaprayerisrequiredandyou hopethatyouarenotgoingtoaddtotheseveralcollisionsthathaveoccurredhereoverthe years.Quiteoftencarscometoahaltfacingeachotherwithnowhereforeithertogo.

AlotoftraffictravellingalongtheMeltonRdtowardsMeltonuseoneoftheAvenuesand BurnsideGrovetoavoidpossibleholdupsattheTollertonLanetrafficlights.Quiteoften whendeliveryvehiclesorcoachesareparkedoutsidetheschoolotherlargevehicleshaveto mountthegrassvergeoutsideourhouse(No3straightoppositetheschoolgates)to safelypasstheparkedvehicle(andleaveverydeeprutsinthegrass).Wehavewrittento TheCountyCouncilaboutthislackofwidthintheroadbutapartfromaneͲmailsayingthat itwillbelookedinduecoursenothinghashappenedinthelast15months.

Problemswithcars(associatedwiththeschool)parkedalldayonBurnsideGrovearesimilar tothatonTollertonLane.ThistimeitistheshortsharphillonBurnsidethathides oncomingtrafficfromvehiclestravellingonthewrongsideoftheroad.Sofarwehave managedtogettotherefugeofourdrivewithoutbeinghit.

Trafficgeneratedbytheproposedextrahouseswillmakeaveryunsatisfactorysituation totallyimpossible.

ThesiteTol3isextendingthevillagevery,veryclosetothe4000housedevelopmentandit willnotbelongbeforeproposalsareputforwardtolinkupthetwothusmakingTollerton partofGreaterNottingham.Welovelivinginavillageandareverykeenthatitremains thatway.

DougandJoFrampton 3BurnsideGrove Tollerton Francis 1073124 Richard Mapletoft

From: Robert Francis

Dear Mr Francis,

Thank you for copying me into your response to the Local Plan Pt 2 consultation. Your comments will indeed be noted and taken on board, because this really is an early stage consultation.

There are no actual plans in place. What is happening is that as with other planning authorities around the country, Rushcliffe has to produce a Local Plan, and you will know that Rushcliffe has been tasked by national government to find locations for many thousands of homes over the next decade or more.

When it becomes known that provision is needed, land owners and/or developers perhaps not surprisingly submit their ideas for locations for consideration, which is what is happening at the moment. Just because potential sites have been submitted does not automatically mean that they are going to be allocated.

Rushcliffe is now consulting on a wider scale to get opinions and views/suggestions from around the borough, including Tollerton. Then over the next few months , based on the responses, it will come up with a "preferred option" which then will go out for further consultation and then after that to independent public enquiry - where there will be plenty of opportunity for further comments and responses to be put to an inspector.

I understand completely the concerns about impact on existing communities and infrastructure, and it is very important that serious consideration is given by the authorities to these issues before we get anywhere near giving permissions for such new development. I agree with you about the impact and degregation of the roads, which are in a pretty hopeless state at the moment.

Regarding your observation re small gardens/lack of play or environmental areas, this is a good point. The general "modern way" irrespective of current local plans etc, seems to be for small gardens compared to decades ago. However all is not completely lost because as an example, the 400+ new houses being built in Cotgrave are typical of this but as well as the houses, public green areas are being created in the development along with playing fields and indeed allotments.

I hope that this is of some help and reassurance.

Kind regards,

Richard Butler

From: Robert Francis [R Sent: 24 March 2017 18:32 To: [email protected]; cllr DMason; cllr RLButler; Neil Clarke Cc: tol Subject: Objection to the proposed further development at Tollerton TOL1, TOL2 and TOL3

Dear Rushcliffe Borough Council,

I wish to object to the short sighted and reckless plans to build more houses around Tollerton without any thought for how the infrastructure will cope. As has already been made abundantly clear by the development of the Shire Hospital the roads cannot cope with this extra level of traffic, leading to accidents, incidents of road rage, and degradation of the roads themselves. And from a personal point of view as a cyclist the road between Tollerton and Gamston is now so dangerous I can no longer cycle on child to nursery.

1 Furthermore, judging by the poor standard of the houses currently being built near Wheatcrofts just up the road I cannot see how more houses will make the area better. These houses have no environmental elements such as photovoltaics or storage batteries, they do not even have EV charge point. This is shameful of the council to have not made this an obligation for the fat cat developer to have built these features into the houses from the planning stage, along with dedicated cycles lines (not just a few white lines on the road which all drivers ignore. Furthermore, these houses have no gardens to speak of, so there is no room for children to play, or wildlife and no room to grow your own food.

Therefore, I would ask the council to re-think their proposal and come up with a sustainable village solution, such as those found on the continent, where the environment is protected, the houses create their own energy, and the area is emissions free.

Once this is done I will happily support the councils plans

Kindregards RobertFrancis ResidentofTollerton This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to me, and immediately delete it.

Please do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment. Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham.

This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment may still contain software viruses which could damage your computer system, you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation.

This transmission is intended for the named addressee(s) only and may contain sensitive or protectively marked material up to RESTRICTED and should be handled accordingly. Unless you are the named addressee (or authorised to receive it for the addressee) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you have received this transmission in error please notify the sender immediately. All GCSX traffic may be subject to recording and/or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation. ______ Follow us on Twitter https://twitter.com/Rushcliffe

2 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect y our priv acy , Outlook prev ented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Rushcliffe Council (@Rushcliffe) | Twitter

twitter.com

The latest Tweets from Rushcliffe Council (@Rushcliffe). News and info from Rushcliffe Borough Council. Updated by the communications team. Not monitored 24/7 but we ...

Like us on Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/rushcliffeborough See us on Pinterest - http://www.pinterest.com/rushcliffe/ Keep up to date with business news at www.linkedin.com/company/rushcliffe-borough-council Call us on 0115 981 9911 (8.30am to 5pm, Monday to Friday), email [email protected] or visit www.rushcliffe.gov.uk  ______

Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented auto matic downlo ad o f this picture from the Internet.

This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to me, and immediately delete it.

Please do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment. Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham.

This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment may still contain software viruses which could damage your computer system, you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation.

3 Franklin C 1074758

22A Tollerton Lane Tollerton Notttingham NG12 4FQ Planning Policy Rushcliffe Borough Council Rushcliffe Arena 30 March 2017 Rugby Road Nottingham NG2 7YG

Reference Local Plan Part 2 Further Options and Draft Part 2b Green Belt Review

Dear Sir

Why hit Tollerton so hard? We are a village now struggling for survival in the 21st century: the proposed developments would transform what is still a rural community into an urban sprawl.

Tollerton is a small village of just over 800 houses and we already already have the prospect of 4000 new houses being built adjacent to Nottingham City airport and within a quarter of a mile of the existing village on top of the new Hospital and Industrial Units already nearing completion.

The fact that the building of these 4000 houses has not yet started, does not alter the fact that planning permission has been granted. So why are the planners now looking at our village itself?

The proposal to look at 3 further sites in Tollerton, directly attached to existing development would potentially add a further 600 houses to the village almost doubling the size of the village at a stroke. The village school is currently oversubscribed and there are no other services in the village apart from a Public House and a Post Office on the main Melton Road. Anyone requiring medical or dental treatment would have to use heavily subscribed services in West Bridgford or Keyworth. The traffic on Tollerton Lane has increased greatly over the years and at peak times borders on the unacceptable.

Building development is currently under way on sites at Sharp Hill and adjacent to the Wheatcroft Island on the A52. If all this agreed and proposed development comes to fruition, it would mean over 6000 new houses within Tollerton or within 2 miles of the village.

There are very real concerns about the impact on infrastructure. In particular, traffic on the main roads in the area has reached critical levels. In order to get from Tollerton to Nottingham at the moment, using the A606 and A52 ring road, it would be quicker to walk to work, between 8 and 9am, on the roofs of stationary vehicles, particularly between the Wheatcroft Island and the Nottingham Knight. Additional traffic from the actual and proposed developments would cause major issues.

I fully accept the need for further development in the village but it has to be in proportion. Simply meeting Government targets because it is expedient to do so by placing the major burden on one village is not acceptable.

I would urge you to look again at proposed and existing sites for development and to spread the load more fairly.

Yours faithfully

Clare Franklin Franklin N 778217

           
       
! 
"# $ %     
#&

              


' (

)    *  %% + ,

 -  ++. /0"  %  ++ """ *$ $  %1          +  %*   2    .  -   +  * )+  %3 %  4    %   +  5

3 % %     %  +    ++-  % %+   ++%%-+ $  %    - ++ -   % $%     . 
" 5

++  6 7     8%  % .  %-+ *% +    %%  9""  -   %$  : -    65

-  -$$% %    -  -  +    $) %  ;    !   %5  2 % %     *% -  -$$%- < %%=* 5       + 6 $%  + $5

% %-+   %*    ( + % %1    <  3 %  0
5

3   % %++%%-+    8 *% -9""" * *    *  
 - 5-    %$ >  +  % >    +  %5++% %.  %-+ *%    -   $ + ** *%  5

 -    $  +       53 +   8       %      %  -53 %            8  9"9 %0
  %8 *%$26 * 6 *68$ * / % 8     -8+   $ *  <  3 % %     =  5%%         %++%%-+ *%  15

3       %-+ +53 +   % %-+   - $    $ ++  5(+  -    $  .+%  %$+    1 $%   -    + $5

3*% 6    ++% %.   %-+  % + %  %  5

&  

 6 Frend 778291

Richard Mapletoft

From: Keith Frend Sent: 28 March 2017 22:52 To: Localdevelopment Cc: Cllr D Mason; Cllr D Mason; Neil Clarke; Subject:

DearAll

Iwouldliketoobjectandexpressconcernattheproposedadditional600housesaroundTollerton.The originalplanforthe4000housesdevelopmenttothenorthofTollertonwasintendedtoprotectthecore ofthevillageandconcentratenewhousesandbusinessinoneareaandprotectthegreenbeltaroundthe village.

TheCouncilshouldbeconcentratingtheireffortsinworkingwiththedeveloperstogettheagreed originallocalplandevelopmentintoaction.Thisplanwasbeenacceptedbyallpartiesonthe understandingthatTollertonhastakenmorethanitsfairshareofhouses.Otherwise,notonlywillthese additional600housesbeapprovedbutit'slikelythatfurtherdevelopmentsneartoTollertonwillbe proposedinthenearfuturewithCouncilfeelingobligedtoalsoapprove,thiswillbecomeanendlesscycle.

Regards

KeithFrend

1 Frost D 1074452

Richard Mapletoft

From: Diane 29 March 2017 13:41 Sent: Localdevelopment To: Site 8, Keyworth Subject:

Itwouldbeappreciatedthatthefollowingcommentsarebroughttotheattentionoftheplanningcommittee. Asignificantincreaseintrafficwouldcausecongestionandexacerbatethecurrentparkingproblemsinthecentreof Keyworth. Siteistoofarfromthecentreofthevillagewithitsamenities. Sitedevelopmentwouldbeintrusiveandincongruous.Thesitingofthebusstopsforpublictransportinto Nottinghamareinappropriate,theoneonStationRoad(justbeyondNormantonLane)ispositivelydangerousfor motoristsandpedestrianswishingtocrosstheroadtoNickerHill. ThedevelopmentwouldcreateanurbansprawltowardsPlumtreeVillageandeventuallyTollerton.Ifthiswerethe case(whichitshoulddefinitelynotbe)itwouldlinkwithdevelopmentalreadytakingplaceatSharphill/Notcutts becomingWestBridgford!Nothankyou. Thesitewouldbetotallyvisuallyintrusive. StationRoadiscurrentlyveryverybusy,andnoisecheckshaveshownthattrafficnoiseisalreadyaboveacceptable levels. ThesiteisatbedroomlevelofsomepropertiesonStationRoad&ParkRoadwhichwillgiverisetoaveryintrusive developmentwhichwillnotbepossibletoscreen. Itisfarmlandandshouldremainso. TheamountoftrafficusingStationRoadwouldincreasecausingmorecongestion.Itwouldalsoincreasethewear andtearontheroadsurfacewhichatthepresenttimeisdireͲthiscausesdamagetoallvehicles,willtheCouncil payforrepairs??? WeshouldbesafeguardingthecountrysideͲusethesitetopromoteasenseofremotenessandseparation. ThejunctionofNormantonLane,StationRoadandNickerHillisfrequentlysusceptibletofloodingafterheavy downpours,thisdevelopmentwillincreasetheamountofsurfacewaterandaccordinglyincreasethefloodingrisk. PlattLaneplayingfieldswillbelandlocked. CurrentlyStationRoadistreatedasaRacetrackbymanymotorists.Thisshouldstopandnotbeallowednoworin future. DianeFrost Resident.

SentfrommyiPad

1 Fulford 1072661

Richard Mapletoft

From: MARK FULFORD <>21 March 2017 19:06 Sent: Localdevelopment To: Housing plans crop well bishop Subject:

Hi A couple of issues or queries for me. As a resident of Cropwell Bishop I don't think it's benificial to the village for new houses. The school at the moment isn't large enough for current intake and classes are not big enough for 30 students in each class, so investment in the school is needed. I see lots of brown field sites or housing that isn't occupied in other areas of the rushcliffe council boundaries, shouldn't these be untilised in full first.

Also roads etc need further investment to make sure they can cope with the additional traffic that new houses will generate.

I hope that proper consideration is given before you just give the nod for lots of new houses in the village that is a lovely size at the moment and a pleasant place to live .

Regards Mark

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

1 Comment.

Consultee Mr Barry Furness (1073185)

Email Address 3 Stanstead AvenueNottingham Address NG12 4EA Local Plan Part 2 Further Options Event Name Mr Barry Furness Comment by

Comment ID 48

Response Date 28/03/17 09:47

Status Submitted

Submission Type Web

Version 0.1

Question 17

The villages which we have identified as potentially suitable to accommodate a limited level of housing development on greenfield sites are as follows: Cropwell Bishop; East Bridgford; Gotham; Sutton Bonington; and Tollerton These particular villages have been identified because, while they do not provide for a full range of facilities as is the case at West Bridgford and the key settlements, the basic level of facilities (e,g. schools; doctors’ surgery) that are available are deemed capable of potentially supporting a relatively limited level of housing growth without compromising the strategy set out in Local Plan Part 1 (Core Strategy) for the distribution of new housing. Should Local Plan Part 2 identify the following ‘other’ villages as suitable for a limited level of housing growth on greenfileld sites?

Cropwell Bishop

East Bridgford

Gotham

Sutton Bonington

Tollerton No

Any other settlement (please specify which)

Question 19

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 1 There are a number of sites that have been put forward by developers and others as potentially suitable for housing development at Cropwell Bishop. These are shown on the plan below. Most of the sites, if identified as suitable for housing development, should be able to deliver new homes relatively quickly and, therefore, contribute to resolving the current shortfall in the amount of land that is available for housing development over the next few years. We would like to know what you think about the suitability of each of those individual sites shown on the plan below and whether, in each case, the site should or should not be allocated for housing development. For any one site, it should be noted that there may be the option to develop only part of the site rather than its whole. The development of any one of these sites would be likely to result in impacts which require mitigation and also opportunities to improve the local area. We would need to consider the facilities and services required, the type and design of housing, and how the site would be accessed by car and public transport, amongst a number of other issues. Do you support housing development at:

Site CBI1 – Land to the south of Nottingham Road and east of Kinoulton Road (potential capacity around 30 homes)

Site CBI2 – Land north of Memorial Hall (1) (potential capacity around 75 homes)

Site CBI3– Land north of Memorial Hall (2) (potential capacity around 60 homes)

Site CBI4 – Land north of Fern Road (2) (potential capacity around 30 homes)

Site CBI5 – Land north of Fern Road (1) (potential capacity around 250 homes)

Site CBI6 – Land to the north of Fern Road (3) (potential capacity around 70 homes)

Any other location (please specify which)

Question 21

There are a number of sites that have been put forward by developers and others as potentially suitable for housing development at East Bridgford. These are shown on the plan below. Most of the sites, if identified as suitable for housing development, should be able to deliver new homes relatively quickly and, therefore, contribute to resolving the current shortfall in the amount of land that is available for housing development over the next few years. We would like to know what you think about the suitability of each of those individual sites shown on the plan below and whether, in each case, the site should or should not be allocated for housing development. For any one site, it should be noted that there may be the option to develop only part of the site rather than its whole. The development of any one of these sites would be likely to result in impacts which require mitigation and also opportunities to improve the local area. We would need to consider the facilities and services required, the type and design of housing, and how the site would be accessed by car and public transport, amongst a number of other issues. Do you support housing development at:

Site EBR1 – Land behind Kirk Hill (east) (potential capacity around 15 homes)

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 2 Site EBR2 – Land behind Kirk Hill (west) (potential capacity around 70 homes)

Site EBR3 – Land north of Kneeton Road (1) (potential capacity around 95 homes)

Site EBR4 – Land north of Kneeton Road (2) (potential capacity around 150 homes)

Site EBR5 – Land at Lammas Lane (potential capacity around 40 homes)

Site EBR6 – Closes Side Lane (west) (potential capacity around 20 homes)

Site EBR7 – Closes Side Lane (east) (potential capacity around 20 homes)

Site EBR8 – Land to the north of Butt Lane (potential capacity around 20 homes)

Site EBR9 – Land to the south of Springdale Lane (potential capacity around 30 homes)

Any other location (please specify which)

Question 23

There are a number of sites that have been put forward by developers and others as potentially suitable for housing development at Gotham. These are shown on the plan below. Most of the sites, if identified as suitable for housing development, should be able to deliver new homes relatively quickly and, therefore, contribute to resolving the current shortfall in the amount of land that is available for housing development over the next few years. We would like to know what you think about the suitability of each of those individual sites shown on the plan below and whether, in each case, the site should or should not be allocated for housing development. For any one site, it should be noted that there may be the option to develop only part of the site rather than its whole. The development of any one of these sites would be likely to result in impacts which require mitigation and also opportunities to improve the local area. We would need to consider the facilities and services required, the type and design of housing, and how the site would be accessed by car and public transport, amongst a number of other issues. Do you support housing development at:

Site GOT1 – Land to the rear of former British Legion (potential capacity around 25 homes)

Site GOT2 – Land north of Kegworth Road/Home Farm (west) (potential capacity around 50 homes)

Site GOT3 – Land north of Kegworth Road/Home Farm (east) (potential capacity around 20 homes)

Site GOT4 – The Orchards, Leake Road (potential capacity around 50 homes)

Site GOT5 – Land east of Gypsum Way/The Orchards (potential capacity around 200 homes)

Site GOT6 – East of Leake Road (potential capacity around 45 homes)

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 3 Site GOT7 – Land east of Hill Road (potential capacity around 160 homes)

Site GOT8 – Land south of Moor Lane (potential capacity around 15 homes)

Any other location (please specify which)

Question 25

There is one site that has been put forward by a landowner as potentially suitable for housing development at Sutton Bonington. This is shown on the plan below. The site, if identified as suitable for housing development, should be able to deliver new homes relatively quickly and, therefore, contribute to resolving the current shortfall in the amount of land that is available for housing development over the next few years. We would like to know what you think about the suitability of the site shown on the plan below and whether it should or should not be allocated for housing development. For any one site, it should be noted that there may be the option to develop only part of the site rather than its whole. The development of the site would be likely to result in impacts which require mitigation and also opportunities to improve the local area. We would need to consider the facilities and services required, the type and design of housing, and how the site would be accessed by car and public transport, amongst a number of other issues. Do you support housing development at:

Site SUT1 – Land north of Park Lane (potential capacity around 140 homes)

Any other location (please specify which)

Question 27

There are a number of sites that have been put forward by developers and others as potentially suitable for housing development at Tollerton. These are shown on the plan below. Most of the sites, if identified as suitable for housing development, should be able to deliver new homes relatively quickly and, therefore, contribute to resolving the current shortfall in the amount of land that is available for housing development over the next few years. We would like to know what you think about the suitability of each of those individual sites shown on the plan below and whether, in each case, the site should or should not be allocated for housing development. For any one site, it should be noted that there may be the option to develop only part of the site rather than its whole. The development of any one of these sites would be likely to result in impacts which require mitigation and also opportunities to improve the local area. We would need to consider the facilities and services required, the type and design of housing, and how the site would be accessed by car and public transport, amongst a number of other issues. Do you support housing development at:

Site TOL1 – Land at Burnside Grove (potential capacity No around 180 homes)

Site TOL2 – West of Tollerton Lane and North of Medina No Drive (potential capacity around 360 homes)

Site TOL3 – Land east of Tollerton Lane (potential Yes - all of site capacity around 50 homes)

Any other location (please specify which) No

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 4 Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers. For any of the sites, this could include comments on the services and facilities required to support development and the design, mix and layout of development. Anyone trying to travel through Tollerton village at school dropping off and picking up times will know that the village roads do not have the capacity to properly clear traffic already. The additional housing would require new and improved road links and features such as traffic lights and roundabouts for access to Melton Road and Tollerton Lane which would transform Tollerton from village to suburban. A new primary school would be required.

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 5 Comment.

Consultee Mrs Sue Furness (1073149)

Email Address

Address 3 Stanstead Avenue Tollerton Nottingham NG12 4EA

Event Name Local Plan Part 2 Further Options

Comment by Mrs Sue Furness

Comment ID 38

Response Date 27/03/17 14:36

Status Submitted

Submission Type Web

Version 0.1

Question 1

Do you agree with the Council’s assessment of Ye s the present housing supply situation and that enough land will need to be identified by Local Plan Part 2 to accommodate around 2,000 new homes?

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your response. Yes but provided no Green belt is used

Question 2

Do you agree with the Council’s view that none of No the three strategic allocations (Melton Road, Edwalton; South of Clifton; and East of Gamston/North of Tollerton) should be expanded as part of resolving the current shortfall in the amount of land that is available for housing development over the next few years?

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your response As long as no green belt land is used

Question 3

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 1 There is, in our view, just one site on the edge of West Bridgford or Clifton that may be suitable for housing development and which could help tackle the current housing land supply shortfall. This is land at Simkins Farm at Adbolton Lane, West Bridgford, which has a potential capacity of around 40 homes.The site is shown on Figure 2 below. We would like to know whether or not you think it is suitable for housing development. A number of other sites on the edge of West Bridgford or Clifton have been ruled out at this stage because they are not considered capable of being developed. If, however, you think there are any sites that should be developed we would like to know. It may be useful to refer to our Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) which identifies all those sites that have been put forward by developers and others as potentially suitable for housing development – please see http://www.rushcliffe.gov.uk/planningpolicy/localplan/supportingstudies/strategiclandavailabilityassessment/ Do you support housing development at:

Site HOL1 - Simkins Farm, Adbolton Lane, West No Bridgford (potential capacity around 40 homes)

Any other location (please specify where in box No below)

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers.This could include comments on the services and facilities required to support development and the design, mix and layout of development. is this not part of the Trent flood plain so not idea for housing

Question 4

Do you agree that Local Plan Part 2 should not Don't know allocate further greenfield land for housing development at Bingham in the plan period (up to 2028)?

Question 5

Do you agree that Local Plan Part 2 should Don't know allocate greenfield land for housing development at Cotgrave in the plan period (up to 2028)?

Question 8

Do you agree that, apart from those eight sites Don't know that already have planning permission for housing development (sites EL1 to EL8 as shown below), further greenfield land should not be allocated for housing development at East Leake?

Question 16

Do you agree that, apart from the site to the south Don't know of Abbey Lane, Aslockton with planning permission for up to 75 new homes, Local Plan Part 2 should not allocate greenfield land for housing development at Aslockton and Whatton in the plan period (up to 2028)?

Question 17

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 2 The villages which we have identified as potentially suitable to accommodate a limited level of housing development on greenfield sites are as follows: Cropwell Bishop; East Bridgford; Gotham; Sutton Bonington; and Tollerton These particular villages have been identified because, while they do not provide for a full range of facilities as is the case at West Bridgford and the key settlements, the basic level of facilities (e,g. schools; doctors’ surgery) that are available are deemed capable of potentially supporting a relatively limited level of housing growth without compromising the strategy set out in Local Plan Part 1 (Core Strategy) for the distribution of new housing. Should Local Plan Part 2 identify the following ‘other’ villages as suitable for a limited level of housing growth on greenfileld sites?

Cropwell Bishop Don't know

East Bridgford Don't know

Gotham Don't know

Sutton Bonington Don't know

Tollerton No

Any other settlement (please specify which) Don't know

Please provide any comments you wish to make in support of your response. The land put forward for housing in Tol 1 and Tol 2 is green belt. I do not support building any houses on green belt land. Also the roads into Tol 1 on plan could not cope with the extra traffic through the village from the A606 Melton Road. The village school is not large enough and would not cope with the influx. Already the roads near the school can not cope with extra traffic during school open and closing. There are no local facilities . Most important is the roads through the village it woul no longer be a village and have negative impact on the way of life already in this village.

