Elizabeth Beardsley Dear Sir, I Write in Response to Rushcliffe's Proposal

Taylor D 1076126 Elizabeth Beardsley

From: debbie taylor 31 March 2017 11:57 Sent: Localdevelopment To: Housing in Tollerton Subject:

Dear Sir,

I write in response to Rushcliffe's proposal for a further 600 houses in Tollerton 'village'. I strongly object to this proposal, and ask the council to re-consider its thinking. Although I totally understand the need for housing, Tollerton has already been earmarked for considerable development, that will adversely impact on its village status. When Gamston was under development, there was a promise of more schools and improved road infrastructures, this didn't materialise, and has led to more people ferrying children into Tollerton/Keyworth schools impacting on congestion and pollution. I am not a 'nimby' and accept a certain amount of housing has to be built but these additional plans are excessive.

Getting out of the village each day into work, is becoming increasingly difficult, with massive amounts of traffic already using Tollerton as a 'rat run' adding to this, more planned housing and people commuting, will not only add to congestion, but will severely impact the air quality of our lovely village.

The negative impact on the green belt is also a cause of great concern, and I fear that Tollerton is going to become simply an extension of West Bridgford, with the amount of planned infrastructure changes. All of these points are eroding village life, and will impact people's wellbeing.

I also very much doubt that any of the 'planned' housing will actually be 'affordable' to enable our children to afford to remain in the local area, if this development does have to go ahead then the council should consider enabling local people the opportunity of 'self build' so that at least families will have the benefit of staying together and supporting one another!

Please consider these points in reaching your decisions.

Kind regards

Debbie Taylor 74 Cotgrave Lane Tollerton Nottingham NG12 4FY

Tel

1 Taylor J 1072603

Richard Mapletoft

From: Jim Taylor

Dear Sir/ Madam As my family and I hold land at the West side of Gotham we were very interested in the plan. We feel that our own land at the end of Hall drive and ground to the east of us would be a big benefit to area development. We feel that all this ground should be classified as infill as it is enclosed by the Gypsum Way which creates a natural boundary as you point out.Not only does the old railway provide good tree cover for noise reduction to road traffic but could also be developed into a pedestrian access to the local school for family safe access.If this ground was removed from the green belt for development we would certainly pursue it. Yours sincerely Mr J.Taylor

1 Taylor P 1075176

Richard Mapletoft

From: Phil <> Sent: 30 March 2017 11:47 To: Localdevelopment Subject: Response to Further Options - Local Plan Part 2 - Re Cropwell Bishop

MynameisPhilipTaylor,address2SquiresClose,CropwellBishopNG123EY

IhavestudiedtheplansforhousingdevelopmentinCropwellBishopandwouldcommentasfollows:

Thesuggestedareasontheplanarefartoolargeandifimplementedinfullwoulddoublethesizeofthevillage.This isclearlynotpracticalnorsustainableduetothelimitedamountoffacilitiesavailableanddoesnotsquarewithyour own“Limiteddevelopment”designationforCropwellBishop.

Myobjectionsareasfollows:

Access: AreasCB12andCB13wouldneednewaccessroadspresumablyfromNottinghamRoad,asnoaccessiscurrently availablefromHoeViewRoadunlesshousesarepulleddown. AreasCB15andCB16alsohavemajoraccessproblems.Therearetwopossibleaccesspoints.OneonChurch Street,butthiswouldbeonasharpbendonaroadwhichiscurrentlyextremelybusyandverycongested.Theother accesswouldbeonFernRoadbutitwouldbeatornearthetopofahillwithablindbend,sowouldbedangerous.

School: CropwellPrimarySchoolisalreadyuptocapacitysoaninfluxofnewchildrenwouldbeunsustainableespeciallyasI understandchildrenfromHollygateestateinCotgravehavetocomehereasCotgravePrimaryisalreadyfull

Playingfield:IsbehindMemorialhallonthewestsideofthevillage.IfCB15and16aredeveloped,childrenwould havetogoacrosstotheothersideofthevillagetoaccessthesefacilities

Surgery:Alwaysbusy,extrapeoplewouldputanunacceptablestrainontheservicesprovided

Transport: Onebusanhourintotown,andnoeveningservice.Ifyouaretryingtoattractyoungfamiliestheyneedevening transportfromNottinghamnotataxicosting£25.AlsoworkerswhotraveltoNottinghamhavetoeithergobycar orworkhourstosuitthebustimetable.NopossibilityofworkingeveningsinNottinghamunlesstheywalkfrom Cotgravealongadarkbusyroadwithnofootpath.

Sewage:Ifthefullplanisimplementedthesewageworkswouldneedtobeexpanded.Haveyouthoughtofthis?

Currentroads:ChurchStreetandNottinghamRoadareinpoorstatesofrepair.ChurchStreetisconstantly congestedwithtrafficandparkingfromtheCoͲopshop.WhenemergingfromSquiresCloseitisoftenimpossibleto seewhetherthereistrafficapproachingfromeitherdirection.Developmentwouldmakethisworse.

NottinghamRoadisalwayscongestedwithparkedvehiclesononesidemakingitbasicallyaoneͲlaneroadfrom ChurchStreettoHoeViewRoad.Thereisnoroomtowidenit,andthefootpathonthenorthsideisverynarrowand dangerousparticularlyforpeoplewalkingwithchildren.Insomepartsyouhavetowalkinsinglefile,butnoroomto widenit.

OtherServicesandEmployment:Onlythedairy,thepubsandtheCoͲopshopprovidejobs.Apartfromoneortwo smallbusinesses(sandwichshop/hairdressers),therearenootherservicesinthevillage.SeealsoTransportabove.

1 Wildlife:manywildbirdsintheareaincludingsomerarerspeciessuchastheflockofgoldfincheslivingnearthe sewageworks,skylarks,buzzards,kestrelsetc.ThesewouldallbeaffectedbydevelopmentsCB13,CB15andCB16

Footpaths;Currentlyusedbyhikersanddogwalkers.Influxofnewresidentswouldincreasethenumberofdogs withlessareastowalkthemandnodoubtmore“fouling”issues.

YoudescribeCropwellBishopasavillagesuitableforLimiteddevelopment.IwouldnotdescribeareasCB12,13,15 and16as“limited”

IwouldhavenoobjectiontosmalldevelopmentonCB11andCB14assimilarsmalldevelopmentshavealready takenplaceandbeenabsorbedintothecommunity.

Finally,youmentionCotgrave,Keyworth,RadcliffeBinghamandRuddingtonaskeysettlementshavingarangeof facilities.andservices,withlocalemploymentopportunities.CropwellBishopdoesnothaveallthissocannot sustaindevelopmentonthescaleyousuggest.

Itrustyouwilltakeonboardmycommentsandthoseofsimilarmindedresidentsandlimitanydevelopmentto CB11andCB14

Regards PhilipTaylor

2 Temple E 1073218

RushcliffeGreenBeltReviewfromwww.rushcliffe.gov.uk/planningpolicy

27.03.17

Sender

MrETemple,

3LammasGardens

EastBridgford,NottinghamNG138LQ

From

To[email protected] EastBridgford

TheLocalPlanPt2seekstodefine,amongstother,additionalsitesforhousinginRushcliffe.This consultationspecificallylooksatninepossiblesitesintheParishofEastBridgford.Almostallofthe landiscurrentlyintheGreenbelt.

HoweverthisapproachoflookingattheParishinapiecemealfashioncreatesariskthatthe settlementsofEastBridgford,NewtonandBinghammightcoalesce.Oncecurrentplansare complete,NewtonandBinghamwillmeetacrosstheA46,andbeconnectedbyafootbridge.East BridgfordandthemainsettlementofNewtonarecurrentlywellunderamileapart.Sucha coalescingwouldseverelydamagetheruralcommunityofEastBridgford.Iconsiderthatthis shouldnotbeallowedtosimplydeveloppiecemeal,butifitweretohappenitshouldbeaconscious policydecisionbyRushcliffeBoroughCouncil.

Inotethatthesitesselectedforconsiderationarethoseonwhichtheownershaveindicatedthat theywishtoseekplanningpermissionfordevelopment.Thisleadstoacompletelyrandomapproach whichisunlikelytoleadtothebestoutcomes.AplanningͲbasedapproach,forexampleidentifyinga specificsiteorsiteswhichmightmatchlocalandregionalneedswouldhavebeenpreferable.

Theinfrastructureprioritiessetoutintheproposalsarevague,andfavourthelargerareasof populationplusarterialcommunicationroutes.IfdevelopmentisallowedintheGreenbeltaround ruralsettlements,muchmoreinvestigationoflocalcircumstancesandtargetedinfrastructurework, inpartnershipwithutilitiesetc,willbeneeded.

………………………

AnswerstospecificquestionsrelativetoEastBridgfordasfollows

Q1Iconsiderthatdevelopmentneartomainareasofemploymentandeconomicactivity,with appropriateinfrastructure,ispreferabletodevelopmentinruralareas

Q2Theproximityofthesemainareasofemploymentandeconomicactivitytothecity(and accesstothisandothercentresofeconomicactivity)isimportant.Itisalsoeasiertoadjust infrastructurechangestomeettheincreasedneedsofthedevelopment.

Q4Binghamissufficientlylargetomeetthecriteriaoftheprinciplesreferredtointheresponseto Q1&2.Generally,IamagainstdevelopmentintotheGreenbeltaroundEastBridgford TheParishPlanin2003andtheworkbeingdoneonanewCommunityPlanshowverystrong opinionsinEastBridgfordagainstdevelopmentwhichextendsthevillageenvelopeintothe Greenbelt.

Q21No,toallsuchproposalsforreviewoftheGreenBeltrelativetoEastBridgford.Thereare5 furtherpoints:Ͳ

a) ThesewageandwaterdrainagesystemsarealreadyoverͲstretched,withincidentsof sewageescape,blockagesandfloodinginsomeareasafterheavyrain. b) TheamountofPublicOpenSpaceperheadofpopulationisalreadybelowwhatis recommended. c) Trafficandparkingonsomeroadsisarecognisedproblem,particularlyaroundtheschool onKneetonRoadwhenitopensorclosesfortheday. d) Therurallandscapeisamajorassetforthevillage,especiallyinrelationtotheConservation AreaandtoListedBuildings.Inadditiontotherurallandscape,theTrentValleyescarpment anditsvistaaresignificantfeaturestobeprotected. e) ShouldanysiteinEastBridgfordbeidentifiedfordevelopmentinthefuture,Iconsiderthat itshouldNOTbegivenpermissionfordevelopmentuntilallthebrownfieldsitesandother previouslyͲidentifiedsitesintheLocalPlan,withorwithoutcurrentplanningpermission, havebeenfullydeveloped Thompson I 418998 Richard Mapletoft

From: Ian Thompson <> Sent: 30 March 2017 10:44 To: Localdevelopment Cc: Cllr D Mason; Cllr R L Butler; Neil Clarke; "':tollertontabu@ Subject: '"@Local Plan part 2

Havingattendedanumberofthemeetings/presentationforhousingdevelopmentovertheyears,my firstobservationistodowiththeprocess.

Iampuzzledwhythereisthedelayinbeginningtobuild/plantobuildonthealreadyspecifiedarea aroundTollerton.Despiteattemptstoprobethispointonthelocalconsultationevening,Ididnotgetany satisfactoryanswerͲapartfromthepossibilitythatRBCmayhavenotfullythoughthroughthe complexitiesofthelanddevelopmentstheyhadidentified.Inasimilarvein,questionsaboutvarious facilities,especiallyroadbuildingtocopewithextratraffic,aredismissedbeingtoldthat“Highwayswill dealwiththat”.FromwhatIhaveseensofar,Highwayshavemadenoattempttocopewithtrafficflowin theiradditionstothePart1plans.AnextraroundaboutontheGamston/LingsBarroadmerelyaddsto thepotentialforincreasedcongestionwithnosignificantattempttoimproveflowontheotherjunctions, namelyGamston,WheatcroftandNottinghamKnightroundaboutsaswellastheTollertonLane/Melton Roadjunction.Tome,thesearepriorityandneedtobeaddressedandincludedintheoverallplanbefore anypublicconsultationtakesplace.

AttheTollertonLanejunction,therearemanyproblemscausedbyvehiclesparkingclosetothejunction usingita“TollertonPark&Ride”–withsimilarproblemsexistingattheotherlessusedjunctionswiththe MeltonRoad.TheseparkedvehiclescompoundedwithtrafficfromtheShellGaragefrequentlymakeit difficulttoactuallygettothejunctionbeforethelightschange.

Regardingthepart2plan,Iamdeeplysuspiciousastowhytheurgencywhenlotsoflandisalready identifiedfordevelopmentbutbuildershavenottakenuptheoption.ThequestionsIaskedonthe consultationeveninggavethedistinctimpressionthatdeveloperswanttobuildwheretheywanttobuild and,byhangingbackarehopingtoforcetheRBCtograntalternativesites.Ifailtoseewhythose developers(whoareinitforthemoney)shouldbeallowedtoholdRushcliffetoransom.

Ofthethreesitesidentifiedinthelatestplan,onlyTOL3,isreasonableatthisstageuntiltheimpactofthe developmentsatTollertonAirportplusaproperexaminationofthewholeneighbourhoodtrafficflow problemhasbeenassessedandsolutionsformulatedandpublished. TOL1,whilstpossibleatfirstglance,wouldcausemajortrafficproblemsinvolvingaccess.BurnsideGrove cannotcopewithextratraffic;therearealreadyproblemswhichareexacerbatedatschooltimes.Anexit ontoTollertonLanewouldsubstantiallyaddtoproblemsparticularlyattheMeltonRoadjunction. TheTOL2wouldcauseevenmoretrafficproblems.

Iamalsoconcernedabouttheimpactonallotheramenitiesaswellasutilities.Canschools/water/ electricity/gas/drainagecopewithextrademand.Aparticularconcernissurfacewaterdrainage;there haveregularlybeenproblemsaroundtheCotgraveLane/TollertonLanejunctionandtherearestill problemsontheMeltonRoadafterheavyrain.Atthebottomofmyownroad(Sedgley Road)undergroundtankswereinstalledsomeyearsagotoholdextrasurfacewaterinordertoprevent floodingofpropertiesintheStellaavenuearea.

1 IamawarethatCotgravealreadyhasitsshareofnewhousingunderwaybutIfeelthattheeasyaccessto thedualledA46(andhenceAIandMI)plusthefactthatthelandandbridgesfromtheoldmineralline arestillinplaceshouldbeconsideredaswell.Theoldrailwaylinecouldbeconsideredforarapid transportsystemintoNottingham–andcouldevenbelinkedtotheoldrailwayline(stillinuseasatest track)whichisonlyacoupleofmilesaway.

Iawaittheoutcomeofthisconsultationwithinterest.

IanRThompson4SedgleyRoadTollertonNG124EU

PSapologiesifthereareanytyping/grammaticalerrors–Ifindproofreadingonscreenratherdifficult!

2 Thornton 1073183

Richard Mapletoft

From: Geoff Thornton

Importance: Low

From: Geoff Thornton Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2017 11:30 AM To: [email protected] Cc: Cl Subject: Rushcliffe Borough Council Plans for Tollerton

Ref:TollertonLocalPlans Prt2FurtherOptions Prt2bGreenBeltReview

MyComments

x TollertonLaneisfartoosmalltoaccommodateextratrafficresultingfromtheproposedincrease inhousing.ItisalreadyabsolutelyimpossibletocyclesafelyonTollertonLanewithnoprovision ofcyclelanes.WecannotcyclefromourhousesonTollertonLaneandalsoonthemainroadfrom NottinghamtoMelton.Nopointinhavingabikeinthevillage.iftherearenocyclelanesonour onlytwoboundaryroads. x TheSchoolittoosmallforextrapupils x Therearenotenoughfacilitiessuchasshops,buses,openspacesforusallplustheincrease ofnewhousesandtheincreasedpopulation. x Whyisitnecessarytointensifyandcrowdusallintothissmallvillage?

G.PThornton StansteadAve

1 Tongue 1075491

Richard Mapletoft

From: Graham Tongue Sent: 30 March 2017 16:01 To: Localdevelopment Cc: Cllr D Mason; Cllr R L Butler; Neil Clarke Subject: Comments on Local Plan Part 2 and Part 2B Green Belt Review

DearSir/Madam,

Iamwritingwithcommentsinrelationtothe‘LocalPlanPart2FurtherOptions’and‘DraftPart2bGreenBelt Review’specificallywithregardtoTollerton.

