Alternative Sites Assessment Oxylane Village, Broxtowe Land at Junction 26 of the M1, Nuthall

Rep1.ort Re port

GVA 3 Brindleyplace

Birmingham B1 2JB

September 2013

gva.co.uk

Oxylane Group Alternative Sites Assessment

Contents

1. Introduction ...... 1 2. Methodology ...... 5 3. Results of Site Assessments ...... 14 4. Conclusion ...... 27

Appendices

Appendix I Long List Sites Appendix II Long List Assessment Matrix Appendix III Short List Assessments

September 2013 gva.co.uk i

Oxylane Group Alternative Sites Assessment

1. Introduction

Background

1.1 This Alternative Sites Assessment (ASA) report has been prepared by GVA for and on behalf of Sportstock Ltd1 in support of a planning application for an Oxylane Village on land at Junction 26 of the M1 at Nuthall.

1.2 The application is submitted in outline form with all matters reserved for subsequent approval, except for access, and proposes:

“Construction of a mixed use outdoor multi-sport, lifestyle and recreation facility incorporating two buildings (GIA 5,706 sqm and 4,535 sqm) used for purposes falling within Use Class A1 (sports retail only)/A3/D1/D2 or as a garden centre (with additional outdoor sales area and polytunnels / glass houses), a leisure centre (GIA 4,714 sqm, Use Class D2), and café (GIA 412 sqm, Use Class A3), together with sports facilities and open space, construction of a new vehicular access, car parking and associated landscape and other works”.

1.3 The purpose of the ASA is to satisfy the sequential test in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) for planning applications involving main town centre uses not in an existing centre and not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan.

1.4 This test applies to the Oxylane Village proposals because elements of the concept comprise “main town centre uses”, and the application site occupies an out of centre location where there is no specific policy support for this form of development within an up-to-date Local Plan. It is therefore necessary to demonstrate that there are no suitable alternative sites where the proposed development could be delivered firstly within town centres, then in edge of centre locations, and finally on out-of- centre sites that are better connected to the town centre.

1 Within the UK, the legal structure of the Oxylane Group comprises the retail company, Decathlon, and the property company, Sportstock Ltd.

September 2013 gva.co.uk 1 Oxylane Group Alternative Sites Assessment

1.5 The report sets out the approach and methodology for the ASA, including the identification of site requirements and area of search; the assessment of an initial long list of sites; and the more detailed analysis of short-listed sites.

1.6 Full details of the proposed development are provided elsewhere in the planning application ‘package’, but for the purposes of this report a brief introduction to the Oxylane Group and Oxylane Village is provided below.

The Oxylane Group / Oxylane Village Concept

1.7 The Oxylane Group is a network of companies dedicated to sport and united in a common purpose to create desirability and make the pleasure and benefits of sport accessible to all.

1.8 In pursuance of this goal, the Oxylane Group has developed Oxylane Village; an innovative concept delivering grass-roots, family-focused formal and informal sports and recreational facilities (and programming), aimed at driving up participation levels and improving health and well-being.

1.9 The multi-sport environment is a proven catalyst for driving participation, and the Oxylane Village concept builds on this to create a unique ‘destination’ which is attractive to those who are usually deterred from taking part in physical activity, as well as those who are already active, irrespective of age or ability.

1.10 However, the concept is about more than simply providing facilities - programming and management are equally important in driving up participation. Each Oxylane Village therefore has a team working to further animate the site with a range of events and activities throughout the year.

1.11 The concept originated in France - where there are now 10 Villages welcoming more than 8 million visitors every year - and has been cited by Sport England as a best practice model for the delivery of sustainable sports development and increased levels of participation.

1.12 Oxylane Village also aligns with cross-governmental policy aimed at driving up participation levels and promoting active lifestyles, improving health and well-being, reducing obesity, improving social cohesion, and delivering a lasting legacy from the London 2012 Olympic Games.

September 2013 gva.co.uk 2 Oxylane Group Alternative Sites Assessment

1.13 Sport England and the various National Governing Bodies (NGBs) for sport are all supportive of the Oxylane Village concept, and have been involved from an early stage in helping to adapt the concept for the UK.

1.14 At the core of the Oxylane Village concept is a Decathlon sports store. Decathlon is an international brand and the original Oxylane chain, created in 1976. It now has 541 stores worldwide, each housing 65 sports and on average 35,000 products in a stand- alone retail warehouse format.

1.15 There are a total of 14 stores in the UK, and Decathlon only has a small share of the total sports market. However, the ambition is to grow this number to 120. Decathlon is therefore currently targeting the 40 largest cities and towns within the UK where there is a significant population within a 20 minute drive time catchment, which is the drive time catchment for commercial visits to its stores needed to ensure economic viability.

1.16 The Oxylane Group is aiming to roll out 30 Oxylane Villages across the UK, each focussed on a large urban area, and delivering new multi-sport facilities without the need for long term local public subsidy.

1.17 It is planned that the first Oxylane Village will be developed at Nuthall.

Report Structure

1.18 Following this introduction, the remainder of the report is structured as follows:

 Section 2 sets out the methodology applied to the assessment of alternative sites

 Section 3 details the results of the alternative sites assessment

 Section 4 concludes the report.

September 2013 gva.co.uk 3 Oxylane Group Alternative Sites Assessment

Contact

1.19 Should you require any further information, please contact either:

Jon Kirby or Nick Harrison Director Director T 0121 609 8351 T 0121 609 8722 E [email protected] E [email protected]

September 2013 gva.co.uk 4 Oxylane Group Alternative Sites Assessment

2. Methodology

The Policy Framework

2.1 The NPPF (March 2012) requires that local planning authorities apply a sequential test to planning applications for main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre and are not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan.

2.2 It states that applications for main town centre uses should be located in town centres, then in edge of centre locations, and only if suitable sites are not available should out of centre sites be considered.

2.3 Furthermore, when considering edge of centre and out of centre proposals, local authorities are directed to give preference to accessible sites that are well connected to the town centre.

2.4 Paragraph 24 of the NPPF also advises that:

“Applicants and local planning authorities should demonstrate flexibility on issues such as format and scale”.

Scope for Disaggregation

2.5 Oxylane Village is an entirely new concept for the UK, involving the collocation of sport and complementary retail uses to create a family-friendly destination which is uniquely aimed at driving significant and sustained growth in participation.

2.6 The Oxylane Group believe that by locating interesting, attractive and high quality products alongside excellent facilities, underpinned by first class programming and management, it is possible to drive up participation levels and improve health and well-being.

2.7 This view is consistent with Sport England guidance on the delivery of sustainable sports hubs, which acknowledges the benefits of critical mass, increased footfall, and economies of scale derived from providing a ‘one stop shop’ on a single site.

September 2013 gva.co.uk 5 Oxylane Group Alternative Sites Assessment

2.8 The concept is delivered through an enabling model, whereby the commercial elements underpin the substantial up-front capital investment to purchase the land and provide the key infrastructure necessary to facilitate the delivery of sustainable sports facilities. Again, this accords with Sport England guidance, which recognises that sustainable sports hubs are dependent on the complementary development offered by the facilitating commercial partners.

2.9 The planning application is therefore supported by a Development Viability report which models the impact of separating the key components of an Oxylane Village on the deliverability of the scheme. This demonstrates that it would not be commercially feasible to deliver the concept in a disaggregated form. Quite simply, the sports facilities could not be delivered without the commercial driver provided by the collocation of supporting retail uses.

2.10 Consequently, disaggregation would not only be wholly inconsistent with the Oxylane Village concept, but would also undermine the overall viability of the scheme.

2.11 The Oxylane Group acknowledge that a sequentially preferable site already exists for the proposed Decathlon store in the form of its existing location at Ikea Retail Park (which will be given up when the store relocates to the proposed Oxylane Village). However, as demonstrated in the supporting Development Viability report, it is not viable to deliver the proposed sports facilities, without also collocating the store.

2.12 On this basis, Oxylane Group consider that the Council should consider the issue of the format of the proposed Oxylane Village flexibly, in accordance with the guidance within the NPPF and should take into account the range of sports facilities proposed would not be capable of delivery, wthout the supporting commercial facilitating development that collectively comprise the proposed Oxylane Village.

2.13 For these reasons, the ASA is focused on searching for sequentially preferable sites that are large enough to accommodate an Oxylane Village, rather than a series of smaller sites for the individual components of the scheme.

Approach

2.14 The ASA has involved three key stages of work, as follows:

September 2013 gva.co.uk 6 Oxylane Group Alternative Sites Assessment

 Identification of site requirements: This involved the setting of key criteria for the identification of potential sites.

 Site search: In this stage, an area of search was defined and an initial long list of possible sites identified.

 Site assessment: Initially this involved an assessment of the long list of sites on the basis of their availability. Those sites that were established as being available were then short listed for more detailed assessment applying a two stage process, which considered firstly the suitability of sites to accommodate the proposed development to filter out those that are unsuitable, and secondly a more detailed comparative assessment of the merits of the remaining sites.

2.15 Proformas were completed for each site, and comprehensive matrices summarise the performance of each against the assessment criteria to enable comparison.

2.16 Further details of the approach taken at each stage of the ASA are provided below.

Identification of Site Requirements

Site Size

2.17 Oxylane Village is a large-scale facility, collocating extensive sport and recreational facilities, with enabling commercial development. The range of facilities provides a critical mass and scope of activities which collectively occupy a site of at least 20 hectares. However, for the purposes of the ASA, a 10% margin of sensitivity (2 hectares) has been applied in order to include sites just under the 20 hectare threshold.

Accessibility

2.18 It is essential that the development is accessible by car, as a significant proportion of the products sold in Decathlon stores (which are required to facilitate delivery of the Oxylane Village) are classed as ‘bulky goods’ (eg. camping equipment, cycles, kayaks, fitness machines, tables tennis tables etc), which need to be transported by motor vehicle at the point of sale. Adjacency to a motorway or main (A or B) road is therefore necessary, although for the purposes of the ASA consideration has also been given to any planned road improvements.

September 2013 gva.co.uk 7 Oxylane Group Alternative Sites Assessment

2.19 Ensuring that visitors can get to Oxylane Village using sustainable travel modes - walking, cycling and public transport - is also a key consideration. However, the Nottingham PUA benefits from a modern urban transport system which is likely to offer scope for localised improvements in accessibility at most sites. It was therefore decided to consider accessibility by sustainable travel modes when assessing short listed sites, in order to avoid excluding sites which have the potential to offer good accessibility through localised improvements in connection with the proposed development.

Site Search

2.20 Given that the proposed Oxylane Village is intended to be focused on the Nottingham PUA, the area of search for the ASA comprises:

 The Nottingham PUA, as defined by the Greater Nottingham Aligned Core Strategies

 Key settlements / centres within 3.2km of the Nottingham PUA, in order to ensure that any suitable sites adjacent to the PUA are considered.

 Key settlements / centres within 3.2km of the site at Junction 26.

2.21 Key settlements / centres within the search area have been identified, having regard to established settlement hierachies in adopted and emerging Development Plans, and are as follows:

 Hucknall

 Kimberley

 Eastwood

 Ilkeston

September 2013 gva.co.uk 8 Oxylane Group Alternative Sites Assessment

2.22 The 3.2km distance limit corresponds with the catchment area for grass playing pitches, and reflects advice from Knight Kavanagh and Page (KKP)2 that facilities generally serve a local catchment with residents tending to use the facility closest to where they live. Sites located beyond 3.2km would not serve the range of needs or support casual or foundation level (ie. initial participation) sport within the Nottingham PUA, which the proposed Oxylane Village is intended to target.

2.23 In addition, in order to pick up possible sites outside but adjoining key settlements or the Nottingham PUA, a 1km outer limit has been applied to the search area, which is measured ‘as the crow flies’. Any major barriers that might affect connectivity to an existing settlement, for example a railway line or river, are considered within the assessment of short listed sites. Figure 2.1 details the area of search for the ASA.

2 KKP are one of the UKs leading management consultancy practices delivering services to the sports sector, and are appointed to the Sport England Strategic Planning Framework Panel for needs assessments and playing pitch strategies.

September 2013 gva.co.uk 9

Oxylane Group Alternative Sites Assessment

Long List of Sites

2.24 To derive a robust long list of sites within the geographical area of search detailed in Figure 2.1, sites meeting the minimum threshold of 18ha adjacent to a motorway or main (A or B) road were identified using the following techniques:

 Map search.

 Commercial database search – Focus / EGi (Estates Gazette), together with NLUD (National Land Use Database), auction sites and local authority websites.

 Planning document search – Regional Spatial Strategy; Unitary Development Plans / Local Plans; Core Strategy / Site Allocation Development Plan Documents (emerging); site specific Supplementary Planning Documents; Employment Land Reviews; Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments (SHLAA); Tribal Urban Studio Appraisal of Sustainable Urban Extensions; and County Mineral and Waste Plans.

 Local knowledge – mainly through consultation with the local authorities.

2.25 All of the identified sites were then checked to remove any duplication, and a long list of 115 individual sites was compiled. This included two sites that do not currently adjoin a motorway or main (A or B) road - the former American Adventure Theme Park (Site 54) and the former Stanton Iron Works (Site 77).

2.26 It was considered appropriate to assess these sites in further detail as the former is a major previously developed (brownfield) site in the Green Belt, and there are proposals to improve access to the latter through the Stanton Ironworks Regeneration project.

2.27 Full details of all sites identified in the long list can be found at Appendix I.

Site Assessment

Assessment of Long List of Sites

2.28 In the first instance, a desk-top analysis of local authority databases and planning documents was undertaken to assess the long list sites in order to filter out those which

September 2013 gva.co.uk 10 Oxylane Group Alternative Sites Assessment

are unlikely to be available for the development of an Oxylane Village because they are either:

 Sites which have a current or emerging allocation, for example for residential or employment development.

 Sites with an extant or recently expired planning permission or forming the subject of a current planning application for development for other uses (as this provides evidence of a demonstrable intent to develop or, in the case of recently expired permissions, an indication of potential recent investment).

2.29 Sites that are currently being promoted for development, for example through a SHLAA, were considered on their merits. In those instances, secondary appraisals, such as local authority SHLAA site assessments, were considered, and if a site was assessed as being suitable for the use for which it was being promoted for then it was deemed to be unavailable and filtered out of the ASA at this stage.

2.30 In addition, given that availability requires evidence that the owner(s) of the a site are willing to bring it forward for development, sites that are not currently being promoted or actively marketed (and not subject to an allocation or benefitting from an extant planning permission) were also considered to be unavailable.

2.31 In contrast, sites which are being promoted, but have been assessed by the local authority as being unsuitable for its promoted use, were considered to be available, and therefore short listed for detailed assessment.

Assessment of Short Listed Sites

Stage 1

2.32 All short listed sites were visited to, inter alia, ratify boundaries and establish their physical characteristics, and secondary information, such as Local Plans, Environment Agency flood maps and (where available) other consultant’s technical reports, was also analysed. A standard proforma was completed for each of the short listed sites.

2.33 Each site was than assessed using the following the criteria, in order to filter out those which are not suitable for development to provide an Oxylane Village:

September 2013 gva.co.uk 11 Oxylane Group Alternative Sites Assessment

 Relationship to the PUA - Oxylane Village is intended to serve the range of needs and support casual or foundation level sport within the Nottingham PUA. Sites more than 3.2km from the Nottingham PUA are therefore not suitable for development to provide an Oxylane Village, and have been discounted at this stage. (It also important for the Decathlon store to be located close to the PUA in order to ensure scheme viability, although this dependent on total population within a 20 minute drive time catchment, but proximity to the PUA will be a key factor).

 Heritage / Environmental Constraints - Sites that are affected by heritage or environmental designations that could unduly constrain or prejudice development to provide an Oxylane Village, by limiting the extent of developable land and/or impacting on development viability, have not been progressed to the next stage of the ASA.

 Physical Constraints - Sites that are affected by physical constraints - topography, flood risk, contamination or ground stability - that could unduly constrain or prejudice development to provide an Oxylane Village, by limiting the extent of developable land and/or impacting on development viability, have been filtered out.

Stage 2

2.34 Having reached this stage in the ASA, all of the remaining sites are considered to be available and suitable for development to provide an Oxylane Village, and all comprise greenfield sites in out-of-town locations within the Green Belt. It was therefore necessary to select criteria which enabled differentiation between the sites, in order to assess which is the most sequentially preferrable, as follows:

 Relative harm to the Green Belt - Each site has been assessed against the 5 purposes of Green Belt set out in the NPPF, in order to reach a view on the relative harm that would result from development to provide an Oxylane Village. Those purposes are:

- To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas

- To prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another (coalescence)

- To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment

- To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns

September 2013 gva.co.uk 12 Oxylane Group Alternative Sites Assessment

- To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other land.

 Total catchment population - The total population within the 3.2km catchment area for grass playing pitches at each site, as this provides an indicator of the impact of location on the numbers of people that could benefit from development to provide an Oxylane Village.