Question 19

There are a number of sites that have been put forward by developers and others as potentially suitable for housing development at Cropwell Bishop. These are shown on the plan below. Most of the sites, if identified as suitable for housing development, should be able to deliver new homes relatively quickly and, therefore, contribute to resolving the current shortfall in the amount of land that is available for housing development over the next few years. We would like to know what you think about the suitability of each of those individual sites shown on the plan below and whether, in each case, the site should or should not be allocated for housing development. For any one site, it should be noted that there may be the option to develop only part of the site rather than its whole. The development of any one of these sites would be likely to result in impacts which require mitigation and also opportunities to improve the local area. We would need to consider the facilities and services required, the type and design of housing, and how the site would be accessed by car and public transport, amongst a number of other issues. Do you support housing development at:

Site CBI1 – Land to the south of Nottingham Road and east of Kinoulton Road (potential capacity around 30 homes)

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 3 Site CBI2 – Land north of Memorial Hall (1) (potential capacity around 75 homes)

Site CBI3– Land north of Memorial Hall (2) (potential capacity around 60 homes)

Site CBI4 – Land north of Fern Road (2) (potential capacity around 30 homes)

Site CBI5 – Land north of Fern Road (1) (potential capacity around 250 homes)

Site CBI6 – Land to the north of Fern Road (3) (potential capacity around 70 homes)

Any other location (please specify which)

Question 21

There are a number of sites that have been put forward by developers and others as potentially suitable for housing development at East Bridgford. These are shown on the plan below. Most of the sites, if identified as suitable for housing development, should be able to deliver new homes relatively quickly and, therefore, contribute to resolving the current shortfall in the amount of land that is available for housing development over the next few years. We would like to know what you think about the suitability of each of those individual sites shown on the plan below and whether, in each case, the site should or should not be allocated for housing development. For any one site, it should be noted that there may be the option to develop only part of the site rather than its whole. The development of any one of these sites would be likely to result in impacts which require mitigation and also opportunities to improve the local area. We would need to consider the facilities and services required, the type and design of housing, and how the site would be accessed by car and public transport, amongst a number of other issues. Do you support housing development at:

Site EBR1 – Land behind Kirk Hill (east) (potential capacity around 15 homes)

Site EBR2 – Land behind Kirk Hill (west) (potential capacity around 70 homes)

Site EBR3 – Land north of Kneeton Road (1) (potential capacity around 95 homes)

Site EBR4 – Land north of Kneeton Road (2) (potential capacity around 150 homes)

Site EBR5 – Land at Lammas Lane (potential capacity around 40 homes)

Site EBR6 – Closes Side Lane (west) (potential capacity around 20 homes)

Site EBR7 – Closes Side Lane (east) (potential capacity around 20 homes)

Site EBR8 – Land to the north of Butt Lane (potential capacity around 20 homes)

Site EBR9 – Land to the south of Springdale Lane (potential capacity around 30 homes)

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 4 Any other location (please specify which)

Question 23

There are a number of sites that have been put forward by developers and others as potentially suitable for housing development at Gotham. These are shown on the plan below. Most of the sites, if identified as suitable for housing development, should be able to deliver new homes relatively quickly and, therefore, contribute to resolving the current shortfall in the amount of land that is available for housing development over the next few years. We would like to know what you think about the suitability of each of those individual sites shown on the plan below and whether, in each case, the site should or should not be allocated for housing development. For any one site, it should be noted that there may be the option to develop only part of the site rather than its whole. The development of any one of these sites would be likely to result in impacts which require mitigation and also opportunities to improve the local area. We would need to consider the facilities and services required, the type and design of housing, and how the site would be accessed by car and public transport, amongst a number of other issues. Do you support housing development at:

Site GOT1 – Land to the rear of former British Legion (potential capacity around 25 homes)

Site GOT2 – Land north of Kegworth Road/Home Farm (west) (potential capacity around 50 homes)

Site GOT3 – Land north of Kegworth Road/Home Farm (east) (potential capacity around 20 homes)

Site GOT4 – The Orchards, Leake Road (potential capacity around 50 homes)

Site GOT5 – Land east of Gypsum Way/The Orchards (potential capacity around 200 homes)

Site GOT6 – East of Leake Road (potential capacity around 45 homes)

Site GOT7 – Land east of Hill Road (potential capacity around 160 homes)

Site GOT8 – Land south of Moor Lane (potential capacity around 15 homes)

Any other location (please specify which)

Question 25

There is one site that has been put forward by a landowner as potentially suitable for housing development at Sutton Bonington. This is shown on the plan below. The site, if identified as suitable for housing development, should be able to deliver new homes relatively quickly and, therefore, contribute to resolving the current shortfall in the amount of land that is available for housing development over the next few years. We would like to know what you think about the suitability of the site shown on the plan below and whether it should or should not be allocated for housing development. For any one site, it should be noted that there may be the option to develop only part of the site rather than its whole. The development of the site would be likely to result in impacts which require mitigation and also opportunities to improve the local area. We would need to consider the facilities and services required, the type and design of housing, and how the site would be accessed by car and public transport, amongst a number of other issues.

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 5 Do you support housing development at:

Site SUT1 – Land north of Park Lane (potential capacity around 140 homes)

Any other location (please specify which)

Question 26

If greenfield land is allocated for housing development at Tollerton, do you have a view on the total number of new homes that should be built up to 2028? If possible, please give reasons for your answer. do not support any building on green belt land so Zero building of homes

Question 27

There are a number of sites that have been put forward by developers and others as potentially suitable for housing development at Tollerton. These are shown on the plan below. Most of the sites, if identified as suitable for housing development, should be able to deliver new homes relatively quickly and, therefore, contribute to resolving the current shortfall in the amount of land that is available for housing development over the next few years. We would like to know what you think about the suitability of each of those individual sites shown on the plan below and whether, in each case, the site should or should not be allocated for housing development. For any one site, it should be noted that there may be the option to develop only part of the site rather than its whole. The development of any one of these sites would be likely to result in impacts which require mitigation and also opportunities to improve the local area. We would need to consider the facilities and services required, the type and design of housing, and how the site would be accessed by car and public transport, amongst a number of other issues. Do you support housing development at:

Site TOL1 – Land at Burnside Grove (potential No capacity around 180 homes)

Site TOL2 – West of Tollerton Lane and North of No Medina Drive (potential capacity around 360 homes)

Site TOL3 – Land east of Tollerton Lane (potential No capacity around 50 homes)

Any other location (please specify which) No

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers. For any of the sites, this could include comments on the services and facilities required to support development and the design, mix and layout of development. Again: The land put forward for housing in Tol 1 and Tol 2 is green belt. I do not support building any houses on green belt land. Also the roads into Tol 1 on plan could not cope with the extra traffic through the village from the A606 Melton Road. The village school is not large enough and would not cope with the influx. Already the roads near the school can not cope with extra traffic during school open and closing. There are no local facilities . Most important is the roads through the village it would no longer be a village and have negative impact on the way of life already in this village. We do not have the infrasture roads, schools, shops, doctors to support anyfurther housing

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 6 Comment.

Consultee mr neil gamble (1073657)

Email Address

Address 81 tollerton lane tollerton nottingham ng12 4fs

Event Name Local Plan Part 2 Further Options

Comment by mr neil gamble

Comment ID 55

Response Date 29/03/17 09:11

Status Submitted

Submission Type Web

Version 0.1

Question 1

Do you agree with the Council’s assessment of the No present housing supply situation and that enough land will need to be identified by Local Plan Part 2 to accommodate around 2,000 new homes?

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your response. The original plans should have only been accepted if deliverable, the failure of developers to bring forward sites, while awaiting upturn in the market, needs to be resisted, this is the cause of problems with housinhg supply as it is and by pandering to this you continue to support such actions. Due to these fialures you then seek to find easy sites that any previous planning trawl would have thrown out. This is a completely flawed process.

Question 2

Do you agree with the Council’s view that none of the No three strategic allocations (Melton Road, Edwalton; South of Clifton; and East of Gamston/North of Tollerton) should be expanded as part of resolving the current shortfall in the amount of land that is available for housing development over the next few years?

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your response

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 1 These were the previously identified areas when you were seeking to proper plan the area. Tjhose criteria are unchnaged but suddenly due to land owner greed or developer inaction proper planning is being thrown out of the window. These remain the obvious locations for more housing, where they can be serviced by facilities best. This has not changed.

Question 4

Do you agree that Local Plan Part 2 should not allocate No further greenfield land for housing development at Bingham in the plan period (up to 2028)?

Please provide any comments you wish to make in support of your response. Bingham has lots of facilities and can cope with growth.

Question 5

Do you agree that Local Plan Part 2 should allocate Ye s greenfield land for housing development at Cotgrave in the plan period (up to 2028)?

Please provide any comments you wish to make in support of your response. Cotgrave has lots of facilities to suppor

Question 8

Do you agree that, apart from those eight sites that Don't know already have planning permission for housing development (sites EL1 to EL8 as shown below), further greenfield land should not be allocated for housing development at East Leake?

Question 17

The villages which we have identified as potentially suitable to accommodate a limited level of housing development on greenfield sites are as follows: Cropwell Bishop; East Bridgford; Gotham; Sutton Bonington; and Tollerton These particular villages have been identified because, while they do not provide for a full range of facilities as is the case at West Bridgford and the key settlements, the basic level of facilities (e,g. schools; doctors’ surgery) that are available are deemed capable of potentially supporting a relatively limited level of housing growth without compromising the strategy set out in Local Plan Part 1 (Core Strategy) for the distribution of new housing. Should Local Plan Part 2 identify the following ‘other’ villages as suitable for a limited level of housing growth on greenfileld sites?

Cropwell Bishop No

East Bridgford No

Gotham No

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 2 Sutton Bonington No

Tollerton No

Any other settlement (please specify which)

Please provide any comments you wish to make in support of your response. None of these villages have facilities sufficient to service growth

Question 19

There are a number of sites that have been put forward by developers and others as potentially suitable for housing development at Cropwell Bishop. These are shown on the plan below. Most of the sites, if identified as suitable for housing development, should be able to deliver new homes relatively quickly and, therefore, contribute to resolving the current shortfall in the amount of land that is available for housing development over the next few years. We would like to know what you think about the suitability of each of those individual sites shown on the plan below and whether, in each case, the site should or should not be allocated for housing development. For any one site, it should be noted that there may be the option to develop only part of the site rather than its whole. The development of any one of these sites would be likely to result in impacts which require mitigation and also opportunities to improve the local area. We would need to consider the facilities and services required, the type and design of housing, and how the site would be accessed by car and public transport, amongst a number of other issues. Do you support housing development at:

Site CBI1 – Land to the south of Nottingham Road and east of Kinoulton Road (potential capacity around 30 homes)

Site CBI2 – Land north of Memorial Hall (1) (potential capacity around 75 homes)

Site CBI3– Land north of Memorial Hall (2) (potential capacity around 60 homes)

Site CBI4 – Land north of Fern Road (2) (potential capacity around 30 homes)

Site CBI5 – Land north of Fern Road (1) (potential capacity around 250 homes)

Site CBI6 – Land to the north of Fern Road (3) (potential capacity around 70 homes)

Any other location (please specify which)

Question 21

There are a number of sites that have been put forward by developers and others as potentially suitable for housing development at East Bridgford. These are shown on the plan below. Most of the sites, if identified as suitable for housing development, should be able to deliver new homes relatively quickly and, therefore, contribute to resolving the current shortfall in the amount of land that is available for housing development over the next few years. We would like to know what you think about the suitability of each of those individual sites shown on the plan below and whether, in each case, the site should or should not be allocated for housing development. For any one site, it should be noted that there may be the option to develop only part of the site rather than its whole.

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 3 The development of any one of these sites would be likely to result in impacts which require mitigation and also opportunities to improve the local area. We would need to consider the facilities and services required, the type and design of housing, and how the site would be accessed by car and public transport, amongst a number of other issues. Do you support housing development at:

Site EBR1 – Land behind Kirk Hill (east) (potential capacity around 15 homes)

Site EBR2 – Land behind Kirk Hill (west) (potential capacity around 70 homes)

Site EBR3 – Land north of Kneeton Road (1) (potential capacity around 95 homes)

Site EBR4 – Land north of Kneeton Road (2) (potential capacity around 150 homes)

Site EBR5 – Land at Lammas Lane (potential capacity around 40 homes)

Site EBR6 – Closes Side Lane (west) (potential capacity around 20 homes)

Site EBR7 – Closes Side Lane (east) (potential capacity around 20 homes)

Site EBR8 – Land to the north of Butt Lane (potential capacity around 20 homes)

Site EBR9 – Land to the south of Springdale Lane (potential capacity around 30 homes)

Any other location (please specify which)

Question 23

There are a number of sites that have been put forward by developers and others as potentially suitable for housing development at Gotham. These are shown on the plan below. Most of the sites, if identified as suitable for housing development, should be able to deliver new homes relatively quickly and, therefore, contribute to resolving the current shortfall in the amount of land that is available for housing development over the next few years. We would like to know what you think about the suitability of each of those individual sites shown on the plan below and whether, in each case, the site should or should not be allocated for housing development. For any one site, it should be noted that there may be the option to develop only part of the site rather than its whole. The development of any one of these sites would be likely to result in impacts which require mitigation and also opportunities to improve the local area. We would need to consider the facilities and services required, the type and design of housing, and how the site would be accessed by car and public transport, amongst a number of other issues. Do you support housing development at:

Site GOT1 – Land to the rear of former British Legion (potential capacity around 25 homes)

Site GOT2 – Land north of Kegworth Road/Home Farm (west) (potential capacity around 50 homes)

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 4 Site GOT3 – Land north of Kegworth Road/Home Farm (east) (potential capacity around 20 homes)

Site GOT4 – The Orchards, Leake Road (potential capacity around 50 homes)

Site GOT5 – Land east of Gypsum Way/The Orchards (potential capacity around 200 homes)

Site GOT6 – East of Leake Road (potential capacity around 45 homes)

Site GOT7 – Land east of Hill Road (potential capacity around 160 homes)

Site GOT8 – Land south of Moor Lane (potential capacity around 15 homes)

Any other location (please specify which)

Question 25

There is one site that has been put forward by a landowner as potentially suitable for housing development at Sutton Bonington. This is shown on the plan below. The site, if identified as suitable for housing development, should be able to deliver new homes relatively quickly and, therefore, contribute to resolving the current shortfall in the amount of land that is available for housing development over the next few years. We would like to know what you think about the suitability of the site shown on the plan below and whether it should or should not be allocated for housing development. For any one site, it should be noted that there may be the option to develop only part of the site rather than its whole. The development of the site would be likely to result in impacts which require mitigation and also opportunities to improve the local area. We would need to consider the facilities and services required, the type and design of housing, and how the site would be accessed by car and public transport, amongst a number of other issues. Do you support housing development at:

Site SUT1 – Land north of Park Lane (potential capacity around 140 homes)

Any other location (please specify which)

Question 26

If greenfield land is allocated for housing development at Tollerton, do you have a view on the total number of new homes that should be built up to 2028? If possible, please give reasons for your answer. None, the village cannot cope with any more development, traffic, especially in view of the large allocation to the north of the village

Question 27

There are a number of sites that have been put forward by developers and others as potentially suitable for housing development at Tollerton. These are shown on the plan below. Most of the sites, if identified as suitable for housing development, should be able to deliver new homes relatively quickly and, therefore, contribute to resolving the current shortfall in the amount of land that is available for housing development over the next few years. We would like to know what you think about the suitability of each of those individual sites shown on the plan below and whether, in each case, the site should or should not be allocated for housing development. For

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 5 any one site, it should be noted that there may be the option to develop only part of the site rather than its whole. The development of any one of these sites would be likely to result in impacts which require mitigation and also opportunities to improve the local area. We would need to consider the facilities and services required, the type and design of housing, and how the site would be accessed by car and public transport, amongst a number of other issues. Do you support housing development at:

Site TOL1 – Land at Burnside Grove (potential capacity No around 180 homes)

Site TOL2 – West of Tollerton Lane and North of Medina No Drive (potential capacity around 360 homes)

Site TOL3 – Land east of Tollerton Lane (potential No capacity around 50 homes)

Any other location (please specify which) No

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers. For any of the sites, this could include comments on the services and facilities required to support development and the design, mix and layout of development. Tollerton is a small village with next to no facilities. It cannot cope with any further development. It is close to the edge of Nottingham and suffers already from significant traffic issues which will only get worse with the allocation to the north. The village has already done its bit with the allocation to the north, industrial development on the air port etc. It cannot cope with any more.The village nature of Tollerton is worth keeping, it shpould not be nerged into Nottingham suburbia as further development will lead to both physically and in feel, it currently has a rural feel which is to be treasured. The village is known for open aspect to countryside and development of site TOL3 would mean a loss of the known views to the village from Cotgrave Road and ythe A606 which make the village notable. The site is in greenbelt and being right up to the built village plays a critical role in helping the village front to the surrounding greenery. This relationship between built village and countryside gives the village its character which should be protected.The site has a heritage hedge running through it which is a vital wildlife corridor linking the built village with the brook and although heavily dog walked alongside a range of birds can regularly be seen with common species but also yellowhammer, and stonechat have been seen in the last year. The fields themselves are home to skylarks and kestrels regularly seen hovering. The grass fields to the north end of the site play host to barn owls in May when the hay awaits cutting and owls can regulalry be seen at dusk hunting. The relationship between Tollerton Lane and the adjacent farmland is one of the key relationships which give Tollerton its character and development of TOL3 will result in Tollerton Lane becoming a tunnel between houses of high volumes of speeding traffic.

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 6 Comment.

Consultee Mrs Diane Garfield (1073972)

Email Address

Address 2 Home Farm close Gotham Nottingham NG11 0JJ

Event Name Local Plan Part 2 Further Options

Comment by Mrs Diane Garfield

Comment ID 68

Response Date 29/03/17 19:28

Status Submitted

Submission Type Web

Version 0.1

Question 1

Do you agree with the Council’s assessment of the Don't know present housing supply situation and that enough land will need to be identified by Local Plan Part 2 to accommodate around 2,000 new homes?

Question 2

Do you agree with the Council’s view that none of the Don't know three strategic allocations (Melton Road, Edwalton; South of Clifton; and East of Gamston/North of Tollerton) should be expanded as part of resolving the current shortfall in the amount of land that is available for housing development over the next few years?

Question 4

Do you agree that Local Plan Part 2 should not allocate Don't know further greenfield land for housing development at Bingham in the plan period (up to 2028)?

Question 16

Do you agree that, apart from the site to the south of Don't know Abbey Lane, Aslockton with planning permission for up to 75 new homes, Local Plan Part 2 should not allocate

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 1 greenfield land for housing development at Aslockton and Whatton in the plan period (up to 2028)?

Question 17

The villages which we have identified as potentially suitable to accommodate a limited level of housing development on greenfield sites are as follows: Cropwell Bishop; East Bridgford; Gotham; Sutton Bonington; and Tollerton These particular villages have been identified because, while they do not provide for a full range of facilities as is the case at West Bridgford and the key settlements, the basic level of facilities (e,g. schools; doctors’ surgery) that are available are deemed capable of potentially supporting a relatively limited level of housing growth without compromising the strategy set out in Local Plan Part 1 (Core Strategy) for the distribution of new housing. Should Local Plan Part 2 identify the following ‘other’ villages as suitable for a limited level of housing growth on greenfileld sites?

Cropwell Bishop No

East Bridgford No

Gotham No

Sutton Bonington No

Tollerton No

Any other settlement (please specify which) No

Question 19

There are a number of sites that have been put forward by developers and others as potentially suitable for housing development at Cropwell Bishop. These are shown on the plan below. Most of the sites, if identified as suitable for housing development, should be able to deliver new homes relatively quickly and, therefore, contribute to resolving the current shortfall in the amount of land that is available for housing development over the next few years. We would like to know what you think about the suitability of each of those individual sites shown on the plan below and whether, in each case, the site should or should not be allocated for housing development. For any one site, it should be noted that there may be the option to develop only part of the site rather than its whole. The development of any one of these sites would be likely to result in impacts which require mitigation and also opportunities to improve the local area. We would need to consider the facilities and services required, the type and design of housing, and how the site would be accessed by car and public transport, amongst a number of other issues. Do you support housing development at:

Site CBI1 – Land to the south of Nottingham Road and east of Kinoulton Road (potential capacity around 30 homes)

Site CBI2 – Land north of Memorial Hall (1) (potential capacity around 75 homes)

Site CBI3– Land north of Memorial Hall (2) (potential capacity around 60 homes)

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 2 Site CBI4 – Land north of Fern Road (2) (potential capacity around 30 homes)

Site CBI5 – Land north of Fern Road (1) (potential capacity around 250 homes)

Site CBI6 – Land to the north of Fern Road (3) (potential capacity around 70 homes)

Any other location (please specify which)

Question 21

There are a number of sites that have been put forward by developers and others as potentially suitable for housing development at East Bridgford. These are shown on the plan below. Most of the sites, if identified as suitable for housing development, should be able to deliver new homes relatively quickly and, therefore, contribute to resolving the current shortfall in the amount of land that is available for housing development over the next few years. We would like to know what you think about the suitability of each of those individual sites shown on the plan below and whether, in each case, the site should or should not be allocated for housing development. For any one site, it should be noted that there may be the option to develop only part of the site rather than its whole. The development of any one of these sites would be likely to result in impacts which require mitigation and also opportunities to improve the local area. We would need to consider the facilities and services required, the type and design of housing, and how the site would be accessed by car and public transport, amongst a number of other issues. Do you support housing development at:

Site EBR1 – Land behind Kirk Hill (east) (potential capacity around 15 homes)

Site EBR2 – Land behind Kirk Hill (west) (potential capacity around 70 homes)

Site EBR3 – Land north of Kneeton Road (1) (potential capacity around 95 homes)

Site EBR4 – Land north of Kneeton Road (2) (potential capacity around 150 homes)

Site EBR5 – Land at Lammas Lane (potential capacity around 40 homes)

Site EBR6 – Closes Side Lane (west) (potential capacity around 20 homes)

Site EBR7 – Closes Side Lane (east) (potential capacity around 20 homes)

Site EBR8 – Land to the north of Butt Lane (potential capacity around 20 homes)

Site EBR9 – Land to the south of Springdale Lane (potential capacity around 30 homes)

Any other location (please specify which)

Question 23

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 3 There are a number of sites that have been put forward by developers and others as potentially suitable for housing development at Gotham. These are shown on the plan below. Most of the sites, if identified as suitable for housing development, should be able to deliver new homes relatively quickly and, therefore, contribute to resolving the current shortfall in the amount of land that is available for housing development over the next few years. We would like to know what you think about the suitability of each of those individual sites shown on the plan below and whether, in each case, the site should or should not be allocated for housing development. For any one site, it should be noted that there may be the option to develop only part of the site rather than its whole. The development of any one of these sites would be likely to result in impacts which require mitigation and also opportunities to improve the local area. We would need to consider the facilities and services required, the type and design of housing, and how the site would be accessed by car and public transport, amongst a number of other issues. Do you support housing development at:

Site GOT1 – Land to the rear of former British Legion (potential capacity around 25 homes)

Site GOT2 – Land north of Kegworth Road/Home Farm (west) (potential capacity around 50 homes)

Site GOT3 – Land north of Kegworth Road/Home Farm (east) (potential capacity around 20 homes)

Site GOT4 – The Orchards, Leake Road (potential capacity around 50 homes)

Site GOT5 – Land east of Gypsum Way/The Orchards (potential capacity around 200 homes)

Site GOT6 – East of Leake Road (potential capacity around 45 homes)

Site GOT7 – Land east of Hill Road (potential capacity around 160 homes)

Site GOT8 – Land south of Moor Lane (potential capacity around 15 homes)

Any other location (please specify which)

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers. For any of the sites, this could include comments on the services and facilities required to support development and the design, mix and layout of development. GOT2; Home Farm. The boundary of this land is the route of the former mineral railway to the north of Kegworth Road Gotham. It is is a well established wildlife corridor with active badger set and a bat colony. The proposed development land is foraging territory for those badgers and other wildlife. It is important locally as a nature trail where it has the support of local interest groups and residents as a recreational, educational and wildlife resource. It is essential that those characteristic of the corridor and its open setting are protected from the encroachment or effects of nearby development. The identified lands southern boundary provides the only relief from built up road frontages within the village. It is also the main pedestrian route to the primary school. It is a busy road for traffic moving around the south ofNottinghamand is extremely congested at school opening and closing times. To propose a further development and a new junction toKegworth Road would be in conflict with its use as a route used by vulnerable children.