Iamaresidentinthevillageandhavemadecommentsbelowgenerallyonthepossibledevelopmentofnewhomes inTollertonbutalsospecificallywithregardtothelandtotherearofBurnsideGrove(calledTOL1intheLocalPlan Part2FurtherReviewdocumentbutcalledTOL4intheGreenBeltReviewdocument).

GeneraldevelopmentwithinTollerton

IstronglybelievethevillageofTollertoncannotsupportfurtherresidentialdevelopment.Ibasethisonthe followingkeypoints:

1. Theroadsysteminandaroundthevillageisalreadyatcapacity.Therearevariousroadsthatleaddown fromBurnsideGrovetotheA606MeltonRoad(e.g.LentonAvenue,BentinckAvenueetc)andturningoutof theseroadsontotheA606towardsNottinghamisalreadyverydifficultandattimesnearlyimpossiblegiven thevolumeoftraffic.Anyhousesbuiltinthevillagewouldincreasethesepressurepointsbyaddingmore carsontheroads.

TheroundaboutattheNottscuttsgardencentreisalreadycongestedatbusytimesandanyadditionaltraffic approachingfromTollertonwouldmakesthingsworse.IwouldsuggestthatmembersoftheRBC consultationteamtrytotravelonthatrouteinamorningafter7:30amandtheproblemswillbe immediatelyclear. 2. Notonlyaretheroadsbusybuttheyareinapoorstateofrepairandinsomecasesarenotlargeenoughto takethepressuresofadditionalvehicles. 3. Thevillagedoesnothavetheinfrastructureinplacetosupportadditionalhomes.Thereisoneschoolthatis alreadyfullbasedontakingchildrenwithincatchment.Howcanadditionalfamiliesbeaccommodated giventhereisn’ttheroomattheschoolsitetoincreasenumbers?Putsimplythereisnoscopetotakeany additionalchildrenanditwouldjustnotbeacceptableforaresidentofTollertontonotbeabletosendtheir childrentothelocalschool. 4. Thevillagedoesnothaveadoctorssurgeryanditisalreadydifficulttogetappointmentsatthenearest doctorsinKeyworth.Additionalhomeswillmakethisevenharder. 5. Thevillagehasoneshopandpub.Howcanitabsorbpotentiallyanother600homes! 6. Thereisalreadyaneedforbetterpathwaysandcyclewaysaroundthisareaandaddingnewhomeswilljust increasethepressureandincreasetheriskofanaccidentgiventhevolumeofpeoplewantingtouse cycles.Ifvillagenumbersgrow,withoutpathwaysandcycleroutesthiswillincreasevehicletrafficfurther. 7. Onlyrecently4000homeswereapprovednotfarawayneartheairportsite.Thesehomeswillencroach towardsthevillageofTollertonandintroducesignificantlevelsofadditionaltrafficforwhichno improvementshavebeenagreed.TollertonLaneinparticularwillbecomeverybusyandfurtherhomesin Tollertonitselfwillmakethisworse.Howitispossiblethereforetogivepermissionforevenmorehomes withinTollertonitselfwithnopromiseofanyfundingtohelpsolvetheissuesthatareinplacenow,never mindwhenmorehomesarebuiltattheairport?

1 8. Tollertonisaseparatevillageandtheopencountrysidearounditisakeycharacteristicofthis.Giventhe 4000homesalreadyapprovednorthofTollerton,furtherhomeswouldincreasethefootprintofthevillage andbringitclosertothesurroundingurbandevelopments. 9. Buildingnewhomeswouldrequirelandtobetakenoutofthegreenbelt.Myunderstandingisthatthe recentGovernmentwhitepaperstatedgreenbeltshouldonlybebuiltoninexceptionalcircumstances.It seemsnewgreenbeltlandisonlybeingconsideredhereduetofailingsinensuringtheprevious4000home developmentproceedsonschedule.Thefocusshouldbeonmakingsurethatthelandownersand developersforthatsitemoveforwardandsupplythenumberofhomesanticipatedwhenplanningwas granted.Ultimatelythe4000willbebuiltsoanynewplanswouldbeadditionalhomesnotinplaceof. 10. Therehavebeeninfrastructureimprovementsatothersitesalreadye.g.Clifton,thatmakethemmore suitableforadditionalhousesthansmallvillageslikeTollerton. LandnorthofBurnsideGrove

ReferringspecificallytothelandnorthofBurnsideGrove,Iconsiderthislandistotallyunsuitablefor development.Thelandlevelsaremuchhigherthananyofthesurroundinghomes,particularlyattheendonOak TreeCourtwhereIlive(offLothianRoad).WhenthehomesonOakTreeCourtwerebuiltIunderstandplanners insistedthelevelofthelandtobedevelopedwasloweredsothehomesdidnotsithighonthelandscapeandthe generalopennessofthegreenbeltlandarounditwasnotaltered.Thepotentialdevelopmentlandnorthof BurnsidesitsalothigherinlevelandanyhomesonthatlandwouldmeanthatfromviewsacrosstoTollertonfrom theWestBridgfordandGamstonarea,thehomeswouldbeimmediatelynoticeableandtotallyatoddswithexisting homesinthevillage.Allexistinghomesborderingthepotentialdevelopmentareawouldhavetheirprivacy significantlycompromised.

Therearealsomanypracticalissueswithbuildingonthislandwithexistinglandlevels.Forexample,wherewill waterdrainagebeaccommodated?Also,thesiteonlyhasoneaccessnearthefarmontoBurnsideGrove.Itis thereforenotfeasibletoadd160homeswithoneaccessthatjustisn’tfitforpurposes.Asnotedabovetheareais alreadycongestedwithtrafficandmostvehicleswouldlooktoaccesstheA606MeltonRoadfromoneofthefeeder roadssuchasLentonAvenueorStansteadAvenuewhichwouldcreateevenmoreproblems.

WhilstIunderstandthereisalwaysaneedtolookfornewdevelopmentlocations,takinglandsuchasthoseinthe documentsoutofthegreenbeltshouldnotbeapproved.Hugenumbersofhomeswillbebuiltonthesiteswhere approvalshavealreadybeengivenandthisshouldbethefocusnowfordeliveringthehousesneeded.Onthe assumptionroadimprovementsareputinplacetosupportthethousandsofadditionalhomesthenfuture developmentafter2028canbeconsideredasrequiredbutthisseemsakneejerkreactiontothefactlandowners anddevelopersonexistingapprovedsitescan’tagree.Thatisn’tavalidorfairreasontoconsidernewsitesfor developmentatthisstage,especiallyastheyareingreenbeltland.

IwouldbehappytodiscussanyoftheaboveinpersonwithRBCasrequired.Iappreciateyouwillhavereceiveda significantnumberofresponsesfromthepublicandlookforwardtohearingyourcommentsontheaboveandother pointsraisedinduecourse.

Yoursfaithfully

GrahamTongue

SentfromMailforWindows10

Trafford 1074215

Richard Mapletoft

From: Chris and Sian Trafford <28 March 2017 21:31 Sent: Localdevelopment To: Proposed development at Adbolton Lane Subject:

42 Trent Boulevard

West Bridgford

Nottingham

NG2 5BA

Ref: Rushcliffe Local Plan 2; Land and Building Policies – Further Options

Dear Sirs

With reference to the proposal to develop the land at Simpkins Farm on Abdolton Lane, I would like to register my opposition to the proposal on four grounds listed below.

Firstly, the development being considered is in an area which at certain times of the year becomes very much waterlogged. If any further loss of natural drainage were to be suffered, the potential for more serious flooding of this area would be an obvious consequence.

Secondly, the area lies firmly within the green belt. Whilst I appreciate the need for more housing within the Borough, I am quite certain that there are other more suitable potential sites for such developments.

Thirdly, I am led to believe that within the designated area lies the site of the ancient village of Adbolton, which contains potentially sacred ground. It would be a pure act of archaeological vandalism to allow a development of this land without consideration to what lies beneath.

Fourthly, the area now provides and has provided for a long time a green space for the people of the Borough of Rushcliffe to enjoy. Should development be allowed to start in this area it has the potential to eventually destroy the remaining sections of open, undeveloped green space which makes this part of Nottinghamshire so pleasant to live in. There has been an awful lot of development quite close to the Adbolton Lane area which has encouraged many families to move in to this area. What a pity it would be to remove some of the benefits which attracted those people in the first place.

I trust my views will be taken in to consideration when decisions are made.

1 Yours faithfully

MrCTrafford

Tristram F 420259

Elizabeth Beardsley

From: Fran Tristram Sent: 31 March 2017 13:10 To: Localdevelopment Subject: Objection:Simkin's Farm proposed Housing Development on green belt

Dear Madam/Sir I wish to lodge an objection to the proposed housing development on green belt land at Simkin's Farm.

This development is ill-advised and unwanted on several grounds.

Firstly, while acknowledging that recent improvements to flood defences offer increased protection against rising river levels, there is nonetheless resulting increased pressure on the water table and further development in this flood plain area will only increase that pressure, putting increased risk of raised water table flooding not only on the new development but on the existing housing stock.

Secondly, the traffic at peak times on Trent Boulevard is already problematic and any additional burden will increase congestion, air pollution and hazard especially to children on their way to and from school.

Thirdly, the location of the proposed development would be a risk and direct injury to the habitat of many species, and would have a negative impact on local wildlife, most especially in the vicinity of Pinders Pond.

The negative impact on the natural environment would also be detrimental to the social and health benefits that that natural environment brings to the existing community.

Finally, the historic heritage of the site of the lost Domesday village of Adbolton must be preserved for posterity - a site of such interest absolutely must not be damaged.

This encroachment into the Green Belt must be resisted - the line should have already been drawn at the existing development at Simkins Farm - we have already expanded the population of Lady Bay by that development and by many infill developments - enough is enough.

Please register my objections to this proposal Yours faithfully Frances Tristram, 42 Seymour Rd, NG2 5EF

1 Trobridge H 423133 Richard Mapletoft

From: Hazel Trobridge Sent: 30 March 2017 12:39 To: Localdevelopment Subject: Response to Local Plan Part 2: Land and Planning Policies (Further Options) (Gotham)

Question 23:

I support GOT1, the land to the rear of the former British Legion, and suggest that the British Legion land should be included in this development.

In the Green Belt Review, you have confused GOT1, the land behind the British Legion, with GOT 2, “Land North of Kegworth Road/Home Farm (West)” This carelessness does not inspire confidence in your methodology.

I do not support any of the other proposals.

Both Kegworth Road and Leake Road are too narrow and could not accommodate new housing. There is no need to encroach upon greenfield sites. GOT 1 is not a greenfield site.

Gotham needs housing for rental and first time buyers plus smaller units suitable for the elderly. If the latter were provided, they could move out of their larger houses and make them available for families.

As the consequences of exceptionally heavy rain demonstrated in June 2016, the infrastructure of the village is not capable of sustaining much more housing development. The surrounding hills make it inevitable that large amounts of water will always flow through the village to the moors in the east following such rainfall, which is no longer a ‘100-’ or even a ‘30-year’ event.

In addition, existing housing developments to the north and south of the village, especially those in East Leake, will inevitably increase traffic flow, which already causes problems, especially at the Kegworth Road/Leake Road and Curzon Street junction and by the school on Kegworth Road.

However, the apparent lack of interest of developers in the Clifton Pastures site would suggest that there is probably no longer such a need for housing there. Rushcliffe chose it to accommodate the needs of Nottingham City, but as the City has plenty of Brownfield land, Rushcliffe should now accept that there is no requirement to do more than accommodate more than local housing needs, especially since it appears that the Borough Council did not follow consultation procedure when making this accommodation.

As for the other sites proposed in this document, I am not sufficiently familiar with them to make an informed comment, except that I do not think that further greenfield sites should be developed in East Leake.

(Mrs) H M Trobridge 12 The Rushes, Gotham NG11 0HY

1 Truslove 1073104 Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 2: Land and Planning Policies – Further Options

Response Form

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

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

Your Details Agent details (where applicable)

Robin & Nicola Truslove Name Clickheretoentertext.

57 Charnwood Avenue Address Clickheretoentertext. Sutton Bonington Loughborough LE12 5NA

r E-mail Clickheretoentertext.

Housing Development

Housing Land Supply

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

Yes ……………………………………………………………………………..

No ……………………………………………………………………………. 3

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

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

Clickheretoentertext.

Housing Sites adjacent to the Main Urban Area

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

Yes ……………………………………………………………………………..

No ……………………………………………………………………………. 3

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

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

Clickheretoentertext.

Question 3: Do you support housing development at:

Yes – Yes – No all of but site only part of site Site HOL1 – Simkins Farm, Adbolton Lane, West 3 Bridgford (potential capacity around 40 homes) Any other location (please specify which)

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

Clickheretoentertext.

Housing Development at the 'Key Settlements'

Bingham

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

Yes ……………………………………………………………………………..

No ……………………………………………………………………………. 3

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

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

Clickheretoentertext.

Cotgrave

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

Yes …………………………………………………………………………….. 3

No …………………………………………………………………………….

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

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

3 Clickheretoentertext.

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

Clickheretoentertext.

Question 7: Do you support housing development at:

Yes – Yes – No all of but site only part of site Site COT1 – Land rear of Mill Lane/The Old Park 3 (potential capacity around 240 homes) Site COT2 – Land at Main Road (potential capacity 3 around 50 homes) Site COT3 – Land rear of and to the west of Main 3 Road (potential capacity around 125 homes)

Site COT4 Land off Woodgate Lane (potential 3 capacity around 80 homes)

Site COT5 – Bakers Hollow (potential capacity 3 around 60 homes)

Site COT6 – The Brickyard, Owthorpe Road 3 (potential capacity around 100 homes)

Site COT7– Land behind Firdale (2) (potential 3 capacity around 65 homes)

Site COT8 – Land behind Firdale (potential capacity 3 around 95 homes)

4 Yes – Yes – No all of but site only part of site Site COT9 – Land south of Hollygate Lane (1) 3 (potential capacity around 140 homes)

Site COT10 – Land south of Hollygate Lane (2) 3 (potential capacity around 40 homes)

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

Site COT12– Land south of Plumtree Lane 3 (potential capacity around 250 homes)

Any other location (please specify which)

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

Clickheretoentertext.

East Leake

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

Yes ……………………………………………………………………………..

No ……………………………………………………………………………. 3

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

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

5 Clickheretoentertext.

Question 9: Do you support housing development at:

Yes – Yes – No all of but site only part of site Site EL9 –Land south of West Leake Road 3 (potential capacity around 50 homes) Site EL10 – Land north of West Leake Road 3 (potential capacity around 75 homes) Site EL11 – Brook Furlong Farm(potential capacity 3 around 70 homes) Site EL12 – Land off Rempstone Road (north) 3 (potential capacity around 235 homes)

Site EL13 – Land off Rempstone Road (south) 3 (potential capacity around 120 homes) Site EL14 – Land north of Lantern Lane (2) 3 (potential capacity around 360 homes)

Any other location (please specify which)

Clickheretoentertext.

Keyworth

Question 10: Do you have a view on the total number of new homes that should be built on greenfield sites at Keyworth up to 2028? If possible, please give reasons for your answer. 6 Clickheretoentertext.

Question 11: Do you support housing development at:

Yes – Yes – No all of but site only part of site Site KEY1 – Land east of Willow Brook (potential 3 capacity around 40 homes) Site KEY2 – Land off Selby Lane and Willowbrook 3 (potential capacity around 15 homes) Site KEY3 – Land south of Selby Lane (potential 3 capacity around 60 homes) Site KEY4 – Land off Nicker Hill (potential capacity 3 around 450 homes)

Site KEY5 – Hill Top Farm, Platt Lane (1) (potential 3 capacity around 50 homes) Site KEY6 – Hill Top Farm, Platt Lane (2) (potential 3 capacity around 80 homes)

Site KEY7 – Shelton Farm, Platt Lane (potential 3 capacity around 160 homes)

Site KEY8 – Land between Platt Lane and Station 3 Road (potential capacity around 180 homes)

Site KEY9 – Land north of Debdale Lane (1) 3 (potential capacity around 110 homes)

Site KEY10 – Land south of Debdale Lane (1) 3 (potential capacity around 230 homes)

Site KEY11 – Land south of Debdale Lane (2) 3 (potential capacity around 200 homes)

Site KEY12 – Land north of Debdale Lane (2) 3 (potential capacity around 160 homes)

7 Yes – Yes – No all of but site only part of site Site KEY13 – Hillside Farm (potential capacity 3 around 60 homes)

Site KEY14 – Land south of Bunny Lane (potential 3 capacity around 410 homes)

Any other location (please specify which)

Clickheretoentertext.