 Potential health benefits - The total population resident in the top 10% most health deprived wards in the country within 3.2km of each site, as this provides an indicator of the potential impact of location on the numbers of people in poor health that could benefit from development to provide an Oxylane Village.

2.35 Each of the above criteria were scored as set out in the matrix at Table 2.1, such that the site with the highest overall score is the most sequentially preferrable. Harm to the Green Belt is afforded greater weight in the evaluation (50%)due to its significance in the wider decision making process.

Table 2.1: Scoring Matrix for Short Listed Sites

Score

Assessment Criteria 0 1 2 3

Harm to Green Belt Encroachment Encroachment Encrochment No harm to into countryside into into countryside Green Belt (50% weighting) leading to countryside, coalescence of leading to settlements unrestricted urban sprawl (ie. where there is no defensible boundary)

Total Catchment Population Lowest total Highest total population with population (25% weighting) 3.2km within 3.2km catchment catchment

Potential Health Benefits Lowest Highest population population (25% weighting) resident within resident within top 10% most top 10% most deprived Wards deprived Wards

2.36 The following section of this report details the results from the ASA.

September 2013 gva.co.uk 13 Oxylane Group Alternative Sites Assessment

3. Results of Site Assessments

3.1 This section of the report summarises the results of both the long and short list assessments. Full details of the individual site assessments can be found in Appendicies II and III.

Assessment of Long List of Sites

3.2 An initial search for sites identified a long list of 115 sites, the details of which are included at Appendix I. Each site was assessed against the availability criteria set out in Section 2, and the results were recorded in the matrix provided at Appendix II. A summary is provided in Table 3.1 below.

3.3 As shown in the table, the ‘tests’ of availability were considered in turn and sites were discounted as soon as they were deemed to be unavailable. Only those sites satisfying all the tests of availability were subsequently short listed (ie. those sites with a “Yes” in the righthand column).

Table 3.1: Summary of Long List Assessments

Is site considered available after Is site considered Is site considered reviewing available after available after Site Development Plan reviewing planning reviewing evidence Ref Local Authority Allocations? permissions? of site promotion?

1 Erewash Yes Yes Yes

2 Erewash Yes Yes No

3 Erewash Yes Yes No

4 Erewash Yes Yes No

5 Amber Valley Yes Yes No

6 Amber Valley Yes Yes No

7 Broxtowe Yes Yes Yes

8 Broxtowe Yes Yes No

9 Erewash Yes Yes No

10 Erewash Yes Yes No

11 Gedling No

12 Broxtowe Yes Yes No

13 Amber Valley Yes Yes No

September 2013 gva.co.uk 14 Oxylane Group Alternative Sites Assessment

14 Broxtowe Yes Yes No

15 Broxtowe Yes Yes Yes

16 Broxtowe Yes Yes No

17 Broxtowe Yes Yes No

18 Broxtowe Yes Yes No

19 Broxtowe Yes Yes Yes

20 Gedling No

21 Ashfield No

22 Gedling No

23 Gedling Yes Yes No

24 Rushcliffe Yes Yes Yes

25 Rushcliffe Yes Yes No

26 Rushcliffe Yes Yes No

27 Rushcliffe Yes Yes No

28 Rushcliffe Yes Yes No

29 Broxtowe No

30 Broxtowe Yes Yes No

31 Erewash Yes Yes No

32 Broxtowe Yes Yes No

33 Broxtowe Yes Yes No

34 Broxtowe Yes Yes No

35 Broxtowe Yes Yes Yes

36 Erewash Yes Yes Yes

37 Gedling No

38 Gedling Yes Yes No

39 Gedling No

40 Gedling No

41 Gedling No

42 Gedling No

43 Gedling No

44 Gedling No

45 Gedling No

46 Gedling No

47 Rushcliffe Yes Yes No

48 Amber Valley No

September 2013 gva.co.uk 15 Oxylane Group Alternative Sites Assessment

49 Gedling No

50 Gedling No

51 Gedling No

52 Gedling No

53 Gedling No

54 Amber Valley Yes Yes No

55 North West Leicestershire No

56 Erewash Yes Yes No

57 Gedling No

58 Ashfield No

59 Ashfield Yes Yes Yes

60 Rushcliffe Yes Yes No

61 Rushcliffe Yes Yes Yes

62 Broxtowe Yes Yes No

63 Broxtowe Yes Yes No

64 Broxtowe Yes Yes No

65 Rushcliffe Yes Yes Yes

66 Ashfield Yes Yes Yes

67 Rushcliffe Yes Yes Yes

68 Nottingham No

69 Ashfield Yes Yes No

70 Broxtowe Yes Yes No

71 Broxtowe Yes Yes No

72 Broxtowe No

73 Broxtowe Yes Yes No

74 Erewash Yes Yes Yes

75 Erewash Yes Yes No

76 Erewash Yes Yes No

77 Erewash Yes Yes No

78 Broxtowe No

79 Broxtowe Yes Yes Yes

80 Broxtowe Yes Yes Yes

81 Broxtowe Yes Yes No

82 Broxtowe No

83 Broxtowe No

September 2013 gva.co.uk 16 Oxylane Group Alternative Sites Assessment

84 Nottingham No

85 Nottingham No

86 Nottingham No

87 Nottingham No

88 Nottingham No

89 Nottingham No

90 Broxtowe Yes Yes Yes

91 Broxtowe Yes Yes No

92 Broxtowe No

93 Nottingham No

94 Nottingham No

95 Nottingham No

96 Nottingham No

97 Gedling No

98 Nottingham No

99 Nottingham No

100 Nottingham No

101 Rushcliffe Yes Yes Yes

102 Gedling No

103 Broxtowe Yes Yes Yes

104 Ashfield No

105 Broxtowe Yes Yes No

106 Rushcliffe Yes Yes No

107 Broxtowe Yes Yes Yes

108 Erewash Yes Yes No

109 Nottingham No

110 Nottingham No

111 Nottingham No

112 Broxtowe Yes Yes No

113 Rushcliffe Yes Yes Yes

114 Nottingham No

115 Broxtowe No

Source: GVA

September 2013 gva.co.uk 17 Oxylane Group Alternative Sites Assessment

3.4 As a result of this analysis, a total of 20 sites were short listed to be assessed in more detail. The location of the short listed sites is shown in Figure 3.1; all but one (Site 74) lie within the Green Belt.

September 2013 gva.co.uk 18 Location of Short Listed Sites ASHFIELDASHFIELD NEWARKNEWARK Key 5959 ANDAND Local Authority SHERWOODSHERWOOD Boundaries 77 GEDLINGGEDLING Short Listed 6666 Sites AMBERAMBER VALLEYVALLEY 3535 No Window

1515 103103 1919 107107 BROXTOWEBROXTOWE

7474 9090 NOTTINGHAMNOTTINGHAM

6565

101101 6767 8080 67 EREWASHEREWASH 7979

DERBY 2424 RUSHCLIFFERUSHCLIFFE

113113

6161

3636

Contains Ordnance Survey data NORTHNORTH WESTWEST LEICESTERSHIRELEICESTERSHIRE © Crown copyright and database rights 2011 Oxylane Village - Alternative Site Assessment Oxylane Group Alternative Sites Assessment

Assessment of Short Listed Sites - Stage 1

3.5 The short listed sites were then assessed in greater detail using the criteria set out in paragraph 2.33 in order to filter out those which are not suitable for development to provide an Oxylane Village.

3.6 The completed proformas detailing the assessment for each of the 20 short listed sites can be found at Appendix III. Table 3.2 summarises these assessments and provides a commentary as to whether a site is considered suitable for the development of an Oxylane Village.

Table 3.2: Summary of Short List Assessments

Site Local Ref Authority Assessment of Site

This site is located well outside the PUA and on the opposite side of Ilkeston. Given that a key priority for the Oxylane Village is to deliver sports facilities focussed on 1 Erewash the PUA, it is considered that this site is not suitable for the development of an Oxylane Village.

This site is located well outside the PUA. Given that a key priority for the Oxylane 7 Broxtowe Village is to deliver sports facilities focussed on the PUA, it is considered that this site is not suitable for the development of an Oxylane Village.

Due to the risk of flooding from Gilt Brook and the consequent restriction this would 15 Broxtowe impose on development and subsequent operational activities, it is considered that this site is not suitable for the development of an Oxylane Village.

This site is only just satisfies the site size threshold of 20ha necessary to accommodate an Oxylane Village, and the developable area would be further 19 Broxtowe restricted by the steep embankments to the southern perimeter and, to a lesser degree, the open space allocation in the northern part of the site. It is therefore considered that this site is not suitable for the development of an Oxylane Village.

This site is well located in relation to the urban area of West Bridgeford / Gamston. However, it is cut off from the conurbation by the Gamston Lings Bar Road, which 24 Rushcliffe provides limited opportunities for crossing and currently has no public transport provision. Nevertheless, it is considered that this site is suitable for the development of an Oxylane Village.

This site is well located in relation to the built up areas of Kimberley and Eastwood. However, the topography of the site, coupled with the ecological value of Gilt Brook and the presence of various Grade II Listed properties within the site 35 Broxtowe boundary, would likely restrict the type and extent of development permitted on this site. It is therefore considered that this site is not suitable for the development of an Oxylane Village.

This site is well located in relation to the village of Old Sawley. However, its location within the Conservation Area and the presence of a number of Listed buildings and other structures close to the site boundary would likely restrict the type and 36 Erewash extent of development permitted. The site is also identified as being at significant risk of flooding. It is therefore considered that this site is not suitable for the development of an Oxylane Village.

September 2013 gva.co.uk 19 Oxylane Group Alternative Sites Assessment

Site Local Ref Authority Assessment of Site

This site is located on the opposite side of Hucknall to the PUA. Given that a priority 59 Ashfield for the Oxylane Village is to deliver sports facilities focussed on the PUA, it is considered that this site is not suitable for the development of an Oxylane Village.

This site is well located in relation to Clifton and the Nottingham PUA, and although the topography in the western half of the site (ie. to the west of Nottingham Road) 61 Rushcliffe is a concern, it is considered that the eastern part of the site is suitable for the development of an Oxylane Village.

This site is well located in relation to Radcliffe on Trent. However, the presence of overhead power lines running through the centre of the site, coupled with a 65 Rushcliffe moderate risk of flooding, would restrict development on the site. It is therefore considered that this site is not suitable for the development of an Oxylane Village.

This site is affected by a number of restrictive designations, including Allotments, Mature Landscape Area and a Nature Conservation Site. However, these 66 Ashfield designation only affect a small proportion of the site (ie. less than 10%), and it is well located in relation to Hucknall. It is therefore considered that this site is suitable for the development of an Oxylane Village.

This site is cut off from the conurbation by the Gamston Lings Bar Road, which provides limited opportunities for crossing and currently has no public transport 67 Rushcliffe provision. Nevertheless, it is considered that this site is suitable for the development of an Oxylane Village.

This site is divorced from the built up areas of Kirk Hallam and Ilkeston, with only a limited bus service to Ilkeston. Considerable improvements to public transport would therefore be needed to ensure that development was accessible. In 74 Erewash addition, the site is susceptible to flooding from Nut Brook and Stanley Brook. It is therefore considered that this site is not suitable for the development of an Oxylane Village.

This site is located between the built up areas of Stapleford and Beeston / Chilwell, adjacent to the A52 – a key arterial route linking Nottingham and Derby. The provision of satisfactory access from the A52 could be difficult, given the proximity of a local road bridge crossing the A52 adjacent to the site, and considerable 79 Broxtowe improvements to public transport would be needed to ensure that the development was sufficiently accessible. However, provided these issues can be addressed, it is considered that this site is suitable for the development of an Oxylane Village.

This site is located between the built up areas of Stapleford and Beeston / Chilwell, adjacent to the A52 – a key arterial route linking Nottingham with Derby. The provision of satisfactory access from the A52 could be difficult, given the proximity of a local road bridge crossing the A52 adjacent to the site. There is also an 80 Broxtowe ecological designation within the site boundary, and the wider site is identified as a prominent area for special protection in the Broxtowe Local Plan. These designations would constrain development, and it is therefore considered that this site is not suitable for the development of an Oxylane Village.

Although this site is located adjacent to the M1 close to Trowell services, it does not have direct access from a motorway junction. Nottingham Road (A609) is the only main road passing the site, and Cossall Lane, which adjoins the site, is a minor road 90 Broxtowe unsuited to large traffic flows. The site is therefore not particularly accessible by car. It also slopes at an average gradient of around 6%, and it is therefore considered that this site is not suitable for the development of an Oxylane Village.

This site is cut off from the built up area by Radcliffe Road, which provides limited opportunities for crossing. It also lies within the floodplain of the River Trent, and it is 101 Rushcliffe therefore considered that this site is not suitable for the development of an Oxylane Village.

September 2013 gva.co.uk 20 Oxylane Group Alternative Sites Assessment

Site Local Ref Authority Assessment of Site

This site is well located, close to the A610 and M1 motorway at Junction 26. It is also well served by local bus routes, and is free of any significant physical constraints to 103 Broxtowe development, although flood risk in the south eastern corner could prevent development on this part of the site. It is therefore considered that this site is suitable for the development of an Oxylane Village.

This site is well located, adjacent to the A610 and M1 motorway at Junction 26, although there are no bus routes currently running along the A610. The site is free of 107 Broxtowe any physical constraints to development, and it is therefore considered that this site is suitable for the development of an Oxylane Village.

This site is located between the built up areas of West Bridgford and Ruddington, adjacent to Wilford Road and the A52. The site is flat, there is no identified flood 113 Rushcliffe risk, and the planned extension of the NET would significantly improve accessibility. The only issue is the presence of the SSSI in the north western corner. It is therefore considered that this site is suitable for the development of an Oxylane Village.

Source: GVA

3.7 In total, 8 of the short listed sites were considered suitable for the development of an Oxylane Village. This included the application site at Junction 26 of the M1 (Site 107) and 7 possible alternative sites, namely Sites 24, 61 (eastern half only), 66, 67, 79, 103 and 113.

September 2013 gva.co.uk 21 Oxylane Group Alternative Sites Assessment

Assessment of Short Listed Sites - Stage 2

3.8 Those sites identified as being potentially suitable for an Oxylane Village in Stage 1, were then assessed against the following criteria using the weighted scoring matrix set out in Section 2, in order to determine which is the most sequentially preferrable:

- To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas

- To prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another (coalescence)

- To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment

- To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns

- To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other land.

Harm to the Green Belt

3.9 The likely harm to the Green Belt resulting from the development of an Oxylane Village on each of the 6 sites, has been assessed having regard to 5 purposes of Green Belt set out in the NPPF, as follows.

3.10 Site 24 is located to the east of the A52 Gamston Lings Bar Road, and was reviewed in the Rushcliffe Borough Council Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment

November 2012 gva.co.uk 22 Oxylane Group Alternative Sites Assessment

(SHLAA). This states that “the A52 currently forms a strong defensible boundary to the Green Belt in this location”, and that development “would breach this boundary and result in significant encroachment into both the Green Belt and into an attractive area of countryside”. It also identifies potential coalscence issues in relation to Bassingfield and Tollerton. It is therefore considered that this site performs poorly in terms of checking urban sprawl, coalescence of settlements, and safeguarding the countryside.

3.11 Site 61 is located to the south of Clifton. The Rushcliffe Borough Council SHLAA reviews the site’s suitability for housing development, and states that “an absence of strong defensible boundaries on the ground beyond the existing urban edge raises major concerns in terms of the ability to resist unchecked urban sprawl if the urban boundary is breached”. It is therefore considered that this site performs poorly in terms of both checking unrestricted sprawl and safeguarding the countryside. However, with the open, uninhabited nature of the plain south of Clifton and the A453 acting as a defensible boundary to Barton-in-Fabis to the west, development on the site would not lead to coalescence.

3.12 Site 66 is located to the north of the A611, close to Hucknall town centre. The Ashfield District Council SHLAA reviews the site’s suitability for housing development. It confirms that the site is within the Nottinghamshire Green Belt, and that it is unsuitable for development. Given the strong defensible boundary of the A611 to the south, the site is considered to perform well in terms of both checking unrestricted sprawl and avoiding coalescence. However, it performs poorly in terms of safeguarding the countryside.

3.13 Site 79 is located to the east of the A52, between the suburbs of Chilwell / Toton and Stapleford. The Broxtowe SHLAA reviews its suitability for housing development and concludes that the site forms part of an important, narrow Green Belt gap between Chilwell / Toton and Stapleford. It is therefore considered that this site performs poorly in terms of preventing neighbouring towns from merging into one another.

3.14 Site 103 is located to the north east of Junction 26 of the M1, between the towns of Bulwell and Kimberley. The Broxtowe SHLAA reviews its suitability for housing development. This concludes that the site forms part of an important, narrow Green Belt gap, and is unlikely to be appropriate for development in isolation. It is therefore considered that this site performs poorly in terms of preventing neighbouring towns

November 2012 gva.co.uk 23 Oxylane Group Alternative Sites Assessment

from merging into one another. Also, in the absence of a defensible boundary to the north, it is considered that development on this site would perform poorly in terms of checking unrestricted urban sprawl.