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 4 The land is farmland and currently grazed by horses. It has in the recent past been grazed by cattle and sheep. It is not settlement fringe but ancient ridge and furrow farm land Home Farm is important open space and is ancient ridge and furrow. Local knowledge identifies it as previously a site of archery butts. It is important to the character of the village and is part of local farming history. It afford views of open countryside to residents and persons passing through. It serves to protect and enhance the internal open space and irregular outline of the village.

Question 25

There is one site that has been put forward by a landowner as potentially suitable for housing development at Sutton Bonington. This is shown on the plan below. The site, if identified as suitable for housing development, should be able to deliver new homes relatively quickly and, therefore, contribute to resolving the current shortfall in the amount of land that is available for housing development over the next few years. We would like to know what you think about the suitability of the site shown on the plan below and whether it should or should not be allocated for housing development. For any one site, it should be noted that there may be the option to develop only part of the site rather than its whole. The development of the site would be likely to result in impacts which require mitigation and also opportunities to improve the local area. We would need to consider the facilities and services required, the type and design of housing, and how the site would be accessed by car and public transport, amongst a number of other issues. Do you support housing development at:

Site SUT1 – Land north of Park Lane (potential capacity around 140 homes)

Any other location (please specify which)

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 5 Comment.

Consultee Mr Garfield Tim (1073965)

Email Address

Address 2 Home Farm close Gotham Nottingham NG11 0JJ

Event Name Local Plan Part 2 Further Options

Comment by Mr Garfield Tim

Comment ID 67

Response Date 29/03/17 19:02

Status Submitted

Submission Type Web

Version 0.1

Question 1

Do you agree with the Council’s assessment of No the present housing supply situation and that enough land will need to be identified by Local Plan Part 2 to accommodate around 2,000 new homes?

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your response. 2000 new homes may not be sutainable within the communities they are intended to fit.

Question 2

Do you agree with the Council’s view that none of Don't know the three strategic allocations (Melton Road, Edwalton; South of Clifton; and East of Gamston/North of Tollerton) should be expanded as part of resolving the current shortfall in the amount of land that is available for housing development over the next few years?

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your response insufficient appreciation of each of the sites for me to to judge.

Question 3

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 1 There is, in our view, just one site on the edge of West Bridgford or Clifton that may be suitable for housing development and which could help tackle the current housing land supply shortfall. This is land at Simkins Farm at Adbolton Lane, West Bridgford, which has a potential capacity of around 40 homes.The site is shown on Figure 2 below. We would like to know whether or not you think it is suitable for housing development. A number of other sites on the edge of West Bridgford or Clifton have been ruled out at this stage because they are not considered capable of being developed. If, however, you think there are any sites that should be developed we would like to know. It may be useful to refer to our Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) which identifies all those sites that have been put forward by developers and others as potentially suitable for housing development – please see http://www.rushcliffe.gov.uk/planningpolicy/localplan/supportingstudies/strategiclandavailabilityassessment/ Do you support housing development at:

Site HOL1 - Simkins Farm, Adbolton Lane, West Yes - all of site Bridgford (potential capacity around 40 homes)

Question 4

Do you agree that Local Plan Part 2 should not Don't know allocate further greenfield land for housing development at Bingham in the plan period (up to 2028)?

Question 5

Do you agree that Local Plan Part 2 should Don't know allocate greenfield land for housing development at Cotgrave in the plan period (up to 2028)?

Question 17

The villages which we have identified as potentially suitable to accommodate a limited level of housing development on greenfield sites are as follows: Cropwell Bishop; East Bridgford; Gotham; Sutton Bonington; and Tollerton These particular villages have been identified because, while they do not provide for a full range of facilities as is the case at West Bridgford and the key settlements, the basic level of facilities (e,g. schools; doctors’ surgery) that are available are deemed capable of potentially supporting a relatively limited level of housing growth without compromising the strategy set out in Local Plan Part 1 (Core Strategy) for the distribution of new housing. Should Local Plan Part 2 identify the following ‘other’ villages as suitable for a limited level of housing growth on greenfileld sites?

Cropwell Bishop Ye s

East Bridgford Ye s

Gotham Ye s

Sutton Bonington Ye s

Tollerton Ye s

Any other settlement (please specify which) Ye s

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 2 Please provide any comments you wish to make in support of your response. Modest, sustainable development on sensible sites spread across all of the locations is the only realisitc answer.Concentrating larger scale developments at any of these locations is not sustainable.

Question 19

There are a number of sites that have been put forward by developers and others as potentially suitable for housing development at Cropwell Bishop. These are shown on the plan below. Most of the sites, if identified as suitable for housing development, should be able to deliver new homes relatively quickly and, therefore, contribute to resolving the current shortfall in the amount of land that is available for housing development over the next few years. We would like to know what you think about the suitability of each of those individual sites shown on the plan below and whether, in each case, the site should or should not be allocated for housing development. For any one site, it should be noted that there may be the option to develop only part of the site rather than its whole. The development of any one of these sites would be likely to result in impacts which require mitigation and also opportunities to improve the local area. We would need to consider the facilities and services required, the type and design of housing, and how the site would be accessed by car and public transport, amongst a number of other issues. Do you support housing development at:

Site CBI1 – Land to the south of Nottingham Road and east of Kinoulton Road (potential capacity around 30 homes)

Site CBI2 – Land north of Memorial Hall (1) (potential capacity around 75 homes)

Site CBI3– Land north of Memorial Hall (2) (potential capacity around 60 homes)

Site CBI4 – Land north of Fern Road (2) (potential capacity around 30 homes)

Site CBI5 – Land north of Fern Road (1) (potential capacity around 250 homes)

Site CBI6 – Land to the north of Fern Road (3) (potential capacity around 70 homes)

Any other location (please specify which)

Question 21

There are a number of sites that have been put forward by developers and others as potentially suitable for housing development at East Bridgford. These are shown on the plan below. Most of the sites, if identified as suitable for housing development, should be able to deliver new homes relatively quickly and, therefore, contribute to resolving the current shortfall in the amount of land that is available for housing development over the next few years. We would like to know what you think about the suitability of each of those individual sites shown on the plan below and whether, in each case, the site should or should not be allocated for housing development. For any one site, it should be noted that there may be the option to develop only part of the site rather than its whole. The development of any one of these sites would be likely to result in impacts which require mitigation and also opportunities to improve the local area. We would need to consider the facilities and services required, the type and design of housing, and how the site would be accessed by car and public transport, amongst a number of other issues.

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 3 Do you support housing development at:

Site EBR1 – Land behind Kirk Hill (east) (potential capacity around 15 homes)

Site EBR2 – Land behind Kirk Hill (west) (potential capacity around 70 homes)

Site EBR3 – Land north of Kneeton Road (1) (potential capacity around 95 homes)

Site EBR4 – Land north of Kneeton Road (2) (potential capacity around 150 homes)

Site EBR5 – Land at Lammas Lane (potential capacity around 40 homes)

Site EBR6 – Closes Side Lane (west) (potential capacity around 20 homes)

Site EBR7 – Closes Side Lane (east) (potential capacity around 20 homes)

Site EBR8 – Land to the north of Butt Lane (potential capacity around 20 homes)

Site EBR9 – Land to the south of Springdale Lane (potential capacity around 30 homes)

Any other location (please specify which)

Question 23

There are a number of sites that have been put forward by developers and others as potentially suitable for housing development at Gotham. These are shown on the plan below. Most of the sites, if identified as suitable for housing development, should be able to deliver new homes relatively quickly and, therefore, contribute to resolving the current shortfall in the amount of land that is available for housing development over the next few years. We would like to know what you think about the suitability of each of those individual sites shown on the plan below and whether, in each case, the site should or should not be allocated for housing development. For any one site, it should be noted that there may be the option to develop only part of the site rather than its whole. The development of any one of these sites would be likely to result in impacts which require mitigation and also opportunities to improve the local area. We would need to consider the facilities and services required, the type and design of housing, and how the site would be accessed by car and public transport, amongst a number of other issues. Do you support housing development at:

Site GOT1 – Land to the rear of former British Yes - all of site Legion (potential capacity around 25 homes)

Site GOT2 – Land north of Kegworth Road/Home No Farm (west) (potential capacity around 50 homes)

Site GOT3 – Land north of Kegworth Road/Home No Farm (east) (potential capacity around 20 homes)

Site GOT4 – The Orchards, Leake Road (potential Yes - all of site capacity around 50 homes) Yes - part of site

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 4 Site GOT5 – Land east of Gypsum Way/The Yes - all of site Orchards (potential capacity around 200 homes) Yes - part of site

Site GOT6 – East of Leake Road (potential capacity Yes - all of site around 45 homes) No

Site GOT7 – Land east of Hill Road (potential Yes - all of site capacity around 160 homes)

Site GOT8 – Land south of Moor Lane (potential Yes - all of site capacity around 15 homes)

Any other location (please specify which)

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers. For any of the sites, this could include comments on the services and facilities required to support development and the design, mix and layout of development. Whilst the sites identified are all potential development sites with lesser impact on the historical nature of the village settlement, developing all of the sites would not be sustainable.

Question 25

There is one site that has been put forward by a landowner as potentially suitable for housing development at Sutton Bonington. This is shown on the plan below. The site, if identified as suitable for housing development, should be able to deliver new homes relatively quickly and, therefore, contribute to resolving the current shortfall in the amount of land that is available for housing development over the next few years. We would like to know what you think about the suitability of the site shown on the plan below and whether it should or should not be allocated for housing development. For any one site, it should be noted that there may be the option to develop only part of the site rather than its whole. The development of the site would be likely to result in impacts which require mitigation and also opportunities to improve the local area. We would need to consider the facilities and services required, the type and design of housing, and how the site would be accessed by car and public transport, amongst a number of other issues. Do you support housing development at:

Site SUT1 – Land north of Park Lane (potential capacity around 140 homes)

Any other location (please specify which)

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 5 Comment.

Consultee Mrs Jane Garrard (1074378)

Email Address

Address 29 Bentinck Avenue Tollerton Nottingham NG12 4ED

Event Name Local Plan Part 2 Further Options

Comment by Mrs Jane Garrard

Comment ID 93

Response Date 31/03/17 01:43

Status Submitted

Submission Type Web

Version 0.1

Question 1

Do you agree with the Council’s assessment of Ye s the present housing supply situation and that enough land will need to be identified by Local Plan Part 2 to accommodate around 2,000 new homes?

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your response. I accept that this is the Council's current assessment of the present housing supply situation but consider it to be unacceptable that this is the current situation. Sites have previously been identified for significant housing development in the borough and this was heavily consulted on. Effort should be focused on delivering the sites already identified, not just keeping identifying new ones to make up the shortfall when plans don't work out. This suggests that either the original plans were poor or housing development is not being managed appropriately to deliver against those plans. Either way an expectation that small villages willingly accept more and more sites being identified for housing development is unreasonable.

Question 2

Do you agree with the Council’s view that none of Ye s the three strategic allocations (Melton Road, Edwalton; South of Clifton; and East of Gamston/North of Tollerton) should be expanded as part of resolving the current shortfall in the

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 1 amount of land that is available for housing development over the next few years?

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your response In particular, I strongly oppose expanding the East of Gamston/ North of Tollerton site. The land between the site and Tollerton is in the green belt and I strongly oppose removing any further land from the green belt surrounding Tollerton to use for housing development. The existence of the green belt is an crucial aspect of the village of Tollerton and encroaching further into the green belt towards Tollerton would fundamentally affect the nature and character of the village. The identified site is already large enough and should not be expanded any further.

Question 3

There is, in our view, just one site on the edge of West Bridgford or Clifton that may be suitable for housing development and which could help tackle the current housing land supply shortfall. This is land at Simkins Farm at Adbolton Lane, West Bridgford, which has a potential capacity of around 40 homes.The site is shown on Figure 2 below. We would like to know whether or not you think it is suitable for housing development. A number of other sites on the edge of West Bridgford or Clifton have been ruled out at this stage because they are not considered capable of being developed. If, however, you think there are any sites that should be developed we would like to know. It may be useful to refer to our Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) which identifies all those sites that have been put forward by developers and others as potentially suitable for housing development – please see http://www.rushcliffe.gov.uk/planningpolicy/localplan/supportingstudies/strategiclandavailabilityassessment/ Do you support housing development at:

Site HOL1 - Simkins Farm, Adbolton Lane, West Yes - but only part of site Bridgford (potential capacity around 40 homes)

Question 4

Do you agree that Local Plan Part 2 should not No allocate further greenfield land for housing development at Bingham in the plan period (up to 2028)?

Please provide any comments you wish to make in support of your response. I think that housing development in Rushcliffe should focus on the identified 'Key Settlements' prioritising major settlements along the A52 corridor and sites linked to Nottingham by the dualled A453 and tram extension, such as Radcliffe and Bingham and if demonstrable need Newton, Sutton Bonnington and Gotham.

Question 5

Do you agree that Local Plan Part 2 should Ye s allocate greenfield land for housing development at Cotgrave in the plan period (up to 2028)?

Please provide any comments you wish to make in support of your response. I think that housing development in Rushcliffe should focus on the identified 'Key Settlements' prioritising major settlements along the A52 corridor and sites linked to Nottingham by the dualled A453 and tram extension, such as Radcliffe and Bingham and if demonstrable need Newton, Sutton Bonnington and Gotham.

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 2 Question 7

There are a number of sites that have been put forward by developers and others as potentially suitable for housing development. These are shown below. Most of the sites, if identified as suitable for housing development, should be able to deliver new homes relatively quickly and, therefore, contribute to resolving the current shortfall in the amount of land that is available for housing development over the next few years. We would like to know what you think about the suitability of each of those individual sites shown on Figure 4 and whether, in each case, the site should or should not be allocated for housing development. For any one site, it should be noted that there may be the option to develop only part of the site rather than its whole. The development of any one of these sites would be likely to result in impacts which require mitigation and also opportunities to improve the local area. We would need to consider the facilities and services required, the type and design of housing, and how the site would be accessed by car and public transport, amongst a number of other issues. Do you support housing development at:

Site COT1 - Land rear of Mill Lane/The Old Park Yes - all of site (potential capacity around 240 homes)

Site COT6 – The Brickyard, Owthorpe Road Yes - all of site (potential capacity around 100 homes)

Site COT9 – Land south of Hollygate Lane (1) Yes - all of site (potential capacity around 140 homes)

Site COT10 – Land south of Hollygate Lane (2) Yes - all of site (potential capacity around 40 homes)

Question 8

Do you agree that, apart from those eight sites Ye s that already have planning permission for housing development (sites EL1 to EL8 as shown below), further greenfield land should not be allocated for housing development at East Leake?

Please provide any comments you wish to make in support of your response. I think that housing development in Rushcliffe should focus on the identified 'Key Settlements' prioritising major settlements along the A52 corridor and sites linked to Nottingham by the dualled A453 and tram extension, such as Radcliffe and Bingham and if demonstrable need Newton, Sutton Bonnington and Gotham.

Question 9

If, however, extra housing land does need to be allocated at East Leake, there are a number of sites that have been put forward by developers and others as potentially suitable for housing development. These are also shown below (sites EL9 to EL14). We would like to know what you think about the suitability of each of the six sites and whether each one should or should not be allocated for housing development. For any one site, it should be noted that there may be the option to develop only part of the site rather than its whole. The development of any one of these sites would be likely to result in impacts which require mitigation and also opportunities to improve the local area. We would need to consider the facilities and services required, the type and design of housing, and how the site would be accessed by car and public transport, amongst a number of other issues. Do you support housing development at:

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 3 Site EL12 – Land off Rempstone Road (north) Yes - all of site (potential capacity around 235 homes)

Question 10

Do you have a view on the total number of new homes that should be built on greenfield sites at Keyworth up to 2028? If possible, please give reasons for your answer. If the Keyworth Neighbourhood Plan recommends the allocation of three sites to deliver around 500 homes, based on an original target within the Core Strategy of 450 homes then I think that 500 new homes (as recommended in the Neighbourhood Plan) is reasonable. Identification of sites for housing development should reflect local Neighbourhood Plans.

Question 11

There are a number of sites that have been put forward by developers and others as potentially suitable for housing development. These are shown below. When we previously consulted on potential sites for housing development early last year, the sites recommended for development in the draft Keyworth Neighbourhood Plan were, at the time, part of site KEY4, KEY6 and part of site KEY10. In December 2016, Keyworth Parish Council approved its final draft Neighbourhood Plan and the sites recommended for development had changed to part of site KEY4, KEY8 and part of site KEY10. To add to the comments already received when we consulted early last year, we would like to know what you think about the suitability of each of those individual sites shown on Figure 6 and whether each one should or should not be allocated for housing development. For any one site, it should be noted that there may be the option to develop only part of the site rather than its whole. The development of any one of these sites would be likely to result in impacts which require mitigation and also opportunities to improve the local area. We would need to consider the facilities and services required, the type and design of housing, and how the site would be accessed by car and public transport, amongst a number of other issues. Do you support housing development at:

Site KEY1 – Land east of Willow Brook (potential No capacity around 40 homes)

Site KEY2 – Land off Selby Lane and Willowbrook No (potential capacity around 15 homes)

Site KEY3 – Land south of Selby Lane (potential No capacity around 60 homes)

Site KEY4 – Land off Nicker Hill (potential capacity Yes - all of site around 450 homes)

Site KEY5 – Hill Top Farm, Platt Lane (1) (potential No capacity around 50 homes)

Site KEY6 – Hill Top Farm, Platt Lane (2) (potential No capacity around 80 homes)

Site KEY7 – Shelton Farm, Platt Lane (potential No capacity around 160 homes)

Site KEY8 – Land between Platt Lane and Station Yes - all of site Road (potential capacity around 180 homes)

Site KEY9 – Land north of Debdale Lane (1) No (potential capacity around 110 homes)

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 4 Site KEY10 – Land south of Debdale Lane (1) Yes - part of site (potential capacity around 230 homes)

Site KEY11 – Land south of Debdale Lane (2) No (potential capacity around 200 homes)

Site KEY12 – Land north of Debdale Lane (2) No (potential capacity around 160 homes)

Site KEY13 – Hillside Farm (potential capacity No around 60 homes)

Site KEY14 – Land south of Bunny Lane (potential No capacity around 410 homes)

Any other location (please specify which) No

Question 12

Do you have a view on the total number of new homes that should be built on greenfield sites at Radcliffe on Trent up to 2028? If possible, please give reasons for your answer. I think that housing development in Rushcliffe should focus on the identified 'Key Settlements' prioritising major settlements along the A52 corridor and sites linked to Nottingham by the dualled A453 and tram extension, such as Radcliffe and Bingham and if demonstrable need Newton, Sutton Bonnington and Gotham.

Question 13

The plan below identifies sites on the edge of Radcliffe on Trent that have been put forward by developers and others as potentially suitable for housing development. We have already asked for views on the suitability for development of sites RAD1 to RAD10 as part of the Issues and Options consultation stage which we undertook early last year. Since last year’s consultation a further two sites (RAD11 and RAD12) have been put forward by developers and others as potentially suitable for housing development. We would also like to know what you think about the suitability of each of these two sites (as shown on the plan below) and whether each one should or should not be allocated for housing development. For any one site, it should be noted that there may be the option to develop only part of the site rather than its whole. The development of any one of these sites would be likely to result in impacts which require mitigation and also opportunities to improve the local area. We would need to consider the facilities and services required, the type and design of housing, and how the site would be accessed by car and public transport, amongst a number of other issues. Do you support housing development at:

Site RAD11 – North of Holme Lane (potential Yes - all of site capacity around 115 homes)

Site RAD12 – Land to the north of Shelford Road Yes - all of site (potential capacity around 180 homes)

Question 14

Do you have a view on the total number of new homes that should be accommodated on greenfield sites at Ruddington up to 2028? If possible, please give reasons for your answer. I think that housing development in Rushcliffe should focus on the identified 'Key Settlements' prioritising major settlements along the A52 corridor and sites linked to Nottingham by the dualled A453 and tram extension, such as Radcliffe and Bingham and if demonstrable need Newton, Sutton Bonnington and Gotham.

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 5 Question 15

The plan below identifies sites on the edge of Ruddington that have been put forward by developers and others as potentially suitable for housing development. We have already asked for views on the suitability for development of sites RUD1 to RUD10 as part of the Issues and Options consultation stage which we undertook early last year. Since last year’s consultation a further three sites (RUD11 to RUD14) have been put forward by developers and others as potentially suitable for housing development. We would also like to know what your views as to whether each one should or should not be allocated for housing development. For any one site, it should be noted that there may be the option to develop only part of the site rather than its whole. The development of any one of these sites would be likely to result in impacts which require mitigation and also opportunities to improve the local area. We would need to consider the facilities and services required, the type and design of housing, and how the site would be accessed by car and public transport, amongst a number of other issues. Do you support housing development at:

Site RUD11 – Old Loughborough Road (potential Yes - all of site capacity around 40 homes)

Site RUD12 – Land to the east side of Yes - all of site Loughborough Road (potential capacity around 60 homes)

Site RUD13 – Land opposite Mere Way (potential Yes - all of site capacity around 170 homes)

Site RUD14 – Croft House (potential capacity Yes - all of site around 25 homes)

Any other location (please specify which) Yes - all of site

Question 16

Do you agree that, apart from the site to the south Don't know of Abbey Lane, Aslockton with planning permission for up to 75 new homes, Local Plan Part 2 should not allocate greenfield land for housing development at Aslockton and Whatton in the plan period (up to 2028)?

Question 17

The villages which we have identified as potentially suitable to accommodate a limited level of housing development on greenfield sites are as follows: Cropwell Bishop; East Bridgford; Gotham; Sutton Bonington; and Tollerton These particular villages have been identified because, while they do not provide for a full range of facilities as is the case at West Bridgford and the key settlements, the basic level of facilities (e,g. schools; doctors’ surgery) that are available are deemed capable of potentially supporting a relatively limited level of housing growth without compromising the strategy set out in Local Plan Part 1 (Core Strategy) for the distribution of new housing. Should Local Plan Part 2 identify the following ‘other’ villages as suitable for a limited level of housing growth on greenfileld sites?

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 6 Cropwell Bishop Don't know

East Bridgford Don't know

Gotham Ye s

Sutton Bonington Ye s

Tollerton No

Any other settlement (please specify which)

Please provide any comments you wish to make in support of your response. I feel very strongly that Tollerton should not be identified as an 'other' village suitable for housing growth. The consultation suggests that these villages have been identified because they have a 'basic level of facilities'. Tollerton does not have a basic level of facilities - it does not have any GP facilities; the school is small (one class intake per year); there is a Post Office with very small shop facilities and a small pub. These facilities could not support additional housing growth. I am also aware of the consultation responses put together by TABU and TASC and completely support the concerns they raise about current issues of road capacity, road safety, lack of cycle routes, lack of pavements, limited access to public transport, and the cumulative impact that other agreed sites will have on these highway issues. Therefore I consider Tollerton to be unsuitable for housing growth, particularly when compared to other villages listed in this section of the consultation. I consider it to be disingenuous to identify Tollerton as a potential 'other' village, implying that up until now it has had no sites identified for housing development.Tollerton is already taking a huge proportion of the total housing development for Rushcliffe at the East of Gamston/ North of Tollerton site. This site is within the parish of Tollerton and will severely impact on the village. In my view, through this site, Tollerton is already allocated far more than its fair share of housing development for Rushcliffe and should not be expected to accept any more. This consultation document suggests that other settlements/ villages have accepted sufficient housing development through previously agreed sites but reads as though Tollerton hasn't got any allocated housing so far. The site is within the parish of Tollerton and will significantly impact on the nature and character of the village and the experience of people already living there. Not to recognise that impact in this document totally misrepresents the situation.