Radcliffe on Trent

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

Clickheretoentertext.

Question 13: Do you support housing development at:

Yes – Yes – No all of but site only part of site Site RAD11 – North of Holme Lane (potential 3 capacity around 115 homes)

8 Yes – Yes – No all of but site only part of site Site RAD12 – Land to the north of Shelford Road 3 (potential capacity around 180 homes)

Any other location (please specify which)

Clickheretoentertext.

Ruddington

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

Clickheretoentertext.

Question 15: Do you support housing development at:

Yes – Yes – No all of but site only part of site Site RUD11 – Old Loughborough Road (potential 3 capacity around 40 homes) Site RUD12 – Land to the east side of 3 Loughborough Road (potential capacity around 60 homes) 9 Yes – Yes – No all of but site only part of site Site RUD13 – Land opposite Mere Way (potential 3 capacity around 170 homes) Site RUD14 – Croft House (potential capacity 3 around 25 homes)

Any other location (please specify which)

Clickheretoentertext.

Housing development at ‘other villages’

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

Yes ……………………………………………………………………………..

No ……………………………………………………………………………. 3

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

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

Clickheretoentertext.

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

Don’t Yes No know

Cropwell Bishop 3

East Bridgford 3

Gotham 3

Sutton Bonington

Tollerton 3

Any other settlement (please specify which)

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

Clickheretoentertext.

Cropwell Bishop

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

Clickheretoentertext.

11 Question 19: Do you support housing development at:

Yes – Yes – No all of but site only part of site Site CBI1 – Land to the south of Nottingham Road 3 and east of Kinoulton Road (potential capacity around 30 homes) Site CBI2 – Land north of Memorial Hall (1) 3 (potential capacity around 75 homes) Site CBI3– Land north of Memorial Hall (2) 3 (potential capacity around 60 homes) Site CBI4 – Land north of Fern Road (2) (potential 3 capacity around 30 homes)

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

Any other location (please specify which)

Clickheretoentertext.

East Bridgford

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

12 Clickheretoentertext.

Question 21: Do you support housing development at:

Yes – Yes – No all of but site only part of site Site EBR1 – Land behind Kirk Hill (east) (potential 3 capacity around 15 homes) Site EBR2 – Land behind Kirk Hill (west) (potential 3 capacity around 70 homes) Site EBR3 – Land north of Kneeton Road (1) 3 (potential capacity around 95 homes) Site EBR4 – Land north of Kneeton Road (2) 3 (potential capacity around 150 homes)

Site EBR5 – Land at Lammas Lane (potential 3 capacity around 40 homes) Site EBR6 – Closes Side Lane (west) (potential 3 capacity around 20 homes) Site EBR7 – Closes Side Lane (east) (potential 3 capacity around 20 homes) Site EBR8 – Land to the north of Butt Lane 3 (potential capacity around 20 homes) Site EBR9 – Land to the south of Springdale Lane 3 (potential capacity around 30 homes)

Any other location (please specify which)

Clickheretoentertext.

13 Gotham

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

Clickheretoentertext.

Question 23: Do you support housing development at:

Yes – Yes – No all of but site only part of site Site GOT1 – Land to the rear of former British 3 Legion (potential capacity around 25 homes) Site GOT2 – Land north of Kegworth Road/Home 3 Farm (west) (potential capacity around 50 homes) Site GOT3 – Land north of Kegworth Road/Home 3 Farm (east) (potential capacity around 20 homes) Site GOT4 – The Orchards, Leake Road (potential 3 capacity around 50 homes)

Site GOT5 – Land east of Gypsum Way/The 3 Orchards (potential capacity around 200 homes) Site GOT6 – East of Leake Road (potential capacity 3 around 45 homes) Site GOT7 – Land east of Hill Road (potential 3 capacity around 160 homes) Site GOT8 – Land south of Moor Lane (potential 3 capacity around 15 homes)

Any other location (please specify which)

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

Clickheretoentertext.

Sutton Bonington

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

No houses should be built on this site. We object to the proposals for development for the following reasons:

- Flood Risk - The land regularly shows surface water logging during the winter - The land is low lying and only 20m away from the existing Flood Risk Zone 3 on the E.A. website. If houses were built here, even with balancing lagoons, this is highly likely to cause flooding in parts of Park Lane and the A6006. Parts of Park Lane to the SW of the site flood already in heavy rain. - Our garden abuts the NW of the land and is extremely wet in the winter. It even contains leaches at the end nearest the proposed SUT1 site which would indicate a very high water table. - The ditch to the NW of the land takes a volume of water more akin to a stream and flows very fast in Spring, Autumn and Winter - The water balancing lagoons for a development on this site would need to be very large indeed which would restrict the space available for development in any case - Willow Poole and Charnwood Av experienced severe flooding in Summer 2016 and residents gardens to the NE of Charnwood Av became a bog when drainage off the railway line failed. - If our property at 57 Charnwood Av became damaged by an elevated water table as a result of the development then we would take legal action against Rushcliffe Borouch Council and the developer

- Nuisance - If a new development constructed houses within 20m of the NW boundary of the site then this would adversely impact the residents of Charnwood Avenue through increased noise levels and through being overlooked by adjacent houses - Any use of wood burning stoves by new houses adjacent would effect adjacent residents as the smoke pools in this low lying location and can enter through windows at night - The industrial estate to the NE of the site burns waste on average every 4-6 weeks at night, filling our bedrooms with noxious fumes of burning plastic. In addition, the stone cutting works on that boundary saw very large pieces of stone with a 5ft circular saw blade during working hours and the metal finishing works on 15 that same Hathernware Industrial Estate grind metal outside the premises, creating dust and loud noise which would conflict with a residential development adjacent.

- Poor Development Fit with Surroundings - The development would create a sudden coalescence with other villages in the valley and take away the pattern of isolated villages, bringing urbanisation to this rural / green corridor

- Scale - A density of 140 houses on the site would be much greater than the adjacent settlement and would create an urban character in stark contrast to the existing village - This one site would increase the size of the 1600 people village by 20%. Growth on that scale and at that speed is very unlikely to allow effective social integration and the site is likely to be isolated from the village, have poor communication with the village and have a low sensitivity to it - There would be an impact on the local school which takes a large proportion of Kegworths children as well at those from Sutton Bonington

- Traffic - A development of that size would need a new traffic island onto the A6006 which is already conjested from Hathern Turn to Zouch in the morning. - That traffic construction would need water balancing in its own right as the S side of the A6006 opposite the turn to Park Lane has flooded for the past 2 months.

- Proximity to land fill site - Its not appropriate to build new homes next to a landfill site due to the risk of contamination by methane migration underground.

- Air pollution from Railway Line - (harmful disel emissions) from trains when they stand idling for more than 2 hours adversely will affect residents health. Locating new homes close to the railway is not appropriate or safe.

Question 25: Do you support housing development at:

16 Yes – Yes – No all of but site only part of site Site SUT1 – Land north of Park Lane (potential 3 capacity around 140 homes) Any other location (please specify which)

Clickheretoentertext.

Tollerton

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

Clickheretoentertext.

Question 27: Do you support housing development at:

Yes – Yes – No all of but site only part of site Site TOL1 – Land at Burnside Grove (potential 3 capacity around 180 homes)

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

Clickheretoentertext.

Other issues

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

Clickheretoentertext.

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

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

Or to: [email protected]

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

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

19 Turner C&D 778255 Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 2: Land and Planning Policies – Further Options

Response Form

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

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

Your Details Agent details (where applicable)

Christine & David Turner Name Clickheretoentertext.

1 Boundary Road Address Clickheretoentertext. West Bridgford Nottingham NG2 7BW

E-mail Clickheretoentertext.

Housing Development

Housing Land Supply

Yes …………………………………………………………………………….. X

No …………………………………………………………………………….

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

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

Clickheretoentertext.

Housing Sites adjacent to the Main Urban Area

Yes …………………………………………………………………………….. X

No …………………………………………………………………………….

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

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

Clickheretoentertext.

Question 3: Do you support housing development at:

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

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

Clickheretoentertext.

Housing Development at the 'Key Settlements'

Bingham

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

Yes …………………………………………………………………………….. X

No …………………………………………………………………………….

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

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

Clickheretoentertext.

Cotgrave

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

Yes ……………………………………………………………………………..

No …………………………………………………………………………….

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

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

Clickheretoentertext.

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

Question 7: Do you support housing development at:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Any other location (please specify which)

Clickheretoentertext.

East Leake

Yes …………………………………………………………………………….. X

No …………………………………………………………………………….

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

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

Clickheretoentertext.

Question 9: Do you support housing development at:

Yes – Yes – No all of but site only part of site Site EL9 –Land south of West Leake Road X (potential capacity around 50 homes) Site EL10 – Land north of West Leake Road X (potential capacity around 75 homes) Site EL11 – Brook Furlong Farm(potential capacity around 70 homes) X Site EL12 – Land off Rempstone Road (north) X (potential capacity around 235 homes) Site EL13 – Land off Rempstone Road (south) X (potential capacity around 120 homes) Site EL14 – Land north of Lantern Lane (2) (potential capacity around 360 homes) X

Any other location (please specify which) X

Clickheretoentertext.

6 Keyworth

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

Approx 500

Question 11: Do you support housing development at:

Yes – Yes – No all of but site only part of site Site KEY1 – Land east of Willow Brook (potential X capacity around 40 homes) Site KEY2 – Land off Selby Lane and Willowbrook X (potential capacity around 15 homes) Site KEY3 – Land south of Selby Lane (potential capacity around 60 homes) X Site KEY4 – Land off Nicker Hill (potential capacity X around 450 homes) Site KEY5 – Hill Top Farm, Platt Lane (1) (potential X capacity around 50 homes) Site KEY6 – Hill Top Farm, Platt Lane (2) (potential capacity around 80 homes) X

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

Site KEY8 – Land between Platt Lane and Station X Road (potential capacity around 180 homes) Site KEY9 – Land north of Debdale Lane (1) X (potential capacity around 110 homes)

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

7 Yes – Yes – No all of but site only part of site Site KEY11 – Land south of Debdale Lane (2) X (potential capacity around 200 homes) Site KEY12 – Land north of Debdale Lane (2) X (potential capacity around 160 homes)

Site KEY13 – Hillside Farm (potential capacity X around 60 homes) Site KEY14 – Land south of Bunny Lane (potential X capacity around 410 homes)

Any other location (please specify which)

Clickheretoentertext.

Radcliffe on Trent

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

Think R o T should take more housing in line with proposed and historic development at Bingham and E. Leake.

Question 13: Do you support housing development at:

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

Any other location (please specify which)

Clickheretoentertext.

Ruddington

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

No more development here. Ruddington has absorbed quite a number of new builds recently.

Question 15: Do you support housing development at:

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

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

Any other location (please specify which)

Clickheretoentertext.

Housing development at ‘other villages’

Yes ……………………………………………………………………………..

No …………………………………………………………………………….

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

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

10 Clickheretoentertext.

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

Don’t Yes No know

Cropwell Bishop X

East Bridgford X

Gotham X

Sutton Bonington X

Tollerton X

Any other settlement (please specify which)

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

Clickheretoentertext.

Cropwell Bishop

Clickheretoentertext.

11 Question 19: Do you support housing development at:

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

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

Any other location (please specify which)

Clickheretoentertext.

East Bridgford

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

Clickheretoentertext.

Question 21: Do you support housing development at:

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

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

Any other location (please specify which)

13 Clickheretoentertext.

Gotham

Clickheretoentertext.

Question 23: Do you support housing development at:

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

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

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

Any other location (please specify which)

Clickheretoentertext.

Sutton Bonington

Clickheretoentertext.

Question 25: Do you support housing development at:

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

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

Clickheretoentertext.

Tollerton

Clickheretoentertext.

Question 27: Do you support housing development at:

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

16 Clickheretoentertext.

Other issues

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

Clickheretoentertext.

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

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

Or to: [email protected]

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

17 Turner J 419976

Richard Mapletoft

From: Sent: 30 March 2017 17:49 To: Localdevelopment Subject: Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 2: Land and Building Policies- Further Options

DearSirs,

IamwritingtoyouinrespectoftheproposedsiteforhousingdevelopmentatAdboltonLane,LadyBay,West Bridgford.IhavebeenaresidentinLadyBayfor33years.Itisawonderfulplacetolive.

Iamwhollyopposedtotheproposeddevelopmentforthefollowingreasons:

1) LadyBayisdistinctcommunitywitha'villageͲlike'structureandcommunityatmosphere.Theproposed developmentwouldputpressureonthelocalschool,ontrafficthroughLadyBay,(includingparkingwithinLadyBay, aspeoplelivingtherewouldbefarenoughawayfromtheamenitiesinLadyBaythattheywouldmostlikelydrive theircarsintothecentretotheshops,churchandschool)Ͳandtheexpansionwouldadverselyaffectthereally positiveatmosphereinourcommunity.

2) ThelandoffAdboltonLaneispreciousGreenBeltland,partofabeltalongtheriverwhichiscurrentlyenjoyedby manypeopleͲwalkers,horseͲriders,cyclists,watersportsenthusiastsandbirdͲwatchers,bothfromthelocalarea andfromfurtherafield.Buildingalargenumberofhousesonthislandwouldspoilthisforever.Ifthisencroachment isapproved,thenwhoistostopthewholeofthisareabeingswallowedupbyfurtherurbandevelopment.?This greenlandtotheeastofthecityandsoclosetoit,isavital'lung'whichdoesnotexistelsewhereinNottinghamand hashelpedtomaketheareasopopulartolivein,andtobringchildrenupin. Ifmorehousesareneeded(inparticularsocialhousing)thenwhynotdevelopthederelictbrownfieldsiteinthe centreofLadyBay(formerlyTrentValleyPlumbing)?

3) Ahousingdevelopmentherewouldsignificantlyimpactuponthelocalwildlife,reducingtheirpreciousremaining habitatevenfurther.Wehaveadutyinthepresentday,tostopthisdestruction,andRushcliffeBoroughCouncil shouldbeseentobepursuing'greener'policiesinthecurrentuncertainclimateinwhichmoneyseemstooverride environmentalconcernswithdevastatingeffects.(Onceit'sgone,it'sgone..)Theproposeddevelopmentwillabut ontoPindersPond,anhistoric'OxͲbow'lakewhichwasoncethelineoftheRiverTrentbeforeitwasdiverted severalhundredyearsago.Nowitisabeautiful'secret'mininaturereserve.

Inevitablythedevelopmentwouldmeanalargeacreageofconcreted/paveddriveways,whichofcoursewillmean thatlandinthewholeofthisareawillbemoresusceptibletoflooding.Thisareaisafloodplain.Theoverallcostof floodpreventionandfloodclearanceandcompensationinthisareawouldbehugelyincreased.Houseinsuranceon thatlandwouldbedifficulttoobtain.Thereisalreadyasignificantamountof'inͲfilling'ofgardensviahouse extensionswithinLadyBay.

Finally,thereisanimportantarchaeologicalsiteontheverylandwhichitisproposedtoputthedevelopment.The remainsincludeachurchandamedievalcemetery,whichdatesbacktotheDomesdayBook.

Forthemanyreasonsabove,Iandmyfamilystronglyopposetheproposal.

YoursFaithfully,

MrsJaneTurner 59JulianRoad WestBridgford NG25AL

1 SentfrommyiPad

2 Turner J 1075213 Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 2: Land and Planning Policies – Further Options

Response Form

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

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

Your Details Agent details (where applicable)

John Turner Name Clickheretoentertext.

9 Mill gate Address Clickheretoentertext. East Bridgford Notts

E-mail Clickheretoentertext.

Housing Development

Housing Land Supply

Yes …………………………………………………………………………….. X

No …………………………………………………………………………….