3.15 Site 107 is located to the south west of Junction 26 of the M1, south of Kimberley. The site was not submitted for inclusion as part of the Broxtowe SHLAA. In relation to the five purposes of the Green Belt, it is considered that development on this site performs poorly in terms of safeguarding the countryside. However, given the location of the motorway, the A610 and the woodland to the south and west, which all provide clear, defensible boundaries, and the separation of the site from existing built-up areas, it is considered that development would not lead to unrestricted urban sprawl or the coalscence of settlements.

3.16 Site 113 is located to the south of the A52, between the towns of Clifton and Ruddington. The Rushcliffe SHLAA reviews its suitability for housing development and concludes that the Green Belt in this location is important because it separates the settlements of Ruddington and Clifton, and forms part of the strategic gap between the rest of the PUA and Ruddington. It is therefore considered that this site perfoms poorly in terms of preventing neighbouring towns from merging into one another.

Table 3.3: Assessment of Harm to the Green Belt

Historic Urban Site Reference Coalescence Urban Sprawl Countryside Towns Regeneration Score

24 Yes Yes Yes No No 0

61 No Yes Yes No No 2

66 No No Yes No No 4

67 No Yes Yes No No 2

79 Yes No Yes No No 0

103 Yes Yes Yes No No 0

107 No No Yes No No 4

113 Yes No Yes No No 0

Source: GVA

November 2012 gva.co.uk 24 Oxylane Group Alternative Sites Assessment

Total Catchment Population

3.17 Using Ward level population data (ONS, 2009) the potential benefit to the catchment population (those living within 3.2km) of an Oxylane Village at each of the 6 sites has been assessed, as detailed in Table 3.4.

Table 3.4: Total Catchment Population

Site Reference Total Catchment Population Score

24 51,234 0

61 41,007 0

66 66,723 1

67 60,035 1

79 71,263 2

103 91,566 3

107 60,328 1

113 49,367 0

Source: ONS 2009 and GVA

3.18 Site 103 has the largest total catchment population (circa 91,500), whereas Sites 61 and 113 have the smallest (circa 40-50,000). The other 3 sites are broadly similar, with total catchment populations of circa 60-70,000.

Potential Health Benefits

3.19 Utilising the IMD Health Domain (2010) we have ascertained the current level of health deprivation at Ward level, and combined this with Ward level population data (ONS, 2009) to detemine the potential benefit of an Oxylane Village at each of the 6 sites. Table 3.5 presents the results of this analysis.

Table 3.5: Catchment Population Resident within Top 10% Most Deprived Wards

Site Reference Catchment Population Resident witin Top 10% Most Deprived Wards Score

24 0 0

61 12,067 1

66 16,339 1

67 15,244 1

79 0 0

November 2012 gva.co.uk 25 Oxylane Group Alternative Sites Assessment

103 54,083 3

107 38,709 2

113 12,067 1

Source: IMD 2010, ONS 2009 and GVA

3.20 Out of the six sites, Site 103 offers the largest populations resident in the top 10% most health deprived wards in the country. It therefore has the potential to deliver health benefits to the greatest number of people in acute need out of the 6 short listed sites.

3.21 Sites 66, 67 and 107 have similar total catchment populations. However, Site 107 has a much larger catchment population resident in the top 10% most health deprived wards, with potential to deliver health benefits to around 38,700 people in acute need.

3.22 In constrast, despite having the second largest population catchment, Site 79 would not benefit anyone resident in the top 10% most health deprived wards. Similarly, there are no-one resident within the top 10% most health deprived wards within the catchment for Site 24, and Sites 61 and 113 would only benefit a relatively small number of people in acute health need.

Summary

3.23 Table 3.6 summarises the comparative assessment of the 6 sites, and concludes that the application site (Site 107) is the most sequentially preferrable of the available alternatives.

Table 3.6: Summary of Comparative Assessment

Harm to Green Total Catchment Potential Health Site Reference Belt Population Benefits TOTAL

24 0 0 0 0

61 2 0 1 3

66 4 1 1 6

67 2 1 1 4

79 0 2 0 2

103 0 3 3 6

107 4 1 2 7

113 0 0 1 1

Source: GVA

November 2012 gva.co.uk 26 Oxylane Group Alternative Sites Assessment

4. Conclusion

4.1 This ASA report has been prepared by GVA for and on behalf of the Oxylane Group in support of an outline planning application for the proposed Oxylane Village on land at Junction 26 of the M1 at Nuthall.

4.2 It describes the ASA undertaken in order to satisfy the sequential test set out in the NPPF for planning applications involving main town centre uses not in an existing centre and not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan. This states that applications for main town centre uses should be located in town centres, then in edge of centre locations, and only if suitable sites are not available should out of centre sites be considered.

4.3 Oxylane Village is an entirely new concept for the UK, involving the collocation of sport and complementary retail uses to create a family-friendly destination which is uniquely aimed at driving significant and sustained growth in participation. Disaggregation of the constituent uses would be wholly inconsistent with the Oxylane Village concept, as well as undermine the overall viability of the scheme, which is demonstrated through the supporting Development Viability Report. For these reasons, the ASA is focused on searching for sequentially preferrable sites that are large enough to collocate all of the individual components of the scheme.

4.4 The identification of potential sites has been underpinned by two key factors:

 Site size - an Oxylane Village requires a site of at least 20 hectares (although a 10% margin of sensitivity has been applied)

 Accessibility - The commercial elements of the scheme need to be viable in order to ensure that the scheme as a whole is deliverable, it is therefore essential that the site adjoins a motorway or main (A or B) road so that the development is accessible by car, as a significant proportion of the products sold in Decathlon stores are classed as ‘bulky goods’.

4.5 A long list of 115 potential sites was derived from a search focused on the Nottingham PUA and key settlements / centres within a 3.2km catchment area of the PUA or the

November 2012 gva.co.uk 27 Oxylane Group Alternative Sites Assessment

application site. Sites were then assessed for their availability in order to produce a short list of 20 potential alternatives.

4.6 These were then assessed in more detail, having regard to the likely impact of any site specific constraints, leading to the idenfication of 8 sites that are potentially suitable for development to provide an Oxylane Village. All are located in the Green Belt.

4.7 In order to determine whether any of the potential alternative sites is sequentially preferrable to the application site, the ASA evaluated each against the following criteria:

 Relative harm to the Green Belt

 Total catchment population

 Potential health benefits

4.8 The conclusion of this analysis was that Site 107 (the application site) is the most sequentially preferrable site for the proposed Oxylane Village. This ASA therefore demonstrates that the Oxylane development proposals satisfy the NPPF sequential test requirements. Accordingly, we commend the proposals to the Borough Council.

November 2012 gva.co.uk 28

Appendix I

Long List Sites

Potential to expand onto Site Area adjoining land (where site area Site Ref Site Name / Location / Description Source / Date Local Authority (ha) is less than 20ha)? If yes provide details

1 Land North of Ladywood Lodge Farm, Kirk Hallam 45.48 N/A Map Search Erewash

2 Land South of Ladywood Lodge Farm, Kirk Hallam 38.89 N/A Map Search Erewash

3 Land at Paddock Farm, West Hallam 27.41 N/A Map Search Erewash

4 Land North of High Lane East, West Hallam 67.34 N/A Map Search Erewash

5 Land South / West of Hassock Lane South 46.20 N/A Map Search Amber Valley

6 Land North / East of Hassock Lane South 54.31 N/A Map Search Amber Valley

7 Land East of Mansfield Road, Brinsley 23.68 N/A Map Search Broxtowe

8 Land West of Mansfield Road, Brinsley 33.93 N/A Map Search Broxtowe

9 Land South of Derby Road, Risley 21.03 N/A Map Search Erewash

10 Land at Sandboro Fields, Risley 39.80 N/A Map Search Erewash

11 Land West of Mansfield Road, Redhill 20.13 N/A Map Search Gedling

12 Land South West of Stoney Lane, Brinsley 67.45 N/A Map Search Broxtowe

13 Land off Minkley Drive, Langley Mill 20.59 N/A Map Search Amber Valley

14 Land South of Eastwood Bypass, Eastwood 59.21 N/A Map Search Broxtowe

15 Land West of Gin Close Way, Giltbrook 30.80 N/A Map Search Broxtowe

16 Land West of Shilo Way, Ilkeston 27.95 N/A Map Search Broxtowe

17 Land East of Shilo Way, Ilkeston 25.35 N/A Map Search Broxtowe

18 Land South of Kimberley Bypass, Kimberley 60.23 N/A Map Search Broxtowe

19 Land North East of M1 J26 20.96 N/A Map Search Broxtowe

20 Land East of Bestwood Road, Bestwood 30.59 N/A Map Search Gedling

21 Leen Valley Country Park 46.55 N/A Map Search Ashfield

22 Land North West of Nottingham Road, Burton Joyce 47.55 N/A Map Search Gedling

23 Land South East of Nottingham Road, Burton Joyce 21.80 N/A Map Search Gedling

24 Land East of Gamston Lings Bar Road (A52), Gamston 153.13 N/A Map Search Rushcliffe

Potential to expand onto Site Area adjoining land (where site area Site Ref Site Name / Location / Description Source / Date Local Authority (ha) is less than 20ha)? If yes provide details

25 Land West of Gamston Lings Bar Road (A52), Gamston 48.66 N/A Map Search Rushcliffe

26 Southern Cemetary, West Bridgford 29.66 N/A Map Search Rushcliffe

27 Ruddington Grange Golf Course 43.75 N/A Map Search Rushcliffe

28 Land East of Lady Bay Bridge, West Bridgford 19.52 No Map Search Rushcliffe

29 Bramcote Hills Park, Bramcote 20.84 N/A Map Search Broxtowe

30 Grange Wood, Trowell 31.32 N/A Map Search Broxtowe

31 Land at Trowell Junction, Trowell 50.88 N/A Map Search Erewash

32 Land South East of Willey Lane, Brinsley 44.67 N/A Map Search Broxtowe

33 Land East of Moorgreen, Eastwood 47.25 N/A Map Search Broxtowe

34 Land at Colliers Wood, Eastwood 56.11 N/A Map Search Broxtowe

Draft Notts HMA SHLAA 35 North of Giltbrook Retail Park, Kimberley 240.17 N/A Broxtowe GN Core Strategy Options Feb 2010

36 Land South of Wilne Road, Sawley 27.45 N/A Map Search Erewash

37 Land South West of Woodborough Lane, Arnold 106.82 N/A Map Search Gedling

38 Land North East of Lime Lane, Arnold 71.35 N/A Map Search Gedling

39 Land North East of Woodborough Lane, Arnold 402.66 N/A Map Search Gedling

40 Land East of Woodborough Lane (Barn Farm), Arnold 79.00 N/A Map Search Gedling

Land East of Mapperley Plains (Middlebeck Farm), 41 158.41 N/A Map Search Gedling Arnold

42 Land at Papplewick Moor 124.63 N/A Map Search Gedling

Local Plan 2005 43 Land at Castle Mill Farm, Papplewick 56.69 N/A GN Core Strategy Gedling Options Feb 2010

44 Land North of Linby Lane, Papplewick 56.32 N/A Map Search Gedling

Potential to expand onto Site Area adjoining land (where site area Site Ref Site Name / Location / Description Source / Date Local Authority (ha) is less than 20ha)? If yes provide details

45 Land North of Forest Lane, Papplewick 92.37 N/A Map Search Gedling

46 Land East of Moor Road, Bestwood Village 133.56 N/A Map Search Gedling

Playing Fields / Open Space off Wilford Lane, West 47 39.72 N/A Map Search Rushcliffe Bridgford

48 Access 26 Business Park, Langley Mill 24.17 N/A Local Plan 2006 Amber Valley

49 Land North of Netherfield 52.48 N/A Local Plan 2005 Gedling

50 Mapperley Golf Course 51.05 N/A Local Plan 2005 Gedling

51 Gedling Colliery Park 148.86 N/A Local Plan 2005 Gedling

Nottingham City Region Employment 52 Colwick Industrial Estate 107.08 N/A Land Study 2007 Gedling Local Plan 2005

Nottingham City Region Employment 53 Victoria Park 26.75 N/A Land Study 2007 Gedling Local Plan 2005

Land off Pit Lane, Shipley (Former American Adventure 54 39.00 N/A Local Plan 2006 Amber Valley Theme Park)

Leicestershire North West 55 Land North of Tamworth Road (Sawley Gravel Pits) 31.98 N/A Minerals Local Plan Leicestershire Review 1995

56 West Park, Long Eaton 38.24 N/A Local Plan 2005 Erewash

57 Land at Top Wighay Farm 76.80 N/A Local Plan 2005 Gedling

Tribal SUE Report 2008 GN Core Strategy Options Feb 2010 58 Rolls Royce, Hucknall 25.79 N/A Ashfield Ashfield Core Strategy Pref. Option Mar 2010

Potential to expand onto Site Area adjoining land (where site area Site Ref Site Name / Location / Description Source / Date Local Authority (ha) is less than 20ha)? If yes provide details

Tribal SUE Report 2008

59 Whyburn House Farm, Hucknall 182.55 N/A Ashfield Core Ashfield Strategy Pref. Option Mar 2010

60 Edwalton, Rushcliffe 70.38 N/A Tribal SUE Report 2008 Rushcliffe

Tribal SUE Report 2008 Draft Notts HMA 61 Land South of Clifton, Barton in Fabis 221.53 N/A SHLAA Rushcliffe GN Core Strategy Options Feb 2010

62 Land between Toton and Stapleford 58.24 N/A Tribal SUE Report 2008 Broxtowe

63 North of Stapleford, Broxtowe 191.78 N/A Tribal SUE Report 2008 Broxtowe

GN Core Strategy 64 North of Kimberley – Watnall – Nuthall 97.31 N/A Broxtowe Options Feb 2010

Draft Notts HMA Only on opposite side of SHLAA 65 Land North of Nottingham Road, Radcliffe on Trent 19.24 Rushcliffe disused railway GN Core Strategy Options Feb 2010

Ashfield Core South east of Hucknall (between Hucknall MUA and 66 37.95 N/A Strategy Pref. Option Ashfield A611 Hucknall-By Pass) Mar 2010

GN Core Strategy 67 Land at Gamston Island 71.31 N/A Rushcliffe Options Feb 2010

Nottingham Local Plan 2005 68 Strelley Land 23.87 N/A Nottingham GN Core Strategy Options Feb 2010

Ashfield Core 69 Watnall Road / Aerial Way 29.07 N/A Strategy Pref. Option Ashfield Mar 2010

Potential to expand onto Site Area adjoining land (where site area Site Ref Site Name / Location / Description Source / Date Local Authority (ha) is less than 20ha)? If yes provide details

GN Core Strategy 70 West of Wood House Way 31.30 N/A Broxtowe Options Feb 2010

Draft Notts HMA SHLAA 71 Land at Watnall 344.33 N/A Broxtowe GN Core Strategy Options Feb 2010

Local Plan 2004 72 Land West of Eastwood Hall 20.77 N/A GN Core Strategy Broxtowe Options Feb 2010

73 Newthorpe – Former Halls Lane Tip 18.53 No Local Plan 2004 Broxtowe

Draft Notts HMA 74 Bunkerhill, to the South of High Lane East, West Hallam 21.25 N/A Erewash SHLAA

Draft Notts HMA 75 Oakwell Brickworks Site, Derby Road, Ilkeston 21.39 N/A SHLAA Erewash Erewash ELR 2011

Draft Notts HMA 76 Land South East of Kirk Hallam 63.63 N/A Erewash SHLAA

Local Plan 2005 GN Core Strategy 77 Stanton Iron Works 186.13 N/A Erewash Options Feb 2010 Tribal SUE Report 2008

Draft Notts HMA SHLAA 78 Land West of Toton Lane / Stapleford Lane, Toton 23.23 N/A Broxtowe GN Core Strategy Options Feb 2010

Draft Notts HMA 79 Land at Wheatgrass Farm, Toton 27.65 N/A Broxtowe SHLAA

Draft Notts HMA 80 North West of A52, Stapleford 35.34 N/A Broxtowe SHLAA

Potential to expand onto Site Area adjoining land (where site area Site Ref Site Name / Location / Description Source / Date Local Authority (ha) is less than 20ha)? If yes provide details

Draft Notts HMA 81 Land at Moss Drive, Bramcote 23.19 N/A Broxtowe SHLAA

82 Beeston Fields Golf Club 49.67 N/A Local Plan 2004 Broxtowe

83 Chilwell Manor Golf Course 44.75 N/A Local Plan 2004 Broxtowe

84 Burrows Farm 22.29 N/A Local Plan 2005 Nottingham

85 University Park (aka Highfields Park) 31.56 N/A Local Plan 2005 Nottingham

86 Grove Farm 76.97 N/A Local Plan 2005 Nottingham

87 North of A453, South of River Trent 26.98 N/A Local Plan 2005 Nottingham

88 Wollaton Park 209.19 N/A Local Plan 2005 Nottingham

89 Jubilee Campus 26.37 N/A Local Plan 2005 Nottingham

Draft Notts HMA 90 Shortwell Farm, Trowell 164.22 N/A Broxtowe SHLAA

Draft Notts HMA 91 Land at Trowell Moor, Nottingham Road 62.99 N/A Broxtowe SHLAA