Question 19

There are a number of sites that have been put forward by developers and others as potentially suitable for housing development at Cropwell Bishop. These are shown on the plan below. Most of the sites, if identified as suitable for housing development, should be able to deliver new homes relatively quickly and, therefore, contribute to resolving the current shortfall in the amount of land that is available for housing development over the next few years. We would like to know what you think about the suitability of each of those individual sites shown on the plan below and whether, in each case, the site should or should not be allocated for housing development. For any one site, it should be noted that there may be the option to develop only part of the site rather than its whole. The development of any one of these sites would be likely to result in impacts which require mitigation and also opportunities to improve the local area. We would need to consider the facilities and services required, the type and design of housing, and how the site would be accessed by car and public transport, amongst a number of other issues. Do you support housing development at:

Site CBI1 – Land to the south of Nottingham Road and east of Kinoulton Road (potential capacity around 30 homes)

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 7 Site CBI2 – Land north of Memorial Hall (1) (potential capacity around 75 homes)

Site CBI3– Land north of Memorial Hall (2) (potential capacity around 60 homes)

Site CBI4 – Land north of Fern Road (2) (potential capacity around 30 homes)

Site CBI5 – Land north of Fern Road (1) (potential capacity around 250 homes)

Site CBI6 – Land to the north of Fern Road (3) (potential capacity around 70 homes)

Any other location (please specify which)

Question 21

There are a number of sites that have been put forward by developers and others as potentially suitable for housing development at East Bridgford. These are shown on the plan below. Most of the sites, if identified as suitable for housing development, should be able to deliver new homes relatively quickly and, therefore, contribute to resolving the current shortfall in the amount of land that is available for housing development over the next few years. We would like to know what you think about the suitability of each of those individual sites shown on the plan below and whether, in each case, the site should or should not be allocated for housing development. For any one site, it should be noted that there may be the option to develop only part of the site rather than its whole. The development of any one of these sites would be likely to result in impacts which require mitigation and also opportunities to improve the local area. We would need to consider the facilities and services required, the type and design of housing, and how the site would be accessed by car and public transport, amongst a number of other issues. Do you support housing development at:

Site EBR1 – Land behind Kirk Hill (east) (potential capacity around 15 homes)

Site EBR2 – Land behind Kirk Hill (west) (potential capacity around 70 homes)

Site EBR3 – Land north of Kneeton Road (1) (potential capacity around 95 homes)

Site EBR4 – Land north of Kneeton Road (2) (potential capacity around 150 homes)

Site EBR5 – Land at Lammas Lane (potential capacity around 40 homes)

Site EBR6 – Closes Side Lane (west) (potential capacity around 20 homes)

Site EBR7 – Closes Side Lane (east) (potential capacity around 20 homes)

Site EBR8 – Land to the north of Butt Lane (potential capacity around 20 homes)

Site EBR9 – Land to the south of Springdale Lane (potential capacity around 30 homes)

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 8 Any other location (please specify which)

Question 23

There are a number of sites that have been put forward by developers and others as potentially suitable for housing development at Gotham. These are shown on the plan below. Most of the sites, if identified as suitable for housing development, should be able to deliver new homes relatively quickly and, therefore, contribute to resolving the current shortfall in the amount of land that is available for housing development over the next few years. We would like to know what you think about the suitability of each of those individual sites shown on the plan below and whether, in each case, the site should or should not be allocated for housing development. For any one site, it should be noted that there may be the option to develop only part of the site rather than its whole. The development of any one of these sites would be likely to result in impacts which require mitigation and also opportunities to improve the local area. We would need to consider the facilities and services required, the type and design of housing, and how the site would be accessed by car and public transport, amongst a number of other issues. Do you support housing development at:

Site GOT1 – Land to the rear of former British Legion (potential capacity around 25 homes)

Site GOT2 – Land north of Kegworth Road/Home Farm (west) (potential capacity around 50 homes)

Site GOT3 – Land north of Kegworth Road/Home Farm (east) (potential capacity around 20 homes)

Site GOT4 – The Orchards, Leake Road (potential capacity around 50 homes)

Site GOT5 – Land east of Gypsum Way/The Orchards (potential capacity around 200 homes)

Site GOT6 – East of Leake Road (potential capacity around 45 homes)

Site GOT7 – Land east of Hill Road (potential capacity around 160 homes)

Site GOT8 – Land south of Moor Lane (potential capacity around 15 homes)

Any other location (please specify which)

Question 25

There is one site that has been put forward by a landowner as potentially suitable for housing development at Sutton Bonington. This is shown on the plan below. The site, if identified as suitable for housing development, should be able to deliver new homes relatively quickly and, therefore, contribute to resolving the current shortfall in the amount of land that is available for housing development over the next few years. We would like to know what you think about the suitability of the site shown on the plan below and whether it should or should not be allocated for housing development. For any one site, it should be noted that there may be the option to develop only part of the site rather than its whole. The development of the site would be likely to result in impacts which require mitigation and also opportunities to improve the local area. We would need to consider the facilities and services required, the type and design of housing, and how the site would be accessed by car and public transport, amongst a number of other issues.

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 9 Do you support housing development at:

Site SUT1 – Land north of Park Lane (potential capacity around 140 homes)

Any other location (please specify which)

Question 26

If greenfield land is allocated for housing development at Tollerton, do you have a view on the total number of new homes that should be built up to 2028? If possible, please give reasons for your answer. No houses.

Question 27

There are a number of sites that have been put forward by developers and others as potentially suitable for housing development at Tollerton. These are shown on the plan below. Most of the sites, if identified as suitable for housing development, should be able to deliver new homes relatively quickly and, therefore, contribute to resolving the current shortfall in the amount of land that is available for housing development over the next few years. We would like to know what you think about the suitability of each of those individual sites shown on the plan below and whether, in each case, the site should or should not be allocated for housing development. For any one site, it should be noted that there may be the option to develop only part of the site rather than its whole. The development of any one of these sites would be likely to result in impacts which require mitigation and also opportunities to improve the local area. We would need to consider the facilities and services required, the type and design of housing, and how the site would be accessed by car and public transport, amongst a number of other issues. Do you support housing development at:

Site TOL1 – Land at Burnside Grove (potential No capacity around 180 homes)

Site TOL2 – West of Tollerton Lane and North of No Medina Drive (potential capacity around 360 homes)

Site TOL3 – Land east of Tollerton Lane (potential No capacity around 50 homes)

Any other location (please specify which) No

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers. For any of the sites, this could include comments on the services and facilities required to support development and the design, mix and layout of development. Residents of Tollerton, including myself, are very strongly opposed to further housing development in the village - not least because of the very large housing development already agreed at the East of Gamston/ North of Tollerton site, which is within the parish. Current facilities could not support further housing development beyond a few houses per year. The Parish Council has held its own public meeting to discuss the proposals, which was very well attended, and I strongly support the views articulated in the Parish Council's response to the consultation and TABU's response to the consultation. As Rushcliffe Borough Council will be aware Tollerton Parish Council is leading on the development of a Neighbourhood Plan for Tollerton. Decisions about any future housing development within the parish should reflect the contents of this Plan.

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 10 In relation to the specific sites mentioned: Land at Burnside Grove * This open countryside contributes to the rurality of Tollerton and, due to the slope of the land, any development would be visible over quite a distance to the north. * Has importance as and should remain in the Green Belt. It is contained within Zone 5.1 in the 2013 Green Belt Review which stated that Zone 5.1 “should ideally remain as Green Belt”. * The proposed boundary to the north is not a defensible boundary since it is a weak hedgerow. It is important to have a defensible boundary to prevent future merging of Tollerton with Edwalton or with the new strategic allocation to the north. * Additional houses at this site would be likely to significantly increase traffic in the centre of the village and around the school. * There is no suitable access to the site. Russell Farm Close does not offer a suitable vehicular access to this site. * The number of houses proposed is excessive for this site which given topography constraints and sympathetic building in keeping with character of village would probably accommodate half the number of houses identified * Oak tree court has a number of conditions placed on it to protect the character of Tollerton which would also be applicable to this site

West of Tollerton Lane and North of Medina * This site has higher Green Belt scores than any other of the additional key settlement sites or other villages sites.TOL2 is contained within Zone 5.1 in the 2013 Green Belt Review which stated that Zone 5.1 “should ideally remain as Green Belt”. * Development on this site would reduce the distance between Tollerton village and the new settlement to be built in the Strategic Allocation just north of this site, causing the two to almost merge contrary to the Inspector’s recommendations. * This is a locally designated conservation area within the Tollerton Character, Heritage and Conservation Strategy in recognition of the valuable open countryside that is an important characteristic of Tollerton old village. * Tollerton old village also has a rich history and the setting and special character of this part of Tollerton would be spoilt by development. In the immediate vicinity, in the old village, are Tollerton Hall and 6 listed buildings including the Church (with current foundations dating back to the12th century), the Old Rectory (rebuilt between 1697 and 1702) and Bassingfield House, and 8 local interest buildings. The northern lodge (1824) to the Hall is on Cotgrave Lane, and the edge of the built village includes North End Cottages, built between 1833 and 1847 by Pendock Barry Barry, the then squire of the village, as accommodation for villagers with a further building used as a school. Those buildings retain distinctive features of the estate design at that time and an architectural coherence on the edge of the village. The history of Tollerton is an important focus of the Tollerton community, which has a thriving History Group. * Evidence strongly suggest that the Tollerton mill, certainly from 1683 and possibly from the twelfth century was sited in here on the slope of the hill on which Jubilee Wood now stands. An application has been made to have this included in the Historic Environment Record. * The older parts of the village (adjacent to TOL2) retain the church, the village war memorial and social activities in the parish rooms including parent and toddler groups, which are used by all the village. The site of the village pinfold has recently been marked by a rebuilding. Tollerton has its own unique identity which would be lost if development went ahead on TOL2. * As the Inspector recommended as recently as December 2014, TOL2 should not be removed from the Green Belt. Much of the western boundary and part of the eastern boundary consist of weak hedgerows, which would not form defensible Green Belt boundaries.

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 11 * The southern part of TOL2 provides a visual gap between the old village and the new village. Development of this part of TOL2 would spoil the setting of the old village by merging it with the newer part of Tollerton village. * TOL2 is next to the old village which is very poorly served by public transport. Buses are unreliable and run no more than once an hour, with the latest bus leaving Tollerton before 5.30pm and with no buses on Sundays. * There is no provision for safe cycling from TOL2 and pavements from the old village to the new village are very poor in places. There are no pavements going north from TOL2 to Gamston. * There are no shops and very few facilities or services in the old village. * TOL2 is in close proximity to Jubilee Wood which is home to a variety of wildlife, including bats, and it would not be appropriate to build on this site since this would jeopardise an island of natural habitat of which there are very few so close to the city. * TOL2 contains part of a footpath giving access to countryside walking and such access should not be lost.

Land East of Tollerton Lane * Rushcliffe SHLAA site concludes this site is only suitable for local need – no evidence of this has been provided and at this time the parish council concludes that none has been established.This green belt review has been instigated in response to strategic need and therefore this site should not be considered. The site lies in a designated neighbourhood plan area – this is appropriate process to determine local need and allocation of sites for local need. * Open countryside is an important characteristic of Tollerton as a rural village. Building on this site would remove the extensive views of open countryside enjoyed by all from a relatively long stretch of Tollerton Lane ( for the gain of relatively few houses.) and contrary to the local priorities set out in the Tollerton Community (Parish) Plan * Tollerton Lane is noted as an area containing properties of merit and distinction within the Tollerton Character, Heritage and Conservation Strategy that would be detrimentally impacted by the proposed development.These properties are visible from the approaches to the village and Nottingham on Melton Road and are a fundamental characteristic of the village. * Tollerton Lane is of typical characteristics that define the village including through roads with open views on one side. Development on this site would fundamentally alter the character of the village. * The views of open countryside from this site – are also visible from the village centre. Development of this site would frustrate the priorities of the Tollerton Community (Parish) Plan to protect such views from the village centre * The fields to the east of this site are visible over a wide area in several directions. * This site does not have defensible boundaries and so should not be removed from the Green Belt. * It would be out of character with existing building to build houses other than as a single row. This reduces the number of houses possible to approx. 16 * Part of this site is required to remain as an access to the field to the east of the side. This reduces the land available for housing. * A significant part of this site would be required to offset highway issues around the school through provision of a landscaped garden and parking reducing capacity for housing * This site contains part of a footpath giving walking access to the countryside and such access should not be lost.

My home is not directly affected by any of the potential sites but I enjoy the rural views beyond the village every single day. It brings me joy and a sense of wellbeing and was one of the main reasons why I moved to the village. If these potential sites are developed then those views will be lost forever (all because someone couldn't deliver against the already agreed plans for housing development). That will be such a huge loss that can never be rectified - please don't take these decisions lightly.

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 12 Please identify any matters related to housing development which are not covered here or elsewhere. Please focus on the delivery of sites already allocated for housing development and make sure they achieve the targets set for them. There is no point in keeping identifying sites that never deliver and no one wants the uncertainty of every year bringing another threat of housing development because yet another plan failed to come to fruition.

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 13 Garrard M 1092906 Elizabeth Beardsley

From: Matt Garrard 31 March 2017 Sent: 14:52Localdevelopment To: Bill Banner; Andrea Beyer Cc: Re: Response to consultation Subject:

Dear Sir

I write in a personal capacity in response to consultation on

x Local Plan Part 2: Land and Planning Policies (Further Options) x Draft Green Belt Review (Part 2b) x Community Infrastructure Levy (Draft Charging Schedule)

I support and echo the comments and points made in detail by Tollerton Parish Council and provided on 31.03.17. Regards

Matthew Garrard

1 Gask N 1075731

Elizabeth Beardsley

From: Nicola Sent: 30 March 2017 21:44 To: Localdevelopment Cc: Cllr D Mason; Cllr R L Butler; Neil Clarke; tollertontabu@ Subject: Tollerton Development Plans

IamwritingtoobjecttothedevelopmentplansonTollertonLane,Tollerton,Nottingham.

MyselfandmyfamilymovedtoTollertonlastNovemberfromRuddington.WeloveNottinghamandweredelighted tofinallybeabletoaffordamovetothevillage.

Ourdelightwasbasedonthefactwewouldbelivinginasmallvillagesettingwithinthegreatercontextofacity.As aresultweareverydisappointedthatandcompletelydisagreewiththefurtherdevelopmentinTollerton.

Alreadythereisalargedevelopmentatwheatcroftislandwhichwillincreasetrafficthroughthevillage.Additionally thereisalsoadevelopmentagreedattheotherendofthevillage.Trafficthroughthevillage,particularlyTollerton LaneisheavyandfurtherdevelopmentonTollertonLanewillmakethisareadangerous.

Itrustourconcernsandviewthatthisdevelopmentwillnegativelyimpactthevillagewillbeheard

Kindregards MrsNicolaGask 39TollertonLane Tollerton NG124FP

SentfrommyiPhone

1 Gatter 781670

Richard Mapletoft

From: M GATTER <> Sent: 28 March 2017 21:02 To: Localdevelopment Cc: Cllr D Mason; [email protected]; Neil Clarke; tollertontabu@ Subject: Local Plan Part 2 Further Options and Draft Part 2b Green Belt Review

Dear sir / madam

I am writing to express my concern and opposition to the latest proposal for up to another 600 houses in Tollerton village, and the negative impact that this will have on the village.

My main points of concern are as follows:-

x There are many other proposed sites in Rushcliffe and it is unfair to expect Tollerton to take any more houses given that the village has already been allocated 4000 new homes. x Traffic is a major concern. It is already a major issue in and around Tollerton. x These new proposals include building houses very close to the new development of 4000 houses which would cause Tollerton to almost merge with the new settlement, and cease to be a village. x Building on the proposed sites would change Tollerton from a rural village with open countryside, which is characteristic of our village, to a suberb of Nottingham. x New houses on these sites would be visible from a long way away so the sites should not be removed from the Greenbelt.

I hope that these points will all be taken into consideration and these proposals rejected.

Yours sincerely M J Gatter

1 Comment.

Consultee Mr P Gerrard (1073032)

Email Address

Address 61 Church Street Cropwell Bishop Nottingham NG12 3BY

Event Name Local Plan Part 2 Further Options

Comment by Mr P Gerrard

Comment ID 40

Response Date 27/03/17 15:54

Status Submitted

Submission Type Web

Version 0.1

Question 17

The villages which we have identified as potentially suitable to accommodate a limited level of housing development on greenfield sites are as follows: Cropwell Bishop; East Bridgford; Gotham; Sutton Bonington; and Tollerton These particular villages have been identified because, while they do not provide for a full range of facilities as is the case at West Bridgford and the key settlements, the basic level of facilities (e,g. schools; doctors’ surgery) that are available are deemed capable of potentially supporting a relatively limited level of housing growth without compromising the strategy set out in Local Plan Part 1 (Core Strategy) for the distribution of new housing. Should Local Plan Part 2 identify the following ‘other’ villages as suitable for a limited level of housing growth on greenfileld sites?

Cropwell Bishop No

East Bridgford

Gotham

Sutton Bonington

Tollerton

Any other settlement (please specify which)

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 1 Question 19

There are a number of sites that have been put forward by developers and others as potentially suitable for housing development at Cropwell Bishop. These are shown on the plan below. Most of the sites, if identified as suitable for housing development, should be able to deliver new homes relatively quickly and, therefore, contribute to resolving the current shortfall in the amount of land that is available for housing development over the next few years. We would like to know what you think about the suitability of each of those individual sites shown on the plan below and whether, in each case, the site should or should not be allocated for housing development. For any one site, it should be noted that there may be the option to develop only part of the site rather than its whole. The development of any one of these sites would be likely to result in impacts which require mitigation and also opportunities to improve the local area. We would need to consider the facilities and services required, the type and design of housing, and how the site would be accessed by car and public transport, amongst a number of other issues. Do you support housing development at:

Site CBI1 – Land to the south of Nottingham Road and No east of Kinoulton Road (potential capacity around 30 homes)

Site CBI2 – Land north of Memorial Hall (1) (potential No capacity around 75 homes)

Site CBI3– Land north of Memorial Hall (2) (potential No capacity around 60 homes)

Site CBI4 – Land north of Fern Road (2) (potential No capacity around 30 homes)

Site CBI5 – Land north of Fern Road (1) (potential No capacity around 250 homes)

Site CBI6 – Land to the north of Fern Road (3) (potential No capacity around 70 homes)

Any other location (please specify which)

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers. For any of the sites, this could include comments on the services and facilities required to support development and the design, mix and layout of development. For the Cropwell Bishop proposal as a whole, attention should be brought to the existing drainage/sewer system in the village. It appears unfit for purpose and does not have sufficient capacity for existing housing, let alone any additional. Flash flooding is a persistent issue on Church Street and neither Notts County Council nor Severn Trent appear to have done anything to address the problem. A problem which will only be exaggerated with more housing and more hard landscaping. The photos below are from one of many incidents on the junction of Church Street and Springfield Close

In relation to site CBI5 in particular, I refer to an earlier development proposal, circa 2000, and a subsequent council report. "Development of site may be detrimental to village character, impinging on important views and village amenity value". "Site would be out of scale with small rural village". "Views across site from within village may want to be protected"

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 2 Surely these comments on CBI5 remain valid today and the site should not be developed.

Question 21

There are a number of sites that have been put forward by developers and others as potentially suitable for housing development at East Bridgford. These are shown on the plan below. Most of the sites, if identified as suitable for housing development, should be able to deliver new homes relatively quickly and, therefore, contribute to resolving the current shortfall in the amount of land that is available for housing development over the next few years. We would like to know what you think about the suitability of each of those individual sites shown on the plan below and whether, in each case, the site should or should not be allocated for housing development. For any one site, it should be noted that there may be the option to develop only part of the site rather than its whole. The development of any one of these sites would be likely to result in impacts which require mitigation and also opportunities to improve the local area. We would need to consider the facilities and services required, the type and design of housing, and how the site would be accessed by car and public transport, amongst a number of other issues. Do you support housing development at:

Site EBR1 – Land behind Kirk Hill (east) (potential capacity around 15 homes)

Site EBR2 – Land behind Kirk Hill (west) (potential capacity around 70 homes)

Site EBR3 – Land north of Kneeton Road (1) (potential capacity around 95 homes)

Site EBR4 – Land north of Kneeton Road (2) (potential capacity around 150 homes)

Site EBR5 – Land at Lammas Lane (potential capacity around 40 homes)

Site EBR6 – Closes Side Lane (west) (potential capacity around 20 homes)

Site EBR7 – Closes Side Lane (east) (potential capacity around 20 homes)

Site EBR8 – Land to the north of Butt Lane (potential capacity around 20 homes)

Site EBR9 – Land to the south of Springdale Lane (potential capacity around 30 homes)

Any other location (please specify which)

Question 23

There are a number of sites that have been put forward by developers and others as potentially suitable for housing development at Gotham. These are shown on the plan below. Most of the sites, if identified as suitable for housing development, should be able to deliver new homes relatively quickly and, therefore,

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 3 contribute to resolving the current shortfall in the amount of land that is available for housing development over the next few years. We would like to know what you think about the suitability of each of those individual sites shown on the plan below and whether, in each case, the site should or should not be allocated for housing development. For any one site, it should be noted that there may be the option to develop only part of the site rather than its whole. The development of any one of these sites would be likely to result in impacts which require mitigation and also opportunities to improve the local area. We would need to consider the facilities and services required, the type and design of housing, and how the site would be accessed by car and public transport, amongst a number of other issues. Do you support housing development at:

Site GOT1 – Land to the rear of former British Legion (potential capacity around 25 homes)

Site GOT2 – Land north of Kegworth Road/Home Farm (west) (potential capacity around 50 homes)

Site GOT3 – Land north of Kegworth Road/Home Farm (east) (potential capacity around 20 homes)

Site GOT4 – The Orchards, Leake Road (potential capacity around 50 homes)

Site GOT5 – Land east of Gypsum Way/The Orchards (potential capacity around 200 homes)

Site GOT6 – East of Leake Road (potential capacity around 45 homes)

Site GOT7 – Land east of Hill Road (potential capacity around 160 homes)

Site GOT8 – Land south of Moor Lane (potential capacity around 15 homes)

Any other location (please specify which)

Question 25

There is one site that has been put forward by a landowner as potentially suitable for housing development at Sutton Bonington. This is shown on the plan below. The site, if identified as suitable for housing development, should be able to deliver new homes relatively quickly and, therefore, contribute to resolving the current shortfall in the amount of land that is available for housing development over the next few years. We would like to know what you think about the suitability of the site shown on the plan below and whether it should or should not be allocated for housing development. For any one site, it should be noted that there may be the option to develop only part of the site rather than its whole. The development of the site would be likely to result in impacts which require mitigation and also opportunities to improve the local area. We would need to consider the facilities and services required, the type and design of housing, and how the site would be accessed by car and public transport, amongst a number of other issues. Do you support housing development at:

Site SUT1 – Land north of Park Lane (potential capacity around 140 homes)

Any other location (please specify which)

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 4 Gerrard, P 1073032 Richard Mapletoft

From: Paul Gerrard 28 March 2017 18:49 Sent: Localdevelopment To: Cropwell Bishop Planning Consultation Subject:

FortheCropwellBishopproposalasawhole,attentionshouldbebroughttotheexistingdrainage/sewer systeminthevillage.Itappearsunfitforpurposeanddoesnothavesufficientcapacityforexisting housing,letaloneanyadditional. FlashfloodingisapersistentissueonChurchStreetandneitherNottsCountyCouncilnorSevernTrent appeartohavedoneanythingtoaddresstheproblem.Aproblemwhichwillonlybeexaggeratedwith morehousingandmorehardlandscaping.Thephotosbelowarefromoneofmanyincidentsonthe junctionofChurchStreetandSpringfieldClose

1 InrelationtositeCBI5inparticular,Irefertoanearlierdevelopmentproposal,circa2000,anda subsequentcouncilreport. "Developmentofsitemaybedetrimentaltovillagecharacter,impingingonimportantviewsandvillage amenityvalue". "Sitewouldbeoutofscalewithsmallruralvillage". "Viewsacrosssitefromwithinvillagemaywanttobeprotected" SurelythesecommentsonCBI5remainvalidtodayandthesiteshouldnotbedeveloped.

MrPGerrard 61ChurchStreet CropwellBishop NG123BY

2 Gibson S 1074474

Richard Mapletoft

From: Scott PT 29 March 2017 Sent: 16:46Localdevelopment To: East leake north of lantern lane Subject:

Iobjecttothisareaunderconsiderationforplanningpermissionforanewhousingdevelopmentofover200homes.

Reasons Roadsnotgoodenough Schoolscannotcope Doctorscannotcope Parkingnotgoodenough Safetyforchildrenandelderlyatrisk Lossofcountryspaceandwildlife Pollution

Twomanysitesandover820Homesbeingbuiltalready,thisplotwouldtakeitover1050.