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

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

The response to the shortfall is because of developers not developing the sites they already have. This has led to piecemeal development in the Villages which at times do not have the infrastructure to support the additional properties

Housing Sites adjacent to the Main Urban Area

Yes ……………………………………………………………………………..

No ……………………………………………………………………………. X

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

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

It would seem logical to attach the any additional requirements to these sites where there is ample opportunity to ensure that all infrastructure needs are catered for and all these sites would be near to the major empoloyment centres thus reducing traffic issues in the future.

Question 3: Do you support housing development at:

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

2 Any other location (please specify which)

Clickheretoentertext.

Housing Development at the 'Key Settlements'

Bingham

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

Yes ……………………………………………………………………………..

No …………………………………………………………………………….

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

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

Clickheretoentertext.

Cotgrave

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

Yes ……………………………………………………………………………..

No …………………………………………………………………………….

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

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

Clickheretoentertext.

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

Clickheretoentertext.

Question 7: Do you support housing development at:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Any other location (please specify which)

Clickheretoentertext.

East Leake

Yes ……………………………………………………………………………..

5 No …………………………………………………………………………….

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

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

Clickheretoentertext.

Question 9: Do you support housing development at:

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

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

Any other location (please specify which)

Clickheretoentertext.

6 Keyworth

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

Clickheretoentertext.

Question 11: Do you support housing development at:

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

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

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

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

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

7 Yes – Yes – No all of but site only part of site Site KEY10 – Land south of Debdale Lane (1) (potential capacity around 230 homes)

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

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

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

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

Any other location (please specify which)

Clickheretoentertext.

Radcliffe on Trent

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

Clickheretoentertext.

Question 13: Do you support housing development at:

Any other location (please specify which)

Clickheretoentertext.

Ruddington

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

Clickheretoentertext.

Question 15: Do you support housing development at:

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

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

Any other location (please specify which)

Clickheretoentertext.

Housing development at ‘other villages’

Yes ……………………………………………………………………………..

No …………………………………………………………………………….

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

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

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

Don’t Yes No know

Cropwell Bishop

East Bridgford

Gotham

Sutton Bonington

Tollerton

Any other settlement (please specify which)

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

Clickheretoentertext.

Cropwell Bishop

Clickheretoentertext.

11 Question 19: Do you support housing development at:

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

Any other location (please specify which)

Clickheretoentertext.

East Bridgford

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

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

We have a number of infrastructure issues in the village in regards to services etc. Having dealt with a number of flooding issues in the foul sewer system I cannot see how the original system can accommodate further expansion of properties. The school at present is expanding however this is to cater for the present pupil numbers.

Question 21: Do you support housing development at:

Yes – Yes – No all of but site only part of site Site EBR1 – Land behind Kirk Hill (east) (potential X capacity around 15 homes) Site EBR2 – Land behind Kirk Hill (west) (potential X capacity around 70 homes) Site EBR3 – Land north of Kneeton Road (1) (potential capacity around 95 homes) X Site EBR4 – Land north of Kneeton Road (2) X (potential capacity around 150 homes) Site EBR5 – Land at Lammas Lane (potential X capacity around 40 homes) Site EBR6 – Closes Side Lane (west) (potential capacity around 20 homes) X Site EBR7 – Closes Side Lane (east) (potential capacity around 20 homes) X Site EBR8 – Land to the north of Butt Lane (potential capacity around 20 homes) X Site EBR9 – Land to the south of Springdale Lane (potential capacity around 30 homes) X

Any other location (please specify which)

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers. For any of the sites, this could include comments on the services and facilities required to 13 support development and the design, mix and layout of development.

See my comments in Q20. I would point out that the choice of these sites is driven by the Developers response and not what would be good for the village which surely is not the way that planning should be determined. Ih always been stated that Sites EBR1 and 2 owned by the Church were allocated in the late 1950’s for planning and the incumbent at the time the Rev Roger McClean was given compensation for agreeing not to develop these sites. I have not mentioned the responses from the Community Plan and I am sure others have provided this information, but I would stress that this is a response from the Village.

Gotham

Clickheretoentertext.

Question 23: Do you support housing development at:

14 Yes – Yes – No all of but site only part of site Site GOT5 – Land east of Gypsum Way/The Orchards (potential capacity around 200 homes) Site GOT6 – East of Leake Road (potential capacity around 45 homes) Site GOT7 – Land east of Hill Road (potential capacity around 160 homes) Site GOT8 – Land south of Moor Lane (potential capacity around 15 homes)

Any other location (please specify which)

Clickheretoentertext.

Sutton Bonington

Clickheretoentertext.

Question 25: Do you support housing development at:

Yes – Yes – No all of but site only part of site 15 Yes – Yes – No all of but site only part of site Site SUT1 – Land north of Park Lane (potential capacity around 140 homes) Any other location (please specify which)

Clickheretoentertext.

Tollerton

Clickheretoentertext.

Question 27: Do you support housing development at:

Yes – Yes – No all of but site only part of site Site TOL1 – Land at Burnside Grove (potential capacity around 180 homes)

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

Clickheretoentertext.

Other issues

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

Clickheretoentertext.

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

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

Or to: [email protected]

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

Vennett-Smith M 659886

Richard Mapletoft

From: Margaret Vennett-Smith 29 March 2017 Sent: 21:11 To: Localdevelopment Subject: Gotham Sites 1 - 8

I wish to make the following comments please:

I do not agree that the Local Plan should identify Gotham as a suitable village for housing. I think it would not be appropriate a this moment to include Gotham in this plan due to the amount of flooding in June 2016. I think it would not be right as the sewers and ditches are a problem that cannot be easily solved.

My view on the housing needs until 2028 is as stated above, I do not think that Gotham should be included in any housing plans until these problems can be sorted out.

On the relevant sites I wish to comment as follows:

Site Got 1

I understood that this site reverted back to agricultural use some years ago from industrial. I don't believe this is a greenfield site. I think this site for housing would be crazy as the access is not only very poor but it would eventually come out onto Nottingham Road at the worst possible point i.e. the corner near to the British Legion. I think this also would be poor for housing as the site would be a problem for access for the farmer who farms the hills up the lane adjacent to this narrow plot. Also there is a public footpath alongside this site.

Site Got 2

I think this site is too near to the school and Kegworth Road is already a problem with parking with the police having been called several times re the parking. This is also one of the few greenbelt sites within the village itself. It would be totally wrong to build on this field in my view.

With this site being next to Got 3 there would be the problem of where the traffic in and out of the site if it were built would go. Either Kegworth Road or Nottingham Road would be lethal.

Site Got 3

This site to the rear of my garden has been a problem now since 2012. My house suffered a devastating flood from this field (Got 3) and again last June 2016 another flood devastated my house. I have lost everything in my house on the lower floors due to these two floods and this problem has been caused through the drainage of water coming from the hills to the culvert on the lane which is adjacent to Got 1 (planned site). I think it would not be a good site for building due to the heavy rainfall from the hills and I think a better site on the East Leake side of the village would be better as the water could be directed to the moors. The water on Got 3 goes through to the middle of the village where there was serious flooding last June. This was due to the sewers as aforementioned. I really don't see the need for housing until this has been sorted out. We are asking for monumental problems in the future.

The rest of the sites in the middle of the village I do not think would be a good idea for building.

I would mention also that when I purchased my property some 38 years ago I did for the view and didn't envisage having to look at new housing from my windows.

Margaret Vennett-Smith

11 Nottingham Road

1 Gotham

NG11 OHE

0115 983 0541

Could you please acknowledge this email

2 Comment.

Consultee Mrs Barbara Walker (830463)

Email Address

Address Paradise Farm The Rushes Nottingham NG11 0HY

Event Name Local Plan Part 2 Further Options

Comment by Mrs Barbara Walker

Comment ID 59

Response Date 29/03/17 15:31

Status Submitted

Submission Type Web

Version 0.1

Question 1

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

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your response. Perhaps it was short sighted of RBC to think that the larger sites would be started swiftly.This situation has only arisen because the developers have chosen not to build. Perhaps RBC should sanction developers who have gained planning permission on a site and then do not proceed. This is not the responsibility of residents.

Question 2

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

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 1 Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your response Impossible if the sites have not started to be built on.

Question 3

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

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

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers.This could include comments on the services and facilities required to support development and the design, mix and layout of development. I understood that the edge of the urban area should be considered first

Question 4

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

Please provide any comments you wish to make in support of your response. Any brown field sites should be considered first... why has building not started on this Bingham site who is holding up this development?

Question 5

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

Please provide any comments you wish to make in support of your response. It seems Cotgrave is keen to expand,

Question 6

If Local Plan Part 2 does allocate land at Cotgrave for housing development, the total amount identified will be dependent on a range of factors including the capacity of local facilities (e.g. schools, doctors’ surgery) and infrastructure (e.g. local roads) to sustain new homes, the potential physical impact of development on locations around the town, including how the Green Belt would be affected, and how quickly particular sites would be able to deliver new homes. It will become clearer as development proposals become more certain

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 2 what new or improved services and facilities are required to support new housing. The views of service providers such as Nottinghamshire County Council will be important in identifying what is required.

Do you have a view on the total number of new homes that should be accommodated on greenfield sites at Cotgrave up to 2028? If possible, please give reasons for your answer. As you say only Notts County Council can answer this question.

Question 8

Do you agree that, apart from those eight sites No that already have planning permission for housing development (sites EL1 to EL8 as shown below), further greenfield land should not be allocated for housing development at East Leake?

Please provide any comments you wish to make in support of your response. I think East Leake has taken more than its fair share of housing recently and I believe the City of Nottingham should review its capability to accept more housing as this is where the need is supposed to be.

Question 9

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

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

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

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

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

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

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 3 Site EL14 – Land north of Lantern Lane (2) No (potential capacity around 360 homes)

Any other location (please specify which) No

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers. For any of the sites, this could include comments on the services and facilities required to support development and the design, mix and layout of development. Not sure that the facilities in East Leake can easily take more housing that it is already delivering

Question 10

Do you have a view on the total number of new homes that should be built on greenfield sites at Keyworth up to 2028? If possible, please give reasons for your answer. Again as I do not live in this area I feel I should not comment

Question 11

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

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

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

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

Question 12

Do you have a view on the total number of new homes that should be built on greenfield sites at Radcliffe on Trent up to 2028? If possible, please give reasons for your answer. You should refer to Radcliffe's Neighbourhood Plan

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

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

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

Any other location (please specify which) No

Question 14

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

Question 15

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

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

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 5 Site RUD12 – Land to the east side of No Loughborough Road (potential capacity around 60 homes)

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

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

Any other location (please specify which) No

Question 16

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

Question 17

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

Cropwell Bishop Don't know

East Bridgford Don't know

Gotham No

Sutton Bonington Don't know

Tollerton Don't know

Any other settlement (please specify which)

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

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 6 As a resident of Gotham I believe their is a need for local families to be able to find a few new houses as set out in the recent housing survey

Question 18

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

Question 19

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Any other location (please specify which) No

Question 20

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 7 If greenfield land is allocated for housing development at East Bridgford, do you have a view on the total number of new homes that should be built up to 2028? If possible, please give reasons for your answer. I do not live in this village so feel I should not comment

Question 21

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Any other location (please specify which)

Question 22

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 8 If greenfield land is allocated for housing development at Gotham, do you have a view on the total number of new homes that should be built up to 2028? If possible, please give reasons for your answer. I am not against building on any brownfield sites in the village. The locals would like to see a small development at the rear of the British Legion site and would like to know what is planned for the now closed down British Legion Club.Without this information it is impossible to make sensible suggestions.

Question 23

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

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

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

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

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

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

Site GOT6 – East of Leake Road (potential capacity Yes - part of site around 45 homes)

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

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

Any other location (please specify which)

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers. For any of the sites, this could include comments on the services and facilities required to support development and the design, mix and layout of development. At present these are all greenfield sites (apart from the Legion site) I have no objection to building on brownfield sites.

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 9 I still believe the city of Nottinghamm should review its sites as it appears that that is where the need is required.

Question 24

If greenfield land is allocated for housing development at Sutton Bonington, do you have a view on the total number of new homes that should be built up to 2028? If possible, please give reasons for your answer. Do not feel qualified to comment

Question 25

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

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

Any other location (please specify which) No

Question 27

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

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

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

Any other location (please specify which) No

Please identify any matters related to housing development which are not covered here or elsewhere. I feel RBC should be much stricter with the developers as they have their planning permissions yet refuse to start developing. If they did so in bulk, perhaps ther costs of housing would come down as the Barker report suggested.

The whole system is wrong as far too many houses are planned in the first place...the figures are unrealistic as the building industry is incapable of producing the number of houses that are required. Even before the downturn builders were not producing sufficient houses.The only way local authorities can produce housing is for them to go back to building council houses as a certain number of people will never be able to afford a large mortgage. All villagers should grow slowly and organically, they would all be improved by a little bit of new housing. There are swathes of land in the city e,g, off London Road, old brownfield sites and these should be built up first as they are more sustainable.(near the station, good buse routes etc,)

Richard Mapletoft

From: aimi walmsley

DearSir/Madam,

Iamwritingtoyoutoexpressmyconcernfortheproposeddevelopmentofanother600housestothe villageofTollerton.

IhavelivedonMedinaDriveinTollertonwithmypartnerforthepasttwoyears,wedecidedtomoveto thevillageasthevillagehasalovelyruralaspectwhichwasimportanttouswhenchoosingwheretolive. Theopencountrysideissomethingweenjoyonadailybasis,theadditionofhousesontheproposedsites wouldchangeTollertonfrombeingaruralvillagetojustbeinganothersuburbofNottingham.

Tollertonalreadyhas4000newhousesallocatedandIpersonallythinkitsunfairtoexpectthevillageto takemorehouses,notonlywillthehousesbevisibleformalongwayandspoilthegreenbeltland,they willalsocreatemoretrafficthroughthevillagewhichalreadyanissue.

WereallyfeelthatthedevelopmentswillnegativelyimpactourvillageandIwishtoopposetheseplans.

YoursSincerley

AimiWalmsley

1 Ward J 1074447

Richard Mapletoft

From: Sky <> Sent: 29 March 2017 13:04 To: Localdevelopment Cc: Cllr D Mason; Cllr R L Butler; Neil Clarke; tollertontabu@ Subject: Proposed housing development - Tollerton (Tol1,Tol2 and Tol3)

Dearsirs

Iwritetoexpressmyobjectionstotheabovegoingahead.Priortoyoupassingplanningpermissionfor4,000house inTollertonyouassuredtheresidentsthatthishadtohappenasnolocalplanmeantthatcentralGovernmentcould dictatewherehouseswerebuilt.

ItisunbelievablethatRuschcliffeBCarenowproposingtodestroytheverynatureofTollertonandthesurrounding areabydictatingfurtherbuildingontheaboveproposedsites.Onthebasisofincreasedtrafficandbringingsouth nottstogridlockalonethisshouldnotgoahead.

WhyisRushcliffeboroughCouncilobsessedwithbuildingongreenbelttothisscaleinthisareaoftheborough?

RushcliffeͲBestplacetoliveintheUKͲsorrybutnotwhenSharphillWoodisbuiltonalongwiththeTollerton triangleandGamstonLingsbaruptotheairport.

TollertonhastakenmorethanitsshareͲweshouldbelefttodealwiththemassivedevelopmentalreadyplanned andthetrafficchaosanother8,000carswillcreatewhenthe4,000plushousesarebuilt.

JohnWard

SentfrommyiPad

1 Comment.

Consultee Mrs Lisa Wardle (1065414)

Email Address

Address 20 Falcon Way East Leake Loughborough LE12 6YF

Event Name Local Plan Part 2 Further Options

Comment by Mrs Lisa Wardle

Comment ID 9

Response Date 27/02/17 20:00

Status Submitted

Submission Type Web

Version 0.1

Question 1

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

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your response. I believe that estimated shortfall in 2019 has been overestimated.