92 Bramcote Land 37.16 N/A Local Plan 2004 Broxtowe

93 Aspley Recreation Ground 21.83 N/A Map Search Nottingham

NLUD, 2009 Draft Notts HMA SHLAA Nottingham City 94 Stanton Tip 58.51 N/A Region Employment Nottingham Land Study 2007 GN Core Strategy Options Feb 2010 Local Plan 2005

95 Bulwell Forest 41.13 N/A Local Plan 2005 Nottingham

96 Bulwell Hall Park and City Golf Course 91.96 N/A Local Plan 2005 Nottingham

Potential to expand onto Site Area adjoining land (where site area Site Ref Site Name / Location / Description Source / Date Local Authority (ha) is less than 20ha)? If yes provide details

Draft Notts HMA 97 New Farm, Arnold – Site E 76.92 N/A Gedling SHLAA

98 Forest Fields 29.80 N/A Local Plan 2005 Nottingham

99 Colwick Wood 58.36 N/A Local Plan 2005 Nottingham

100 Nottingham Racecourse 51.70 N/A Local Plan 2005 Nottingham

GN Core Strategy 101 Land Between Radcliffe Road and Adbolton 56.17 N/A Rushcliffe Options Feb 2010

Draft Notts HMA 102 Gedling Colliery Site, Carlton 43.76 N/A Gedling SHLAA

Draft Notts HMA Land East of M1 Motorway and North of Nottingham SHLAA 103 38.34 N/A Broxtowe Road GN Core Strategy Options Feb 2010

Nottingham City 104 Blenheim Industrial Estate 45.12 N/A Region Employment Ashfield Land Study 2007

Draft Notts HMA SHLAA 105 East of Church Lane, Brinsley 25.77 N/A Broxtowe GN Core Strategy Options Feb 2010

Draft Notts HMA 106 Sharphill Wood 80.18 N/A Rushcliffe SHLAA

107 Land South West of M1 J26 28.16 N/A Map Search Broxtowe

Draft Notts HMA 108 Land South of Lock Lane and Tamworth Road, Sawley 37.26 N/A Erewash SHLAA

Potential to expand onto Site Area adjoining land (where site area Site Ref Site Name / Location / Description Source / Date Local Authority (ha) is less than 20ha)? If yes provide details

NLUD, 2009 Nottingham City Region Employment Land Study 2007

109 Waterside Regeneration Zone 97.54 N/A GN Core Strategy Nottingham Options Feb 2010 Waterside Regeneration Planning Guidance 2001

NLUD 2009 Nottingham City Region Employment Land Study 2007

110 Eastside Regeneration Zone 57.44 N/A GN Core Strategy Nottingham Options Feb 2010 Eastside Regeneration Planning Guidance 2004

NLUD 2009 Nottingham City Region Employment Land Study 2007 111 Southside Regeneration Zone 24.83 N/A GN Core Strategy Nottingham Options Feb 2010 Southside Regeneration Planning Guidance

EGi 03/11/2010 112 Watnall Brick Works 134.94 N/A GN Core Strategy Broxtowe Options Feb 2010

Potential to expand onto Site Area adjoining land (where site area Site Ref Site Name / Location / Description Source / Date Local Authority (ha) is less than 20ha)? If yes provide details

Draft Notts HMA 113 Land West of Wilford Road, Ruddington 57.15 N/A Nottingham SHLAA

Playing Fields Adjacent to Farnborough School, West 114 55.80 N/A Map Search Nottingham Bridgford

Draft Notts HMA Yes, surrounding agricultural SHLAA 115 Nether Green East of Mansfield Road, Eastwood 18.37 Broxtowe land GN Core Strategy Options Feb 2010

Appendix II

Long List Assessment Matrix

If not in SHLAA New Site Old Site Site Area Adjacent to road Identified in SHLAA + evidence of other Ref Ref (ha) Local Authority network Existing Allocation(s) Available Planning Permission(s) Available Ref(s) promotion? Available 1 1 45.48 Erewash Yes Green Belt Yes None Yes 349 - Yes 2 2 38.89 Erewash Yes Green Belt Yes None Yes Not found in SHLAA None No 3 3 27.41 Erewash Yes Green Belt Yes None Yes Not found in SHLAA None No Green Belt and Sites of Special Scientific Interest, Regionally Important 4 4 67.34 Erewash Yes Yes None Yes Not found in SHLAA None No Geological Sites and Geomorphical Sites and Local Nature Reserves

Green Belt (Erewash) and Green Belt, Playing Fields Parks and Informal 5 5 46.20 Amber Valley Yes Open Space and Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (Amber Yes None Yes Not found in SHLAA None No Valley) Green Belt (Erewash) and Green Belt and Sites of Importance for 6 6 54.31 Amber Valley Yes Yes None Yes Not found in SHLAA None No Nature Conservation (Amber Valley) 7 7 23.68 Broxtowe Yes Green Belt Yes None Yes SHLAA/00427/AVA - Yes 02/00647/FUL (Retain use of land for car 8 8 33.93 Broxtowe Yes Green Belt Yes Yes Not found in SHLAA None No boot sales (April-October only)) 9 9 21.03 Erewash Yes Green Belt Yes None Yes Not found in SHLAA None No 10 10 39.80 Erewash Yes Green Belt Yes None Yes Not found in SHLAA None No 11 11 20.13 Gedling Yes Green Belt, Allotments and Greenwood Community Forest No Green Belt and Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (Amber 12 12 67.45 Broxtowe Yes Yes None Yes Not found in SHLAA None No Valley) and Green Belt (Broxtowe) 13 13 20.59 Amber Valley Yes Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation Yes None Yes Not found in SHLAA None No Green Belt, Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation and Existing 14 14 59.21 Broxtowe Yes Yes None Yes Not found in SHLAA None No Public Open Space 15 15 30.80 Broxtowe Yes Green Belt Yes None Yes SHLAA/00432/AVA - Yes Green Belt (Erewash) and Green Belt, Proposed Road and Proposed 04/00759/FUL (Retain Storage Barn and 16 16 27.95 Broxtowe Yes Yes Yes Not found in SHLAA None No Railway Station (Broxtowe) Shelters 17 17 25.35 Broxtowe Yes Green Belt and Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation Yes None Yes SHLAA/00192/AVA - No Green Belt, Allotments and Sites of Importance for Nature 18 19 60.23 Broxtowe Yes Yes None Yes Not found in SHLAA None No Conservation 19 20 20.96 Broxtowe Yes Green Belt and Existing Public Open Space Yes None Yes SHLAA/00421/AVA - Yes Green Belt, Protected Open Space (Public) and Greenwood 20 21 30.59 Gedling Yes No Community Forest 21 23 46.55 Ashfield Yes Green Belt and Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation No Green Belt, Protected Open Space, Greenwood Community Forest 22 24 47.55 Gedling Yes No and Mature Landscape Areas 23 25 21.80 Gedling Yes Green Belt Yes None Yes Not found in SHLAA None No 24 26 153.13 Rushcliffe Yes Green Belt Yes None Yes 351 - Yes 25 27 48.66 Rushcliffe Yes Green Belt Yes None Yes Not found in SHLAA None No 26 28 29.66 Rushcliffe Yes Green Belt Yes None Yes Not found in SHLAA None No 27 30 43.75 Rushcliffe Yes Green Belt Yes None Yes Not found in SHLAA None No 28 31 19.52 Rushcliffe Yes Green Belt Yes None Yes Not found in SHLAA None No Green Belt, Existing Open Space, Prominent Area for Special Protection 29 32 20.84 Broxtowe Yes No and Major Developed Sites within Green Belt 30 33 31.32 Broxtowe Yes Green Belt and Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation Yes None Yes Not found in SHLAA None No Green Belt and Sites of Special Scientific Interest, Regionally Important 31 34 50.88 Erewash Yes Geological Sites and Geomorphical Sites and Local Nature Reserves Yes None Yes Not found in SHLAA None No (Erewash) and Green Belt (Broxtowe) 32 35 44.67 Broxtowe Yes Green Belt Yes None Yes Not found in SHLAA None No 33 36 47.25 Broxtowe Yes Green Belt and Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation Yes None Yes Not found in SHLAA None No 34 37 56.11 Broxtowe Yes Green Belt and Existing Public Open Space Yes None Yes Not found in SHLAA None No Green Belt, Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation, Derelict Land 35 38 240.17 Broxtowe Yes Yes None Yes SHLAA/00188/AVA - Yes and Safeguarded Sites for Community and Educational Facilities

36 39 27.45 Erewash Yes Green Belt / Conservation Area Yes None Yes 89 - Yes

Green Belt, Protected Open Space (Public & Private), New Housing 37 40 106.82 Gedling Yes Allocation, Mature Landscaped Areas, Site of Importance for Nature No Conservation and Greenwood Community Forest 38 41 71.35 Gedling Yes Green Belt Yes None Yes Not found in SHLAA None No Green Belt, Mature Landscaped Areas, Site of Importance for Nature 39 42 402.66 Gedling Yes No Conservation and Greenwood Community Forest If not in SHLAA New Site Old Site Site Area Adjacent to road Identified in SHLAA + evidence of other Ref Ref (ha) Local Authority network Existing Allocation(s) Available Planning Permission(s) Available Ref(s) promotion? Available Green Belt, Mature Landscaped Areas and Greenwood Community 40 43 79.00 Gedling Yes No Forest Green Belt, Mature Landscaped Areas, Site of Importance for Nature 41 44 158.41 Gedling Yes No Conservation and Greenwood Community Forest 42 45 124.63 Gedling Yes Green Belt and Greenwood Community Forest No 43 46 56.69 Gedling Yes Green Belt, Safeguarded Land and Greenwood Community Forest No Green Belt, Mature Landscape Areas, Site of Importance for Nature 44 47 56.32 Gedling Yes No Conservation and Greenwood Community Forest 45 48 92.37 Gedling Yes Green Belt and Greenwood Community Forest No Green Belt, Safeguarded Land, Site of Importance for nature 46 49 133.56 Gedling Yes No Conservation and Greenwood Community Forest 47 50 39.72 Rushcliffe Yes Conversion to Flats and Bedsits Yes None Yes 280 - No 48 52 24.17 Amber Valley Yes Existing / Proposed Business and Industrial Area No New Housing Allocation, Protected Employment Site, Safeguarded 49 53 52.48 Gedling Yes No Land and Greenwood Community Forest 50 54 51.05 Gedling Yes Safeguarded Land No Gedling Colliery Park, Site of Importance for Nature Conservation and 51 55 148.86 Gedling Yes No Greenwood Community Forest 52 57 107.08 Gedling Yes Protected Employment Site No 53 58 26.75 Gedling Yes Protected Employment Site No North West Countryside (agriculture, forestry, recreation, community facilities, 55 61 31.98 Yes No Leicestershire tourism related development permitted) 56 63 38.24 Erewash Yes Conservation Area Yes None Yes Not found in SHLAA None No New Employment Allocation, Safeguarded Land and Greenwood 57 64 76.80 Gedling Yes No Community Forest 58 65 25.79 Ashfield Yes Employment Land Allocation No 59 66 182.55 Ashfield Yes Green Belt Yes None Yes 1, 12, 14, 15, 83 - Yes 60 67 70.38 Rushcliffe Yes Green Belt Yes None Yes 350 - No 61 68 221.53 Rushcliffe Yes Green Belt Yes None Yes 352 - Yes 03/00714/FUL (Construct single storey 62 69 58.24 Broxtowe Yes Green Belt, Existing Open Space Yes Yes SHLAA/00357/AVA - No classroom block) SHLAA/00178/AVA & 63 71 191.78 Broxtowe Yes Green Belt Yes None Yes -No SHLAA/00257/AVA

64 72 97.31 Broxtowe Yes Green Belt and Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation Yes None Yes SHLAA/00424/AVA - No

65 73 19.24 Rushcliffe Yes Green Belt Yes None Yes 188 - Yes Green Belt, Allotments, Mature Landscape Area and Nature 66 74 37.95 Ashfield Yes Yes None Yes 81 - Yes Conservation Site 67 75 71.31 Rushcliffe Yes Green Belt and Protection of Recreational Facilities Yes None Yes 351 - Yes Development Site, Open Space Network, Mature Landscape Areas 68 76 23.87 Nottingham Yes No and Geological Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation

69 77 29.07 Ashfield Yes Green Belt, Mature Landscape Area and Nature Conservation Site Yes None Yes Not found in SHLAA None No

70 78 31.30 Broxtowe Yes Green Belt and Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation Yes None Yes SHLAA/00107/AVA - No Green Belt, Sites of Scientific Interest and Sites of Importance for 71 80 344.33 Broxtowe Yes Yes None Yes SHLAA/00188/AVA - No Nature Conservation 72 81 20.77 Broxtowe Yes Employment No 73 83 18.53 Broxtowe Yes Housing / Derelict Land No 74 84 21.25 Erewash Yes Green Belt Yes None Yes 344 - Yes 75 86 21.39 Erewash Yes None Yes None Yes 191 - No 76 87 63.63 Erewash Yes None Yes None Yes 238 - No No, but improved 77 88 186.13 Erewash Stanton Ironworks Regeneration Yes None (application due Oct 2011) Yes 194 - No access proposed Green Belt, Proposed Park and Ride and Safeguarded Nottingham 78 89 23.23 Broxtowe Yes No Express Transit Route 79 90 27.65 Broxtowe Yes Green Belt Yes None Yes SHLAA/00132/AVA - Yes Green Belt, Existing Open Space, Prominent Area for Special Protection 80 91 35.34 Broxtowe Yes Yes None Yes SHLAA/00221/AVA - Yes and Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation If not in SHLAA New Site Old Site Site Area Adjacent to road Identified in SHLAA + evidence of other Ref Ref (ha) Local Authority network Existing Allocation(s) Available Planning Permission(s) Available Ref(s) promotion? Available

Green Belt, Existing Open Space, Conservation Area, Prominent Area 81 92 23.19 Broxtowe Yes Yes None Yes Not found in SHLAA None No for Special Protection and Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation 82 93 49.67 Broxtowe Yes Protected Open Areas No 83 95 44.75 Broxtowe Yes Protected Open Areas and Existing Open Space No 84 97 22.29 Nottingham Yes Mature Landscape Areas / Open Space Network No 85 100 31.56 Nottingham Yes Open Space Network No 86 101 76.97 Nottingham Yes Open Space Network / Washlands No 87 102 26.98 Nottingham Yes Open Space Network / Washlands No Open Space Network, Historic Parks and Gardens and Conservation 88 104 209.19 Nottingham Yes No Area 89 105 26.37 Nottingham Yes Land Safeguarded for Further and Higher Education No 90 106 164.22 Broxtowe Yes Green Belt and Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation Yes None Yes SHLAA/00121/AVA - Yes 91 107 62.99 Broxtowe Yes Green Belt and Mature Landscaped Area Yes None Yes Not found in SHLAA None No Green Belt, Existing Open Space, Proposed Public Open Space, Sites 92 108 37.16 Broxtowe Yes of Importance for Nature Conservation and Major Developed Sites No within Green Belt 93 111 21.83 Nottingham Yes District Park No Protected Open Space (Broxtowe) and Mixed Use Development Site 94 114 58.51 Nottingham Yes No (Nottingham) 95 116 41.13 Nottingham Yes Open Space Network No 96 117 91.96 Nottingham Yes Green Belt, Mature Landscaped Areas and Open Space Network No Green Belt, Protected Open Space (Public), New Housing Allocation, 97 119 76.92 Gedling Yes No Mature Landscaped Areas and Greenwood Community Forest District Park, Historic Parks and Gardens, Park and Ride and 98 120 29.80 Nottingham Yes No Archaeological Constraints Area 99 122 58.36 Nottingham Yes Open Space Network and Local Nature Reserve No 100 123 51.70 Nottingham Yes Open Space Network and SINC No 101 124 56.17 Rushcliffe Yes Green Belt Yes None Yes 354 - Yes New Housing Allocation, New Employment Allocation and 102 126 43.76 Gedling Yes No Greenwood Community Forest 103 127 38.34 Broxtowe Yes Green Belt Yes None Yes SHLAA/00212/AVA - Yes Major Business Parks and Industrial Estates (Nottingham) and 104 128 45.12 Ashfield Yes No Employment Land Allocation (Ashfield) 105 129 25.77 Broxtowe Yes Green Belt and Existing Public Open Space Yes None Yes SHLAA/00198/AVA - No 106 130 80.18 Rushcliffe Yes Green Belt Yes None Yes 350 - No 107 132 28.16 Broxtowe Yes Green Belt and Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation Yes None Yes Not found in SHLAA Yes Yes 108 133 37.26 Erewash Yes Green Belt and Conservation Area Yes None Yes 36 - No 109 135 97.54 Nottingham Yes Mixed Use Development Sites and Open Space Network No Regeneration Zone, Mixed Use Development Sites and Conservation 110 136 57.44 Nottingham Yes No Area Regeneration Zone, Mixed Use Development Sites, Conservation Area 111 137 24.83 Nottingham Yes No and NET Safeguarding Green Belt, Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation and Derelict 112 138 134.94 Broxtowe Yes Yes None Yes SHLAA/00188/AVA - No Land 113 99 57.15 Rushcliffe Yes Green Belt Yes None Yes 216 - Yes 114 29 55.80 Nottingham Yes Open Space Network / Washlands and SINC No 115 82 18.37 Broxtowe Yes Green Belt Yes None Yes Not found in SHLAA None No

Appendix III

Short List

Assessments

Short list assessment Site Ref: 001

SITE DETAILS

Name / location Land north of the A6096 at Foxholes Farm

Area 45.48ha Local authority Erewash LOCATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

Previously developed land / Greenfield greenfield / mixed

Relationship to PUA / other settlement / centre(give distance as the crow flies) Site is located out of town approximately 3.76km outside the Nottingham PUA, 1.67km from Ilkeston town centre and 12.36km from Nottingham city centre. (assess against local authority defined boundaries / utilise NPPF definitions)

Closest mainline station is Spondon (6.23km away). Rail – proximity / routes / frequency Services to Matlock-Derby-Nottingham (Less than 1 train per hour)

Closest bus stop is on Wyndale Drive (junction with Bunting Close). Route 20 operates hourly on Sundays to Current Bus – proximity / routes / frequency Nottingham - Beeston - Ilkeston – Heanor and Route 21 sustainable travel provides hourly services (Mon-Sat) to Nottingham - QMC - accessibility Trowell – Ilkeston.