ScottGibson Residentofeastleake

1 Gladman 778449

Gladman Developments Ltd

Representations on Local Plan Part 2: Land and Planning Policies Further Options

March 2017 Rushcliffe Borough Council Local Plan Part 2 Land and Planning Policies Further Options

CONTENTS

1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Context ...... 1 2 Legal Compliance ...... 2 2.1 Duty to Cooperate ...... 2 2.2 Sustainability Appraisal ...... 2 3 Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 2 ...... 4 3.1 Q1: Do you agree with the Council’s assessment of the present housing supply situation and that enough land will need to be identified by the Local Plan Part 2 to accommodate around 2,000 new homes? ...... 4 3.2 Q8. Do you agree that, apart from those eight sites that already have planning permission for housing development (sites EL1 to EL8 as shown at Figure 5), further greenfield land should not be allocated for housing development at East Leake? ...... 4 3.3 Q9: Do you support housing development at: ...... 5 4 East Leake Site Submissions ...... 7 4.1 Land north of Lantern Lane ...... 7 4.2 Land off Stonebridge Drive...... 8 5 Conclusion ...... 9 5.1 Summary ...... 9 Rushcliffe Borough Council Local Plan Part 2 Land and Planning Policies Further Options

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Context

1.1.1 Gladman Developments Ltd (hereafter referred to as “Gladman”) specialise in the promotion of strategic land for residential development and associated community infrastructure. From this experience, we understand the need for planning to deliver the homes, jobs and thriving local places that the country needs. Every effort short be made to objectively identify and meet the full housing and economic needs of an area, whilst responding positively to the wider opportunities for growth.

1.1.2 This submission provides Gladman’s representations on Rushcliffe Borough Council’s (RBC) draft Local Plan Part 2: Land and Planning Policies Further Options consultation (LPP2). Gladman have been involved throughout the preparation of the LPP2 having submitted representations to the LPP2 Issues and Options consultation and supporting evidence base documents in March 2016. This response should therefore be read in conjunction with the issues previously raised by Gladman.

1.1.3 The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) sets out four tests that Local Plans must meet to be considered sound at Examination. In order to provide an appropriate basis on which to meet housing needs and to be found consistent with the requirements of national planning policy, the LPP2 will need to be tested at Examination to ensure that it has been prepared in accordance with the Duty to Cooperate (DtC), legal and procedural requirements and whether it is sound.

1.1.4 The four tests of soundness which the LPP2 must meet should be considered through each stage of the Plan’s preparation to help refine the policies and choices currently being considered so that they are in accordance with national planning policy and guidance. The four tests that the LPP2 will need to be tested against are outlined as follows:

x Positively prepared x Justified x Effective x Consistent with national policy

1.1.5 The Council is aware of Gladman’s land interests in East Leake at land off Lantern Lane. Gladman welcome the Council’s consideration of this site and its ability to deliver sustainable development to meet identified needs. Gladman is also promoting land off Stonebridge Drive for residential development and associated community infrastructure. Gladman consider both sites are available, achievable and deliverable and should be included in the LPP2 as housing allocations.

1.1.6 Gladman request to be added to the Council’s consultation database and to be kept informed regarding the progression of the emerging LPP2 and future consultations.

1 Rushcliffe Borough Council Local Plan Part 2 Land and Planning Policies Further Options 2 LEGAL COMPLIANCE

2.1 Duty to Cooperate

2.1.1 The Duty to Cooperate (DtC) is a legal requirement established through Section 33(A) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2003, as amended by Section 110 of the Localism Act. The DtC requires local planning authorities to engage constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis with neighbouring authorities on cross-boundary strategic issues through the process of plan preparation. As demonstrated through the outcome of the 2012 Coventry Core Strategy Examination, the 2013 Mid Sussex Core Strategy Examination and the recent St Albans Local Plan Examination, if a Council fails to satisfactorily discharge its DtC a Planning Inspector must recommend non-adoption of the Plan. This cannot be rectified through modifications.

2.1.2 Gladman recognise that the DtC is a process of ongoing engagement and collaboration1, as set out in the PPG it is clear that the Duty is intended to produce effective policies on cross boundary strategic matters. In this regard, the Council must be able to demonstrate that it has engaged and worked with its neighbouring authorities, alongside their existing joint work arrangements, to satisfactorily address cross boundary strategic issues, and the requirement to meet any unmet housing needs. This is not simply an issue of consultation but a question of effective cooperation to ensure that the Housing Market Area’s (HMAs) housing needs are met in full.

2.1.3 The Council’s ability to fulfil the DtC is fundamentally vital to securing the soundness of the plan. In order to meet the DtC the Council should effectively engage with neighbouring authorities to meet any unmet housing needs in the HMA and vice versa. The Council should ensure that it is able to demonstrate what steps have been taken at each stage of plan preparation to ensure that the plan has been subject to ongoing and effective cooperation with any interested parties to which a strategic cross boundary issue, such as unmet housing needs, may effect. This will require extensive and ongoing meaningful cooperation by both officers and members to ensure the Duty is met in full.

2.2 Sustainability Appraisal

2.2.1 In accordance with Section 19 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, policies set out in Local Plans must be subject to a Sustainability Appraisal (SA), and also incorporate the requirements of the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004 (the SEA regulations).

2.2.2 The SA/SEA is a systematic process that should be undertaken at each stage of the Plans preparation, assessing the effects of the emerging LPP2 proposals on sustainable development when judged against all reasonable alternatives. The Council should ensure that the future results of the SA clearly justify its policy choices. In meeting the development needs of the area, it should be clear from the results of this assessment why some policy options have progressed, and others

1 PPG Reference ID: 9-011-2014036

2

Rushcliffe Borough Council Local Plan Part 2 Land and Planning Policies Further Options have been rejected. This must be undertaken through a comparative and equal assessment of each reasonable alternative, in the same level of detail for both chosen and rejected alternatives. The Council’s decision making and scoring should be robust, justified and transparent.

3

Rushcliffe Borough Council Local Plan Part 2 Land and Planning Policies Further Options 3 RUSHCLIFFE LOCAL PLAN PART 2

3.1 Q1: Do you agree with the Council’s assessment of the present housing supply situation and that enough land will need to be identified by the Local Plan Part 2 to accommodate around 2,000 new homes?

3.1.1 The Council acknowledge that in the previous 12 months delays to five of the six strategic sites allocated by the Core Strategy has occurred. This has led to the situation that they are unlikely to deliver as many new homes as previously anticipated. The Council consider that in order to address this shortfall the LPP2 will need to identify enough land for around 2,000 additional dwellings to satisfy the 1,100 dwellings originally needed, plus, the likely 900 dwelling shortfall.

3.1.2 Gladman welcome the Council’s decision to identify additional housing sites to meet the shortfall that has already occurred. However, given that the strategic sites have failed to come forward as anticipated, Gladman is concerned that too much emphasis may still be placed on the Council’s strategic sites to deliver housing need. In this regard, Gladman has concerns over the delivery rates applied by the Council for the large scale strategic sites and consider the delivery estimates are unlikely to be realised and are in excess of the delivery rates found in recent studies.

3.1.3 Gladman believe that the assumptions made by the housing trajectory supporting the LPP2 risks the deliverability of the Plan and will likely lead to further land supply problems in the future. In particular, we are concerned over how achievable the start dates and built out rates as outlined in the housing trajectory. Gladman consider that an average annual delivery rate of 30 dwellings per annum is realistically achievable, with delivery increasing depending on the number of outlets acting on site. Delivery can increase slightly in very strong market locations.

3.1.4 In consideration of the above, Gladman are concerned that the assumed delivery of 150-250 dwellings per annum on multiple sites is unlikely to be achieved and could risk the deliverability of the LPP2.Gladman consider that it may be necessary to allocate additional sites above the 2,000 new dwellings to ensure that a sufficient supply of housing land is available should the strategic sites not come forward.

3.2 Q8. Do you agree that, apart from those eight sites that already have planning permission for housing development (sites EL1 to EL8 as shown at Figure 5), further greenfield land should not be allocated for housing development at East Leake?

3.2.1 Gladman do not agree with the intention to limit the ability for East Leake to sustainably grow above those sites already identified. The Core Strategy identifies a ‘minimum’ target of 400 new dwellings to be delivered in East Leake to 2028. Whilst it is acknowledged that planning permissions have exceeded this figure, it is a serious concern that housing has not come forward on proposed

4 Rushcliffe Borough Council Local Plan Part 2 Land and Planning Policies Further Options allocations across the borough as expected. As such, further sites are needed in Key Settlements, such as East Leake, to accommodate future development within the borough to provide surety that the full OAN is delivered.

3.2.2 The intention to limit growth would not be in accordance with the requirements of the Framework which seek to promote sustainable development in rural areas to maintain and enhance rural vitality and viability and that development proposals should be judged on a site by site basis as to whether they cause harm to the character of the village and whether the harm would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of further housing.

3.2.3 East Leake is very well served by existing services and facilities meaning that it will be able to accommodate further growth to meet identified housing needs. Further development would contribute to housing land supply and complement existing permissions rather than jeopardise the adopted development strategy to meet the minimum figure as set out in the Core Strategy. Gladman believe it is appropriate and necessary to identify further housing land in sustainable settlements, such as East Leake, which do not require review of Green Belt boundaries to identify additional sustainable sites.

3.3 Q9: Do you support housing development at:

3.3.1 Gladman welcome the Council’s consideration of land north of Lantern Lane (site EL14) and land off Stonebridge Drive (EL11). However, Gladman believe that the potential capacity of 360 homes identified by the Council on site EL14 may be overly optimistic. This site is subject to a pending outline application for up to 195 dwellings, Gladman consider that this level of development to be the most appropriate when taking into account the context of the site and its surroundings given the mining operations to the north and the contours to the east.

3.3.2 It has been identified that along the northern edge of East Leake, the expansion of the village has a clear pattern, where development remains off the steeper scarp slopes (Sharpley Hill), typically beneath the 60m contour.

3.3.3 The illustrative Framework Plan submitted as part of the outline application demonstrates how the built development could safeguard the scarp slopes (in line with policy in the made East Leake Neighbourhood Plan) by keeping development beneath the 60m contour and setting built development within a framework of open space and green infrastructure. The development proposed includes informal open space and seeks to retain existing landscape features, together with improved connectively with informal footpath links, new access arrangements from Lantern Lane, highway improvements and a comprehensive surface water drainage scheme.

3.3.4 Taking all of these factors into consideration Gladman believe that development of up to 195 dwellings is more realistic and achievable.

3.3.5 Gladman consider that there is a need to accommodate additional sites in sustainable locations. Indeed, the Council acknowledges that the Council’s strategic housing sites have not come forward as expected. It should also be noted that several Key Settlements have been identified for growth

5

Rushcliffe Borough Council Local Plan Part 2 Land and Planning Policies Further Options but as yet no sites with planning permission have come forward to count against the Core Strategy target. Given that East Leake has exceeded the Core Strategy target, it is clear that it is seen as an attractive location for housing and economic development, given its position and access to major centres of population and employment. Accordingly, it is Gladman’s view that further growth will need to be directed to East Leake to ensure housing need is delivered.

3.3.6 Both development opportunities are located close to primary and secondary schools, leisure centre and public transport services. These sites combined represent the most logical expansion of the settlement and are comparably better in terms of distances to services than alternative sites being considered.

6

Rushcliffe Borough Council Local Plan Part 2 Land and Planning Policies Further Options 4 EAST LEAKE SITE SUBMISSIONS

4.1 Land north of Lantern Lane

4.1.1 Gladman welcome the Council’s consideration for land north of Lantern Lane for its potential as a housing allocation. A location plan is included at appendix 1 of this submission.

4.1.2 Gladman has produced extensive evidence which demonstrates that the site is suitably located with good access to existing facilities and would result in the delivery of sustainable development. This site is subject to an existing outline planning application (application reference: 16/03119/OUT). This application seeks outline planning consent for up to 195 residential dwellings and is currently pending consideration. The site will provide the following benefits which include;

- Structural landscape planting and the retention of positive management of key landscape features; - The site has been carefully designed to respond positively and sympathetically to its built and environmental context and the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The site will provide 5.87ha of formal and informal open space equating to over 45% of the gross site outline application area; - Provision of a new Natural Play Area set within public open space; - Improved connectivity with informal footpath links connecting public open spaces, play areas and the existing public rights of way (East Leake FP27) with adjoining open space; - Improvements to the local economy and increased footfall to the existing businesses of East Leake. - Deliver a mix of housing types and sizes to meet strategic needs of the local housing market, including family and affordable housing. This will demonstrably support and secure the current and future vitality of the local area enabling people to access the housing market locally rather than being forced to move away due to a lack of available housing. - Significant areas of planting to provide green infrastructure, ecological and wildlife benefits. Habitat creation measures will ensure net biodiversity is retained with enhanced hedgerows and green corridors. - Highway improvements including new access arrangements from Lantern Lane; and - A comprehensive surface water drainage scheme.

7 Rushcliffe Borough Council Local Plan Part 2 Land and Planning Policies Further Options 4.2 Land off Stonebridge Drive

4.2.1 Gladman also have land interests at land off Stonebridge Drive, East Leake. A location plan can be found at appendix 2 of these representations.

4.2.2 Gladman believe that this site offers a real opportunity to residents of the local community and the wider area to meet identified housing needs and deliver further improvements to the public realm.

4.2.3 The site offers the real opportunity to provide a comprehensive residential development that will include market and affordable housing to meet identified housing needs, public open space and other material benefits associated with its development.

4.2.4 The site is approximately 5.54ha and comprises of three agricultural fields. The site is bounded to the north by playing fields, beyond which lies Lantern Lane. The sites eastern and southern boundaries are defined by mature hedgerows and interspersed mature trees. To the sites western boundary the site is defined by mature trees, existing residential development off Stonebridge Drive and playing fields.

4.2.5 Gladman are currently exploring the development options of the site to provide a comprehensive development scheme and would welcome the Council’s input in this regard.

8

Rushcliffe Borough Council Local Plan Part 2 Land and Planning Policies Further Options 5CONCLUSION

5.1 Summary

5.1.1 In order to meet the tests of soundness contained at paragraph 182 of the Framework, the emerging LPP2 must be found to be positively prepared, effective, justified and consistent with national policy.

5.1.2 Having reviewed the draft Local Plan, Gladman are generally supportive of the steps the Council is seeking to take through the allocation of additional housing land to ensure the district’s housing needs are met in full. However, Gladman believe that the Council should identify further housing land above the proposed 2,000 additional dwellings to ensure a more effective policy response to housing shortfall.

5.1.3 Gladman believe that in order for the Plan to progress, the Council should take this opportunity to revisit its evidence base work with active consideration to the need to consider additional development opportunities in sustainable and attractive locations such as East Leake.

5.1.4 We trust that these comments have been constructive and would welcome the opportunity to discuss the development potential of land north of Lantern Lane and land off Stonebridge Drive and invite the Council to contact us in this regard.

9

y JR CMi CMi APP. DATE T: DRAWN APPROVED CHECKED Nov 2016 1:5,000 5409_100_A PeterboroughDraft 310 471 01733 Application boundary (14.08ha) Land under applicants control (10.57ha) Ordnance Survey DESCRIPTION ND EGE

© LDA Design Consulting Ltd. Quality Assured to BS EN ISO 9001 : 2008 Sources PROJECT TITLE No dimensions are to be scaled from this drawing. All dimensions are to be checked on site. Area measurements for indicative purposes only. A Application boundary change ECo 05/12/16 DRAWING TITLE Application Site Boundary L REV. ISSUED BY DATE SCALE@A3 STATUS DWG. NO LANTERN LANE EAST LEAKE

North

CS Def 0100031673.

90.4m

Tk S Tk

CS

ef CS

Hill Top Farm Track

Pond

Thistle Barn Thistle Mill Barn Mill 0200m Swallow Barn Tanglewood 94.8m

ESRI, DigitalGlobe, GEOEye, i-cubed, USDA FSA,USGD, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN,IGP,swisstopo, the GIS User Communit (Track)

Issues

LANTERN LANE LANTERN Path (um) Path FB

Track Drain Taft Leys Bridleway Barn GP 60.1m

Track 64.5m 69.2m

(Track)

Mast LANTERN LANE atabase right 2015 | Aerial Photography - 83.0m 92.4m

s Stationery Office © Crown Copyright 2015. All rights reserved. Reference number

(Track)

LANTERN LANE LANTERN

Drain Drain

94

90 Sharpley Hill

53.6m

81 L Twrs L

Pond

75

Drain 2 Drain

6

FISHER CLOSE 73 1 L Twrs

13 7 20

Pond REDWING CLOSE 8

CLOSE 22

12 2

2 5

1 13

(secondary) Comprehensive School Comprehensive

14 Carlton Harry FIELDFARE 12 32

38

5 4

1 CLOSE

BLACKBIRD 8 2

10

Pond SAND MARTIN CLOSE MARTIN SAND

Sharpley Hill WAY

4 Leisure Centre

Pond FALCON Pond

Lantern Lane Primary and El Sub Sta Nursery School

103 50.6m

93 89 43 58

75

61 76

62 LANTERN LANE LANTERN

37 49 58

31 26 46

DRIVE

36 38

44 16 Sub El Sta 24 SHARPLEY 13 32 Reservoir 25

11 18 to 23

15 15 17 43

14 16

26 CLOSE RYEHOLM CL 30

26

29

12

21 19

RYEHOLME CL 22

49.4m

11

10

Spoil Heap

25 6

34 2

24 32

8 WEAVERS 1

44 75 4 to 9 to 4

18

1 65 3

1A

5 35 63 CRESCENT CARLTON

55 37 39 33

14 57 MANOR ROAD MANOR 42 53

2 49

2

1

62 12 72

Drain 47 43 LB 13 TCB

33 19 OSIER FIELDS

52 42

ST MARY'S CRESCENT 68 23

30

15

Conveyors

30 10 15

11 2

47

48 2 57

54 65

21 18

37 6

44 16

ANGRAVE ROAD ANGRAVE

48

El Sub Sta 1 25 THECRESCENT 9

(gypsum)

1 51 13

2

39 34 19 ELM AVENUE 11 13

51 32 49

16

53

8 16

East Leake Works 2

32 61 7

58

7 22 13

30

7

(gypsum) 6 16

32 47.9m Marblaegis Mine 36 2 1

1 46 SWEET LEYS DRIVE LEYS SWEET 5 27 48

2 7 62

12 HOLME AVENUE 2

2 ROULSTONE CRESCENT ROULSTONE CLOSE 4 El

Path 2

Sub Sta

1 50.0m 3 3

202 10

206 8 THOMPSON

8

5 6

PARKYNS PIECE PARKYNS

Path

28 2 1

15 1 6 7

1 1 CLOSE

1 1

208 4

22 RUSHCLIFFE GROVE RUSHCLIFFE

3

2 1 1 3 53.0m GOTHAM ROAD Cottages 2

9 WOOTTON

12 CLOSE 11 15 7 6

Belton's

4 17 1 WALK NIXON 2 8

This drawing may contain: Ordnance Survey material by permission of on behalf the Controller Her Majesty' OS Open data / © Natural England DEFRA DECC English Heritage. Contains Ordnance Survey Crown copyright and d X:\JOBS\5409_LANTERN_LANE\7CAD\DRAWINGS\5409_100_APP_BOUNDARY.DWG

Comment.

Consultee Mr C Goldby (1071643)

Email Address

Address 15 Stella Avenue Tollerton Nottingham NG12 4EX

Event Name Local Plan Part 2 Further Options

Comment by Mr C Goldby

Comment ID 26

Response Date 20/03/17 16:32

Status Submitted

Submission Type Web

Version 0.1

Question 1

Do you agree with the Council’s assessment of No the present housing supply situation and that enough land will need to be identified by Local Plan Part 2 to accommodate around 2,000 new homes?

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your response. Assessment of effects on infrastructure inadequate

Question 2

Do you agree with the Council’s view that none of Ye s the three strategic allocations (Melton Road, Edwalton; South of Clifton; and East of Gamston/North of Tollerton) should be expanded as part of resolving the current shortfall in the amount of land that is available for housing development over the next few years?

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your response Current infrastructure repairs and renewals are inadequate and further buildings will place further stress on the already inadequate pace of renewal of street lighting, road and pavement renewals etc

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 1 Question 3

There is, in our view, just one site on the edge of West Bridgford or Clifton that may be suitable for housing development and which could help tackle the current housing land supply shortfall. This is land at Simkins Farm at Adbolton Lane, West Bridgford, which has a potential capacity of around 40 homes.The site is shown on Figure 2 below. We would like to know whether or not you think it is suitable for housing development. A number of other sites on the edge of West Bridgford or Clifton have been ruled out at this stage because they are not considered capable of being developed. If, however, you think there are any sites that should be developed we would like to know. It may be useful to refer to our Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) which identifies all those sites that have been put forward by developers and others as potentially suitable for housing development – please see http://www.rushcliffe.gov.uk/planningpolicy/localplan/supportingstudies/strategiclandavailabilityassessment/ Do you support housing development at:

Site HOL1 - Simkins Farm, Adbolton Lane, West Yes - all of site Bridgford (potential capacity around 40 homes)

Any other location (please specify where in box Yes - all of site below)

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers.This could include comments on the services and facilities required to support development and the design, mix and layout of development. Former office accommodation of the borough council at Trent Bridge

Question 4

Do you agree that Local Plan Part 2 should not Ye s allocate further greenfield land for housing development at Bingham in the plan period (up to 2028)?

Question 5

Do you agree that Local Plan Part 2 should Ye s allocate greenfield land for housing development at Cotgrave in the plan period (up to 2028)?

Please provide any comments you wish to make in support of your response. Key settlement facilities already exist

Question 6

If Local Plan Part 2 does allocate land at Cotgrave for housing development, the total amount identified will be dependent on a range of factors including the capacity of local facilities (e.g. schools, doctors’ surgery) and infrastructure (e.g. local roads) to sustain new homes, the potential physical impact of development on locations around the town, including how the Green Belt would be affected, and how quickly particular sites would be able to deliver new homes. It will become clearer as development proposals become more certain what new or improved services and facilities are required to support new housing. The views of service providers such as Nottinghamshire County Council will be important in identifying what is required.

Do you have a view on the total number of new homes that should be accommodated on greenfield sites at Cotgrave up to 2028? If possible, please give reasons for your answer. 1000 with compensating reduction in Tollerton planned building

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 2 Question 7

There are a number of sites that have been put forward by developers and others as potentially suitable for housing development. These are shown below. Most of the sites, if identified as suitable for housing development, should be able to deliver new homes relatively quickly and, therefore, contribute to resolving the current shortfall in the amount of land that is available for housing development over the next few years. We would like to know what you think about the suitability of each of those individual sites shown on Figure 4 and whether, in each case, the site should or should not be allocated for housing development. For any one site, it should be noted that there may be the option to develop only part of the site rather than its whole. The development of any one of these sites would be likely to result in impacts which require mitigation and also opportunities to improve the local area. We would need to consider the facilities and services required, the type and design of housing, and how the site would be accessed by car and public transport, amongst a number of other issues. Do you support housing development at:

Site COT1 - Land rear of Mill Lane/The Old Park Yes - all of site (potential capacity around 240 homes)

Site COT2 - Land at Main Road (potential capacity Yes - all of site around 50 homes)

Site COT3 – Land rear of and to the west of Main Yes - all of site Road (potential capacity around 125 homes)

COT4 - Land off Woodgate Lane (potential capacity Yes - all of site around 80 homes)

Site COT5 – Bakers Hollow (potential capacity Yes - all of site around 60 homes)

Site COT6 – The Brickyard, Owthorpe Road Yes - all of site (potential capacity around 100 homes)

Site COT7– Land behind Firdale (2) (potential Yes - all of site capacity around 65 homes)

Site COT8 – Land behind Firdale (potential Yes - all of site capacity around 95 homes)

Site COT9 – Land south of Hollygate Lane (1) Yes - all of site (potential capacity around 140 homes)

Site COT10 – Land south of Hollygate Lane (2) Yes - all of site (potential capacity around 40 homes)

Site COT11 – Land south of Hollygate Lane (3) Yes - all of site (potential capacity around 250 homes)

Site COT12– Land south of Plumtree Lane Yes - all of site (potential capacity around 250 homes)

Question 8

Do you agree that, apart from those eight sites Ye s that already have planning permission for housing development (sites EL1 to EL8 as shown below), further greenfield land should not be allocated for housing development at East Leake?