Question 2

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your response These areas are best placed to be expanded, albeit over a longer timeframe

Question 3

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

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

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers.This could include comments on the services and facilities required to support development and the design, mix and layout of development. Should not exceed the existing housing line

Question 4

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

Question 5

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

Question 7

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

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

Site COT2 - Land at Main Road (potential capacity No around 50 homes)

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 2 Site COT3 – Land rear of and to the west of Main Yes - all of site Road (potential capacity around 125 homes)

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

Site COT5 – Bakers Hollow (potential capacity Yes - all of site around 60 homes)

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

Site COT7– Land behind Firdale (2) (potential No capacity around 65 homes)

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

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

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

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

Question 8

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

Please provide any comments you wish to make in support of your response. In addition those that have submitted planning applications on greenfield sites but not yet approved should be rejected. Of particular concern is EL14 due to increased traffic congestion along Lantern Lane and loss of utilised green space.

Question 9

Site EL9 –Land south of West Leake Road Yes - all of site (potential capacity around 50 homes)

Site EL10 – Land north of West Leake Road Yes - all of site (potential capacity around 75 homes)

Site EL12 – Land off Rempstone Road (north) Yes - part of site (potential capacity around 235 homes)

Site EL13 – Land off Rempstone Road (south) Yes - part of site (potential capacity around 120 homes)

Site EL14 – Land north of Lantern Lane (2) No (potential capacity around 360 homes)

Any other location (please specify which) No

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers. For any of the sites, this could include comments on the services and facilities required to support development and the design, mix and layout of development. Land to the east of the village should be preserved, as this is used by village occupants for recreation. In additon (EL14) access via Lantern Lane to any further development is hazardous as it is already extremely congested -servicing the leisure centre and two schools -and would pass thorugh the split primary school site. EL 12 and EL 13 should be restricted if approved as there is not the infrastructure in the village to support many more houses

Question 11

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

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

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

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

Site KEY5 – Hill Top Farm, Platt Lane (1) (potential Yes - all of site capacity around 50 homes)

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 4 Site KEY6 – Hill Top Farm, Platt Lane (2) (potential Yes - all of site capacity around 80 homes)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Site KEY13 – Hillside Farm (potential capacity Yes - all of site around 60 homes)

Site KEY14 – Land south of Bunny Lane (potential Yes - part of site capacity around 410 homes)

Question 13

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

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

Question 15

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 5 to whether each one should or should not be allocated for housing development. For any one site, it should be noted that there may be the option to develop only part of the site rather than its whole. The development of any one of these sites would be likely to result in impacts which require mitigation and also opportunities to improve the local area. We would need to consider the facilities and services required, the type and design of housing, and how the site would be accessed by car and public transport, amongst a number of other issues. Do you support housing development at:

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

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

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

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

Question 16

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

Question 17

Cropwell Bishop Ye s

East Bridgford Ye s

Gotham Ye s

Sutton Bonington Ye s

Tollerton Ye s

Any other settlement (please specify which)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Any other location (please specify which)

Question 21

Site EBR1 – Land behind Kirk Hill (east) (potential Yes - all of site capacity around 15 homes)

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 7 Site EBR2 – Land behind Kirk Hill (west) (potential Yes - all of site capacity around 70 homes)

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

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

Site EBR5 – Land at Lammas Lane (potential Yes - all of site capacity around 40 homes)

Site EBR6 – Closes Side Lane (west) (potential Yes - all of site capacity around 20 homes)

Site EBR7 – Closes Side Lane (east) (potential Yes - all of site capacity around 20 homes)

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

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

Any other location (please specify which)

Question 23

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

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

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

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

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

Site GOT6 – East of Leake Road (potential capacity Yes - all of site around 45 homes)

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 8 Site GOT7 – Land east of Hill Road (potential Yes - all of site capacity around 160 homes)

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

Any other location (please specify which)

Question 25

Site SUT1 – Land north of Park Lane (potential Yes - all of site capacity around 140 homes)

Any other location (please specify which)

Question 27

Site TOL1 – Land at Burnside Grove (potential Yes - all of site capacity around 180 homes)

Site TOL2 – West of Tollerton Lane and North of Yes - all of site Medina Drive (potential capacity around 360 homes)

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

Webb 1092943

Phil Marshall

From: Heather webb 31 March 2017 16:34 Sent: Localdevelopment To: AGAINST TOLLERTON HOUSING Subject: dErSir/Madam

IunderstandthatthereareproposalstobuildhousingaroundTollertonVillage.

Iamstronglyagainstthisaswehavenotgotthefacilitiestoservicemorehouses.TollertonVillage ifextendedwoulddestroythevillageaspectaswewouldbealmostjoinedtoGamston/WestBridgford.

TrafficproblemsͲwealreadyhaveproblemswithpeopleusingTollertonasacutthrough.Thenew hospitalandhousesbeingbuildatEdwaltonwillalreadybringextensivemoretrafficͲthereforeitwould causeproblemsfortheresidentsofTollertonasitis.

TheGreenBeltlandbehindMedinaDriveisamainpartofthevillage'saspect.Plentyofpeoplebought housesspecificallyforthelandscapeseenbehindMedinaDrive.Buildinghousestherewoulddecrease housepricesontherighthandsideofMedinaDriveandwouldinfact,ruinthelookofthevillage.

TheborderaroundthesmallvillageofTollertonwouldberuinedforalltheresidents.

Kindregards HeatherWebb

(40MedinaDrive,Tollerton)

1 Webber L 1074546 Richard Mapletoft

From: Lorraine Webber <>29 March 2017 19:44 Sent: Localdevelopment To: Dominic Webber Cc: Housing plans for Cotgrave Subject:

Towhomitmayconcern,

IamwritingtoraisemyconcernsregardingplanstobuildhousesongreenbeltlandintheCotgravearea.

IamahomeownercurrentlylivingonMensingAvenueinCotgrave.MyhusbandandIboughtthehouse9years ago....forthestunningviewacrossthefields.Wewereextremelydisappointedtohearthatthefieldbehindusisone oftheproposedplotsfornewhousing.

DoyouknowhowlongittakesmetopulloutofMensingAvenueduetothevolumeofcarsexitingandenteringthe village?Quitealongtime!Cotgravecouldnotcopewithincreasedhousinginthearea,theroadnetworkisn't sufficientforthecurrentlevelsnevermindaddingtoit.

Doyouknowhowlongitcurrentlytakestogetanappointmentatthedoctors?Theycannotcopewiththecurrent demandswithoutaddingadditionalpeopletotheequation.

WhentheybuilttheHollygatedevelopmenttheymadeanumberofpromisesincludingtheredevelopmentofthe shoppingarea.Ithasn'thappened.AllwearegettingisanewbuildingtohousetheGP,policeetcandnewfaciasfor theexistingshops,notsoattractiveasfirstpromised,nonewshopsetctoaccommodatetheextensionofthe village.Nobanketc.WhydoesCotgravealwaysendupatthebottomofthepileforimprovements?

WewerepromisedduringtheHollygatedevelopmentthattherewouldbenofurtherhousing.Weallchoosetolive inCotgravebecauseitisavillage,notasprawling'town'withinsufficientfacilitiesforthesizeoftheproposed furtherdevelopment.

Icannotstressmyunhappinessenoughabouttheseplans.Pleasecouldyouincludemyemailintheplanning processasIhavebeenunabletocompleteaformfromyourwebsite.Pleasealsokeepmeinformedaboutthe processgoingforward.

Kindregards MrsLorraineWebber 32MensingAvenue,Cotgrave

SentfrommyiPhone

1 Comment.

Consultee Mr Vaughan Weighill (1073963)

Email Address

Address 49 Clifton Road Ruddington Nottingham NG11 6DD

Event Name Local Plan Part 2 Further Options

Comment by Mr Vaughan Weighill

Comment ID 63

Response Date 29/03/17 17:23

Status Submitted

Submission Type Web

Version 0.1

Question 1

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

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your response. I understand and support the need for new housing in appropriate locations where it won't unduly strain services and infrastructure. This should include affordable housing,

Question 2

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

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your response These are large enough as proposed - I do not in any case support the South of Clifton proposal due to causing urban sprawl into what is very rural farm /moorland area which is quite unique to this area.

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

Question 4

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

Question 5

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

Question 8

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

Question 15

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 2 Site RUD11 – Old Loughborough Road (potential Yes - all of site capacity around 40 homes)

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

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

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

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

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers. For any of the sites, this could include comments on the services and facilities required to support development and the design, mix and layout of development. The proposals adjacent to the A60 (RUD11/12/13/14) are better located and less likely to lead to major traffic congestion problems associated with people having to drive through the village centre for most journeys e.g. RUD7 and RUD 8 would increase traffic problems along The Green/Village Centre and Clifton Road respectively.I do not think RUD11-14 would be visually detrimental and they do not lead to any coalescence with other settlements, in contrast to RUD8 would result in Ruddington becoming more adjoined to Clifton. RUD1/RUD 2 are the 'right' side of the village for people who commute into Nottingham for work, and there is established bus service. However both together woudl be a disproportionate sprawl to the existing village. I do not support the loss of Sellors Field for RUD1. If RUD1 were not developed I could however see an opportunity for acceptable sustainable development around the Ruddington Grange area as a mini settlement distinct from the main village (somewhat like Mickleborough Hill is separate an distinct character)

Question 16

Question 17

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 3 Should Local Plan Part 2 identify the following ‘other’ villages as suitable for a limited level of housing growth on greenfileld sites?

Cropwell Bishop

East Bridgford

Gotham

Sutton Bonington

Tollerton Ye s

Any other settlement (please specify which)

Please provide any comments you wish to make in support of your response. Tollerton has the advantage of being closer to main urban area and good road connections/ access in the A606

Question 19

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

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

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

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

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

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

Any other location (please specify which)

Question 21

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 4 There are a number of sites that have been put forward by developers and others as potentially suitable for housing development at East Bridgford. These are shown on the plan below. Most of the sites, if identified as suitable for housing development, should be able to deliver new homes relatively quickly and, therefore, contribute to resolving the current shortfall in the amount of land that is available for housing development over the next few years. We would like to know what you think about the suitability of each of those individual sites shown on the plan below and whether, in each case, the site should or should not be allocated for housing development. For any one site, it should be noted that there may be the option to develop only part of the site rather than its whole. The development of any one of these sites would be likely to result in impacts which require mitigation and also opportunities to improve the local area. We would need to consider the facilities and services required, the type and design of housing, and how the site would be accessed by car and public transport, amongst a number of other issues. Do you support housing development at:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Any other location (please specify which)

Question 23

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Any other location (please specify which)

Question 25

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

Any other location (please specify which)

Question 27

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

Site TOL1 – Land at Burnside Grove (potential Yes - all of site capacity around 180 homes)

Site TOL2 – West of Tollerton Lane and North of Yes - part of site Medina Drive (potential capacity around 360 homes)

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

Whitling 1073093

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

Response Form

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

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

Your Details Agent details (where applicable)

Stephen Whitling Name Clickheretoentertext.

Harvest Hill Address Clickheretoentertext. Station Road Keyworth NG12 5LT

E-mail Clickheretoentertext.

Housing Development

Housing Land Supply

Yes ……………………………………………………………………………..

No …………………………………………………………………………….

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

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

Clickheretoentertext.

Housing Sites adjacent to the Main Urban Area

Yes ……………………………………………………………………………..

No …………………………………………………………………………….

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

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

Clickheretoentertext.

Question 3: Do you support housing development at:

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

Clickheretoentertext.

Housing Development at the 'Key Settlements'

Bingham

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

Yes ……………………………………………………………………………..

No …………………………………………………………………………….

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

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

Clickheretoentertext.

Cotgrave

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

Yes ……………………………………………………………………………..

No …………………………………………………………………………….

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

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

3 Clickheretoentertext.

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

Clickheretoentertext.

Question 7: Do you support housing development at:

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

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

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

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

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

4 Yes – Yes – No all of but site only part of site Site COT9 – Land south of Hollygate Lane (1) (potential capacity around 140 homes)

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

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

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

Any other location (please specify which)

Clickheretoentertext.

East Leake

Yes ……………………………………………………………………………..

No …………………………………………………………………………….

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

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

5 Clickheretoentertext.

Question 9: Do you support housing development at:

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

Any other location (please specify which)

Clickheretoentertext.

Keyworth

Question 11: Do you support housing development at:

Yes – Yes – No all of but site only part of site Site KEY1 – Land east of Willow Brook (potential capacity around 40 homes) Site KEY2 – Land off Selby Lane and Willowbrook (potential capacity around 15 homes) Site KEY3 – Land south of Selby Lane (potential 3 capacity around 60 homes) Site KEY4 – Land off Nicker Hill (potential capacity around 450 homes)

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

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

Site KEY8 – Land between Platt Lane and Station 3 Road (potential capacity around 180 homes)

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

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

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

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

7 Yes – Yes – No all of but site only part of site Site KEY13 – Hillside Farm (potential capacity around 60 homes)

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

Any other location (please specify which)

My reasons for not supporting site KEY8 are:-

x the site is too distant from the centre of the village and associated amenities x there would be a significant increase in local traffic causing road congestion and exacerbating the existing parking problems in the centre of Keyworth x development of the site would be intrusive and incongruous and the development would be an adjunct to the community not a part of it x the siting of the existing bus stops for public transport into Nottingham and out of the village are inappropriate and that on Station Road just beyond Normanton Lane positively dangerous for motorists, and for passengers wishing to cross the road to Nicker hill x development would lead to unrestricted urban sprawl towards Plumtree village and ultimately Tollerton and the merging with those settlements: it is believed a developer has an option to purchase the land adjacent to that of site 8. When linked with the developments which are taking place at Sharphill/Wheatcrofts roundabout it is not difficult to foresee the eventual linking with West Bridgford x the countryside should be safeguarded and the site used to promote a sense of remoteness and separation from other communities x the site is at bedroom level of some houses on Station Road and Park Road giving rise to a visually intrusive development which it will not be possible to screen successfully x the site generally would be visually intrusive x Station Road is already very busy and noise assessments have shown that the traffic noise is above acceptable levels x the site is currently productive farm land and should remain so x serious traffic congestion is the norm along Station Road and at the junction with the main road into Nottingham: Station Road is not a suitable route out of the village for the inevitable increased traffic flows. The traffic generated by any new developments should see their exit route as along Bunny Lane x exiting and entering Park Road are very hazardous manoeuvres which can only be made worse with increased traffic: there have been several accidents at this junction x the road at the junction of Normanton Lane, Station Road and Nicker Hill regularly floods when there are heavy downpours; a hard surface on the Platt Lane/Station Road site will increase the volume of surface water and thereby the risk and frequency

8 of flooding x the Platt Lane playing fields will be land locked with no potential for their expansion which will probably be needed if Keyworth were to grow appreciably.

My reasons for supporting site KEY3 are:-

- nearer to village centre - less traffic flow along Selby Lane than Station Road - land drops away from existing Brookview properties, so impact of additional development is less.

Radcliffe on Trent

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

Clickheretoentertext.

Question 13: Do you support housing development at:

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

Any other location (please specify which)

9 Clickheretoentertext.

Ruddington

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

Clickheretoentertext.

Question 15: Do you support housing development at:

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

Any other location (please specify which)

10 Clickheretoentertext.

Housing development at ‘other villages’

Yes ……………………………………………………………………………..

No …………………………………………………………………………….

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

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

Clickheretoentertext.

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

Don’t Yes No know

Cropwell Bishop

East Bridgford

Gotham

11 Don’t Yes No know

Sutton Bonington

Tollerton

Any other settlement (please specify which)

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

Clickheretoentertext.

Cropwell Bishop

Clickheretoentertext.

Question 19: Do you support housing development at:

Yes – Yes – No all of but site only part of site Site CBI1 – Land to the south of Nottingham Road and east of Kinoulton Road (potential capacity around 30 homes)

12 Yes – Yes – No all of but site only part of site Site CBI2 – Land north of Memorial Hall (1) (potential capacity around 75 homes) Site CBI3– Land north of Memorial Hall (2) (potential capacity around 60 homes) Site CBI4 – Land north of Fern Road (2) (potential capacity around 30 homes)

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

Any other location (please specify which)

Clickheretoentertext.

East Bridgford

Clickheretoentertext.

Question 21: Do you support housing development at:

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

Any other location (please specify which)

Clickheretoentertext.

Gotham

Question 22: If greenfield land is allocated for housing development at Gotham, do

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

Clickheretoentertext.

Question 23: Do you support housing development at:

Any other location (please specify which)

Clickheretoentertext.

15 Sutton Bonington

Clickheretoentertext.

Question 25: Do you support housing development at:

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

Clickheretoentertext.