Cycle routes Cycle route is located adjacent to the site on the A6096

Pedestrian facilities There is no footpath on the A6096

Major barriers (railway line etc) None

Planned / proposed None sustainable travel improvements

Potential to improve Potential to improve frequency of Route 21 (Mon – Sat) and Route 20 (Sun) sustainable travel

Adjacent uses Open farmland

Visibility Land rises up from A6096 therefore visibility is good POLICY RESTRICTIONS / POTENTIAL IMPACTS

Development of site would result in sprawl of Kirk Hallam Green belt Sprawl / defensible boundaries in a westerly direction

Coalescence N/A

Countryside (include agricultural Western part of site is Agricultural Land Grade 3. Eastern land grade) part is classed as Urban

Historic towns N/A

Urban regeneration N/A

Other landscape designations

Historic environment Buildings at Windmill Farm, adjacent to the site’s western boundary are a mixture of Grade I and (conservation Grade II Listed Buildings. The Moated site and two fishponds at Moat Wood to the north of the area / listed site are Scheduled Ancient Monuments. buildings / archaeology)

Ecological None designations

Trees / hedgerows None protected

PROWs A footpath runs east – west through the site

Other None PHYSICAL PROBLEMS / LIMITATIONS

Topography Site slopes north – south and east – west though would not constrain development

Flooding / No issues drainage

Watercourse / None water body

Foxholes Farm to the north was previously used as a landfill site for inert and industrial waste, Contamination although it appears the operation appears to have been limited to land outside the site boundary. This operation ceased in 1992.

Ground stability No evidence of mining therefore ground is assumed stable

Potential Limited to hedgerows / trees on southern border ecological merit

Other None

Planned / proposed N/A mitigation

ANALYSIS

Although this site has no significant accessibility, physical or heritage constraints to development, it is located well outside the PUA and on the opposite side of Ilkeston. Given that a key priority for the Oxylane Village is to deliver sports facilities focussed on the PUA, it is considered that the site is not suitable for the development of an Oxylane Village.

Short list assessment Site Ref: 007

SITE DETAILS

Name / location Land east of Mansfield Road (A608) at Grange Fields Farm

Area 23.68ha Local authority Broxtowe LOCATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

Previously developed land / Greenfield greenfield / mixed

Relationship to PUA / other settlement / centre(give distance as the crow flies) Site is located out of town approximately 5.15km outside the Nottingham PUA, 1.10km from Eastwood town centre and 13.28km from Nottingham city centre. (assess against local authority defined boundaries / utilise NPPF definitions)

Closest mainline station is Langley Mill (1.86km away). Services to Nottingham, Leeds, Manchester, Norwich & Rail – proximity / routes / frequency high speed services to London St Pancras (1 train per hour)

Closest bus stop is on Mansfield Road, adjacent to the Current site boundary. Routes 1 and 1B operate every 30 mins sustainable travel Bus – proximity / routes / frequency (Mon – Sat) and serve Nottingham – Eastwood – accessibility Jacksdale – Alfreton – Heanor – Ripley – Selston – Underwood.

Cycle routes Cycle route is located adjacent to the site on the A608

Pedestrian facilities There is a footpath on the A608

Major barriers (railway line etc) None

Planned / proposed None sustainable travel improvements

Potential to improve None sustainable travel

Open farmland to the north, east and south. There are some residential properties to the Adjacent uses western boundary of the site

Land rises up from A608, however dense vegetation forms the boundary of the site therefore Visibility visibility is currently poor POLICY RESTRICTIONS / POTENTIAL IMPACTS

Development of site would result in sprawl of Eastwood in Green belt Sprawl / defensible boundaries a northerly direction

Would significantly narrow the gap between Eastwood Coalescence and Brinsley

Countryside (include agricultural Site is classified as Agricultural Land Grade 4. land grade)

Historic towns N/A

Urban regeneration N/A

Other landscape designations

Historic environment

(conservation None area / listed buildings / archaeology)

Ecological None designations

Trees / hedgerows None protected

PROWs A number of footpaths run through the site

Other None PHYSICAL PROBLEMS / LIMITATIONS

Topography Site slopes east – west though would not constrain development

Flooding / No issues drainage

Watercourse / None water body

Contamination No evidence of previous use there assumed no contamination

Ground stability No evidence of mining therefore ground is assumed stable

Potential Limited to hedgerows / trees on western border ecological merit

Other None

Planned / proposed N/A mitigation

ANALYSIS

Although this site has no significant accessibility, physical or heritage constraints to development, it is located well outside the PUA, Given that a key priority for the Oxylane Village is to deliver sports facilities focussed on the PUA, it is considered that the site is not suitable for the development of an Oxylane Village. A further concern would be the impact of development on the expansion of Eastwood and its coalescence with the village of Brinsley. It is therefore considered that this site is not suitable for development to provide an Oxylane Village.

Short list assessment Site Ref: 015

SITE DETAILS

Name / location Land south of A610 and west of Gin Close Way (A6096)

Area 30.80ha Local authority Broxtowe LOCATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

Previously developed land / Greenfield greenfield / mixed

Relationship to PUA / other settlement / centre(give distance as the crow flies) Site is located out of town approximately 3.14km outside the Nottingham PUA, 1.54km from Kimberley town centre and 10.25km from Nottingham city centre. (assess against local authority defined boundaries / utilise NPPF definitions)

Closest mainline station is Langley Mill (3.31km away). Rail – proximity / routes / frequency Services to Manchester-Norwich & high speed services to London St Pancras (1 train per hour)

Closest bus stop is on Gin Close Way, adjacent to the site Bus – proximity / routes / frequency boundary. Route 27 operates every 30 mins (Mon – Sat) Current and serves Kimberley – Ilkeston. sustainable travel Cycle routes are located adjacent to the site on the accessibility Cycle routes A610 and A6096

Pedestrian facilities There are footpaths on the A6096, but not the A610

The A610 is an elevated dual carriageway to the north of Major barriers (railway line etc) the site and therefore provides a barrier to movement in the direction of Kimberley / Eastwood

Planned / proposed None sustainable travel improvements

Potential to Potential to improve bus movements along the A610 in order to serve a wider range of improve destinations, such as Nottingham city centre. sustainable travel

Sewage works and a scrap yard to the south west, residential / retail to the north (Giltbrook Retail Park) and residential / industrial to the south / east. There are a number of industrial / Adjacent uses storage units and areas of open storage located within the site, close to the south eastern perimeter.

The A610 is elevated above the site at this point, therefore visibility is excellent. The visibility from Visibility the A6096 is poor due to the dense vegetation that forms the boundary of the site. POLICY RESTRICTIONS / POTENTIAL IMPACTS

Green belt Sprawl / defensible boundaries Development of site would result in sprawl of Eastwood /

Kimberley in a southerly direction and Awsworth in a northerly direction

Would close the gap between Eastwood / Kimberley and Coalescence Awsworth

Countryside (include agricultural Site is classified as Agricultural Land Grade 4. land grade)

Historic towns N/A

Urban regeneration N/A

Other landscape designations

Historic environment

(conservation None area / listed buildings / archaeology)

Ecological Gilt Brook, which runs through the site, is classified as a Site of Importance for Nature designations Conservation in the Broxtowe Local Plan

Trees / hedgerows None protected

PROWs A number of footpaths run through the site

Other None PHYSICAL PROBLEMS / LIMITATIONS

Site slopes gently from south west – north east though would not constrain development. There Topography is a steep embankment along part of the A6096 that would constrain development.

Flood risk is classified as “Moderate”, meaning that the site is in an area that has a moderate Flooding / chance of flooding. The chance of flooding each year is 1.3% (1 in 75) or less, but greater than drainage 0.5% (1 in 200). This takes into account the effect of any flood defences that may be in this area.

Watercourse / Gilt Brook runs through the site water body

Contamination No evidence of previous use there assumed no contamination

Ground stability No evidence of mining therefore ground is assumed stable

Potential Gilt Brook and hedgerows / trees on northern and eastern borders ecological merit

Other None

Planned / Any development here would need to mitigate against any harm caused to Gilt Brook and it’s proposed environmental / ecological merits mitigation

ANALYSIS

Due to the risk of flooding from Gilt Brook and the consequent restriction this would impose on development and subsequent operational activities, it is considered that this site is not suitable for development to provide an Oxylane Village.

Short list assessment Site Ref: 019

SITE DETAILS

Name / location Land north of A610 and west of Nottingham Road (B600)

Area 20.96ha Local authority Broxtowe LOCATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

Previously developed land / Greenfield greenfield / mixed

Relationship to PUA / other settlement / centre(give distance as the crow flies) Site is located out of town approximately 0.07km outside the Nottingham PUA, 1.73km from Kimberley town centre and 6.65km from Nottingham city centre. (assess against local authority defined boundaries / utilise NPPF definitions)

Closest mainline station is Bulwell (2.13km away). Services Rail – proximity / routes / frequency to Nottingham-Worksop (1 train per hour)

Closest bus stops are on Nottingham Road, adjacent to the site boundary. Route 1 operates every 20 minutes to Nottingham. Route 229 operates hourly (Mon – Sat) and Bus – proximity / routes / frequency serves Eastwood - Phoenix Park - Queens Medical Centre. Route 331 operates hourly (Mon – Sat) and serves Nottingham - Moorgreen - Pinxton – Alfreton Current sustainable travel Cycle routes Cycle route is located adjacent to the site on the A610 accessibility There are footpaths on Nottingham Road (B600), but not Pedestrian facilities the A610

The A610 is a six lane dual carriageway to the south of the site and therefore provides a barrier to movement to / from Broxtowe / Aspley. The M1 motorway is located to Major barriers (railway line etc) the west of the site and therefore provides a barrier to movement to / from Kimberley, although the B600 does provide a direct route under the motorway

Planned / proposed None sustainable travel improvements

Potential to Potential to improve bus movements along the A610 in order to serve a wider range of improve destinations sustainable travel

Sports club to the north, residential to the eastern boundaries, the M1 motorway to the west and Adjacent uses open space to the south

The A610 is at the same level as the site at this point, but shielded by dense vegetation and Visibility trees, therefore visibility is poor, however the visibility from the B600 is unhindered and there are clear views into the site from here.

POLICY RESTRICTIONS / POTENTIAL IMPACTS

Development of site would result in sprawl of Nuthall in a Sprawl / defensible boundaries south easterly direction

Would close the gap between Broxtowe / Aspley and Coalescence Nuthall

Green belt The majority of the Site is classified as Agricultural Land Countryside (include agricultural Grade 2. A thin strip along the western perimeter is land grade) classified as Grade 4.

Historic towns N/A

Urban regeneration N/A

Other landscape designations

Historic environment

(conservation None area / listed buildings / archaeology)

Ecological None designations

Trees / hedgerows None protected

PROWs None

Other The northern part of the Site is allocated as Existing Open Space in the Broxtowe Local Plan PHYSICAL PROBLEMS / LIMITATIONS

Site slopes gently in a south westerly direction, though would not constrain development. There Topography is a steep embankment along part of the A610 that would constrain development.

Flooding / No issues drainage

Watercourse / None water body

Contamination No evidence of previous use there assumed no contamination

Ground stability No evidence of mining therefore ground is assumed stable

Potential Limited to hedgerows / trees on southern borders ecological merit

Other None

Planned / Any development here would need to mitigate against any harm caused to Gilt Brook and it’s proposed environmental / ecological qualities mitigation

ANALYSIS

This site only just satisfies the site size threshold of 20ha necessary to accommodate an Oxylane Village, and the developable area would be further restricted by the steep embankments to the southern perimeter and, to a lesser extent, the open space allocation in the northern part of the site. It is therefore considered that this site is not suitable for the development of an Oxylane Village.

Short list assessment Site Ref: 024

SITE DETAILS

Name / location Land East of Gamston Lings Bar Road (A52), Gamston

Area 153.13ha Local authority Rushcliffe LOCATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

Previously developed land / Greenfield greenfield / mixed

Relationship to PUA / other settlement / centre(give distance as the crow flies) Site is located out of town adjacent to the Nottingham PUA boundary, 2.13km from West Bridgford town centre and 4.53km from Nottingham city centre. (assess against local authority defined boundaries / utilise NPPF definitions)

Closest mainline station is Netherfield (3.99km away). Rail – proximity / routes / frequency Services to Nottingham-Skegness (Less than 1 train per hour)

Closest bus stops are on Ambleside, on the opposite side of Gamston Lings Bar Road. Routes 22, 51 and 52 operate Bus – proximity / routes / frequency to Sutton-cum-Granby - Nottingham – Bingham (hourly), Upper Broughton – Willoughby on the Wolds (twice daily) and Upper Broughton (three times a day) respectively. Current sustainable travel Cycle route is located on Gamston Lings Bar Road, Cycle routes accessibility adjacent to the site

There are no footpaths on Gamston Lings Bar Road, Pedestrian facilities although there is one formal crossing point across this dual carriageway at the northern end of the site

Gamston Lings Bar Road provides a barrier to movement to / from the site from the conurbation to the west, apart Major barriers (railway line etc) from at the one formal crossing point at Bassingfield Road at the northern end of the site

Planned / proposed None sustainable travel improvements

Potential to Potential to run buses along Gamston Lings Bar Road, which would negate the need to cross improve the dual carriageway and provide a more frequent service to Nottingham City Centre sustainable travel

Residential properties / district centre to the west (northern half of site), a golf course to the west Adjacent uses (southern half of site) and farmland to the north / east / south.

Visibility into the site from Gamston Lings Bar Road is poor, as it is shielded by dense vegetation Visibility on the western perimeter. It is possible to see into the site from Tollerton Road but this is a minor road.

POLICY RESTRICTIONS / POTENTIAL IMPACTS

Development of site would result in sprawl of Gamston in Sprawl / defensible boundaries an easterly direction

Coalescence N/A

Green belt Countryside (include agricultural The Site is classified as a mixture of Agricultural Land land grade) Grades 2 & 3.

Historic towns N/A

Urban regeneration N/A

Other landscape designations

Historic environment

(conservation None area / listed buildings / archaeology)

Ecological None designations

Trees / hedgerows None protected

A number of footpaths run through the site, namely between Tollerton and Edwalton at the PROWs southern end of the site and between Gamston and Tollerton and the northern end of the site

Other PHYSICAL PROBLEMS / LIMITATIONS

Site is generally flat, therefore there would be no constraint to development in terms of Topography topography

Flooding / No issues drainage

Watercourse / None water body

Contamination No evidence of previous use there assumed no contamination

Ground stability No evidence of mining therefore ground is assumed stable

Potential None ecological merit

Other None

Planned / proposed N/A mitigation

ANALYSIS

This site is well located in relation to the urban area of West Bridgeford / Gamston. However, it is cut off from the conurbation by the Gamston Lings Bar Road, which provides limited opportunities for crossing and currently has no public transport provision. Nevertheless, it is considered that this site is suitable for development to provide an Oxylane Village.