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 3 Question 9

If, however, extra housing land does need to be allocated at East Leake, there are a number of sites that have been put forward by developers and others as potentially suitable for housing development. These are also shown below (sites EL9 to EL14). We would like to know what you think about the suitability of each of the six sites and whether each one should or should not be allocated for housing development. For any one site, it should be noted that there may be the option to develop only part of the site rather than its whole. The development of any one of these sites would be likely to result in impacts which require mitigation and also opportunities to improve the local area. We would need to consider the facilities and services required, the type and design of housing, and how the site would be accessed by car and public transport, amongst a number of other issues. Do you support housing development at:

Site EL9 –Land south of West Leake Road Yes - all of site (potential capacity around 50 homes)

Site EL10 – Land north of West Leake Road Yes - all of site (potential capacity around 75 homes)

Site EL11 – Brook Furlong Farm(potential capacity Yes - all of site around 70 homes)

Site EL12 – Land off Rempstone Road (north) Yes - all of site (potential capacity around 235 homes)

Site EL13 – Land off Rempstone Road (south) Yes - all of site (potential capacity around 120 homes)

Site EL14 – Land north of Lantern Lane (2) Yes - all of site (potential capacity around 360 homes)

Question 10

Do you have a view on the total number of new homes that should be built on greenfield sites at Keyworth up to 2028? If possible, please give reasons for your answer. 500 as per Neighbourhood Plan

Question 11

There are a number of sites that have been put forward by developers and others as potentially suitable for housing development. These are shown below. When we previously consulted on potential sites for housing development early last year, the sites recommended for development in the draft Keyworth Neighbourhood Plan were, at the time, part of site KEY4, KEY6 and part of site KEY10. In December 2016, Keyworth Parish Council approved its final draft Neighbourhood Plan and the sites recommended for development had changed to part of site KEY4, KEY8 and part of site KEY10. To add to the comments already received when we consulted early last year, we would like to know what you think about the suitability of each of those individual sites shown on Figure 6 and whether each one should or should not be allocated for housing development. For any one site, it should be noted that there may be the option to develop only part of the site rather than its whole. The development of any one of these sites would be likely to result in impacts which require mitigation and also opportunities to improve the local area. We would need to consider the facilities and services required, the type and design of housing, and how the site would be accessed by car and public transport, amongst a number of other issues. Do you support housing development at:

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 4 Site KEY1 – Land east of Willow Brook (potential No capacity around 40 homes)

Site KEY2 – Land off Selby Lane and Willowbrook No (potential capacity around 15 homes)

Site KEY3 – Land south of Selby Lane (potential No capacity around 60 homes)

Site KEY4 – Land off Nicker Hill (potential capacity Yes - all of site around 450 homes)

Site KEY5 – Hill Top Farm, Platt Lane (1) (potential No capacity around 50 homes)

Site KEY6 – Hill Top Farm, Platt Lane (2) (potential No capacity around 80 homes)

Site KEY7 – Shelton Farm, Platt Lane (potential No capacity around 160 homes)

Site KEY8 – Land between Platt Lane and Station Yes - all of site Road (potential capacity around 180 homes)

Site KEY9 – Land north of Debdale Lane (1) No (potential capacity around 110 homes)

Site KEY10 – Land south of Debdale Lane (1) Yes - all of site (potential capacity around 230 homes)

Site KEY11 – Land south of Debdale Lane (2) No (potential capacity around 200 homes)

Site KEY12 – Land north of Debdale Lane (2) No (potential capacity around 160 homes)

Site KEY13 – Hillside Farm (potential capacity No around 60 homes)

Site KEY14 – Land south of Bunny Lane (potential No capacity around 410 homes)

Any other location (please specify which) No

Question 12

Do you have a view on the total number of new homes that should be built on greenfield sites at Radcliffe on Trent up to 2028? If possible, please give reasons for your answer. 800

Question 13

The plan below identifies sites on the edge of Radcliffe on Trent that have been put forward by developers and others as potentially suitable for housing development. We have already asked for views on the suitability for development of sites RAD1 to RAD10 as part of the Issues and Options consultation stage which we undertook early last year. Since last year’s consultation a further two sites (RAD11 and RAD12) have been put forward by developers and others as potentially suitable for housing development. We would also like to know what you think about the suitability of each of these two sites (as shown on the plan below) and whether each one should or should

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 5 not be allocated for housing development. For any one site, it should be noted that there may be the option to develop only part of the site rather than its whole. The development of any one of these sites would be likely to result in impacts which require mitigation and also opportunities to improve the local area. We would need to consider the facilities and services required, the type and design of housing, and how the site would be accessed by car and public transport, amongst a number of other issues. Do you support housing development at:

Site RAD11 – North of Holme Lane (potential Yes - all of site capacity around 115 homes)

Site RAD12 – Land to the north of Shelford Road Yes - all of site (potential capacity around 180 homes)

Any other location (please specify which) Yes - all of site

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers. For any of the sites, this could include comments on the services and facilities required to support development and the design, mix and layout of development. Area 66 as RAD 4 extension

Question 14

Do you have a view on the total number of new homes that should be accommodated on greenfield sites at Ruddington up to 2028? If possible, please give reasons for your answer. 500

Question 15

The plan below identifies sites on the edge of Ruddington that have been put forward by developers and others as potentially suitable for housing development. We have already asked for views on the suitability for development of sites RUD1 to RUD10 as part of the Issues and Options consultation stage which we undertook early last year. Since last year’s consultation a further three sites (RUD11 to RUD14) have been put forward by developers and others as potentially suitable for housing development. We would also like to know what your views as to whether each one should or should not be allocated for housing development. For any one site, it should be noted that there may be the option to develop only part of the site rather than its whole. The development of any one of these sites would be likely to result in impacts which require mitigation and also opportunities to improve the local area. We would need to consider the facilities and services required, the type and design of housing, and how the site would be accessed by car and public transport, amongst a number of other issues. Do you support housing development at:

Site RUD11 – Old Loughborough Road (potential Yes - all of site capacity around 40 homes)

Site RUD12 – Land to the east side of Yes - all of site Loughborough Road (potential capacity around 60 homes)

Site RUD13 – Land opposite Mere Way (potential Yes - all of site capacity around 170 homes)

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 6 Site RUD14 – Croft House (potential capacity Yes - all of site around 25 homes)

Any other location (please specify which) Yes - all of site

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers. For any of the sites, this could include comments on the services and facilities required to support development and the design, mix and layout of development. Expand RUD 13 development

Question 16

Do you agree that, apart from the site to the south Ye s of Abbey Lane, Aslockton with planning permission for up to 75 new homes, Local Plan Part 2 should not allocate greenfield land for housing development at Aslockton and Whatton in the plan period (up to 2028)?

Question 17

The villages which we have identified as potentially suitable to accommodate a limited level of housing development on greenfield sites are as follows: Cropwell Bishop; East Bridgford; Gotham; Sutton Bonington; and Tollerton These particular villages have been identified because, while they do not provide for a full range of facilities as is the case at West Bridgford and the key settlements, the basic level of facilities (e,g. schools; doctors’ surgery) that are available are deemed capable of potentially supporting a relatively limited level of housing growth without compromising the strategy set out in Local Plan Part 1 (Core Strategy) for the distribution of new housing. Should Local Plan Part 2 identify the following ‘other’ villages as suitable for a limited level of housing growth on greenfileld sites?

Cropwell Bishop Ye s

East Bridgford Ye s

Gotham Ye s

Sutton Bonington

Tollerton No

Any other settlement (please specify which)

Question 18

If greenfield land is allocated for housing development at Cropwell Bishop, do you have a view on the total number of new homes that should be built up to 2028? If possible, please give reasons for your answer. 500

Question 19

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 7 There are a number of sites that have been put forward by developers and others as potentially suitable for housing development at Cropwell Bishop. These are shown on the plan below. Most of the sites, if identified as suitable for housing development, should be able to deliver new homes relatively quickly and, therefore, contribute to resolving the current shortfall in the amount of land that is available for housing development over the next few years. We would like to know what you think about the suitability of each of those individual sites shown on the plan below and whether, in each case, the site should or should not be allocated for housing development. For any one site, it should be noted that there may be the option to develop only part of the site rather than its whole. The development of any one of these sites would be likely to result in impacts which require mitigation and also opportunities to improve the local area. We would need to consider the facilities and services required, the type and design of housing, and how the site would be accessed by car and public transport, amongst a number of other issues. Do you support housing development at:

Site CBI1 – Land to the south of Nottingham Road Yes - all of site and east of Kinoulton Road (potential capacity around 30 homes)

Site CBI2 – Land north of Memorial Hall (1) Yes - all of site (potential capacity around 75 homes)

Site CBI3– Land north of Memorial Hall (2) Yes - all of site (potential capacity around 60 homes)

Site CBI4 – Land north of Fern Road (2) (potential Yes - all of site capacity around 30 homes)

Site CBI5 – Land north of Fern Road (1) (potential Yes - all of site capacity around 250 homes)

Site CBI6 – Land to the north of Fern Road (3) Yes - all of site (potential capacity around 70 homes)

Any other location (please specify which)

Question 20

If greenfield land is allocated for housing development at East Bridgford, do you have a view on the total number of new homes that should be built up to 2028? If possible, please give reasons for your answer. 250

Question 21

There are a number of sites that have been put forward by developers and others as potentially suitable for housing development at East Bridgford. These are shown on the plan below. Most of the sites, if identified as suitable for housing development, should be able to deliver new homes relatively quickly and, therefore, contribute to resolving the current shortfall in the amount of land that is available for housing development over the next few years. We would like to know what you think about the suitability of each of those individual sites shown on the plan below and whether, in each case, the site should or should not be allocated for housing development. For any one site, it should be noted that there may be the option to develop only part of the site rather than its whole. The development of any one of these sites would be likely to result in impacts which require mitigation and also opportunities to improve the local area. We would need to consider the facilities and services required,

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 8 the type and design of housing, and how the site would be accessed by car and public transport, amongst a number of other issues. Do you support housing development at:

Site EBR1 – Land behind Kirk Hill (east) (potential No capacity around 15 homes)

Site EBR2 – Land behind Kirk Hill (west) (potential No capacity around 70 homes)

Site EBR3 – Land north of Kneeton Road (1) Yes - all of site (potential capacity around 95 homes)

Site EBR4 – Land north of Kneeton Road (2) Yes - all of site (potential capacity around 150 homes)

Site EBR5 – Land at Lammas Lane (potential No capacity around 40 homes)

Site EBR6 – Closes Side Lane (west) (potential No capacity around 20 homes)

Site EBR7 – Closes Side Lane (east) (potential No capacity around 20 homes)

Site EBR8 – Land to the north of Butt Lane No (potential capacity around 20 homes)

Site EBR9 – Land to the south of Springdale Lane No (potential capacity around 30 homes)

Any other location (please specify which) No

Question 22

If greenfield land is allocated for housing development at Gotham, do you have a view on the total number of new homes that should be built up to 2028? If possible, please give reasons for your answer. 350

Question 23

There are a number of sites that have been put forward by developers and others as potentially suitable for housing development at Gotham. These are shown on the plan below. Most of the sites, if identified as suitable for housing development, should be able to deliver new homes relatively quickly and, therefore, contribute to resolving the current shortfall in the amount of land that is available for housing development over the next few years. We would like to know what you think about the suitability of each of those individual sites shown on the plan below and whether, in each case, the site should or should not be allocated for housing development. For any one site, it should be noted that there may be the option to develop only part of the site rather than its whole. The development of any one of these sites would be likely to result in impacts which require mitigation and also opportunities to improve the local area. We would need to consider the facilities and services required, the type and design of housing, and how the site would be accessed by car and public transport, amongst a number of other issues. Do you support housing development at:

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 9 Site GOT1 – Land to the rear of former British No Legion (potential capacity around 25 homes)

Site GOT2 – Land north of Kegworth Road/Home No Farm (west) (potential capacity around 50 homes)

Site GOT3 – Land north of Kegworth Road/Home Farm (east) (potential capacity around 20 homes)

Site GOT4 – The Orchards, Leake Road (potential Yes - all of site capacity around 50 homes)

Site GOT5 – Land east of Gypsum Way/The Yes - all of site Orchards (potential capacity around 200 homes)

Site GOT6 – East of Leake Road (potential capacity Yes - all of site around 45 homes)

Site GOT7 – Land east of Hill Road (potential Yes - all of site capacity around 160 homes)

Site GOT8 – Land south of Moor Lane (potential No capacity around 15 homes)

Any other location (please specify which) No

Question 24

If greenfield land is allocated for housing development at Sutton Bonington, do you have a view on the total number of new homes that should be built up to 2028? If possible, please give reasons for your answer. 140

Question 25

There is one site that has been put forward by a landowner as potentially suitable for housing development at Sutton Bonington. This is shown on the plan below. The site, if identified as suitable for housing development, should be able to deliver new homes relatively quickly and, therefore, contribute to resolving the current shortfall in the amount of land that is available for housing development over the next few years. We would like to know what you think about the suitability of the site shown on the plan below and whether it should or should not be allocated for housing development. For any one site, it should be noted that there may be the option to develop only part of the site rather than its whole. The development of the site would be likely to result in impacts which require mitigation and also opportunities to improve the local area. We would need to consider the facilities and services required, the type and design of housing, and how the site would be accessed by car and public transport, amongst a number of other issues. Do you support housing development at:

Site SUT1 – Land north of Park Lane (potential Yes - all of site capacity around 140 homes)

Any other location (please specify which) No

Question 26

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 10 If greenfield land is allocated for housing development at Tollerton, do you have a view on the total number of new homes that should be built up to 2028? If possible, please give reasons for your answer. Zero - already swamped with proposed 4000 housing plan

Question 27

There are a number of sites that have been put forward by developers and others as potentially suitable for housing development at Tollerton. These are shown on the plan below. Most of the sites, if identified as suitable for housing development, should be able to deliver new homes relatively quickly and, therefore, contribute to resolving the current shortfall in the amount of land that is available for housing development over the next few years. We would like to know what you think about the suitability of each of those individual sites shown on the plan below and whether, in each case, the site should or should not be allocated for housing development. For any one site, it should be noted that there may be the option to develop only part of the site rather than its whole. The development of any one of these sites would be likely to result in impacts which require mitigation and also opportunities to improve the local area. We would need to consider the facilities and services required, the type and design of housing, and how the site would be accessed by car and public transport, amongst a number of other issues. Do you support housing development at:

Site TOL1 – Land at Burnside Grove (potential No capacity around 180 homes)

Site TOL2 – West of Tollerton Lane and North of No Medina Drive (potential capacity around 360 homes)

Site TOL3 – Land east of Tollerton Lane (potential No capacity around 50 homes)

Any other location (please specify which) No

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers. For any of the sites, this could include comments on the services and facilities required to support development and the design, mix and layout of development. Inadequate infrastructure

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 11 Goldby K 1074440

Richard Mapletoft

From: Chris & Karen Goldby Sent: 29 March 2017 12:44 To: Localdevelopment Cc: Cllr D Mason; t Subject: Objection to Additional Housing Proposal in Tollerton (areasTOL1,2&3)

I am sure that most people fully understand and support the need to build new houses to accommodate the growing population, but it is important that the location for new housing is in an area that has the approval of the residents already living there and that it is done in small pockets in order to integrate well and to minimize any negative impact that it may have.

We were, therefore, absolutely astounded to find that a mind blowing 4000 houses were to be built in our village, an amount completely out of keeping considering the size of the village, and an unfair burden for us to shoulder. So it goes without saying that to propose yet another 600 houses as well is totally unacceptable, unfair and should categorically not be approved. It is completely unbelievable that it is even being proposed - it is crazy!!

My husband and I have lived in Tollerton for 37 years and chose to live and bring up our family here due to its rural location and community spirit, both of which are going to be impacted on by the 4000 houses. The increase in traffic will also have a negative effect on village life and will no doubt cause damage to our roads, which already are in dire need of repair (our road has never been resurfaced during the 37 years we have lived here, despite having had major drain and sewer works done which left it in a bad condition).

It is totally unfair and unacceptable to add insult to injury by even considering a proposal to build yet another 600 houses in Tollerton, and I must protest about this in the strongest possible way - IT SHOULD NOT - AND MUST NOT - BE ALLOWED TO HAPPEN!!

Karen Goldby (Mrs) 15 Stella Avenue Tollerton.

Sent from my iPad

1 Good 1092948

6 Nottingham Road Cropwell Bishop Nottinghamshire NG12 3BQ Planning Policy Rushcliffe Borough Council Rushcliffe Arena Rugby Road West Bridgford Nottingham NG2 7YG 31 March 2017

Dear Sirs

Local Plan Part 2: Land and Planning Policies (Further Options) Draft Green Belt Review (Part 2b)

Please accept these comments on these documents as follows:

I looked back at the adopted Core Strategy (Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 1: Core Strategy) published in 2014 following on from a decision taken back in 2009.

I have serious concerns in particular where these new proposals are not in line with the earlier decided Core Strategy previously adopted with the requisite checks and balances. I do not believe these new proposals can be adopted then, because they are contrary to that decided policy, viz Policy 3 2.b.viii – development ‘in other villages would be solely to meet local housing needs’. Surely the earlier Core Strategy would need to be rewritten and reissued first? Section 2 is intended to show what Rushcliffe will look like in the future if the Core Strategy is implemented (1.1.6), Section 2 cannot therefore simply ignore what the decided Core Strategy is. I call for this to be the subject of further Oversight and Scrutiny.

Even if the Core Strategy was rewritten and reissued, I do not believe it could adopt a policy which could result in much of the further proposals outlined in the Part 2 Further Options document. The Core Strategy explained the basic spatial issue which was that (2.1.4), the conurbation of Nottingham has a population on 784,100 and has been identified as a New Growth Point. (1.1.2) The Councils for the Area worked together to prepare consistent Core Strategies. The Plan for the Area (3.3.2) follows the principle of urban concentration through the provision of Sustainable Urban Extension on the edge of the built up area of Nottingham (within Rushcliffe) plus regeneration through the allocations at former Cotgrave Colliery and former RAF Newton.

Rushcliffe itself (2.1.3) lies in close proximity to the City of Nottingham, and this is clearly therefore a key influence on the future of the Borough. But that (2.2.6) the rural parts of the Borough suffer more acutely from accessibility issues due to poorer transport links in these more isolated area. Also (2.2.9) that Rushcliffe acts, to an extent, as a residential area serving the Greater Nottingham employment Area. As well as the principle outlined above this shows why the need is for the bulk of sustainable development should be where possible on the edge of the built up area of Nottingham.

In fact it was recognised that many areas within the built up area of Nottingham were somewhat constrained for future development for this reason. Accordingly, (3.3.6) Rushcliffe being on the margin was allocated a higher target for new housing than other Boroughs. The population of Rushcliffe (2011) was 111,000 or 14% of the 784,000 population of the Greater Nottingham Area. Whereas, Rushcliffe was to provide 13,150 new homes prior to 2028, or 26% of the 49.950 0f the new homes needed for the Greater Nottingham Area as a whole. The expectation of the Core Strategy for Rushcliffe was then to provide a high number of homes for the Greater Nottingham conurbation on the edge of the built up area of Nottingham.

The actual Policy 3 Spatial Strategy is set out in in the Core Strategy starting at page 24. This actually differs somewhat from the principle above, in that part of the new housing was also allocated to certain key settlements further from the main Nottingham conurbation. In particular Bingham, Cotgrave, East Leake, Keyworth, Radcliffe on Trent and Ruddington. But it reiterated that, other than RAF Newton (already previously identified for regeneration) development in other settlements ‘will be for local needs only’. I don’t think it helps here to comment further on the reasons adopted for spreading the further housing provision also amongst settlements further away from the Nottingham conurbation, other than to observe that if this was because those areas could sustain a level of further development without further provision of services, then this is likely a near term cost saving because future costs cannot be concentrated and the costs of future road and public transport will actually be substantially greater. This approach appears unsustainable and contrary to the broad principles adopted for the Core Strategy.

So then we come to the specific new proposals themselves set out in the Part 2 Further Options document. You read the preamble and it appears to say that some of the key new developments are failing to deliver the nearer term objectives, in particular East of Gamston, South of Clifton and North of Bingham which have pretty much failed to get off the ground, I assume due to their scale. Then it appears to say the solution would be to identify some new smaller sites which could be developed sooner in the near term to make up the gap. Nothing wrong with that I expect although it does present a somewhat alarming picture of short sightedness amongst those involved in developing the original plan, which I again suggest should be subject to further oversight and scrutiny). However it is a major problem that many of the new areas proposed are outside those areas identified in the Core Strategy which is unacceptable.

Looking at the Further Options, we see further new homes proposed in Green Belt land:

East Leake 1,324 Keyworth 1,755 Radcliffe on Trent 295 Ruddington 301 Cotgrave 1,495 Cropwell Bishop 515 East Bridgford 460 Gotham 565 Sutton Bonnington 140 Tollerton 590

Or around an additional 7,500 homes which is a huge number to add, largely outside the principle of urban concentration through the provision of Sustainable Urban Extension on the edge of the built up area of Nottingham. And it reveals a completely uncontrolled ‘scattergun’ approach which I hope and expect would appall any Planning Inspector. This blunderbuss is blowing great holes in the green belt and at the same time not meeting the objective to provide sustainable development for the greater conurbation of Nottingham. Surely this is more likely to seed further development in the green belt rather than protect it?

Rather than these penny packets, surely the most sensible approach would be to ear mark the entire area to the East of Lings Bar, south of the A52 and Stragglethorpe Lane , North of the A606 and East toward Cotgrave? The area is also bounded to the South East by the Clipston Wolds. Then allow landowners (not me) to seek development proposals with house builders in this area? This would allow efficient and sustainable public services and incorporate a Grantham Canal corridor protected and improved to provide green open space for the area.

Looking more particularly at the entirely new proposals in my own area which is Cropwell Bishop. In essence these seek to extend the village East and West out of the village. This would increase the present size of the village by 66%. But the agreed and adopted Core Plan states that development in other settlements ‘will be for local needs only’. How can this possibly reflect local needs only? In fact, in 2011 a Housing Needs Survey was undertaken with the participation of Rushcliffe Borough Council, which confirmed a local need for only a small number of new homes which have all since subsequently been built on the northern boundary of the village. This proposal for further homes is then beyond what is needed locally and is contrary to the adopted Core Plan. All people living in those new homes would also need to seek employment etc outside the village leading to a vast increase in car use etc which would not be sustainable.

Taking the sites to the West of the village first, so CBI2 and CBI3 which abut right up to the canal. In the assessment the importance of providing a defensible boundary is set out. However in the development for Cropwell Bishop it inexplicably leaps the A46 in one bound without explaining or justifying why this is necessary. Building to the East of the A46 in the Vale of Belvoir should be avoided. It is an important leisure resource for whole area and is widely used by large and growing numbers of cyclist, walker etc. The Grantham Canal is an important leisure asset for the area and instead it should be safeguarded. In the Adopted Core Strategy (P14) it confirms the objective of Protecting and improving Natural Assets, including specifically the Grantham Canal Corridor. In the Spatial Strategy Policy item 7 specifically confirms that Strategic Green Infrastructure will be provided or enhanced in conjunction with the locations for development including specifically “The Grantham Canal corridor”. In Policy 11, The Historic Environment, it confirms specifically that the existing and potential Green Infrastructure corridors and assets are to be protected and enhanced including specifically the Grantham canal corridor. In 3.16.3 it confirms the strategic approach will be based on a framework of primary Green Infrastructure corridors (shown on the ‘Green Infrastructure in Greater Nottingham’). These will be broadly based on the strategic waterways of the Rivers Trent and Soar as well as the Grantham Canal. These corridors provide opportunities for countryside access and also allow for the migration of species. Additionally the river corridors provide the opportunity to tackle climate change through energy production and flood attenuation. Green Infrastructure can play an important role by accommodating measures to protect and improve the water environment in line with the objectives of the Water Framework Directive. In 3.17.3 an example cited of strategies to manage habitats include improving wetland is along the Grantham Canal.

The proximity and need for protection and development of the Grantham canal corridor should not allow development in the areas to the West of Cropwell Bishop to go ahead. The analysis provided does talk about the need to provide defensible boundaries. But given the Policy to protect the Grantham Canal corridor it should not be used as a defensible boundary which would destroy the rural and pleasant nature of the present long distance path and cycle way running along it at present.

Instead to the West of Cropwell Bishop, the present defensible Boundary of the old Ferry Lane should be maintained and respected. The Ferry Lane as set out in the Enclosure Act for the area, is a far more ancient route than the Grantham Canal, and forms part of a long distance north/south droving route going back many centuries before mechanised transport for animals to pass over the Trent near Gunthorpe. This route should be respected rather than being simply blocked to be lost for ever by injudicious development. The development of Cropwell Bishop is very clearly characterised by being in a natural depression, with rising ground both the East and West of the village. I object to the appraisal provided because it appears to take no account of the topography of the village. New development either East or West would be higher than the village and be visible for a great distance from the Vale of Belvoir, which is a low flat plain to the East, and become highly visible from the dualled A46.