Tollerton

Question 26: If greenfield land is allocated for housing development at Tollerton, do 16 you have a view on the total number of new homes that should be built up to 2028? If possible, please give reasons for your answer.

Clickheretoentertext.

Question 27: Do you support housing development at:

Clickheretoentertext.

Other issues

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

17 Clickheretoentertext.

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

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

Or to: [email protected]

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

18 Whysall 1072289

Richard Mapletoft

From: ANDREW WHYSALL

I would like to offer comments in respect of Cropwell Bishop

Question 17: Yes suitable for a limited level of housing growth on greenfield sites in respect of Cropwell Bishop, don't know for the other four villages identified as I am not familiar with them

Question 18: total number of new homes that should be built Max 50 I believe the limiting factor would be the ability of the local school to accommodate an increased number of children. Clearly the type of property would be a factor, one bedroom apartments or retirement dwellings having less impact. I am also taking into account the likely development of a current brownfield site at the rear of the former post office in Church Road for residential use.

Question 19: Site CBI1 – Land to the south of Nottingham Road and east of Kinoulton Road -No, this land should be left for agriculture use only , it is not suitable for housing as it is undermined by former gypsum mine workings there was a brick ventilation shaft still in situ in the eastern of the two fields until the 1970's or early 80's.

Site CBI2 – Land north of Memorial Hall No - to great a visual impact to current nearby dwellings and to those enjoying recreation use of the towpath along the Grantham canal.

Site CBI3– Land north of Memorial Hall No - to great a visual impact to current nearby dwellings and to those enjoying recreation use of the towpath along the Grantham canal.

Site CBI4 – Land north of Fern Road No - to great a visual impact to current nearby dwellings

Site CBI5 – Land north of Fern Road - Yes as minimal impact to current residents of the village

Site CBI6 – Land to the north of Fern Road - Yes as minimal impact to current residents of the village

1 Widdicks D 1075467

ʹͲʹͺ x ͷͲͲ ͳʹͲͲȂͳͷͲͲǤ Ǥ Ǥ Ǥ Ǥ Ǥ ͳͲͲͳͲ Ǥ ǣǦ ȀȀ ͳ ʹ ͵ Ͷ ͷ ͸ ͹ ͺ ͻ ͳͲ ͳͳ ͳʹ

ͳͷ

Ǧ Widdicks E 1075471 Richard Mapletoft

From: Eileen Widdicks 30 March 2017 15:54 Sent: Localdevelopment To: comments on local plan Subject: comments .pdf Attachments:

Please find attached a scan of the local development reply form

My name and address is

Eileen Widdicks 15 Rectory Road Cotgrave

Widdowson 1092864 Phil Marshall

From: richard widdowson 31 March 2017 16:39 Sent: Localdevelopment To: Fwd: East Bridgford - Housing Development Subject:

Name: Richard Widdowson address: 6 bridle Ways East bridgford Nottingham ng13 8pt

Dear Sirs

Being a resident of East Bridgford for over 10 years now, my concerns that the Local Authority has identified East Bridgford as a potential site for a new Housing Development have been identified below:

Having a new development constructed in East Bridgford Impacts a number of things in the Short Term, Medium Term and Long Term.

IntheshortertermistheextentofdisruptiongeneratedbythedevelopmentinEastBridgfordandinto thelongerterm theimpactitmighthaveonthenatureintheareaandthecommunityaswellasdirectlyonhouseprices.

Thepotentialcostthatexistingresidentsfacewithnewdevelopments:

1. Lossofamenitywhichnotonlyreducesindividualwelfarebutmayalsoreduceproperty values.

2. Pressureonlocalservices; 3. Pressureoninfrastructure,causingcongestion,pollution,androadsafetyissues; 4. AdverseconsequencesofillͲdesigneddevelopmentsthatfailtofostercommunity–these Includesocialaswellaseconomicandenvironmentalcosts,allofwhichcanreduce property values;andmostdirectly 5. Additionalsupplymaygeneratelowerhousepricesreducingwellbeingamongthose

1 already livingintheneighbourhood.

Therearepotentialbenefitswhichinclude:

1. Theprovisionofmoreandbetterhousingtoaccommodateadditionalhouseholds; 2. Thepossibilityofincreasedpropertyvaluesifnewdevelopmentiswelldesignedand Complementsexistinghousing; 3. Thepossibilitythatdevelopmentbringsinnewinfrastructure; 4. Longertermimprovementsinaffordabilityacrossthehousingmarket; 5. Additionalspendingandinvestmentinlocalshopsandservices 6. AdditionalinvestmentinthelocalareaarisingfromSection106orCILpaymentsfrom the Developer.

With this in mind I feel that East Bridgford is the wrong place to develop, and the reasons can be analysed from the points I made above on the costs we will bear for having this.

The local School is yet again being developed with further classrooms being built, this already has an impact prior to this potential development starting as the footprint of St Peters East Bridgford is small in comparison to the number of pupils.

Creating more classrooms as they are doing at present reduces the outside area for children to play and develop.

The headmaster at St Peters has accepted more and more children outside of the village, picking up the children from the new Newton development. This development was meant to have created amenities which included a school, shops etc etc, but has failed to do years after the development has been completed, this impacts our school at present.

Classroom levels are now at breaking point, which some classes exceeding 45 pupils. This in itself is unacceptable, if a new development was accepted the school would not be able to cope in any way, the only way I see it is to use EBR3 & EBR4 areas to build a new bigger school and use the school land to develop housing.

This would solve another problem with the school being Local Authority land and therefore not private land thus in the interest of Local Authority the housing will be provided where the public sector is involved as owner, the appropriate authority may be keen to put the public asset into its best and most publicly acceptable alternative use, and to be seen to be doing so.

Where private owners may be primarily concerned about the site being put into its highest priced use.

2 The point above is the biggest issue of developing in East Bridgford, it could have a massive problem that cannot be rectified once new housing is in place.

However with the potential sites that have been earmarked by yourselves I think EBR6 & EBR7 are good locations for new sites, they fill in spare pockets in the village, could access routes. A recent affordable housing development was built adjacent to these with great success and a new one would compliment this and fill the gap between existing housing.

Kind Regards

Richard Widdowson

This email and any attached files are confidential and copyright protected. If you are not the addressee, any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. Unless otherwise expressly agreed in writing, nothing stated in this communication shall be legally binding.

The ultimate parent company of the Atkins Group is WS Atkins plc. Registered in England No. 1885586. Registered Office Woodcote Grove, Ashley Road, Epsom, Surrey KT18 5BW. A list of wholly owned Atkins Group companies registered in the United Kingdom and locations around the world can be found at http://www.atkinsglobal.com/site-services/group-company-registration-details

Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.

3 Wigley 1072304

Richard Mapletoft

From: Barbara Tomczak 17 March 2017 19:27 Sent: Localdevelopment To: New housing threat to Ruddington Subject:

DearsirorMadam LivingonLoughboroughroadandnotbeingabletogetoffmydrivewayasthetrafficinthemorningsandeveningsis relentless,makesmeprotestagainsttherud13/14/6/5proposalstobuildontheopenfieldsTherewouldbeno alternativeaccesstothehousesotherthanLoughboroughroad/thedoctorsnowisoversubscribedandIhaveto wait2weeksforAdoctornevermindaparticularGPI'msuretheschoolsareoversubscribedalthoughthat'snot somethingIneedanymore. Theinfrastructureandgettinginandoutofthevillageisanightmareastherearealreadycommutersparkingatthe lowerendofKirklaneandabandoningtheircarscausingcongestionNoonetakesanynoticeofNOPARKING outsideSainsburysduring5.00Ͳ6.30asparkingattendantsdon'tmonitorit!Hencetheyknowtheycangetawaywith it. LorriesstilltrytomaketheirwaythroughthevillagecausinggridlocksIamvehementlyagainsttheadditionofthe housingproposalforallthereasonsaboveandmoreKindregardsMrsBarbaraWigley 236Loughboroughrd Ruddington

SentfrommyiPhone

**********ConfidentialityNotice&Disclaimer**********

Thismessage,togetherwithanyattachments,isforthe confidentialandexclusiveuseoftheaddressee(s).Ifyou receiveitinerror,pleasedeletethemessageandits attachmentsfromyoursystemimmediatelyandnotifyusby returneͲmail.Donotdisclose,copy,circulateoruseany informationcontainedinthiseͲmail.

(1)Whilstwehavetakenreasonableprecautionstoensurethat anyattachmenttothiseͲmailhasbeensweptforviruses,we cannotacceptliabilityforanydamagesustainedasaresultof softwarevirusesandwouldadvisethatyoucarryoutyourown viruschecksbeforeopeninganyattachment.

(2)Thesender shallremainsolelyaccountableforanystatements, representationsoropinionsthatareclearlyhisorherownand notmadeinthecourseofemployment.

**************************************************

1 Comment.

Consultee Mrs Louise Wilkins (1072183)

Email Address

Address 27 Hall Drive Gotham Nottingham NG11 0JT

Event Name Local Plan Part 2 Further Options

Comment by Mrs Louise Wilkins

Comment ID 28

Response Date 21/03/17 21:26

Status Submitted

Submission Type Web

Version 0.1

Question 1

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

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your response. I don't believe that we need to build that many new homes, when there are already over 5000 empty homes in Nottinghamshire.In 2014 the council brought 97 such properties back into use. This should be done for many others, rather than taking the "easy, cheap option" of destroying greenbelt to build new properties.

Question 2

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

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 1 I think that some houses could be built in the villages around Nottinghamshire, but not at the expense of the greenbelt and/or the villages themselves. Any excess should be tagged on to the city rather than destroy the countryside and smaller villages.

Question 3

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

Question 4

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

Question 5

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

Question 7

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

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

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 2 Site COT3 – Land rear of and to the west of Main Yes - part of site Road (potential capacity around 125 homes)

COT4 - Land off Woodgate Lane (potential capacity Yes - part of site around 80 homes)

Site COT5 – Bakers Hollow (potential capacity Yes - all of site around 60 homes)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Site COT12– Land south of Plumtree Lane Yes - part of site (potential capacity around 250 homes)

Question 8

Question 9

Site EL9 –Land south of West Leake Road Yes - part of site (potential capacity around 50 homes)

Site EL10 – Land north of West Leake Road Yes - part of site (potential capacity around 75 homes)

Site EL11 – Brook Furlong Farm(potential capacity Yes - part of site around 70 homes)

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

Site EL13 – Land off Rempstone Road (south) Yes - part of site (potential capacity around 120 homes)

Site EL14 – Land north of Lantern Lane (2) Yes - part of site (potential capacity around 360 homes)

Question 11

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

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

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

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

Site KEY5 – Hill Top Farm, Platt Lane (1) (potential Yes - part of site capacity around 50 homes)

Site KEY6 – Hill Top Farm, Platt Lane (2) (potential Yes - part of site capacity around 80 homes)

Site KEY7 – Shelton Farm, Platt Lane (potential Yes - part of site capacity around 160 homes)

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

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

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

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

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 4 Site KEY12 – Land north of Debdale Lane (2) Yes - part of site (potential capacity around 160 homes)

Site KEY13 – Hillside Farm (potential capacity Yes - part of site around 60 homes)

Site KEY14 – Land south of Bunny Lane (potential Yes - part of site capacity around 410 homes)

Question 13

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

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

Question 15

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

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

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

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 5 Site RUD14 – Croft House (potential capacity Yes - part of site around 25 homes)

Question 16

Question 17

Cropwell Bishop Ye s

East Bridgford Ye s

Gotham No

Sutton Bonington Ye s

Tollerton Ye s

Any other settlement (please specify which)

Please provide any comments you wish to make in support of your response. Only a year ago, the local plan decided that no greenbelt should be destroyed around Gotham. This should not change. We have a couple of brown sites within the village that could be used to provide the limited housing needs of the village, so destroying greenbelt is totally unnecessary and would be extremely detrimental to the character of the village.

Question 19

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Any other location (please specify which)

Question 21

Site EBR1 – Land behind Kirk Hill (east) (potential Yes - part of site capacity around 15 homes)

Site EBR2 – Land behind Kirk Hill (west) (potential Yes - part of site capacity around 70 homes)

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

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

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 7 Site EBR5 – Land at Lammas Lane (potential Yes - part of site capacity around 40 homes)

Site EBR6 – Closes Side Lane (west) (potential Yes - part of site capacity around 20 homes)

Site EBR7 – Closes Side Lane (east) (potential Yes - part of site capacity around 20 homes)

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

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

Any other location (please specify which)

Question 22

If greenfield land is allocated for housing development at Gotham, do you have a view on the total number of new homes that should be built up to 2028? If possible, please give reasons for your answer. A recent housing survey identified a need for around 10-20 low-cost homes in the village. There are brown sites that could easily accomodate this number.

Question 23

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

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

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

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

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

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 8 Site GOT6 – East of Leake Road (potential capacity Yes - all of site around 45 homes)

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

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

Any other location (please specify which)

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers. For any of the sites, this could include comments on the services and facilities required to support development and the design, mix and layout of development. The land that was formally the British Legion, in the centre of the village, along with the land adjacent to it (GOT1 and GOT3), would be a perfect location for centrally located low cost housing. The land is already brown and from the village meetings that I’ve attended, it seems that the vast majority of the village, including the Parish Council, would welcome housing there. The land west of Leake Rd (GOT7) would have good access without all traffic needing to pass through the centre of the village and would possibly provide space for employment development as well as residential, which could provide residents with local jobs and reduce the carbon footprint of the village by reducing car journeys. GOT4 should NOT be built on - It is a beautiful ridge and furrow field which is a great heritage asset to England, not just to Gotham. Heritage England and recent council reports on other such fields, would stress how much of a Heritage asset such rare fields are, and the importance of careful archaeological investigation of such fields before any thoughts of development should be considered.The field is surrounded by mature natural hedges and trees. We regularly see bats flying around the area and grass snakes, herons and green woodpeckers also use this field as their habitat.It's not just a field by an urban area, it's quality beautiful countryside. The houses at the end of Hall Drive and all along Pygall Avenue benefit greatly from the views across the fields, and would suffer a huge depreciation in price if the field were developed. Hall Drive is also far too narrow to use as an access road and the council has already turned down planning applications in the past due to this fact. There are also considerable issues with traffic down Hall Drive and along Kegworth Road due to the school. Traffic calming measures have already had to be put in place, such as road narrowing, 20mph limits and traffic lights, so to consider any increase in traffic in this area would be madness and would be putting children’s lives at risk. During village meetings, it’s clear that nobody wants any increase in traffic around the school vicinity and so many people feel it would be madness to develop at the end of Hall Drive.

Question 25

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 9 Site SUT1 – Land north of Park Lane (potential Yes - part of site capacity around 140 homes)

Any other location (please specify which)

Question 27

Site TOL1 – Land at Burnside Grove (potential Yes - part of site capacity around 180 homes)

Site TOL2 – West of Tollerton Lane and North of Yes - part of site Medina Drive (potential capacity around 360 homes)

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

Please identify any matters related to housing development which are not covered here or elsewhere. Green belt should never be built on unless all brown sites have been utilised fully first. Current government data (2016) shows that there are over 5000 empty homes in Nottinghamshire at the moment, which proves that there is plenty of opportunity to house people on land that is not greenbelt. Green belt can never come back once it’s destroyed. Decisions to remove land from greenbelt should not be taken lightly.

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 10 Comment.

Consultee Mr Martin Wilkins (1073610)

Email Address

Address 27 Hall Drive Gotham Nottingham NG11 0JT

Event Name Local Plan Part 2 Further Options

Comment by Mr Martin Wilkins

Comment ID 53

Response Date 28/03/17 22:07

Status Submitted

Submission Type Web

Version 0.1

Question 1

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

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your response. There are over 5000 empty house in Notts, use them first and Broen Field not Green

Question 2

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

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your response Melton Road, Edwalton site and East of Gamston/North of Tollerton should be used

Question 8

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 1 Do you agree that, apart from those eight sites that Ye s already have planning permission for housing development (sites EL1 to EL8 as shown below), further greenfield land should not be allocated for housing development at East Leake?