Short list assessment Site Ref: 035

SITE DETAILS

Name / location North of Giltbrook Retail Park, Kimberley

Area 240.17ha Local authority Broxtowe LOCATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

Previously developed land / Greenfield greenfield / mixed

Relationship to PUA / other settlement / centre(give distance as the crow flies) Site is located out of town approximately 1.85km from the Nottingham PUA boundary, 0.79km from Kimberley town centre and 9.44km from Nottingham city centre. (assess against local authority defined boundaries / utilise NPPF definitions)

Closest mainline station is Langley Mill (2.76km away). Rail – proximity / routes / frequency Services to Manchester-Norwich & high speed services to London St Pancras (1 train per hour)

There are bus stops on Nottingham Road and Main Road Bus – proximity / routes / frequency / Church Road (B600). Route 1 provides services between Giltbrook and Nottingham Bus Station every 10 minutes. Current sustainable travel The closest cycle route is located on the A610 accessibility Cycle routes approximately 0.3km to the south of the site. There is also a cycle route along New Road, to the north of the site.

There are footpaths on Nottingham Road at the south Pedestrian facilities western corner of the site. There are no footpaths along Main Road / Church Road.

Major barriers (railway line etc) None

Planned / proposed None sustainable travel improvements

Potential to improve None sustainable travel

Residential properties abut the majority of the perimeter of the site, in particular to the west, Adjacent uses south and north. The eastern boundary of the site is adjacent to open farmland.

Visibility into the site from Nottingham Road is poor due to the dense vegetation along this part of the boundary. It is possible to see into the site from Main Road / Church Road but this is a Visibility minor road and the land slopes down away from the road meaning the majority of the site is hidden from view. POLICY RESTRICTIONS / POTENTIAL IMPACTS

Development of site would result in sprawl of Giltbrook / Sprawl / defensible boundaries Newthorpe in an easterly direction.

The development of the site would narrow the gap Coalescence between Giltbrook an Watnall Green belt Countryside (include agricultural The Site is classified as Agricultural Land Grade 4. land grade)

Historic towns N/A

Urban regeneration N/A

Other landscape designations

Historic Greasley Castle is located within the site’s northern boundary which is Grade II Listed and also a environment Scheduled Ancient Monument. Within the Castle grounds there are a number of other Grade II (conservation Listed structures. The Sexton’s House and Church of St Mary (both located within the site’s area / listed boundary) are also Grade II Listed structures. Adjacent to the site’s western boundary, there are buildings / a number of Grade II Listed structures on Moorgreen, whilst adjacent to the eastern boundary archaeology) the Stone Cottage is Grade II Listed.

Ecological There is a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) located within the site boundary designations

Trees / hedgerows None protected

A number of footpaths criss-cross the site, between Giltbrook, Newthorpe and Beauvale on the PROWs western perimeter of the site and Greasley, Bogend and Watnall on the eastern perimeter of the site

Other PHYSICAL PROBLEMS / LIMITATIONS

Site slopes from the south eastern corner down towards the north western corner of the site. In Topography some places the gradient is as steep as 10%

The majority of the site is at no risk from flooding. The area either side of Gilt Brook which runs Flooding / north-south through the site is unlikely to flood except in extreme conditions. The chance of drainage flooding each year is 0.5% (1 in 200) or less. This takes into account the effect of any flood defences that may be in this area

Gilt Brook runs through the site in a north-south direction. Additionally there are a number of Watercourse / drainage running perpendicular to Gilt Brook at various points along its length within the site water body boundary

Contamination No evidence of previous use there assumed no contamination

Ground stability No evidence of mining therefore ground is assumed stable

Potential There is potentially flora / fauna located within the site that would be of ecological merit, in ecological merit particular along Gilt Brook

Other None

Planned / Any development here would need to mitigate against any harm caused to the ecological proposed value of the site mitigation

ANALYSIS

This site is well located in relation to the built up areas of Kimberley and Eastwood. However the topography of the site, coupled with the ecological value of the Gilt Brook and the presence of various Grade II Listed properties within the site boundary, would likely restrict the type and extent of development permitted on this site. It is therefore considered that this site would not be suitable for development to provide an Oxylane Village.

Short list assessment Site Ref: 036

SITE DETAILS

Name / location Land South of Wilne Road, Sawley

Area 27.45ha Local authority Erewash LOCATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

Previously developed land / Greenfield greenfield / mixed

Relationship to PUA / other settlement / centre(give distance as the crow flies) Site is located out of town adjacent to the Nottingham PUA boundary, 2.83km from Long Eaton town centre and 13.22km from Nottingham city centre. (assess against local authority defined boundaries / utilise NPPF definitions)

Closest mainline station is Long Eaton (1.14km away). Rail – proximity / routes / frequency Services to Matlock-Derby-Nottingham & high speed services to London St Pancras (3 trains per hour)

There are bus stops on Tamworth Road (B6540). Route my15 provides services between Old Sawley – Long Bus – proximity / routes / frequency Eaton - Ilkeston every 20 minutes. The Indigo route provides services between Old Sawley – Long Eaton – Nottingham every 7 minutes (daytime)

The closest cycle route is located at Sawley Marina Current approximately 0.2km to the south of the site. This runs to sustainable travel Cycle routes Kegworth. To the north the closest cycle route runs along accessibility the A6005 (Derby Road) between Long Eaton and Nottingham

There are footpaths on Tamworth Road along part of the Pedestrian facilities eastern perimeter of the site and one footpath along Wilne Road along the northern perimeter of the site.

The M1 motorway forms the western perimeter of the site, however this does not cause an issue for pedestrian / Major barriers (railway line etc) vehicle movements as the land to the west of the motorway is currently undeveloped.

Planned / proposed None sustainable travel improvements

Potential to improve None sustainable travel

The M1 motorway abuts the western boundary of the site, whilst to the north and part of the Adjacent uses eastern boundary are residential properties and other built development

Visibility into the site is good from the M1 motorway, as this is elevated above the site, along a short stretch of Tamworth Road, where it crosses Sawley Cut and from Wilne Road, where there Visibility are low hedgerows along this part of the boundary. The rest of the site is shielded by residential properties and other built development. POLICY RESTRICTIONS / POTENTIAL IMPACTS

Development of site would result in sprawl of Sawley in a Sprawl / defensible boundaries southerly direction.

Coalescence N/A

The majority of the Site is classified as a mixture of Green belt Countryside (include agricultural Agricultural Land Grade 3 and Agricultural Land Grade 4, land grade) with a small portion in the north eastern corner classified as Urban.

Historic towns N/A

Urban regeneration N/A

Other landscape designations

Historic The eastern half of the Site lies within the Sawley Conservation Area, designated by the Local environment Planning Authority, under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. As (conservation such there are restrictions on the type of development permitted within this area. There are also area / listed a number of Listed Buildings and structures adjacent to the site’s boundary including Harrington buildings / Bridge, Bothe Hall, All Saints Church, Stop Lock on the River Trent, Sawley Rectory and the archaeology) Baptist Church.

Ecological None designations

Trees / hedgerows None protected

PROWs None

Other PHYSICAL PROBLEMS / LIMITATIONS

Topography The site is generally flat and therefore does not pose a restriction on development.

The site is in an area that has a significant chance of flooding. The chance of flooding each Flooding / year is greater than 1.3% (1 in 75). This takes into account the effect of any flood defences that drainage may be in the area

Watercourse / Sawley Cut and the River Trent abut the southern boundary of the water body

Contamination No evidence of previous use there assumed no contamination

Ground stability No evidence of mining therefore ground is assumed stable

Potential There is potentially flora / fauna located within the site that would be of ecological merit, in ecological merit particular along Sawley Cut

Other None

Planned / Any development here would need to mitigate against any harm caused to the ecological proposed value of the site mitigation

ANALYSIS

This site is well located in relation to the village of Old Sawley. However, its location within the Conservation Area and the presence of a number of Listed Buildings and other structures close to the site boundary would likely restrict the type and extent of development permitted. The site is also identified as being at a significant risk of flooding. It is therefore considered that this site would not be suitable for the development of an Oxylane Village.

Short list assessment Site Ref: 059

SITE DETAILS

Name / location Whyburn House Farm, Hucknall

Area 182.55ha Local authority Ashfield LOCATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

Previously developed land / Greenfield greenfield / mixed

Relationship to PUA / other settlement / centre(give distance as the crow flies) Site is located out of town approximately 2.70km from the Nottingham PUA boundary, 1.13km from Hucknall town centre and 10.68km from Nottingham city centre. (assess against local authority defined boundaries / utilise NPPF definitions)

Closest mainline station is Hucknall (1.63km away). Rail – proximity / routes / frequency Services to Nottingham-Worksop (2 trains per hour) There are bus stops on the A611 at Wighay and on Annesley Road at Wighay Wood, which are adjacent to the site’s boundary. In addition there are bus stops on Bus – proximity / routes / frequency Wood Lane in Beauvale, just to the south of the site. On Annesley Road, Route 2 provides hourly services between Hucknall and Newstead, whilst Route 3 provides hourly services to Nottingham Bus Station.

Current The closest cycle route is runs along Annesley Road / sustainable travel Cycle routes A611 adjacent to the site. This links the site with Hucknall accessibility town centre to the east.

There are footpaths on the A611 / Annesley Road along the eastern and northern boundaries of the site. There is a crossing point at the roundabout junction of Annesley Pedestrian facilities Road and the A611 at the north eastern corner of the site and at the roundabout junction of A611 and Wood Lane at the south eastern corner of the site.

The northern boundary of the site abuts Annesley Road Major barriers (railway line etc) which is a dual carriageway and therefore would prevent pedestrian movements to/from the north.

Planned / proposed None sustainable travel improvements

Potential to improve None sustainable travel

Adjacent uses Open farmland and forests to the west, north and south of the site, whilst to the east / south east

are residential properties. There are a number of farm buildings located within the site boundary

Visibility into the site from the A611 is generally poor, due in part to a number of residential properties at the south eastern corner of the site and a steep embankment with dense vegetation along the rest of the eastern boundary. Visibility into the site from the north (from Visibility Annesley Road) is generally good due to low level hedgerows and the site being slightly below the level of the carriageway. The southern boundary is relatively open west of the residential properties on Whyburn Lane, however this is a minor road and not suited to heavy traffic flows. POLICY RESTRICTIONS / POTENTIAL IMPACTS

Development of site would result in sprawl of Hucknall in Sprawl / defensible boundaries a westerly direction.

Coalescence N/A

The majority of the Site is classified as a mixture of Green belt Countryside (include agricultural Agricultural Land Grade 2 and Agricultural Land Grade 3, land grade) with a small portion in the south eastern corner classified as Urban.

Historic towns N/A

Urban regeneration N/A

Other landscape designations

Historic environment

(conservation None area / listed buildings / archaeology)

Ecological None designations

Trees / hedgerows None protected

There are two footpaths that run through the site, one in a north-south direction between PROWs Whyburn Lane and Whyburn House Farm and the other in an east-west direction across the centre of the site.

Other PHYSICAL PROBLEMS / LIMITATIONS

The site is slopes gently downwards in both a southerly and northerly direction from Washdyke Topography Lane in the centre of the site.

Flooding / No risk of flooding identified drainage

Watercourse / There are a number of small streams running through the site, as well as some pools adjacent to water body Whyburn House Farm.

Contamination No evidence of previous use there assumed no contamination

Ground stability No evidence of mining therefore ground is assumed stable

Potential None identified ecological merit

Other None

Planned / proposed None mitigation

ANALYSIS

This site is located on the opposite side of Hucknall to the PUA. Given that a priority for the Oxylane Village is to deliver sports facilities focussed on the PUA, it is considered that this site is not suitable for development to provide an Oxylane Village.

Short list assessment Site Ref: 061

SITE DETAILS

Name / location Land South of Clifton, Barton in Fabis

Area 221.53ha Local authority Rushcliffe LOCATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

Previously developed land / Greenfield greenfield / mixed

Relationship to PUA / other settlement / centre(give distance as the crow flies) Site is located out of town adjacent to the Nottingham PUA boundary, 1.34km from Clifton town centre and 6.95km from Nottingham city centre. (assess against local authority defined boundaries / utilise NPPF definitions)

Closest mainline station is Attenborough (2.13km away). Rail – proximity / routes / frequency Services to Matlock-Derby-Nottingham (1 train per hour) There are bus stops on Nottingham Road, which runs Bus – proximity / routes / frequency through the centre of the site. Route 1 provides services to Loughborough – Clifton – Nottingham every 30 minutes

Current The closest cycle route runs along Barton Lane (A453) sustainable travel Cycle routes adjacent to the site. This links the site with Clifton town accessibility centre to the north east.

There are no footpaths on the A453 or on Nottingham Road within the site boundary. A footpath runs along Pedestrian facilities Nottingham Road to the north of the site, but this stops at the edge of the conurbation outside the site boundary.

Major barriers (railway line etc) None

Planned / proposed The proposed extension of the Nottingham Express Transit system (NET) would terminate at a sustainable travel new Park and Ride facility located within the site’s boundary. improvements

Potential to improve Potential to improve bus services along Nottingham Road to provide a more frequent service sustainable travel

Open farmland to the west, east and south of the site, whilst to the north are residential Adjacent uses properties. There are a number of farm buildings located within the site boundary

Visibility into the site from the A453 is generally good, as the site slopes downward from this road Visibility and there are only limited hedgerows and vegetation along this boundary. The site is clearly visible from either side of Nottingham Road, which runs through the middle of the site. POLICY RESTRICTIONS / POTENTIAL IMPACTS

Development of site would result in sprawl of Clifton in a Sprawl / defensible boundaries southerly direction. No other defensible boundaries on the ground to limit development.

Coalescence N/A Green belt Countryside (include agricultural The Site is classified as Agricultural Land Grade 2 land grade)

Historic towns N/A

Urban regeneration N/A

Other landscape The site lies within the Clifton Slopes Development Protection Zone (DPZ) and the Ruddington designations Alluvial Farmlands DPZ

Historic environment

(conservation None area / listed buildings / archaeology)

Ecological None designations

Trees / hedgerows None protected

A footpath runs in a north-south direction linking Clifton to the north of the site with Gotham to PROWs the south

Other PHYSICAL PROBLEMS / LIMITATIONS

The site slopes downwards from the A453 to the Nottingham Road and beyond in a south Topography easterly direction. The gradient of the slope is approximately 3%

Flooding / No risk of flooding identified drainage

Watercourse / None water body

Contamination No evidence of previous use there assumed no contamination

Ground stability No evidence of mining therefore ground is assumed stable

Potential None identified ecological merit

There are a number of Overhead Power Lines running through the south eastern corner of the Other site which would place a restriction on development

Planned / proposed None mitigation

ANALYSIS

This site is well located in relation to the Clifton and the Nottingham PUA, and although the topography in the western half of the site (ie. to the west of Nottingham Road), is a concern, it is considered that the eastern part of the site is suitable for the development of an Oxylane Village.

Short list assessment Site Ref: 065

SITE DETAILS

Name / location Land North of Nottingham Road, Radcliffe on Trent

Area 19.24ha Local authority Rushcliffe LOCATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

Previously developed land / Greenfield greenfield / mixed

Relationship to PUA / other settlement / centre(give distance as the crow flies) Site is located out of town approximately 0.5km from the Nottingham PUA boundary, 3.2km from Carlton Square shopping centre and 6.08km from Nottingham city centre. (assess against local authority defined boundaries / utilise NPPF definitions)

Closest mainline station is Radcliffe (0.86km away). Rail – proximity / routes / frequency Services are to Nottingham-Skegness (Less than 1 train per hour)

There are bus stops on Nottingham Road, which runs adjacent to the site. Route RED1 provides services to Bus – proximity / routes / frequency Nottingham every 15 minutes, whilst Route S2 provides services to West Bridgford (ASDA). Current The closest cycle route runs along Nottingham Road sustainable travel adjacent to the site. This links the site with Radcliffe to the accessibility Cycle routes east and West Bridgford / Holme Pierrepoint / Nottingham to the west.

There is a footpath on Nottingham Road adjacent to the Pedestrian facilities site.

The western boundary of the site abuts the railway line, Major barriers (railway line etc) which would prevent any pedestrian movement to / from the west of the site.

Planned / proposed None sustainable travel improvements

Potential to improve Potential to improve bus services along Nottingham Road to provide a more frequent service sustainable travel

To the east is the village of Radcliffe, whilst to the north and west is open farmland. To the south Adjacent uses there are a number of uses including residential properties, an animal rescue centre and a cricket club.

Visibility Visibility into the site from Nottingham Road is generally good from the junction with the A52 up to Radcliffe Cricket Club. From there northwards, the site is hidden behind the cricket club and

residential properties. The site is visible from Holme Lane along the northern boundary, however this is a minor road and not suitable for heavy traffic flows. POLICY RESTRICTIONS / POTENTIAL IMPACTS

Development of site would result in sprawl of Radcliffe in Sprawl / defensible boundaries a westerly direction.

Coalescence N/A

Green belt Countryside (include agricultural The Site is classified as Agricultural Land Grade 3 land grade)

Historic towns N/A

Urban regeneration N/A

Other landscape designations

Historic environment

(conservation None area / listed buildings / archaeology)

Ecological None designations

Trees / hedgerows None protected

PROWs None

Other PHYSICAL PROBLEMS / LIMITATIONS

Topography The site is generally flat

The site is in an area that has a moderate chance of flooding. The chance of flooding each Flooding / year is 1.3% (1 in 75) or less, but greater than 0.5% (1 in 200). This takes into account the effect of drainage any flood defences that may be in this area.