I would also like to draw attention to the development which has already taken place between Cotgrave and Cropwell Bishop. The Cotgrave Colliery development has already recently brought the boundary of Cotgrave nearer to Cropwell Bishop by half a mile. Also in the intervening area there has also be further substantial development likely to bring these village boundaries together over time. These include the A46 dualling which has prompted a number of new developments including the bio digester plant in what was previously purely a rural space.

I object to the area CBI1, except for anything other than very limited development along the southern edge of Nottingham Road. Development to the South of Nottingham Road has always been resisted and would have a very negative effect on the village and its relationship to the adjoining countryside.

To the East of Cropwell Bishop, I object to the area CBI6, simply because it is so high up, visible for great distances, and outside the defensible depression which Cropwell Bishop occupies. CBI5, I think there is some scope for some limited development on the West side of that land between the water works and the school, but not to the Eastern end again because it is so high up and outside of the villages position in a natural depression which would be an eyesore for great distances.

Recent development which has taken place has been to the North of Cropwell Bishop. There is still possibly some space for further development here possibly as well, subject to other concerns. However, this might bring the Northern boundary too close to Cropwell Butler.

Finally in relation to Cropwell Bishop, I would like to bring to your attention the growing traffic and parking problems being experienced along the Nottingham Road and Fern Road. These are likely to be greatly exacerbated by the recent permission to develop the Wheatsheaf car park. There are many instances of large (many agricultural and other large vehicles use the route) vehicles having to drive along the pavements. This is a nuisance which will get worse if further development is allowed in the village without finding a substantial and effective solution. This would require either the provision of car parking in the village, or a new east/west route to alleviate the pressure of traffic on the present route.

Yours faithfully.

Jonathan Good Goodman E&M 1074717 Richard Mapletoft

From: Emma and Martin Goodman 29 March 2017 22:15 Sent: Localdevelopment To: tollertontabu; Cllr D Mason; Cllr R L Butler; Neil Clarke Cc: Tollerton Local Plan Subject:

DearSir/Madam,

IamaresidentonMedinaDriveinTollertonandIveryseriousconcernsovertheproposeddevelopmentsaround thevillage.

Weareasmallvillagewiththeamenitiesandinfrastructureofasmallvillageandincreasingthesizewillhavea significantimpactonthecommunityandtheinfrastructurewithinthevillage.ThetrafficinandaroundTollertonisa causeforconcernastheschoolisveryclosetothemainroutethroughthevillageandthereisalreadyasignificant issuewiththewaycarsparkalongTollertonLanewithoutaddingtotheproblem.ChildrenwalkalongTollertonLane toaccesstheschoolandthevillageandincreasedtrafficwillimpactontheirwellbeing.

Therehasalreadybeenallocated4000homesnearthevillagewhichwillhaveanimpactontheinfrastructure, althoughtheywillbefarawayenoughtonotbevisiblefromthevillage.Addingthehousesnorthofthevillagewill causethetwodevelopmentstoalmostmergeandthereneedstobeasignificantboundarybetweenthetwoto keepthevillagesapart.

ThegreenbeltaroundthevillageisimportanttothewildlifeofNottinghamandinkeepingwiththerural surroundingsofthevillage.

IamveryagainsttheproposalofthenewhomesaroundTollertonandIwishyoutoreconsidertheproposal.

KindRegards

EmmaandMartin

This email has been scanned by BullGuard antivirus protection. For more info visit www.bullguard.com

1

Greenwood J Richard Mapletoft 1073682

From: Richard Mapletoft Sent: 25 April 2017 17:04 To: Localdevelopment Subject: FW: Green Belt Consultation Cropwell Bishop Attachments: Bridge-Mar-17.pdf

From: JOHN GREENWOOD [mailto:j] Sent: 15 March 2017 10:38 To: Richard Mapletoft Cc: Gordon Moore; Councillor Richard Butler; Councillor Rickells; Colin Bryan; Mike Stone; Ian Wakefield Subject: Green Belt Consultation Cropwell Bishop

Dear Mr Mapletoft

Greenbelt Consultation Cropwell Bishop

My comments relating to the particular sites under consideration are as follows:

I would be content to see around 100 - 150 new dwellings built in Cropwell Bishop up to 2028. However we have already had 5 houses built on the previous Chequers car park, and around 20 houses (affordable homes) at the North end of the village. Simpsons Stack yard behind 'The Cabin' might accommodate another 25 affordable starter homes?

The other 100 homes could go on the West part of site CBI 5 (North of the School)

Commenting on the particular sites:

CBI 1 - may be acceptable with appropriate access

CBI 2 and CBI3 must be preserved as Green Belt. The area is much used for leisure walks adjacent to the Grantham Canal (under restoration). Walkers want to see open countryside and wildlife (not more houses) as they walk towards Hoe Hill. Also CBI2 would be appropriate for Playing Fields (Football/Cricket etc.) associated with the suggested reconstruction of the Memorial Hall as a sports centre/local amenity for the Village. If anything, CBI2 and 3 should become parkland with leisure uses as above.

CBI 4 - Best preserved as Green Belt in case the School needs it.

CBI 5 - The West side of the plot may be suitable for development (Not the whole plot). Developers have preliminary plans for around 100 houses and in return must provide enhanced facilities for our Community - new access to the primary School, foot and Cycle routes, off street parking, improved bus services etc.

CBI 6 - Too remote - should be preserved as Green Belt.

Of course there will be differing views from our villagers but I do believe that some limited expansion will help our village to thrive.

1 I am particularly concerned that your appraisal of sites CBI2 and CBI3 failed to recognise the importance of preserving the Green belt for the canal and leisure activities in this area. I have attached a recent Grantham Canal Journal (Bridge March 2017) describing some of the activity which is going on to restore this important asset.

Kind Regards Cllr John Greenwood 10 Nottingham Road, Cropwell Bishop NG12 3BQ

2 3ඝඊඔඑඛඐඍඌඊඡ MARCH 2017

This month’s update from Mike Stone This reminds me that if you are or (Chairman) know somebody that is not VOLUNTEERING At times one hesitates to working but is having difficulty comment too soon on the work getting a job working as a OPPORTUNITIES done by volunteers just in case volunteer and being trained gives problems reoccur. However I am you an opportunity when you go delighted to inform readers that it for an interview to say I have appears that the leaks through experience and I have been doing the bank at Lock 17 have finally the following tasks. been eradicated. This has involved much painstaking work WEEKDAYS AT LOCK 15 to remove the earth behind the or piling and replace it with clay. We will continue to keep a close eye on this area of bank.

Many volunteers enjoyed a dinner at the Dirty Duck recently which was an excellent event SATURDAYS WITH ONE OF served by the new host and OUR WORKPARTIES hostess of the pub. There are Volunteering with us gives you If you can spare some time to opportunities to organise more both experience of working and join one of our teams then social events for members and an opportunity to get some please email volunteers so if you feel able to qualifications. Why don't you drop [email protected] do this please let us know. us an email today? or Several new faces have YROXQWHHU#JUDQWKDPFDQDORUJ [email protected] appeared as volunteers recently and I am delighted to welcome them and I hope they enjoy working with us. NOTTS & DERBY BRANCH A further group of volunteers Public meetings. Non IWA members will be have been trained in Plant driving very welcome to attend. and are now certificated to drive Meetings 7.45 pm at the Poppy & Pint, either an excavator or dumper. Pierrepont Road, West Bridgford, NG2-5DX

The Sainsbury’s Buy a Thursday13th April 2017, 7:45pm Brick campaign has This meeting will conclude our indoor programme and will be a visit raised £5252.64 so from Geoff Pursglove who will talk far. about the Ashby Canal, which has seen some restoration activity in Well done all recent years. concerned and Further information from:¬ especially Terry! [email protected]

3DJH The GRANTHAM CANAL HERITAGE INITIATIVE Talks and Events Diary If you can help out with any events, please contact Rosemary on Reclaimed bricks and lime mortar are being used to restore the corner [email protected] posts - this work is being done by one of the Canal & River Trust’s or 07971173069 Heritage trainees. 2017 Bookings Mon 13th Mar 7.30 Discovery Day Planning, Urban Hotel, Grantham Mon 20th Mar 12.45 Talk: Grantham Rotary, Urban Hotel, Grantham Sat 25th Mar Carpenter’s Shop, Depot, Events Team Training behind Dirty Duck, Day 10.00 Woolsthorpe by Belvoir Tues 28th Mar 2.00 Talk: Keyworth U3A Fri 31st Mar 10.00 Research Group – Grantham Library – local studies room Mon 10th Apr 7.30 Rangers’ Meeting, Plough at Stathern Tues 11th Apr 2.00 Talk: Barkston and Syston Cardiac Chat Group Sun & Mon 16th & Bank Holiday Boat Trips – 17th Apr volunteers needed for The Canal & River Trust’s engineer crew, refreshments, trip required the chamber walls raising by sales, etc. Wed 19th Apr 2.00 Talk: Sage Cross Ladies three extra courses of facing bricks in Club order to raise the water level. Sun 23rd Apr 11.00- Cotgrave Country Park 3.00 Joint Meet and Greet Day Wed 26th Apr 10.00 Talk: Harrowby Lane, The offside wall after the additional Methodist Church, bricks and blocks had been laid. Grantham Sun & Mon 30th Apr Bank Holiday Boat Trips – and 1st May volunteers needed for The finished offside wall - brilliant job! crew, refreshments, trip sales, etc. Mon 1st May Denton Street Market, display in church Sun & Mon 28th & Bank Holiday Boat Trips – 29th May volunteers needed for crew, refreshments, trip sales, etc. Sat & Sun 3rd & 4th Grantham Steam and June County Show Sat 17th June 11.00 – Cotgrave Festival 4.00 Sat 24th June 11.00 – East Bridgford Village 5.00 Show Sun 25th June 10.30 – Short Boat Trip Sunday 4.00 Sun 2nd July Dysart Park Family Fun Day, Grantham Sun 9th – Wed 12th U3A Summer School at July Harlaxton Manor Sun 30th July 10.30 – Short Boat Trip Sunday 4.00 Thurs 24th Aug 12.00 Skylarks Festival, Holme – 6.00 Pierrepont Sun & Mon 27th & Bank Holiday Boat Trips – 28th Aug volunteers needed for crew, refreshments, trip sales, etc. Tues 5th Sept 7.30 Talk: Waltham WI Many thanks to John Sat & Sun 9th & 10th Harby Country Show Clark for these photos Sept Wed 20th Sept 2.00 Talk: Burton Lazars VH & text Sun 24th Sept 10.30 Short Boat Trip Sunday – 4.00

3DJH Community and Events Let Rosemary know if you can Environment Notes attend: Update APPS for your SPRING WALKS Grantham Museum ‘Do communityandevents@granthamc Something New’ event on anal.org Saturday 18th February, was a For our big event, Discovery great success. 300 people Day, Sunday 8th October, regular attended, enabling us to network planning meetings have been led by with other groups as well as the Ian Simmons. The next meeting will be public. 7.30, Monday 13th March, Urban Talks provide a trickle of income Hotel, Swingbridge Road, (next to the and are an easy way to network canal) Grantham. NG31 7XT. Contact Ian at [email protected] with groups from teens to around Swans at Muston Gorse. 100. We usually use slides to Education Update: Rosemary was to shadow Claire Cavendish, base the discussion around, but Spring is round the corner so try when the technology refused to Canal and River Trust Education Co-ordinator (East Midlands and these Apps on your SpringWatch play ball in Radcliffe on Trent walks; recently, we carried on with North East) for school water safety sessions but this did not happen questions and answers and the OPAL BUGS COUNT because Claire was ill. Hope she is audience seemed very happy with (APPLE OR ANDROID FREE) better soon and we can move that. Backed by Natural History forward in this area. Chris Cobb has been booking events Museum, the APP provides a Reminiscence and Research: for the coming season, but is range of questions to help Those interested, please meet at concerned that there will not be identification of many insects by enough help to set up and take down Grantham Library on Friday 31st the Open Air Laboratories (OPAL) the information stand and man it. It March at 10.00. A Joint Meet and DATABASE. Also you can is a shame that we can’t take greater Greet Event with Friends of participate in the OPAL survey – advantage of more outreach Cotgrave Country Park on Sunday good for the kids. opportunities. We get a lot of people 23rd April can be linked with a saying ‘You should do this that and proposed Reminiscence Day at the other’ but we need people to PLANTNET Cotgrave. come forward and say ‘We will …’ We (APPLE OR ANDROID FREE) hope a good number of the latter Please don’t think somebody A visual recognition data type of people can come along to: else will do it. Come and get software system base, to identify Events Team Training Day involved! Spring growth. Take a picture Chris’s email is: th with phone camera of leaves, or Saturday 25 March 10.00 [email protected] Carpenter’s Shop, Woolsthorpe flowers upload to the 6000+ To include: Rosemary species base and keep your Ɣ safe erection of gazebo, tables [email protected] fingers crossed for a match. and information boards 07971 173069 BIRD SONG ID Ɣ building knowledge of the or 01476 978896 canal’s past, present and future (APPLE £3.99, ANDROID £2.99) Ɣ promoting Trip Boat charters Has a sonic audio database of and other events birdsongs and produces a best Ɣ recruiting members and ARE YOU A MEMBER match to the captured song then volunteers for a wide variety of OF THE SOCIETY? provides best match from a 36 roles song library of British Birds Has Ɣ fund-raising ideas been given good reports. We really need all the support we Source of information; Times Ɣ Bring Lunch or we can take can gain in order to carry out the Newspapers advantage of the hospitality at the restoration of this beautiful canal. Dirty Duck. Tea, coffee and cake Tony Pitman will be available throughout the Visit www.granthamcanal.org day. FOR DETAILS

3DJH THE WAY IT WAS was the steel culvert pipes and After the campaign rallies and concrete abutments. slipway completion the major WRG had set up obstacle in the way of progress was camp in Woolsthorpe the railway embankment village hall for two at¬Woolsthorpe. This was part of a weeks and with the mineral line starting from the main hire of several air compressor's and line near Bottesford to reach breakers set about the mammoth various iron ore quarries around job. With these removed all was left the Belvoir area. The line had been was reprofiling ¬the canal and two Casthorpe Bridle Bridge (c/o D Davis) closed for some years but British ends of the railtrackbed. Timber Rail kept it mothballed incase fences were erected at the tops of Thanks also to John Moulcher for production began again.¬ The line the embankment and generally allowing access and land to store originally had a wooden trestle around the site where required. infill and other materials. The next bridge over the canal but when this The large oak timbers from the job would be to start the lock weakened ¬British Rail¬in filled it trestle were recovered by Gary rebuilds. with old track ballast and earth. Connelly and used for the Mike Atherley The canal had been closed many construction of Casthorpe Bridle years earlier. Two 4ft diameter bridge. culvert pipes with reinforced concrete abutments allowed a flow of water to continue¬along the canal. Our Secretary John Marshall had been beavering away at BR for many years to allow us to remove the embankment but BR insisted we would have to fund the cost of a new bridge, should this be required. Anyway eventually a letter came allowing us remove the embankment at our cost but no rebuild penalties. It didn't take long for us to start test digs to establish what material they had used. Ian and Colin, the other workparty leaders had purchased a Smalley excavator and soon found Woolsthorpe embankment before & after ( Courtesy of Anne Moulcher) traces of the old trestle bridge and what the infill was. It became pretty obvious that the size of the job would be very large and long without extra help so a request to Waterways Recovery Group was established. They followed up with a site visit and an overall plan. A date was agreed and¬work commenced. Luckily BW agreed to loan us a 360' excavator with Dave Smith the driver at very competitive rates. Also because of a weather hiccup, several local farmers had tractors and trailers available and could reuse the infill material. 1994 Trailboat rally When the spoil and timber had photographs by Bernard Snell been removed the next problem

3DJH Flora & Fauna along the Discovery Day 2017 Grantham Canal Sunday October 8th by James Faulconbridge Facebook March – Nesting Birds The leaves are beginning to break from their buds, the birdsong is increasing and the nesting season will soon be underway. Many different species find nesting sites along the Grantham Canal and not just in the obvious places. Species such as blackbird, robin and chaffinch will build their nests in the twigs and branches of hedgerows and We are in the process of closing our page trees. The bursting of the leaves “The Three Shires” so that all details provides the cover and concealment relevant to the society can be accessed from to maximise the chances of the eggs our “Grantham Canal Society” page. avoiding nest predation. Species such as blue tits and great tits seek out cavities in trees which provide shelter HELP OUR earlier in the season. Heading down from the trees and FUNDRAISING BY shrubs into the emergent vegetation you can find species such as reed DONATING…THINGS! warblers which construct their nests between 2-3 reed stems. These We have the contacts to raise warblers are summer visitors who money for the society from arrive in the UK around mid-April. certain donated items. In the canal itself, are a range of waterbirds – from coots and Do you have any of the following moorhens through ducks, geese and which you would like to donate? Some photos from our 2016 Discovery Day swans. Whilst many species tuck their nests away, the swans almost flaunt Ɣ 6WDPSFROOHFWLRQ their power, creating large platforms Ɣ &LJDUHWWH&DUGV Our grateful thanks to the following of vegetation with very little cover. who have recently made a donation to Even the man-made structures such Ɣ 0RGHOUDLOZD\VDQG1 JDXJH the Society: as the bridges can create nesting &KULV&REE'0F(QWUHJQRW opportunities, and some even have Ɣ %HHUPDWV 65/%DOO1LJHO/HH specially built features incorporate Ɣ %HHUSXPSFOLSV 0UV906PLWK*UDQWKDP into them! Ɣ *RRGTXDOLW\SRWWHU\DQG There is still time to provide nest 0XVHXP7DON76KDZ boxes for birds this spring - there are SRUFHODLQ some very simple one-plank plans for Ɣ ´YLQ\O/3VVLQJOHVDQG bird boxes which are cheap and easy &'V to make. Search “RSPB Nestbox” and Ɣ '9'V ENGRAVED BRICK you’ll find designs tailored to a range Ɣ 5RFNV 0LQHUDOV of different species. DONORS If so email David on C.Fletcher [email protected] or ring on 07970 858458 Mr.Owen Mr. Mrs Inglis WE WILL DISCUSS WHAT WE CAN TAKE AND SELL Dr Bannister FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS John Brydon EVERY LITTLE HELPS! Mrs Lockey

3DJH Comment.

Consultee Mr David Griffiths (1073917)

Email Address

Address 21 Adbolton Grove West Bridgford Nottingham NG2 5AR

Event Name Local Plan Part 2 Further Options

Comment by Mr David Griffiths

Comment ID 60

Response Date 29/03/17 15:33

Status Submitted

Submission Type Web

Version 0.1

Question 1

Do you agree with the Council’s assessment of Ye s the present housing supply situation and that enough land will need to be identified by Local Plan Part 2 to accommodate around 2,000 new homes?

Question 2

Do you agree with the Council’s view that none of Ye s the three strategic allocations (Melton Road, Edwalton; South of Clifton; and East of Gamston/North of Tollerton) should be expanded as part of resolving the current shortfall in the amount of land that is available for housing development over the next few years?

Question 3

There is, in our view, just one site on the edge of West Bridgford or Clifton that may be suitable for housing development and which could help tackle the current housing land supply shortfall. This is land at Simkins Farm at Adbolton Lane, West Bridgford, which has a potential capacity of around 40 homes.The site is shown on Figure 2 below. We would like to know whether or not you think it is suitable for housing development. A number of other sites on the edge of West Bridgford or Clifton have been ruled out at this stage because they are not considered capable of being developed. If, however, you think there are any sites that should be developed we would like to know. It may be useful to refer to our Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) which identifies all those sites that have been put forward by developers and others

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 1 as potentially suitable for housing development – please see http://www.rushcliffe.gov.uk/planningpolicy/localplan/supportingstudies/strategiclandavailabilityassessment/ Do you support housing development at:

Site HOL1 - Simkins Farm, Adbolton Lane, West No Bridgford (potential capacity around 40 homes)

Any other location (please specify where in box No below)

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers.This could include comments on the services and facilities required to support development and the design, mix and layout of development. The purpose of the green belt includes 'To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment'. This development is entirely inappropriate in this area; 1 This site does encroach on countryside 2 There is no other modern housing around, with the result that this site will look 'plonked' on the landscape. 3 It covers the archaeological site of the lost village of Adbolton 4 The site will pose a significant threat to wildlife, especially around Pinder's Pond 5 There are insufficient places in local primary schools 6 The land becomes waterlogged during periods of heavy rain

Question 17

The villages which we have identified as potentially suitable to accommodate a limited level of housing development on greenfield sites are as follows: Cropwell Bishop; East Bridgford; Gotham; Sutton Bonington; and Tollerton These particular villages have been identified because, while they do not provide for a full range of facilities as is the case at West Bridgford and the key settlements, the basic level of facilities (e,g. schools; doctors’ surgery) that are available are deemed capable of potentially supporting a relatively limited level of housing growth without compromising the strategy set out in Local Plan Part 1 (Core Strategy) for the distribution of new housing. Should Local Plan Part 2 identify the following ‘other’ villages as suitable for a limited level of housing growth on greenfileld sites?

Cropwell Bishop

East Bridgford

Gotham

Sutton Bonington

Tollerton

Any other settlement (please specify which)

Question 19

There are a number of sites that have been put forward by developers and others as potentially suitable for housing development at Cropwell Bishop. These are shown on the plan below. Most of the sites, if identified

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 2 as suitable for housing development, should be able to deliver new homes relatively quickly and, therefore, contribute to resolving the current shortfall in the amount of land that is available for housing development over the next few years. We would like to know what you think about the suitability of each of those individual sites shown on the plan below and whether, in each case, the site should or should not be allocated for housing development. For any one site, it should be noted that there may be the option to develop only part of the site rather than its whole. The development of any one of these sites would be likely to result in impacts which require mitigation and also opportunities to improve the local area. We would need to consider the facilities and services required, the type and design of housing, and how the site would be accessed by car and public transport, amongst a number of other issues. Do you support housing development at:

Site CBI1 – Land to the south of Nottingham Road and east of Kinoulton Road (potential capacity around 30 homes)

Site CBI2 – Land north of Memorial Hall (1) (potential capacity around 75 homes)

Site CBI3– Land north of Memorial Hall (2) (potential capacity around 60 homes)

Site CBI4 – Land north of Fern Road (2) (potential capacity around 30 homes)

Site CBI5 – Land north of Fern Road (1) (potential capacity around 250 homes)

Site CBI6 – Land to the north of Fern Road (3) (potential capacity around 70 homes)

Any other location (please specify which)

Question 21

There are a number of sites that have been put forward by developers and others as potentially suitable for housing development at East Bridgford. These are shown on the plan below. Most of the sites, if identified as suitable for housing development, should be able to deliver new homes relatively quickly and, therefore, contribute to resolving the current shortfall in the amount of land that is available for housing development over the next few years. We would like to know what you think about the suitability of each of those individual sites shown on the plan below and whether, in each case, the site should or should not be allocated for housing development. For any one site, it should be noted that there may be the option to develop only part of the site rather than its whole. The development of any one of these sites would be likely to result in impacts which require mitigation and also opportunities to improve the local area. We would need to consider the facilities and services required, the type and design of housing, and how the site would be accessed by car and public transport, amongst a number of other issues. Do you support housing development at:

Site EBR1 – Land behind Kirk Hill (east) (potential capacity around 15 homes)

Site EBR2 – Land behind Kirk Hill (west) (potential capacity around 70 homes)

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 3 Site EBR3 – Land north of Kneeton Road (1) (potential capacity around 95 homes)

Site EBR4 – Land north of Kneeton Road (2) (potential capacity around 150 homes)

Site EBR5 – Land at Lammas Lane (potential capacity around 40 homes)

Site EBR6 – Closes Side Lane (west) (potential capacity around 20 homes)

Site EBR7 – Closes Side Lane (east) (potential capacity around 20 homes)

Site EBR8 – Land to the north of Butt Lane (potential capacity around 20 homes)

Site EBR9 – Land to the south of Springdale Lane (potential capacity around 30 homes)

Any other location (please specify which)

Question 23

There are a number of sites that have been put forward by developers and others as potentially suitable for housing development at Gotham. These are shown on the plan below. Most of the sites, if identified as suitable for housing development, should be able to deliver new homes relatively quickly and, therefore, contribute to resolving the current shortfall in the amount of land that is available for housing development over the next few years. We would like to know what you think about the suitability of each of those individual sites shown on the plan below and whether, in each case, the site should or should not be allocated for housing development. For any one site, it should be noted that there may be the option to develop only part of the site rather than its whole. The development of any one of these sites would be likely to result in impacts which require mitigation and also opportunities to improve the local area. We would need to consider the facilities and services required, the type and design of housing, and how the site would be accessed by car and public transport, amongst a number of other issues. Do you support housing development at:

Site GOT1 – Land to the rear of former British Legion (potential capacity around 25 homes)

Site GOT2 – Land north of Kegworth Road/Home Farm (west) (potential capacity around 50 homes)

Site GOT3 – Land north of Kegworth Road/Home Farm (east) (potential capacity around 20 homes)

Site GOT4 – The Orchards, Leake Road (potential capacity around 50 homes)

Site GOT5 – Land east of Gypsum Way/The Orchards (potential capacity around 200 homes)

Site GOT6 – East of Leake Road (potential capacity around 45 homes)

Site GOT7 – Land east of Hill Road (potential capacity around 160 homes)

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 4 Site GOT8 – Land south of Moor Lane (potential capacity around 15 homes)

Any other location (please specify which)

Question 25

There is one site that has been put forward by a landowner as potentially suitable for housing development at Sutton Bonington. This is shown on the plan below. The site, if identified as suitable for housing development, should be able to deliver new homes relatively quickly and, therefore, contribute to resolving the current shortfall in the amount of land that is available for housing development over the next few years. We would like to know what you think about the suitability of the site shown on the plan below and whether it should or should not be allocated for housing development. For any one site, it should be noted that there may be the option to develop only part of the site rather than its whole. The development of the site would be likely to result in impacts which require mitigation and also opportunities to improve the local area. We would need to consider the facilities and services required, the type and design of housing, and how the site would be accessed by car and public transport, amongst a number of other issues. Do you support housing development at:

Site SUT1 – Land north of Park Lane (potential capacity around 140 homes)

Any other location (please specify which)

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 5 Comment.