Question 9

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

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

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

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

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

Site EL14 – Land north of Lantern Lane (2) (potential No capacity around 360 homes)

Any other location (please specify which) No

Question 17

Cropwell Bishop Don't know

East Bridgford Don't know

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 2 Gotham No

Sutton Bonington No

Tollerton Don't know

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

Question 19

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

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

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

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

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

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

Any other location (please specify which)

Question 21

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 3 the type and design of housing, and how the site would be accessed by car and public transport, amongst a number of other issues. Do you support housing development at:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Any other location (please specify which)

Question 22

If greenfield land is allocated for housing development at Gotham, do you have a view on the total number of new homes that should be built up to 2028? If possible, please give reasons for your answer. 25 houses for Local need only as to be set out by a Neighbourhood Plan

Question 23

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 4 Site GOT1 – Land to the rear of former British Legion Yes - all of site (potential capacity around 25 homes)

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

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

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

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

Site GOT6 – East of Leake Road (potential capacity Yes - part of site around 45 homes)

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

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

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

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers. For any of the sites, this could include comments on the services and facilities required to support development and the design, mix and layout of development. Other Location Brownfield land at end Hill Road between Got 5 and Got 7 . Any other brown field No developments on GOT 2 or GOT 4 as this will have a bad impact on the traffic calmed area of Kegworth Road near the School. This is alreadya troublesome spot, any more traffic here would possibly increase the dangers encountered pullig out of Hall drive at these times.

GOT 4 should not be Developed 1) It will cause more traffic at the Junction of Kegworht Road which is already troublesome and had parking problems 2) Hall Drive is too Narrow for a development, it will not cope with the proposed development which could make upto 200 car movements a day (50-60 houses x 2 cars in and out each day) 3)The development site has treasured Ridge and Furrow, some of the best example in the region, which has not been farmed with motorised machinery, this site should infact be part of the Gotham Heritage Trail . There are large amounts of wild life including Grass Sankes, Herrons, Green Woodpeckers etc. 4) Having had an evaluation on our house 24/03/17, we stand to lose £27000 off the value of the house, all houses backing onto this field would also lose a large amount of money, this is not fail, people purchased these houses for the view they have of the field and the hills beyond 5) As can be seen from the data retrieved at your Consultation at Gotham Memorial Hall, this site is not popular for development for reasons including those above. Please listen to the people that you consulted and develop else where. 6) Notts County Council archaeologist says "R&F is a diminishing resource, and these are good examples. If brownfield sites are available, it would be more sustainable, and therefore more in line with the NPPF for these to be developed before parcels of land with well-preserved R&F are selected for housing allocations. Unfortunately, R&F is an undesignated heritage asset of less than regional significance. However, the fact that you are asking the question means that it is of real local significance, and this too RBC should be taking into account.The other point to be aware of is that these fields have

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 5 not been ploughed for hundreds of years, so we have no idea what other archaeological remains these earthworks may be obscuring. Were these parcels of land to come forward with planning proposals I would strongly recommend that there should be archaeological work in advance of any planning decision." As in you documentation "Historic Environment – All aspects of the environment resulting from the interaction between people and places through time, including all surviving physical remains of past human activity, whether visible, buried or submerged, and landscaped and planted or managed flora. Those elements of the historic environment that hold significance are called heritage assets." This should be protected at all cost for futre generations to enjoy.

Please see my attached documentation for t "The Green Belt Review Consultation, as the information is also relevent for this consultation

From: Ursilla Spence Sent: 17 March 2017 17:06To: Martin WSubject: RE: Important Gotham Neighbourhood plan and excellent examples of Ridge and Furrow

Dear Mr Wilkins,

Thank you for the email. I had not realised until today that you had left me messages on my voicemail system, which appears to be not synchronising properly.

Chris, my former assistant, left NCC over a year ago and has not been replaced; hence my workload is extremely heavy. Apologies for that. However, I would concur with Chris’ comments, even with the grammatical and spelling errors. R&F is a diminishing resource, and these are good examples. If brownfield sites are available, it would be more sustainable, and therefore more in line with the NPPF for these to be developed before parcels of land with well-preserved R&F are selected for housing allocations. Unfortunately, R&F is an undesignated heritage asset of less than regional significance. However, the fact that you are asking the question means that it is of real local significance, and this too RBC should be taking into account. The other point to be aware of is that these fields have not been ploughed for hundreds of years, so we have no idea what other archaeological remains these earthworks may be obscuring. Were these parcels of land to come forward with planning proposals I would strongly recommend that there should be archaeological work in advance of any planning decision. I hope this is of some help.

Regards, Ursilla

Question 25

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 6 Do you support housing development at:

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

Any other location (please specify which)

Please identify any matters related to housing development which are not covered here or elsewhere. Green belt/ Green Field should be preserved at all cost and brown fields and existing empty homes should be used. Housing in the smaller villages should be for local need only

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 7 Wilson R 647051

C/O59TelegraphLane

FourMarks

Alton,Hants.

GU345AX

31/03/2017

RushcliffeLocalPlanConsultation,GreenBeltReviewConsultation,Community InfrastructureLevyConsultation.Consultationdeadline5pmonFriday31stMarch2017.

DearSirs,

Wethankyouforyourletterdated17thFebruary2017,Ref:RM875,invitingustocommentonthe proposalsetccontainedintheabove3draftdocuments.Weherebysubmitourcommentsbyemail aspermitted,havingexperiencedsomeproblemscompletingtheonlineforms.

Thisresponsemayincludesomeobservations/viewscontainedinourconsultationresponsedated 23/03/2016,toyourletterdated29thJanuary2016,samereference(RM875).Werequesthowever thatbothresponsesareconsideredtogetherasavalidpartofourreplytotheLocalPlanPart2 consultationprocess.

Yourletterdated17thFebruary2017,andthedraftdocuments,showsthereislikelytobea substantialshortfallinthenumberofdwellingsbeingbuiltovertheplanperiodfromthe‘Strategic Sites’the‘KeySettlements’and‘Windfall’applications,theminimumtargetfigurebeing13,150new homesbetween2011–2028.Itappearstherewillalsobeashortfallafter2028.Thus,this consultationisincludingawiderrangeoftownsandvillagesthanpreviouslyconsideredtotryto meettheseshortfalls,andfromthe‘FurtherOptions’document,itstatesthatlesssustainable optionsmayalsoneedtobechosen.

Wenote,thatallbut1ofthe6‘Strategicsites’aretakinglongerthanRushcliffeBoroughCouncil (RBC)hadanticipatedtogetunderway,resultingintheexpectedshortfallinnewhousing completionsinthenext5yearsofabout900homesinthe2019–2024period,andalsoashortfall overthewholeplanperiodto2028.Wealsonotethatfurtherlandabovethetarget2,000homes willberequired,ifthe‘StrategicSites’arenotdevelopedattheratecurrentlyexpected.TheCouncil isalsorequiredtohavea5yearsupplyofdeliverablesitesatanypointduringtheLocalPlanperiod.

WhilstweagreewiththeCouncil’sassessmentofthepresenthousingsupplysituationandthat enoughlandneedstobeidentifiedtoaccommodatetheshortfall,weareunhappythattheselection processofsuitablevarioustownsandvillagesandofindividualsiteslastyearandagaininthis ‘FurtherOptions’drafthasexcludedoursiteSHLAA363(andlargersite577)128MeltonRoad, StantonontheWolds,fromconsideration,whilstthesmallerpartofthevillagehasbeeninset.

WeappreciatePolicy3oftheCoreStrategyadoptsaspatialstrategyofurbanconcentrationanda settlementhierarchywithinandaroundthemainurbanareaofNottingham,butwedon’tagree fullywiththeexclusionofsomesmallruralsettlementsacrosstheborough.Especiallyasthepolicy alsosays“orareasthatcanbenefitfromextradevelopmentinordertobringdisusedsitesintouse ortohelpsupportorprovidenewservices”.ThisisborneoutbytheNPPF(notleastatPara.55)and

1 morerecentlyinthe2017GovernmentWhitePaperonHousing,whichRBC’sCoreStrategyandthis draftLocalPlanPart2arerequiredtoincorporate.

Weraisethispoint,notleastbecauseRBChavenotputforwardthispartofStantonontheWolds/ oursite128/130MeltonRoadforpublicconsideration,whentheCoreStrategyanddraft documentsstatetheprocesshasinvolvedfullpublicconsultation.TheCouncilhasalsobeenaware throughquiteregularcontactfromourfamily,ofourdesiretoseethissite(SHLAA363some0.4Ha, andpossiblyinconjunctionwithourneighboursland–No.126ͲallcontainedwithinSHLAA577 some2Hafor7/20homes)developedforhousingaheadofdevelopinggoodproductiveagricultural land.Thislandhasbeendisusedforover40yearsawaitingachangeintheplanningpolicies,which wenowconsiderhasoccurred.

OursitefrontstheA606.Ithasbuildingsonitand2largeconcretebases,ithasextensivehardcore accessesfromthetimeitwasapoultryfarm.The‘openness’isrestrictedsomewhatbythepoor qualitydiseasedfruittreesonSHLAA363onthenorthernhalfofthesite,withtheraisedtree’d railwayembankmenttothesouth,andNo.134Ͳalargehousesetbackwithhighhedgingtothe east.TothewestishedgingandwestofNo.124isaditchalongsidethepublicfootpathrunning northtosouth,andformerpiggerybuildings.Thusoursiteisenclosed,andisoppositealarge commercialoperation–aformerpiggerywithhighhedgingontheoppositesideoftheA606.

BinghamRDCfundedalargesewerthatcrossesoursite,whichalsobenefitsfrommainservicesas wellasbusstops(andapostbox)immediatelyoutsidethesiteinbothdirectionsrunninghourly(to NottinghamandtoMelton/Rutland).Thislandisavailablenowfordevelopment.Weenvisagea developmentofexceptionalquality/innovativelydesigned/eco–friendlyhomes,possiblyusing locallysourcedmaterials,whichmightincorporateoak/larchtimberboardcladdingandpossiblya sedumcoveredortieredplantedrooftoblendinwiththesurroundingarea,similartoandinplace oftheexistingandformerbuildingsonsite.Thedesign,mix,layoutandnumberofhouseswillbe subjecttoagreementwithRBCplanningofficers,butInitialdiscussionswithimmediateneighbours hasbeenpositive.

Thislocationhasacrosssectionofemploymentopportunitiescloseby,includingamanufacturer andvehiclerepairsimmediatelyopposite,haulage,agoodgardencentrewhichservesmeals,a petrolstationwhichsellsfood,drinksandnewspapersetc,achurchthathasdailyactivitiesanda publichouseinthenextvillage.Themainshops,Doctors’surgery,schoolsandleisurefacilitiesareall within2milesatseverallocationsaroundKeyworth,alonggoodroads.Whichwiththeadvancement inHybrid/electricvehiclesmakesthislocationassustainableasmanysitesbeingputforwardinthe draftLocalPlanpart2process,andtheconsentsrecentlygrantedbyRBCbothlocallyand throughouttheborough.

RBCareawarethattheoriginalaimofgreenbeltswastwofold.Firstlytocontaintheurbanarea,to stopurbansprawlwhichisnowhappeningintheCoreStrategy,andsecondlywastoseethebuilding ofNewTownsinthecountrytohousetheincreaseindemand,whichhasnothappened.Itseems thatmostofthe‘KeySettlement’sitesandthe‘StrategicSites’inRBC’sCoreStrategyhavelimited provisionforleisurefacilities,shopsandemployment,whichmeansmoreofarelianceonthelarger townsandcitieslikeNottingham,Leicester,Derby,Newark,MeltonMowbrayforthesefacilities.

TheLocalPlanPart2:Land&PlanningPolicies(FurtherOptions):Ͳ

WeagreewithQ1&Q2.Thesesitesarealreadytoolargeandthedevelopersareabletoransomthe Council.Addingfurtherlandwouldjustextendtheirstartdate,ratherthanspeedupdelivery.This couldhappenonthelarger‘KeySettlement’sitesetc.SharphillWoodwouldsufferfurther.

2 Q3ͲWearesurprisedthatSimkinsFarm(40houses)istheonlysitesuitablefordevelopment.We don’tknowthesite,buttherestillneedstobesitesforafurther860housesifthisisdeveloped–we agreewithdevelopmentprovidingitisnottakingawayaproductiveunitorlistedbuilding.

Q4weagree,1,000homesisalreadyalotfortheexistingresidentsandfacilitiestoabsorb.Consider whereemployment,entertainment,shopsetcaregoingtobefound.

Q5&Q6wedon’tthinkCotgraveshouldbeexpandedanyfurtherthanthe470housesand employmentsiteinthecurrentplanperiodforthereasonswhyRBChadpreviouslydecidednotto expanditfurtheratthisstage,andfortheimpactofthe470familiesontheexistingresidents, facilitiesandservices.

Q8agreed–EastLeakehasconsentsfor800houses,whichisdoubletheoriginalallocation.No moreatthistime.

Q10referstothenumberofnewhousesatKeyworth,forwhichweareunabletoanswerwhat numberthisshouldbe,exceptthattheCoreStrategystates450newhousesupto2028isa minimumfigure,forthevillageandthesurroundingarea(ourunderlining).Wenotethatno planningpermissionsexistasyetforthesehouses.

WearesurprisedKeyworthNeighbourhoodPlan/committeefavourspartsiteNo.4duetoits prominencefromsurroundingland,restrictedaccessissues,distancefromfacilitiesandterrainif partisforseniorresidents,for450houses,comparedwithothersites–abetterlocationcouldbe selected.Aswithallsites,itisgreenbelt,ribbondevelopment,backlanddevelopment,ofgood agriculturalland.ItisalsosurprisingsiteNo.8(180houses)issoquicklybeingconsiderednowfor development,when12monthsagoitwasapotential‘safeguarded’siteand‘KEY5,6&7werebeing considered.ThissitetogetherwithNo.6(80houses)andNo.10(230houses)areinprominent locationsandRBCshouldconsiderits‘openness’.

Q11–Manyarehighlyvisiblesitesofgoodagricultural/equineland.Someare‘RibbonDevt’and/ orbacklanddevelopment.Careetchomesneedlocatingclosetofacilities.

Q12RadcliffeonTrent–wenote400houseswereproposedbyRBC,althoughnoplanning permissionscurrentlyexistforthese,andthe‘FurtherOptions’isconsideringincreasingthisfigure. Wedon’thaveaviewonnumbers,nordowehavesufficientknowledgeofthesitestocomment, otherthantosaytheyaregreenbelt,someribbondevelopmentandbacklanddevelopment,of goodagriculturalland.

Q14Wedon’thaveaviewonnumbersatRuddington,althoughfollowingdevelopmentofthe Woodhousesitewefinditsurprisingthisdoesnotcount.Aminimumof250housesisnowlikelyto beincreased.

TheFurtherOptionsdocumentsaysRBCnowbelievesitmayneedtoconsidernewmixedhousing developmentongreenfieldsitesinsmallervillagestoresolvetheshortfall.WenoteasiteatAbbey Lane,Aslocktonfor75newhomeshasplanningpermission,althoughRBCdonotconsiderittobea sustainablelocation,andareaskingwhetherfurtherdevelopmentshouldbeallocatedtoAslockton andWhatton!

Therewere8settlementswhichtheCoreStrategykeptasinsetfromtheGreenBelt,including Cotgrave,Keyworth,TollertonandpartofStantonontheWolds.Itisincreasingthisnumberbya further8settlementsatBradmore,Bunny,CropwellButler,Gotham,Newton,Plumtree,Shelford, andUpperSaxondale.Thevillagesidentifiedaspotentiallysuitabletoaccommodatesomehousing,

3 includeTollertonandonenotinset–SuttonBonningtonͲwithonesitefor140homes,whichRBC saysdoesnotprovidethefullrangeoffacilities,butwiththebasiclevelsoffacilitiestheyare deemedcapableofpotentiallysupportingarelativelyhighlevelofhousing.WebelievetheMelton Road/BrownsLanepartofStantonontheWoldsfallsintothiscategorywithitsproximityto Keyworth,itsexistingfacilities,rangeofbusinesses/employment,andmainroadaccess.

Hence,forQ17anothersettlementwhichshouldbeinsetisthewashedoverpartofStantononthe Wolds,andourSHLAAsite363/largersite577,morespecifically.Wehavethisweeksubmitteda requesttoreviseSHLAA363and577toreflectthepotentialnumberofhousesthesitecould accommodateandtocorrectcertaindescriptions.

GreenBeltReviewPart2(b)–AdditionalSitesinKeySettlements&otherVillages.