Watercourse / None water body

Contamination No evidence of previous use there assumed no contamination

Ground stability No evidence of mining therefore ground is assumed stable

Potential None identified ecological merit

There are Overhead Power Lines running through the centre of the site which would place a Other restriction on development

Planned / proposed None mitigation

ANALYSIS

This site is well located in relation to Radcliffe on Trent. However, the presence of overhead power lines running through the centre of the site, coupled with a moderate risk of flooding, would restrict development on the site. It is therefore considered that this site is not suitable for the development of an Oxylane Village.

Short list assessment Site Ref: 066

SITE DETAILS

Name / location South east of Hucknall (between Hucknall MUA and A611 Hucknall-By Pass)

Area 37.95ha Local authority Ashfield LOCATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

Previously developed land / Greenfield greenfield / mixed

Relationship to PUA / other settlement / centre(give distance as the crow flies) Site is located out of town approximately 0.1km from the Nottingham PUA boundary, 1.34km from Hucknall town centre and 7.83km from Nottingham city centre. (assess against local authority defined boundaries / utilise NPPF definitions)

Closest mainline station is Hucknall (1.41km away). Rail – proximity / routes / frequency Services are to Nottingham-Worksop (2 trains per hour) The closest bus stops are on Nottingham Road and Hucknall Lane, adjacent to the south eastern corner of Bus – proximity / routes / frequency the site. Routes 3, 3A, 3B, 3C and RED8 provide services to Hucknall and Nottingham every 10-15 minutes.

Current The closest cycle route runs along Hucknall Lane sustainable travel Cycle routes adjacent to the southern boundary of the site. This links accessibility the site with Hucknall town centre and Bulwell.

There is a footpath on Hucknall Bypass to the south of the Pedestrian facilities site and on Nottingham Road adjacent to the site’s eastern boundary.

The southern boundary of the site abuts the Hucknall Major barriers (railway line etc) Bypass, which would prevent any pedestrian movement to / from the south of the site.

Planned / proposed None sustainable travel improvements

Potential to improve None sustainable travel

To the north and east of the site are residential properties and an area of allotments, whilst to Adjacent uses the south / west is the Hucknall Bypass and beyond that open farmland.

Visibility into the site from Hucknall Bypass is generally poor along the length of the southern Visibility boundary due to an embankment along the Hucknall Bypass. From the north and east the site is hidden behind residential properties.

POLICY RESTRICTIONS / POTENTIAL IMPACTS

Development of site would result in sprawl of Hucknall in Sprawl / defensible boundaries a southerly direction.

Coalescence N/A

The majority of the Site is classified as Agricultural Land Green belt Countryside (include agricultural Grade 3, whilst a small area in the northern part of the land grade) site is classified as Urban.

Historic towns N/A

Urban regeneration N/A

Other landscape designations

Historic environment

(conservation None area / listed buildings / archaeology)

Ecological A small portion of the southern part of the site is allocated as a Mature Landscape Area and designations Nature Conservation Site.

Trees / hedgerows None protected

PROWs A footpath runs north south through the western part of the site.

Other A portion of the northern part of the site is allocated as Allotments PHYSICAL PROBLEMS / LIMITATIONS

The northern half of the site slopes at a gradient of around 5-6%, whilst the southern half of the Topography site is generally flat.

Flooding / No risk of flooding drainage

Watercourse / None water body

Contamination No evidence of previous use there assumed no contamination

Ground stability No evidence of mining therefore ground is assumed stable

Potential None identified ecological merit

Other None

Planned / proposed None mitigation

ANALYSIS

This site is affected by a number of restrictive designations, including Allotments, Mature Landscape Area and a Nature Conservation Site. However, these designations only affect a small proportion of the site (ie. less than 10%), and it is well located in relation to Hucknall. It is therefore considered that this site is suitable for the development of an Oxylane Village.

Short list assessment Site Ref: 067

SITE DETAILS

Name / location Land at Gamston Island

Area 71.31ha Local authority Rushcliffe LOCATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

Previously developed land / Greenfield greenfield / mixed

Relationship to PUA / other settlement / centre(give distance as the crow flies) Site is located out of town adjacent to the Nottingham PUA boundary, 1.8km from West Bridgford town centre and 3.89km from Nottingham city centre. (assess against local authority defined boundaries / utilise NPPF definitions)

Closest mainline station is Netherfield (3.13km away). Rail – proximity / routes / frequency Services are to Nottingham-Skegness (Less than 1 train per hour)

Closest bus stops are on Ambleside, on the opposite side of Gamston Lings Bar Road. Routes 22, 51 and 52 operate to Sutton-cum-Granby - Nottingham – Bingham (hourly), Upper Broughton – Willoughby on the Wolds (twice daily) and Upper Broughton (three times a day) respectively. Bus – proximity / routes / frequency There are also bus stops on Radcliffe Road, adjacent to the site’s northern boundary. Routes 2, 90, 90A, BX, COT, RED1, RED2 and RL operate to Newark, Cotgrave, Current Bingham, Balderton, West Bridgford and Nottingham sustainable travel along Radcliffe Road. accessibility There is a cycle route located on Gamston Lings Bar Cycle routes Road, adjacent to the site, which connects the site to West Bridgford

There are no footpaths on Gamston Lings Bar Road, Pedestrian facilities although there is one formal crossing point across this dual carriageway at the south western corner of the site

Gamston Lings Bar Road provides a barrier to movement to / from the site and the conurbation to the west, apart Major barriers (railway line etc) from at the one formal crossing point at Bassingfield Road at the south western corner of the site

Planned / proposed None sustainable travel improvements

Potential to Potential to run buses along Gamston Lings Bar Road, which would negate the need to cross improve the dual carriageway and provide a more frequent service to Nottingham City Centre

sustainable travel

Residential properties / district centre to the west and farmland to the north / east / south. There Adjacent uses are a number of farm buildings (Holme Farm) and a Nottinghamshire County Council Works Depot located within the site boundary.

Visibility into the site from Gamston Lings Bar Road is poor, as it is shielded by the NCC Works Depot at the north western corner adjacent to Gamston Island and by dense vegetation on the Visibility western perimeter. It is possible to see into the site from Bassingfield Lane but this is a minor road and not suited to heavy traffic flows. POLICY RESTRICTIONS / POTENTIAL IMPACTS

Development of site would result in sprawl of Gamston in Sprawl / defensible boundaries an easterly direction.

The development of the site would close the gap Coalescence between the conurbation (Gamston) and the village of Bassingfield to the east Green belt Countryside (include agricultural The Site is classified as Agricultural Land Grade 3 land grade)

Historic towns N/A

Urban regeneration N/A

Other landscape The site is protected in the Local Plan for the development of recreational facilities designations

Historic environment

(conservation None area / listed buildings / archaeology)

Ecological None designations

Trees / hedgerows None protected

PROWs A footpath runs through the north western part of the site.

Other PHYSICAL PROBLEMS / LIMITATIONS

Topography The site is generally flat

The northern part of the site (i.e. north of the footpath) is susceptible to flooding, but only in Flooding / extreme conditions. The chance of flooding each year is 0.5% (1 in 200) or less. This takes into drainage account the effect of any flood defences that may be in this area. The remainder of the site is not at risk of flooding

Watercourse / None water body

Contamination No evidence of previous use there assumed no contamination

Ground stability No evidence of mining therefore ground is assumed stable

Potential None identified ecological merit

Other None

Planned / proposed None mitigation

ANALYSIS

This site is cut off from the conurbation by the Gamston Lings Bar Road, which provides limited opportunities for crossing and currently has no public transport provision. Nevertheless, it is considered that this site is suitable for the development of an Oxylane Village.

Short list assessment Site Ref: 074

SITE DETAILS

Name / location Bunkerhill, to the South of High Lane East, West Hallam

Area 21.25ha Local authority Erewash LOCATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

Previously developed land / Greenfield greenfield / mixed

Relationship to PUA / other settlement / centre(give distance as the crow flies) Site is located out of town, approximately 3.8km from the Nottingham PUA boundary, 1.18km from Ilkeston town centre and 12.12km from Nottingham city centre. (assess against local authority defined boundaries / utilise NPPF definitions)

Closest mainline station is Langley Mill (5.46km away). Rail – proximity / routes / frequency Services are to Manchester-Norwich & high speed services to London St Pancras (1 train per hour)

Closest bus stops are on High Lane East, adjacent to the site’s eastern boundary. Routes 13 and 59 operate to Bus – proximity / routes / frequency Current Ilkeston (hourly), whilst route BC operates to Mansfield sustainable travel (hourly). accessibility There is a cycle route located on High Lane East, Cycle routes adjacent to the site, which connects the site to Ilkeston

There are no footpaths on High Lane East, adjacent to Pedestrian facilities the site boundary

Major barriers (railway line etc) None

Planned / proposed None sustainable travel improvements

Potential to Potential to run buses along High Lane East and provide a more frequent service to Nottingham improve City Centre sustainable travel

Predominantly open farmland with residential beyond to the north, east and south. To the west Adjacent uses there is farmland and employment uses beyond that.

Visibility into the site from High Lane East is good, as the site is slightly below the level of the road. Visibility The eastern boundary provides the only road frontage however. POLICY RESTRICTIONS / POTENTIAL IMPACTS

Green belt Sprawl / defensible boundaries N/A

Coalescence N/A

Countryside (include agricultural The Site is classified as Agricultural Land Grade 4 land grade)

Historic towns N/A

Urban regeneration N/A

Other landscape None designations

Historic environment

(conservation None area / listed buildings / archaeology)

Ecological None designations

Trees / hedgerows None protected

PROWs A footpath runs east west through the centre of the site.

Other PHYSICAL PROBLEMS / LIMITATIONS

Topography The site is generally flat The southern part of the site (i.e. south of the footpath) has a significant chance of flooding. The chance of flooding each year is greater than 1.3% (1 in 75). The area to the north of the Flooding / footpath has a moderate chance of flooding. The chance of flooding each year is 1.3% (1 in drainage 75) or less, but greater than 0.5% (1 in 200). This takes into account the effect of any flood defences that may be in this area. The remainder of the site is not at risk of flooding

Watercourse / Nut Brook runs adjacent to the site’s eastern boundary, whilst Stanley Brook runs adjacent to the water body southern boundary

Contamination No evidence of previous use there assumed no contamination

Ground stability No evidence of mining therefore ground is assumed stable

Potential None identified ecological merit

Other None

Planned / proposed None mitigation

ANALYSIS

This site is divorced from the built up areas of Kirk Hallam and Ilkeston, with only a limited bus service to Ilkeston. Considerable improvements to public transport would therefore be needed to ensure that development was accessible. In addition, the site is susceptible to flooding from Nut Brook and Stanley Brook. It is therefore considered that this site is not suitable for the development of an Oxylane Village

Short list assessment Site Ref: 079

SITE DETAILS

Name / location Land at Wheatgrass Farm, Toton

Area 27.65ha Local authority Broxtowe LOCATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

Previously developed land / Greenfield greenfield / mixed

Relationship to PUA / other settlement / centre(give distance as the crow flies) Site is located out of town, adjacent to the Nottingham PUA boundary, 1.12km from Stapleford town centre and 7.51km from Nottingham city centre. (assess against local authority defined boundaries / utilise NPPF definitions)

Closest mainline station is Attenborough (2.27km away). Rail – proximity / routes / frequency Services are to Matlock-Derby-Nottingham (1 train per hour)

Closest bus stops are on Inham Road, within a residential estate to the south east of the site. Routes 14 and 36 Bus – proximity / routes / frequency operate to Chilwell – Nottingham (every 10 minutes), whilst route Y36 operates to Nottingham (every 10 minutes). Current There is a cycle route located on Brian Clough Way sustainable travel Cycle routes (A52), adjacent to the site’s western boundary, which accessibility connects the site to Stapleford and Beeston

There are no footpaths on Brian Clough Way, which is adjacent to the site boundary. There are a number of Pedestrian facilities public bridleways which link the site to the surrounding residential areas.

Brian Clough Way (A52) is a major dual carriageway and Major barriers (railway line etc) currently restricts pedestrian movements to / from the west.

Planned / proposed None sustainable travel improvements

Potential to Potential to run buses along High Lane East and provide a more frequent service to Nottingham improve City Centre sustainable travel

Residential properties to the south east and open farmland to the north / west / south. There are Adjacent uses a number of farm buildings located adjacent to the site boundary.

Visibility Visibility into the site is poor. The only main road that passes the site is Brian Clough Way (A52)

and the view from this road is limited due to a high embankment along the site’s boundary. The only other roads from which the site is visible are the minor roads / bridleways that run along the perimeter of the site. POLICY RESTRICTIONS / POTENTIAL IMPACTS

Development of site would result in sprawl of Beeston / Sprawl / defensible boundaries Chilwell in a north westerly direction

Development would narrow the gap between Beeston / Coalescence Chilwell and Stapleford

Green belt The southern and eastern parts of the Site are classified Countryside (include agricultural as Agricultural Land Grade 2, whilst the remainder of the land grade) site is classified as Agricultural Land Grade 3

Historic towns N/A

Urban regeneration N/A

Other landscape None designations

Historic environment

(conservation None area / listed buildings / archaeology)

Ecological None designations

Trees / hedgerows None protected

PROWs None

Other PHYSICAL PROBLEMS / LIMITATIONS

The site slopes gently downwards from north to south. The gradient of the site is approximately Topography 3%.

Flooding / No risk of flooding drainage

Watercourse / None water body

Contamination No evidence of previous use there assumed no contamination

Ground stability No evidence of mining therefore ground is assumed stable

Potential None identified ecological merit

Other None

Planned / proposed None mitigation

ANALYSIS

This site is located between the built up areas of Stapleford and Beeston / Chilwell, adjacent to the A52 – a key arterial route linking Nottingham and Derby. The provision of satisfactory access from the A52 could be difficult, given the proximity of a local road bridge crossing the A52 adjacent to the site, and considerable improvements to public transport would be needed to ensure that the development was sufficiently accessible. However, provided these issues can be addressed, it is considered that this site is suitable for the development of an Oxylane Village.

Short list assessment Site Ref: 080

SITE DETAILS

Name / location North West of A52, Stapleford

Area 35.34ha Local authority Broxtowe LOCATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

Previously developed land / Greenfield greenfield / mixed

Relationship to PUA / other settlement / centre(give distance as the crow flies) Site is located out of town, adjacent to the Nottingham PUA boundary, 0.39km from Stapleford town centre and 7.82km from Nottingham city centre. (assess against local authority defined boundaries / utilise NPPF definitions)

Closest mainline station is Attenborough (2.85km away). Rail – proximity / routes / frequency Services are to Matlock-Derby-Nottingham (1 train per hour)

Closest bus stops are on Nottingham Road. Route 4 operates to Derby – Nottingham (every 20 minutes), whilst Bus – proximity / routes / frequency routes 18 and 111 operates to Stapleford - Nottingham (every 30 minutes). Current sustainable travel There is a cycle route located on Brian Clough Way accessibility Cycle routes (A52), adjacent to the site’s western boundary, which connects the site to Stapleford and Beeston

There are no footpaths on Brian Clough Way, which is Pedestrian facilities adjacent to the site boundary.

Brian Clough Way (A52) is a major dual carriageway and Major barriers (railway line etc) currently restricts pedestrian movements to / from the east of the site.

Planned / proposed None sustainable travel improvements

Potential to improve None sustainable travel

Residential properties to the north and south, a cemetery to the west and open farmland to the Adjacent uses east, beyond the A52.

Visibility into the site is poor. The only main road that passes the site is Brian Clough Way (A52) and the view from this road is limited due to a high embankment along the site’s eastern Visibility boundary. The site is hidden behind residential properties and a cemetery to the north, west and south.

POLICY RESTRICTIONS / POTENTIAL IMPACTS

Development of site would result in sprawl of Stapleford in Sprawl / defensible boundaries an easterly direction

Development would narrow the gap between Stapleford Coalescence and Beeston / Chilwell

Green belt The southern part of the Site is classified as Agricultural Countryside (include agricultural Land Grade 3, whilst the remainder of the site is classified land grade) as Urban

Historic towns N/A

Urban regeneration N/A

Other landscape Existing Open Space and Prominent Area for Special Protection designations

Historic environment There are a number of Listed Buildings on Nottingham Road adjacent to the site, namely property No.s 80, 82, 106-112, 114 ,116, 118, 120, 122 and 124. In addition St John’s Primary (conservation School, Cloud Villa and the adjoining workshop, frameshop at the rear of 124 Nottingham Road area / listed and the boundary wall of 80 & 82 Nottingham Road are all Grade II Listed buildings and buildings / structures. archaeology)

Ecological There is an identified Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) within the site boundary designations

Trees / hedgerows None protected

PROWs There is a footpath running east – west across the centre of the site.

Other PHYSICAL PROBLEMS / LIMITATIONS

The site slopes gently downwards from north to south. The gradient of the site is approximately Topography 2%.