Consultee Mrs Sally Griffiths (1074449)

Email Address 21 Adbolton Grove Address West Bridgford NG2 5AR Event Name Local Plan Part 2 Further Options Comment by Mrs Sally Griffiths

Comment ID 95

Response Date 31/03/17 08:50

Status Submitted

Submission Type Web

Version 0.1

Question 1

Do you agree with the Council’s assessment of No the present housing supply situation and that enough land will need to be identified by Local Plan Part 2 to accommodate around 2,000 new homes?

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your response. There is already enough land in part 1, the problem is the delay in getting it used.

Question 2

Do you agree with the Council’s view that none of Ye s the three strategic allocations (Melton Road, Edwalton; South of Clifton; and East of Gamston/North of Tollerton) should be expanded as part of resolving the current shortfall in the amount of land that is available for housing development over the next few years?

Question 3

There is, in our view, just one site on the edge of West Bridgford or Clifton that may be suitable for housing development and which could help tackle the current housing land supply shortfall. This is land at Simkins Farm at Adbolton Lane, West Bridgford, which has a potential capacity of around 40 homes.The site is shown on Figure 2 below. We would like to know whether or not you think it is suitable for housing development.

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 1 A number of other sites on the edge of West Bridgford or Clifton have been ruled out at this stage because they are not considered capable of being developed. If, however, you think there are any sites that should be developed we would like to know. It may be useful to refer to our Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) which identifies all those sites that have been put forward by developers and others as potentially suitable for housing development – please see http://www.rushcliffe.gov.uk/planningpolicy/localplan/supportingstudies/strategiclandavailabilityassessment/ Do you support housing development at:

Site HOL1 - Simkins Farm, Adbolton Lane, West No Bridgford (potential capacity around 40 homes)

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers.This could include comments on the services and facilities required to support development and the design, mix and layout of development. The land is the site of the lost village of Adbolton. There is evidence from archaeological dig in the 19th century that there was a graveyard in this site and therefore there will be undiscovered human remains there as well as the likelihood that other evidence lies undisturbed. It is also a very wet area which needs open fields to absorb rainfall to protect the housing from flooding. Any extra development in this area would put strain on the infrastructure. Local schools and doctors surgeries are already full.

Question 17

The villages which we have identified as potentially suitable to accommodate a limited level of housing development on greenfield sites are as follows: Cropwell Bishop; East Bridgford; Gotham; Sutton Bonington; and Tollerton These particular villages have been identified because, while they do not provide for a full range of facilities as is the case at West Bridgford and the key settlements, the basic level of facilities (e,g. schools; doctors’ surgery) that are available are deemed capable of potentially supporting a relatively limited level of housing growth without compromising the strategy set out in Local Plan Part 1 (Core Strategy) for the distribution of new housing. Should Local Plan Part 2 identify the following ‘other’ villages as suitable for a limited level of housing growth on greenfileld sites?

Cropwell Bishop

East Bridgford

Gotham

Sutton Bonington

Tollerton

Any other settlement (please specify which)

Question 19

There are a number of sites that have been put forward by developers and others as potentially suitable for housing development at Cropwell Bishop. These are shown on the plan below. Most of the sites, if identified as suitable for housing development, should be able to deliver new homes relatively quickly and, therefore,

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 2 contribute to resolving the current shortfall in the amount of land that is available for housing development over the next few years. We would like to know what you think about the suitability of each of those individual sites shown on the plan below and whether, in each case, the site should or should not be allocated for housing development. For any one site, it should be noted that there may be the option to develop only part of the site rather than its whole. The development of any one of these sites would be likely to result in impacts which require mitigation and also opportunities to improve the local area. We would need to consider the facilities and services required, the type and design of housing, and how the site would be accessed by car and public transport, amongst a number of other issues. Do you support housing development at:

Site CBI1 – Land to the south of Nottingham Road and east of Kinoulton Road (potential capacity around 30 homes)

Site CBI2 – Land north of Memorial Hall (1) (potential capacity around 75 homes)

Site CBI3– Land north of Memorial Hall (2) (potential capacity around 60 homes)

Site CBI4 – Land north of Fern Road (2) (potential capacity around 30 homes)

Site CBI5 – Land north of Fern Road (1) (potential capacity around 250 homes)

Site CBI6 – Land to the north of Fern Road (3) (potential capacity around 70 homes)

Any other location (please specify which)

Question 21

There are a number of sites that have been put forward by developers and others as potentially suitable for housing development at East Bridgford. These are shown on the plan below. Most of the sites, if identified as suitable for housing development, should be able to deliver new homes relatively quickly and, therefore, contribute to resolving the current shortfall in the amount of land that is available for housing development over the next few years. We would like to know what you think about the suitability of each of those individual sites shown on the plan below and whether, in each case, the site should or should not be allocated for housing development. For any one site, it should be noted that there may be the option to develop only part of the site rather than its whole. The development of any one of these sites would be likely to result in impacts which require mitigation and also opportunities to improve the local area. We would need to consider the facilities and services required, the type and design of housing, and how the site would be accessed by car and public transport, amongst a number of other issues. Do you support housing development at:

Site EBR1 – Land behind Kirk Hill (east) (potential capacity around 15 homes)

Site EBR2 – Land behind Kirk Hill (west) (potential capacity around 70 homes)

Site EBR3 – Land north of Kneeton Road (1) (potential capacity around 95 homes)

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 3 Site EBR4 – Land north of Kneeton Road (2) (potential capacity around 150 homes)

Site EBR5 – Land at Lammas Lane (potential capacity around 40 homes)

Site EBR6 – Closes Side Lane (west) (potential capacity around 20 homes)

Site EBR7 – Closes Side Lane (east) (potential capacity around 20 homes)

Site EBR8 – Land to the north of Butt Lane (potential capacity around 20 homes)

Site EBR9 – Land to the south of Springdale Lane (potential capacity around 30 homes)

Any other location (please specify which)

Question 23

There are a number of sites that have been put forward by developers and others as potentially suitable for housing development at Gotham. These are shown on the plan below. Most of the sites, if identified as suitable for housing development, should be able to deliver new homes relatively quickly and, therefore, contribute to resolving the current shortfall in the amount of land that is available for housing development over the next few years. We would like to know what you think about the suitability of each of those individual sites shown on the plan below and whether, in each case, the site should or should not be allocated for housing development. For any one site, it should be noted that there may be the option to develop only part of the site rather than its whole. The development of any one of these sites would be likely to result in impacts which require mitigation and also opportunities to improve the local area. We would need to consider the facilities and services required, the type and design of housing, and how the site would be accessed by car and public transport, amongst a number of other issues. Do you support housing development at:

Site GOT1 – Land to the rear of former British Legion (potential capacity around 25 homes)

Site GOT2 – Land north of Kegworth Road/Home Farm (west) (potential capacity around 50 homes)

Site GOT3 – Land north of Kegworth Road/Home Farm (east) (potential capacity around 20 homes)

Site GOT4 – The Orchards, Leake Road (potential capacity around 50 homes)

Site GOT5 – Land east of Gypsum Way/The Orchards (potential capacity around 200 homes)

Site GOT6 – East of Leake Road (potential capacity around 45 homes)

Site GOT7 – Land east of Hill Road (potential capacity around 160 homes)

Site GOT8 – Land south of Moor Lane (potential capacity around 15 homes)

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 4 Any other location (please specify which)

Question 25

There is one site that has been put forward by a landowner as potentially suitable for housing development at Sutton Bonington. This is shown on the plan below. The site, if identified as suitable for housing development, should be able to deliver new homes relatively quickly and, therefore, contribute to resolving the current shortfall in the amount of land that is available for housing development over the next few years. We would like to know what you think about the suitability of the site shown on the plan below and whether it should or should not be allocated for housing development. For any one site, it should be noted that there may be the option to develop only part of the site rather than its whole. The development of the site would be likely to result in impacts which require mitigation and also opportunities to improve the local area. We would need to consider the facilities and services required, the type and design of housing, and how the site would be accessed by car and public transport, amongst a number of other issues. Do you support housing development at:

Site SUT1 – Land north of Park Lane (potential capacity around 140 homes)

Any other location (please specify which)

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 5

Comment.

Consultee mr Richard Grimes (1063732)

Email Address

Address 17 Cherryholt Lane East Bridgford NOTTINGHAM NG13 8LJ

Event Name Local Plan Part 2 Further Options

Comment by mr Richard Grimes

Comment ID 32

Response Date 23/03/17 22:00

Status Submitted

Submission Type Web

Version 0.1

Question 1

Do you agree with the Council’s assessment of No the present housing supply situation and that enough land will need to be identified by Local Plan Part 2 to accommodate around 2,000 new homes?

Question 2

Do you agree with the Council’s view that none of No the three strategic allocations (Melton Road, Edwalton; South of Clifton; and East of Gamston/North of Tollerton) should be expanded as part of resolving the current shortfall in the amount of land that is available for housing development over the next few years?

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your response I agree with the council that expaning existing areas is the right place to develop. therefore, i would seek to expand these developments further rather than use the wider greenbelt area. There is considerable scope to expand both the melton road site (to the west) and the east of gamston site (north or south). Both are highly desirable areas, well served by local facilities, and demand for housing here can be expected to be high and profitable for developers. Hence in my opinion further development should be sought here.

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 1 Question 3

There is, in our view, just one site on the edge of West Bridgford or Clifton that may be suitable for housing development and which could help tackle the current housing land supply shortfall. This is land at Simkins Farm at Adbolton Lane, West Bridgford, which has a potential capacity of around 40 homes.The site is shown on Figure 2 below. We would like to know whether or not you think it is suitable for housing development. A number of other sites on the edge of West Bridgford or Clifton have been ruled out at this stage because they are not considered capable of being developed. If, however, you think there are any sites that should be developed we would like to know. It may be useful to refer to our Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) which identifies all those sites that have been put forward by developers and others as potentially suitable for housing development – please see http://www.rushcliffe.gov.uk/planningpolicy/localplan/supportingstudies/strategiclandavailabilityassessment/ Do you support housing development at:

Site HOL1 - Simkins Farm, Adbolton Lane, West Yes - all of site Bridgford (potential capacity around 40 homes)

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers.This could include comments on the services and facilities required to support development and the design, mix and layout of development. Its proximity to west bridgford and nearby facilities makes this an attractive site.

Question 4

Do you agree that Local Plan Part 2 should not No allocate further greenfield land for housing development at Bingham in the plan period (up to 2028)?

Please provide any comments you wish to make in support of your response. Bingham is an attractive settlement with good facilities and transport links. Both bingham and its surrounding villages would benefit from further development in Bingham - especially commercial facilities.The recent success of the Aldi and Lidl stores suggest the local area is currently underserved and would benefit from development

Question 5

Do you agree that Local Plan Part 2 should Ye s allocate greenfield land for housing development at Cotgrave in the plan period (up to 2028)?

Please provide any comments you wish to make in support of your response. Cotgrave's close proximity to WB and Nottm make it an attractive settlement for commuters. Expansion of exiting facilities would benefit the local community.

Question 6

If Local Plan Part 2 does allocate land at Cotgrave for housing development, the total amount identified will be dependent on a range of factors including the capacity of local facilities (e.g. schools, doctors’ surgery) and infrastructure (e.g. local roads) to sustain new homes, the potential physical impact of development on locations around the town, including how the Green Belt would be affected, and how quickly particular sites would be able to deliver new homes. It will become clearer as development proposals become more certain

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 2 what new or improved services and facilities are required to support new housing. The views of service providers such as Nottinghamshire County Council will be important in identifying what is required.

Do you have a view on the total number of new homes that should be accommodated on greenfield sites at Cotgrave up to 2028? If possible, please give reasons for your answer. Around 500 in addition to the current 500.

Question 8

Do you agree that, apart from those eight sites No that already have planning permission for housing development (sites EL1 to EL8 as shown below), further greenfield land should not be allocated for housing development at East Leake?

Please provide any comments you wish to make in support of your response. given its size and proximity to urban areas, further development at east leake is preferable to more remote rural areas

Question 10

Do you have a view on the total number of new homes that should be built on greenfield sites at Keyworth up to 2028? If possible, please give reasons for your answer. 500-750. Keyworth has excellent facilities, including a school and leisure centre, and transport links. Further development would make an attractive proposition for local commuters.

Question 12

Do you have a view on the total number of new homes that should be built on greenfield sites at Radcliffe on Trent up to 2028? If possible, please give reasons for your answer. c. 500. Radcliffe is another desireable commuter settlement. It would be preferable to further develop radcliffe than more remote villages

Question 14

Do you have a view on the total number of new homes that should be accommodated on greenfield sites at Ruddington up to 2028? If possible, please give reasons for your answer. c 250. Ruddington's proximity to west brodgford makes it a strong candidate for further expansion ahead of remote rural villages

Question 16

Do you agree that, apart from the site to the south Don't know of Abbey Lane, Aslockton with planning permission for up to 75 new homes, Local Plan Part 2 should not allocate greenfield land for housing development at Aslockton and Whatton in the plan period (up to 2028)?

Please provide any comments you wish to make in support of your response.

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 3 Aslockton has better facilities and transport links than most rural villages, includiung a train station, so it may be appropriate to expand

Question 17

The villages which we have identified as potentially suitable to accommodate a limited level of housing development on greenfield sites are as follows: Cropwell Bishop; East Bridgford; Gotham; Sutton Bonington; and Tollerton These particular villages have been identified because, while they do not provide for a full range of facilities as is the case at West Bridgford and the key settlements, the basic level of facilities (e,g. schools; doctors’ surgery) that are available are deemed capable of potentially supporting a relatively limited level of housing growth without compromising the strategy set out in Local Plan Part 1 (Core Strategy) for the distribution of new housing. Should Local Plan Part 2 identify the following ‘other’ villages as suitable for a limited level of housing growth on greenfileld sites?

Cropwell Bishop Don't know

East Bridgford No

Gotham Ye s

Sutton Bonington Ye s

Tollerton Ye s

Any other settlement (please specify which) Ye s

Please provide any comments you wish to make in support of your response. East Bridgford does not have enough facilities to enable further expansion. The school is already overcrowded with over 40 children per class and no easy means of expansion. The doctors is already very busy. Roads are poor and additonal traffic could not be accomodated.

Question 18

If greenfield land is allocated for housing development at Cropwell Bishop, do you have a view on the total number of new homes that should be built up to 2028? If possible, please give reasons for your answer. 200 - Cropwell butler is one of the larger villages

Question 19

There are a number of sites that have been put forward by developers and others as potentially suitable for housing development at Cropwell Bishop. These are shown on the plan below. Most of the sites, if identified as suitable for housing development, should be able to deliver new homes relatively quickly and, therefore, contribute to resolving the current shortfall in the amount of land that is available for housing development over the next few years. We would like to know what you think about the suitability of each of those individual sites shown on the plan below and whether, in each case, the site should or should not be allocated for housing development. For any one site, it should be noted that there may be the option to develop only part of the site rather than its whole.

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 4 The development of any one of these sites would be likely to result in impacts which require mitigation and also opportunities to improve the local area. We would need to consider the facilities and services required, the type and design of housing, and how the site would be accessed by car and public transport, amongst a number of other issues. Do you support housing development at:

Site CBI1 – Land to the south of Nottingham Road and east of Kinoulton Road (potential capacity around 30 homes)

Site CBI2 – Land north of Memorial Hall (1) (potential capacity around 75 homes)

Site CBI3– Land north of Memorial Hall (2) (potential capacity around 60 homes)

Site CBI4 – Land north of Fern Road (2) (potential capacity around 30 homes)

Site CBI5 – Land north of Fern Road (1) (potential capacity around 250 homes)

Site CBI6 – Land to the north of Fern Road (3) (potential capacity around 70 homes)

Any other location (please specify which)

Question 20

If greenfield land is allocated for housing development at East Bridgford, do you have a view on the total number of new homes that should be built up to 2028? If possible, please give reasons for your answer. 0 - roads cannot accomodate more homes. The school is overcrowded 40+ per class.

Question 21

There are a number of sites that have been put forward by developers and others as potentially suitable for housing development at East Bridgford. These are shown on the plan below. Most of the sites, if identified as suitable for housing development, should be able to deliver new homes relatively quickly and, therefore, contribute to resolving the current shortfall in the amount of land that is available for housing development over the next few years. We would like to know what you think about the suitability of each of those individual sites shown on the plan below and whether, in each case, the site should or should not be allocated for housing development. For any one site, it should be noted that there may be the option to develop only part of the site rather than its whole. The development of any one of these sites would be likely to result in impacts which require mitigation and also opportunities to improve the local area. We would need to consider the facilities and services required, the type and design of housing, and how the site would be accessed by car and public transport, amongst a number of other issues. Do you support housing development at:

Site EBR1 – Land behind Kirk Hill (east) (potential No capacity around 15 homes)

Site EBR2 – Land behind Kirk Hill (west) (potential Yes - part of site capacity around 70 homes)

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 5 Site EBR3 – Land north of Kneeton Road (1) Yes - part of site (potential capacity around 95 homes)

Site EBR4 – Land north of Kneeton Road (2) Yes - part of site (potential capacity around 150 homes)

Site EBR5 – Land at Lammas Lane (potential Yes - part of site capacity around 40 homes)

Site EBR6 – Closes Side Lane (west) (potential No capacity around 20 homes)

Site EBR7 – Closes Side Lane (east) (potential No capacity around 20 homes)

Site EBR8 – Land to the north of Butt Lane Yes - all of site (potential capacity around 20 homes)

Site EBR9 – Land to the south of Springdale Lane Yes - part of site (potential capacity around 30 homes)

Any other location (please specify which)

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers. For any of the sites, this could include comments on the services and facilities required to support development and the design, mix and layout of development. EBR 6 and 7 can only be accessed through residential areas or single lane roads with no footpath. The majority of neighbouring properties, which are in a conservation area, are bungalows, therefore only bungalows could realistically be built on this site.

Question 22

If greenfield land is allocated for housing development at Gotham, do you have a view on the total number of new homes that should be built up to 2028? If possible, please give reasons for your answer. 500 - gotham is well located for both nottingham and WB and m1 J24, as such it is an attractive commuter settlement that would benefit from further development

Question 23

There are a number of sites that have been put forward by developers and others as potentially suitable for housing development at Gotham. These are shown on the plan below. Most of the sites, if identified as suitable for housing development, should be able to deliver new homes relatively quickly and, therefore, contribute to resolving the current shortfall in the amount of land that is available for housing development over the next few years. We would like to know what you think about the suitability of each of those individual sites shown on the plan below and whether, in each case, the site should or should not be allocated for housing development. For any one site, it should be noted that there may be the option to develop only part of the site rather than its whole. The development of any one of these sites would be likely to result in impacts which require mitigation and also opportunities to improve the local area. We would need to consider the facilities and services required, the type and design of housing, and how the site would be accessed by car and public transport, amongst a number of other issues. Do you support housing development at:

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 6 Site GOT1 – Land to the rear of former British Legion (potential capacity around 25 homes)

Site GOT2 – Land north of Kegworth Road/Home Farm (west) (potential capacity around 50 homes)

Site GOT3 – Land north of Kegworth Road/Home Farm (east) (potential capacity around 20 homes)

Site GOT4 – The Orchards, Leake Road (potential capacity around 50 homes)

Site GOT5 – Land east of Gypsum Way/The Orchards (potential capacity around 200 homes)

Site GOT6 – East of Leake Road (potential capacity around 45 homes)

Site GOT7 – Land east of Hill Road (potential capacity around 160 homes)

Site GOT8 – Land south of Moor Lane (potential capacity around 15 homes)

Any other location (please specify which)

Question 24

If greenfield land is allocated for housing development at Sutton Bonington, do you have a view on the total number of new homes that should be built up to 2028? If possible, please give reasons for your answer. 500 - it would be preferable to develop SB ahead of more remote rural settlements

Question 25

There is one site that has been put forward by a landowner as potentially suitable for housing development at Sutton Bonington. This is shown on the plan below. The site, if identified as suitable for housing development, should be able to deliver new homes relatively quickly and, therefore, contribute to resolving the current shortfall in the amount of land that is available for housing development over the next few years. We would like to know what you think about the suitability of the site shown on the plan below and whether it should or should not be allocated for housing development. For any one site, it should be noted that there may be the option to develop only part of the site rather than its whole. The development of the site would be likely to result in impacts which require mitigation and also opportunities to improve the local area. We would need to consider the facilities and services required, the type and design of housing, and how the site would be accessed by car and public transport, amongst a number of other issues. Do you support housing development at:

Site SUT1 – Land north of Park Lane (potential capacity around 140 homes)

Any other location (please specify which)

Question 26

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 7 If greenfield land is allocated for housing development at Tollerton, do you have a view on the total number of new homes that should be built up to 2028? If possible, please give reasons for your answer. 500. Its proximity to west bridgford and nottingham, and good tramnsport links, makes tollerton a strong candidate for further development, especially if new commercial facilities are added

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers. For any of the sites, this could include comments on the services and facilities required to support development and the design, mix and layout of development. both TOL1 and TOL2 looks like stong candidates for development

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 8 Guest P 1074522

Richard Mapletoft

From: Sent: 29 March 2017 18:06 To: Localdevelopment Subject: "Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 2 - East Leake Consultation March 2017"

Iwishtomakecommentonthe"RushcliffeLocalPlanPart2ͲEastLeakeConsultationMarch2017".

ThevillageofEastLeakehasexpandedrapidlyoverthepastfewyears,puttingabigstrainonschools,doctorand otherhealthfacilities,alsotheroads.

EastLeakealreadyhaditsshareofnewhousingandthereshouldnotbeanyfurtherexpansion,inorderthat'village life'ispreserved.

IdoNOTSUPPORThousingdevelopmentatanyofthesixdevelopmentsitesnumberedEL9toEL14,oranyother locationinthevillage,fortheabovereasonsandIparticularlyopposedevelopmentsnumberedEL12andEL13,off RempstoneRoad,forthefollowingreasons:

(a)Safety:thecrossͲroadswhereRempstoneRoad(totheEast)meetsLoughboroughRoadhasregularroadtraffic accidents,sotheinevitablegreatervehiclemovementfromproposeddevelopmentsEL12&EL13wouldincrease theriskofaccidentsatanalreadydangerousjunction.RempstoneRoadisnotsuitable(straight&fast)tohave vehiclesturningin/outofanyfurtherhousingdevelopment.

(b)Village'life&feel'wouldbeseriouslyerodedifthehousinglineweretobeextendedtotheNorthofRempstone Road(EL12),takingawaythegreenfieldlandscapesurroundingthevillage.Thisalsoapplies,perhapstoaslightly lesserextent,totheproposedextension(EL13)ofthepresentdevelopmenttotheEastofKirkLeyRoad.

Bestregards,

PatriciaGuest 49RempstoneRoad EastLeake Loughborough LE126PW eͲmail:p

1 Guest R 1074518