Flooding / No risk of flooding drainage

Watercourse / None water body

Contamination No evidence of previous use there assumed no contamination

Ground stability No evidence of mining therefore ground is assumed stable

Potential The SINC within the site would need to be protected. ecological merit

Other None

Planned / proposed None mitigation

ANALYSIS

This site is located between the built up areas of Stapleford and Beeston / Chilwell, adjacent to the A52 – a key arterial route linking Nottingham and Derby. The provision of satisfactory access from the A52 could be difficult, given the proximity of a local road bridge crossing the A52 adjacent to the site. There is also an ecological designation within the site boundary, and the wider site is identified as a prominent area for special protection in the Broxtowe Local Plan. These designations would constrain development, and it is therefore considered that the site is not suitable for the development of an Oxylane Village.

Short list assessment Site Ref: 090

SITE DETAILS

Name / location Shortwell Farm, Trowell

Area 164.22ha Local authority Broxtowe LOCATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

Previously developed land / Greenfield greenfield / mixed

Relationship to PUA / other settlement / centre(give distance as the crow flies) Site is located out of town, approximately 0.77km from the Nottingham PUA boundary, 2km from Ilkeston town centre and 7.51km from Nottingham city centre. (assess against local authority defined boundaries / utilise NPPF definitions)

Closest mainline station is Bulwell (5.06km away). Services Rail – proximity / routes / frequency are to Nottingham-Worksop (1 train per hour) Closest bus stops are on Nottingham Road to the south of Bus – proximity / routes / frequency the site. Route TWO operates to Cotmanhay – Nottingham every 12 minutes.

There is a cycle route located on Nottingham Road to Current the south of the site and along Cossall Road, adjacent to sustainable travel Cycle routes the site’s western boundary, which connects the site to accessibility Cossall and Trowell.

There are no footpaths on Cossall Road, which is Pedestrian facilities adjacent to the site’s western boundary. There is a footpath on Nottingham Road, to the south of the site.

The M1 motorway forms the site’s eastern boundary and Major barriers (railway line etc) therefore limits movement to / from the east of the site.

Planned / proposed None sustainable travel improvements

Potential to Potential to run buses along Nottingham Road and provide more frequent services to other improve centres such as Ilkeston and Stapleford sustainable travel

The site is predominantly bordered by open farmland, except for to the south, where there are a number of residential properties on Nottingham Road. The eastern border abuts the M1 Adjacent uses motorway and halfway down this boundary is the Trowell Service Station (northbound services). There are a number of farm buildings (Shortwood Farm and Uplands Farm) located within the site boundary.

Visibility Visibility into the site from the M1 motorway is good, as the road is slightly elevated above the site. The site is also visible from Cossall Road, however this is a minor road and not suitable for

large volumes of traffic. POLICY RESTRICTIONS / POTENTIAL IMPACTS

Development of site would result in sprawl of Trowell to Sprawl / defensible boundaries the north east

Coalescence N/A

Green belt Countryside (include agricultural The Site is classified as Agricultural Land Grade 4 land grade)

Historic towns N/A

Urban regeneration N/A

Other landscape None designations

Historic environment

(conservation 53 Nottingham Road, located to the south of the site is a Grade II Listed building. area / listed buildings / archaeology)

Ecological There is a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation located within the site boundary designations

Trees / hedgerows None protected

PROWs None

Other PHYSICAL PROBLEMS / LIMITATIONS

The ground slopes upwards from the boundary in towards the centre of the site. The average Topography gradient across the site is approximately 6%.

Flooding / No risk of flooding drainage

Watercourse / None water body

Contamination No evidence of previous use there assumed no contamination

Ground stability No evidence of mining therefore ground is assumed stable

Potential The ecological merits of the SINC within the site’s boundary would need to be protected ecological merit

Other None

Planned / proposed None mitigation

ANALYSIS

Although this site is located adjacent to the M1 motorway close to the Trowell service station, it does not have direct access from a motorway junction. Nottingham Road (A609) is the only main road passing the site, and Cossall Lane, which adjoins the site, is a minor road unsuited to large traffic flows. The site is therefore not particularly accessible by

car. It also slopes at an average gradient of around 6%, and it is therefore considered that this site is not suitable for the development of an Oxylane Village.

Short list assessment Site Ref: 101

SITE DETAILS

Name / location Land Between Radcliffe Road and Adbolton

Area 56.17ha Local authority Rushcliffe LOCATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

Previously developed land / Greenfield greenfield / mixed

Relationship to PUA / other settlement / centre(give distance as the crow flies) Site is located out of town adjacent to the Nottingham PUA boundary, 1.28km from West Bridgford town centre and 3.21km from Nottingham city centre. (assess against local authority defined boundaries / utilise NPPF definitions)

Closest mainline station is Netherfield (2.64km away). Rail – proximity / routes / frequency Services are to Nottingham-Skegness (Less than 1 train per hour)

Closest bus stops are on Radcliffe Road to the south of the site and Regatta Way to the north. Routes 2, 90, 90A, BX, COT, RED1, RED2 and RL operate to Newark, Bus – proximity / routes / frequency Cotgrave, Bingham, Balderton, West Bridgford and Nottingham along Radcliffe Road. From Regatta Road, route 11C operates to Lady Bay. Current sustainable travel There are cycle routes on Radcliffe Road and Regatta accessibility Cycle routes Way, providing links to the National Watersports Centre, West Bridgford and Radcliffe on Trent.

There is a footpath on Radcliffe Road to the south of the Pedestrian facilities site, with a crossing point at the junction with Regatta Way, although Regatta Way itself has no footpaths.

Radcliffe Road provides a barrier to movement to / from the site and the conurbation to the south, apart from at Major barriers (railway line etc) the one formal crossing point at Regatta Way at the southern boundary of the site.

Planned / proposed None sustainable travel improvements

Potential to improve None sustainable travel

Residential properties / district centre to the west / south west and farmland to the south east / Adjacent uses east. To the north is the National Watersports Centre at Holme Pierrepoint.

Visibility into the site from Radcliffe Road is good, as the road is slightly above the level of the Visibility site. The site is also visible from Regatta Way, however this is a minor road and not suited to heavy traffic. POLICY RESTRICTIONS / POTENTIAL IMPACTS

Development of site would result in sprawl of Gamston in Sprawl / defensible boundaries a northerly direction.

The development of the site would close the gap Coalescence between the conurbation (Gamston) and the village of Adbolton to the north Green belt Countryside (include agricultural The Site is classified as Agricultural Land Grade 3 land grade)

Historic towns N/A

Urban regeneration N/A

Other landscape None designations

Historic environment

(conservation None area / listed buildings / archaeology)

Ecological None designations

Trees / hedgerows None protected

PROWs None

Other PHYSICAL PROBLEMS / LIMITATIONS

Topography The site is generally flat

The site is very susceptible to flooding, being in an area where the chance of flooding each Flooding / year is greater than 1.3% (1 in 75). This takes into account the effect of any flood defences that drainage may be in this area.

Watercourse / None located within the site boundary, but the River Trent runs adjacent to the site’s northern water body boundary and the site sits within the floodplain.

Contamination No evidence of previous use there assumed no contamination

Ground stability No evidence of mining therefore ground is assumed stable

Potential None identified ecological merit

Other None

Planned / proposed None mitigation

ANALYSIS

This site is cut off from the built up area by Radcliffe Road, which provides limited opportunities for crossing. It also lies within the floodplain of the River Trent, and it is therefore considered that this site is not suitable for the development of an Oxylane Village.

Short list assessment Site Ref: 103

SITE DETAILS

Name / location Land East of M1 Motorway and North of Nottingham Road

Area 38.34ha Local authority Broxtowe LOCATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

Previously developed land / Greenfield greenfield / mixed

Relationship to PUA / other settlement / centre(give distance as the crow flies) Site is located out of town adjacent to the Nottingham PUA boundary, 1.42km from Bulwell town centre and 6.57km from Nottingham city centre. (assess against local authority defined boundaries / utilise NPPF definitions)

Closest mainline station is Bulwell (1.53km away). Services Rail – proximity / routes / frequency are to Nottingham-Worksop (1 train per hour) Closest bus stops are on Nottingham Road to the south of the site. Routes 1, 229, 331, PF (Phoenix Flyer) and D1 Bus – proximity / routes / frequency serve Nottingham, QMC, Phoenix Park Interchange, Alfreton, Heanor, Eastwood, Ripley, Langley Mill and Current Ilkeston. sustainable travel There are cycle routes on A610 and A6002, which meet accessibility Cycle routes at the south eastern corner of the site, providing links to Kimberley, Broxtowe and Aspley.

There is a footpath on Low Wood Road (A6002) to the Pedestrian facilities east of the site.

The M1 motorway provides a barrier to movement to / Major barriers (railway line etc) from the site and Kimberley to the west.

Planned / proposed None sustainable travel improvements

Potential to improve None sustainable travel

Residential properties to the south and east, open farmland to the north and the M1 motorway Adjacent uses to the west with residential properties beyond.

Visibility into the site from Low Wood Road is poor, as there is an embankment between the Visibility road and the site itself. To the south the site is hidden behind residential properties on Nottingham Road, however it is visible from the M1 motorway to the west. POLICY RESTRICTIONS / POTENTIAL IMPACTS

Development of site would result in sprawl of Nuthall in a Sprawl / defensible boundaries northerly direction.

The development of the site would close the gap Coalescence between Nuthall, Kimberley and Hempshill Vale. Green belt Countryside (include agricultural The Site is classified as a mix of Agricultural Land Grade 2 land grade) and Agricultural Land Grade 3.

Historic towns N/A

Urban regeneration N/A

Other landscape None designations

Historic environment

(conservation None area / listed buildings / archaeology)

Ecological There is a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) located to the south east of the designations site, within the roundabout.

Trees / hedgerows None protected

PROWs There is a footpath running through the centre of the site

Other PHYSICAL PROBLEMS / LIMITATIONS

Topography The site slopes gently at an average gradient of approximately 2%.

A small area of the site in the south eastern corner is susceptible to flooding, being in an area Flooding / where the chance of flooding each year is greater than 1.3% (1 in 75). This takes into account drainage the effect of any flood defences that may be in this area.

Watercourse / There is a brook located in the south eastern corner of the site. water body

Contamination No evidence of previous use there assumed no contamination

Ground stability No evidence of mining therefore ground is assumed stable

Potential None identified ecological merit

Other None

Planned / proposed None mitigation

ANALYSIS

This site is well located, close to the A610 and M1 motorway at Junction 26 . It is also well served by local bus routes, and is free of any significant physical constraints to development, although flood risk in the south eastern corner could prevent development on this part of the site. It is therefore considered that this site is suitable for the development of an Oxylane Village.

Short list assessment Site Ref: 107

SITE DETAILS

Name / location Land South West of M1 J26

Area 28.16ha Local authority Broxtowe LOCATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

Previously developed land / Greenfield greenfield / mixed

Relationship to PUA / other settlement / centre(give distance as the crow flies) Site is located out of town, approximately 0.33km from the Nottingham PUA boundary, 1km from Kimberley town centre and 7.18km from Nottingham city centre. (assess against local authority defined boundaries / utilise NPPF definitions)

Closest mainline station is Bulwell (2.88km away). Services Rail – proximity / routes / frequency are to Nottingham-Worksop (1 train per hour) Closest bus stops are on Kimberley Road to the north of the site. Routes 1, 331, PF (Phoenix Flyer) and D1 serve Bus – proximity / routes / frequency Nottingham, QMC, Phoenix Park Interchange, Alfreton, Heanor, Eastwood, Ripley, Langley Mill and Ilkeston. Current sustainable travel There is a cycle route on the A610, providing links to Cycle routes accessibility Kimberley, Broxtowe and Aspley.

Pedestrian facilities There is no footpath on the A610 to the north of the site.

The M1 motorway provides a barrier to movement to / from the site and Broxtowe / Aspley to the east, whilst the Major barriers (railway line etc) A610 is a barrier to movement between the site and Kimberley to the north.

Planned / proposed None sustainable travel improvements

Potential to improve Potential to run buses along the A610 to directly serve the site. sustainable travel

M1 motorway to the east with open farmland beyond and open farmland to the south, west Adjacent uses and north.

Visibility into the site from the M1 motorway is good, however from the A610 it is poor apart from Visibility in a limited number of locations where there is a break in the embankment (such as on the bridge at Verge Wood Farm). POLICY RESTRICTIONS / POTENTIAL IMPACTS

The site is discrete from nearby settlements, and is Sprawl / defensible boundaries surrounded by defensible boundaries in the form of the A610, M1 and established woodland.

Although the site lies within an important gap between Coalescence Kimberley and Aspley, it is discrete from nearby settlements and surrounded by other Green Belt land. Green belt The northern half of the Site is classified as Agricultural Countryside (include agricultural Land Grade 4, whilst the southern half of the site is land grade) Agricultural Land Grade 2.

Historic towns N/A

Urban regeneration N/A

Other landscape None designations

Historic environment

(conservation None area / listed buildings / archaeology)

Ecological There is part of a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) located within the site designations boundary

Trees / hedgerows None protected

PROWs None

Other PHYSICAL PROBLEMS / LIMITATIONS

The site slopes gently from the north east corner to the south west boundary. The average Topography gradient is around 3%.

Flooding / No issues drainage

Watercourse / None water body

Contamination No evidence of previous use there assumed no contamination

There is evidence of past mining activity in this location. However, technical work to inform the Ground stability Environmental Impact Assessment has concluded that this will not have an adverse impact on development.

Potential The SINC located within the site boundary is of ecological importance ecological merit

Other None

Planned / proposed None mitigation

ANALYSIS

This site is well located, adjacent to the A610 and M1 motorway at Junction 26, although there are no bus routes currently running along the A610. The site is also free of any physical constraints to development, and it is therefore considered that this site is suitable for the development of an Oxylane Village.

Short list assessment Site Ref: 113

SITE DETAILS

Name / location Land West of Wilford Road, Ruddington

Area 57.15ha Local authority Rushcliffe LOCATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

Previously developed land / Greenfield greenfield / mixed

Relationship to PUA / other settlement / centre(give distance as the crow flies) Site is located out of town, adjacent to the Nottingham PUA boundary, 1.12km from Clifton town centre and 4.59km from Nottingham city centre. (assess against local authority defined boundaries / utilise NPPF definitions)

Closest mainline station is Beeston (3.33km away). Rail – proximity / routes / frequency Services are to Matlock-Derby-Nottingham (2 trains per hour)

Closest bus stops are on Ruddington Lane to the north of Bus – proximity / routes / frequency the site. Route RC operates to Clifton – Ruddington – Current Nottingham every 30 minutes. sustainable travel There is a cycle route located on Clifton Boulevard (A52), accessibility Cycle routes adjacent to the site’s northern boundary, which connects the site to Clifton and West Bridgford.

There are footpaths on Wilford Road, which is adjacent Pedestrian facilities to the site boundary.

Major barriers (railway line etc) None

Planned / proposed The extension of the Nottingham Express Transit system (NET) would introduce a NET stop on sustainable travel Wilford Lane, approximately 400m to the north of the site. improvements

Potential to Potential to run buses along Ruddington Lane and provide a more frequent service to improve Nottingham City Centre sustainable travel

Residential properties to the north and south, whilst to the west is open farmland and to the east Adjacent uses is a golf course. There is a farm and other buildings located within the site boundary.

Visibility into the site from Wilford Road is good, as the site rises up slightly from the road and Visibility there is little in the way of vegetation to screen the site. The site is also visible from Clifton Boulevard which is an elevated dual carriageway that abuts the northern boundary of the site. POLICY RESTRICTIONS / POTENTIAL IMPACTS

Green belt Sprawl / defensible boundaries Development of site would result in sprawl of Ruddington

to the north

Development would close the gap between Ruddington Coalescence and West Bridgford

Countryside (include agricultural The Site is classified as Agricultural Land Grade 2 land grade)

Historic towns N/A

Urban regeneration N/A

Other landscape None designations

Historic environment

(conservation None area / listed buildings / archaeology)

Ecological The Willwell Cutting in the north western corner of the site is a SSSI (notified status). designations

Trees / hedgerows None protected

PROWs None

Other PHYSICAL PROBLEMS / LIMITATIONS

Topography The site is generally flat

The southern part of the site is in an area that has a moderate chance of flooding. The chance Flooding / of flooding each year is 1.3% (1 in 75) or less, but greater than 0.5% (1 in 200). This takes into drainage account the effect of any flood defences that may be in this area

Watercourse / None water body

Contamination No evidence of previous use there assumed no contamination

Ground stability No evidence of mining therefore ground is assumed stable

Potential The ecological merits of the SSSI within the site’s boundary would need to be protected ecological merit

Other None

Planned / proposed None mitigation

ANALYSIS

This site is located between the built up areas of West Bridgford and Ruddington, adjacent to Wilford Road and the A52. The site is flat, there is no identified flood risk, and the planned extension of the NET would significantly improve accessibility. The only issue is the presence of the SSSI in the north western corner. It is therefore considered that this site is suitable for the development of an Oxylane Village.