WefindquestionNo.1alittledifficulttounderstand,sohopeweareansweringthiscorrectly.We areuncertainwhethersomeoftheStrategicSitesandKeySettlementsiteswerereviewedfor excludingfromtheGreenBeltonthesamebasisastheseadditionalsitesarebeingreviewed.The GreenBeltrestrictiononexpansionofvillagesinRushcliffehasledtolocalbusinessesclosing,an ageingpopulation,andageneraldeclineandremovaloftheirfacilities,Ͳnotleastthestrategic Tollerton(Airport)andEdwaltonGolfClubatsomefuturedate.

Para.1.3ofPart2(b)says’ThisGreenBeltReviewdoesnotitselfdeterminewhetherornotland shouldremainorbeincludedintheGreenBelt’,Ͳwefindthisissomewhatsurprising.Wehave howeverfoundtheprocessofremovinglandfromtheGreenBeltfarmorecomplicatedthanits originalinclusionthroughdrawingofboundariesin1989Ͳsuchanarduousprocessneverenvisaged bythoseaffectedbyitsrestrictions.

RBCsaytheirpartoftheNottingham–DerbyGreenBelthaslargelyremainedunchangedsincethe NottinghamshireGreenBeltLocalPlanwasapprovedin1989.ThisisbecausethePlanningOfficers recommendationsthatthesoutheastareaofthegreenbeltwasservingalesserrequirementand couldberemovedwasnotimplementedbyRBC.Similarly,TheRushcliffeLocalPlanPart1:Core Strategyadoptedin2014,didnotremovethatland,butinsteadremovedthe5‘StrategicSites’Ͳ3of which(LandoffMeltonRoad,Edwalton,LandSouthofClifton,andlandEastofGamston/Northof Tollerton)weconsiderwereimportanttoprotectthegreenbelt,topreventurbansprawl.

Removalofthesesites,togetherwithsitesidentifiedaspartofthisLocalPlanpreparationhavebeen contrarytothe5objectivesoftheGreenBelt,andisleadingclosertocoalescenceofWestBridgford toRuddingtonandTollerton,andCliftontotheNottingham–Derbyboundary.

Upuntil2011,RBCconcentratedonconsolidatingdevelopmentinWestBridgfordandtheinset locationslikeKeyworth,CotgraveandTollerton,regeneratingderelict/underusedsitesetc.Since then,theinsettingofthe8additionalsettlementsandtheCoreSites,togetherwiththeFurther Options’additionalsitesareseeingtheeasysolutionofgoodAgriculturallandbeingallocatedfor housingratherthanimprovingtheuseofderelict/underused/infillsitesacrosstheborough.

2.KeySettlements–AdditionalSites–Cotgrave,RadcliffeonTrent&Ruddington:Ͳ

Wehavereviewedthesesites,andlargelyagreewithRBC’sscoring,althoughpossibly1–2points belowourviewofscores.Cot13andadjoininglandappearstoextendunnecessarilyintothegreen belt,andallthevarioussiteswillleadtoalossofgoodproductivefarmland,withfewifany buildingsthereon.SomewillincludeRibbonDevelopmentandbacklanddevelopment.

3.OtherVillagesReview–CropwellBishop,EastBridgford,Gotham&Tollerton:Ͳ

4 AgainourscoringisalittlehigherthanRBC’s,andinmostinstanceswillleadtoquitealossofgood qualityfarmland,withfewifanybuildingsthereon.

WeagaininthisresponseputforwardoursiteSHLAA363(andthelargerSHLAA577site)forearly development,eitheraspartofthisLocalPlanprocessorasawindfallorsimilarsite.Thiswouldbea limitedinfillofunusedland,readyforimmediatedevelopment,setbackfromtheroadtoovercome RibbonDevelopment,aspertherecentBradshaw’sconsentat180MeltonRoad.Inaccordancewith Paragraph1.18,thissiteisidentifiedas’couldbesuitableifpolicychanges’,andithasclearly definedboundaries.Itisclearthattherehasbeenapolicychange,notleastbytheGovernmentin theformoftheNPPFandthe2017HousingWhitePaper,butalsowithRBCputtingforwardthePlatt Lanesiteunderthe2016GreenBeltdraftfordevelopment,whichSHLAAclassedas‘couldbe suitableifpolicychanges5+years,aswellasothersitestomeetthe900homesshortfall.

4.CommunityInfrastructureLevy(DraftChargingSchedule):Ͳ

Thedocumentsmakeforacomplicatedchargingregime,andideallyneedssimplifying.Itwill penalisetheruralareasinthechargingschedule,wherethereisaneedforhomesforfarmworkers etc,whoareonlowwages,andcan’taffordtotraveltoofartowork.Ifthecostishigherthanthe currentS106,S278andplanningconditioncharges,itcouldreducedevelopmentatatimeRBCis strugglingtomeetitstargets.Also,theburdenoftheinfrastructurecostfortheStrategicsitesand Keysettlementsitesshouldfalltothedevelopersofthosesitestopay.Thechargingshouldbe leviedonthesq.metersinexcessofthe90m2andnotonall.

CouncilsandGovernmentlongagoshouldhavepreventedtheownershipofa2ndhome/holiday homeinthecountry/villagesoccupiedonlyafewdaysayear,whichtogetherwiththetightGreen Beltpoliciesandthelargesitedevelopersavoidingaffordablehomebuilding,arepricinglowpaid workersoutofthecountryandoutoffarmingandsimilartypesoflowpaidworks.

WehopetheNationalPlanningPolicyFramework(NPPF),theHousingWhitePaperandGovernment directiveswillpermitmoreinfill/ruralhousingintheRushcliffeLocalPlan,togetherwithmorelocal employment/retailplanningandparkingtomeettheneedsofthelocalcommunitiesandredress theneedtotraveltoNottinghamforwork,entertainmentandmajorshoppingetc.

Weraiseourconcernsabouttheintegrityofthegreenbeltextending10milestothesouthof Nottingham,andconsiderthatitshouldbereducedinthisreviewtoexcludetheMeltonRoadpart ofStantonontheWolds.

Inconclusion,werequestourproperty(SHLAA363/SHLAA577)beincludedfordevelopment withinthenext5years.Thesitefailsthe5NPPFGreenBelttestsandthusisripefordevelopment. Thelandhasbeenunusedsince1974,andthereisnootherobviousviableagricultural,forestryor leisuretypeuses,otherthanhousing.ThegreenbeltandLocalPlanareoutofdateanddoesnot reflectcurrentGovernmentpolicy.

Thislandwouldprovidemuchneededhousing,withoutthelossofgoodagriculturalland.Over98% ofpeoplepassbyinvehiclesandwithin2seconds,whichtogetherwithadjoiningfencesandhouses meansthevisibleimpactofdevelopmentwouldbenegligible.Wedon’tbelievetheimmediatearea warrantsleavingthissiteunusedanylonger,whenthecoresiteatMeltonRoad,Edwalton,andthe

5 ‘Keysites’arefarmorevisibleonpredominantlyviableagriculturallandandtheirslowdevelopment ismissingRBC’splanningtargets.Theproposalrepresentslimitedinfillinginanexistingvillage /settlementinthemiddleofatotalof65dwellings(40%ofStanton’shousingstock).Thehousing needsituationinRushcliffe,issevereandthisproposalgoessomewaytoalleviatetheruralhousing shortage.UnderPara88NPPF,thiswillhelptomeetaSIGNIFICANTNEEDandcauseLIMITEDHARM. Wedon’tbelieve‘ribbondevelopment’isacorrectdescriptioninthislocation,comparedtosomeof thesitesproposed.Thereisnoriskfromflood.

Thereareothergoodreasonswhythissiteshouldbegrantedconsentforhousingdevelopment, manyofwhichareincludedinourabovementionedconsultationresponsedated23/3/2016.This landisavailablenowfordevelopmentuponobtainingplanningconsent.

Yoursfaithfully

David&RobertWilson

[email protected]

Wood C 1073081 Richard Mapletoft

From: Chris Wood Sent: 28 March 2017 12:58 To: Localdevelopment Subject: Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 2: Land and Building Policies - Further Options

Dear Sir/Madam

I am writing to you with regard to the potential site for housing development at Adbolton Lane, Lady Bay, West Bridgford.

As a resident of the area I am totally opposed to the start of a whole new encroachment on the green belt which will affect traffic and infrastructure, such as schools and healthcare, place an additional demand on an already-overloaded bus service and fundamentally impact on the character of the area. I oppose the removal of the land from the green belt.

The coverage of such a large area in hard standing and the resultant loss of greenspace would increase the risk of flooding as the absorbency of the land would be significantly reduced.

In addition there would be a significant threat to wildlife habitat in the area, especially in the vicinity of Pinder’s Pond, as this would be directly affected by the extent of the proposed development.

Perhaps the most serious impact would be on the lost village of Adbolton, a site of important archaeological interest, which lies directly beneath the potential development. The remains include not only dwellings but also the remains of the church and sacred ground, which dates back to the Domesday Book.

I hope that raising these issues has proved useful and can be used along with all other opposing comments to stop this un-necessary, un-required and un-wanted development. yours sincerely

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

1 Wood P 1073186

Richard Mapletoft

From: Sent: 26 March 2017 13:47 To: Localdevelopment Subject: Proposed housing development on greenbelt at Simkins farm, Adbolton Lane, Ladybay, Nottingham

DearSirs

Ihavehadaleafletthroughmydoorfromanorganisationcalled"fields"regardingtheabove.ImustsaythatI wouldsupporttheideaforahousingdevelopmentonthisland.Thelandisalreadybuiltupsurroundingitandasa personwhohaslivedinLadybayforapproximately25yearsandwhohasnodesiretomoveoutoftheareaIwould beveryinterestediftheybuiltsomebiggerhousesthere.Thereareveryfewhouseswithfivebedroomsorbiggerin theareaandIwouldwelcometheopportunitytobuyabiggerhouse.Largerhousesveryrarelycomeupforsaleand whentheydotheyaresoexpensivebecausesupplyissoshort.

Frankly,thewholecountryneedsmorehousingandIfeelourcommunityshouldmakesacrificestoassistwiththis.

Ithereforesupporttheideaforbuildinginthedesignatedarea.

Yoursfaithfully

PatrickWood

1 Woodcock 1073443 Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 2: Land and Planning Policies – Further Options

Response Form

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

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

Your Details Agent details (where applicable)

BarrieandRosemaryWoodcock Name Clickheretoentertext.

TheWhiteCottage Address Clickheretoentertext. ParkRoad PlumtreePark Nottingham NG125LX bm E-mail Clickheretoentertext.

1 No The assessment is based upon a number of assumptions each of which can be challenged.The situation in the UK will change dramatically after Brexit and the effect of changes taking place internationally could be significant. Also social changes will impact upon the demand for housing and it is a false assumption to predicate plans upon the public's current disposition to housing. It is therefore inappropriate to be specific about any longer term housing needs. The base point for planning should be minimalist with a capacity to vary that base plan as the situation changes.………………… …………………………… ………………………. Don’t know …………………………… …………………………… ………………….

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

Seeabove

Housing Sites adjacent to the Main Urban Area

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

Yes …………………………… …………………………… …………………..

No …………………………… …………………………… ………………….

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

Clickheretoentertext.

Question 3: Do you support housing development at:

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

Site HOL1 – Simkins Farm, Adbolton Lane, West Bridgford (potential capacity around 40 homes)

Any other location (please specify which)

Clickheretoentertext.

3 Housing Development at the 'Key Settlements'

Bingham

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

Yes …………………………… …………………………… …………………..

No …………………………… …………………………… ………………….

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

Clickheretoentertext.

Cotgrave

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

Yes …………………………… …………………………… …………………..

No …………………………… …………………………… ………………….

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

Clickheretoentertext.

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

Clickheretoentertext.

Question 7: Do you support housing development at:

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

Site COT1 – Land rear of Mill Lane/The Old Park (potential capacity around 240 homes)

Site COT2 – Land at Main Road (potential capacity around 50 homes)

Site COT3 – Land rear of and to the west of Main Road (potential capacity around 125 homes)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Any other location (please specify which)

Clickheretoentertext.

East Leake

6 development at East Leake?

Yes …………………………… …………………………… …………………..

No …………………………… …………………………… ………………….

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

Clickheretoentertext.

Question 9: Do you support housing development at:

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

Site EL9 –Land south of West Leake Road (potential capacity around 50 homes)

Site EL10 – Land north of West Leake Road (potential capacity around 75 homes)

Site EL11 – Brook Furlong Farm(potential capacity around 70 homes)

Site EL12 – Land off Rempstone Road (north) (potential capacity around 235 homes)

Site EL13 – Land off Rempstone Road (south) (potential capacity around 120 homes)

Site EL14 – Land north of Lantern Lane (2) (potential capacity around 360 homes)

Any other location (please specify which)

Keyworth

Question 10: Do you have a view on the total number of new homes that should be built on greenfield sites at Keyworth up to 2028? If possible, please give reasons for your answer. The number of new homes should be limited to • infill type of development • a presumption of no more than 100 homes per development to prevent any site being a “carbuncle estate” i.e. being seen as something separate and different from the rest of the village • sites with easy access to the village centre • sites where the exit route from the village is other than along Station Road • maintaining a village identity and atmosphere • currently expressed demand: there are too many unknowns to plan for 2028 • not imposing any excessive demand for new public facilities as public finances are already over stretched and local tax bills too high

Question 11: Do you support housing development at:

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

Site KEY1 – Land east of Willow Brook (potential capacity around 40 homes) yes

Site KEY2 – Land off Selby Lane and Willowbrook (potential capacity around 15 homes) yes

Site KEY3 – Land south of Selby Lane (potential capacity around 60 homes) yes

Site KEY4 – Land off Nicker Hill (potential capacity around 450 homes) yes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Any other location (please specify which)

TheNeighbourhoodPlanapprovedbytheParishCouncil(PC)inDecember2016shouldbe disregardedasitisnotalegitimatesubmission.Specifically • aformalcomplaintofmaladministrationhasbeenlodgedwiththeBoroughCouncil's MonitoringOfficerbringingtohis/herattentionarangeoffailingsinthePC'spractices • theMonitoringOfficerhasalreadyruledthattwoParishCouncillorsbreachedtheCodeof Conductbyfailingtodeclareapecuniaryinterestandhasreferredthemtothepolicetoinvestigatea potentialcriminaloffence(theirbreachofthecoderelatesdirectlytothedevelopmentofthe NeighbourhoodPlan).AssuchthePC'sDecemberresolutionshouldbeconsideredasnullandvoidor atleastheldinabeyance • thePCbreachedplanningguidelinesbyfailingtoconsultupontheirproposalsandassuch thePlanningOfficerandInspectoratehavenochoicebuttodisregardthesubmission • alocaladhocsurveyrevealedthat86%oflocalresidentswereopposedtothePC'splan. Site8wasintroducedasrecommendedfordevelopmentbythePCasaresultoftheactionsofthe twocouncillorswhohavenowbeenshowntobedishonourable–theyhaveavestedinterestin resistingdevelopmentofsite4asincludedinthefirstdraftoftheNeighbourhoodPlanandhadto 9 findanalternativesitewhichintheeventismanifestlyunsuitablefordevelopment. Theproblemswithsite8are: • itistoodistantfromthecentreofthevillageandassociatedamenities • therewouldbeasignificantincreaseinlocaltrafficcausingroadcongestionandexacerbating theexistingparkingproblemsinthecentreofKeyworth • StationRoadisalreadyverybusyandnoiseassessmentshaveshownthatthetrafficnoiseis aboveacceptablelevels • serioustrafficcongestionisthenormalongStationRoadandatthejunctionwiththemain roadintoNottingham:StationRoadisnotasuitablerouteoutofthevillagefortheinevitable increasedtrafficflows • trafficgeneratedbyanynewdevelopmentsshouldseetheirexitroutesaseitheralong BunnyLaneorBrownsLane • exitingandenteringParkRoadareveryhazardousmanoeuvreswhichcanonlybemade worsebyincreasedtraffic:therehavebeenseveralaccidentsatthisjunction • developmentofthesitewouldbeintrusiveandincongruous:thedevelopmentwouldbean adjuncttothecommunityandnotpartofit • thesitingoftheexistingbusstopsforpublictransportintoNottinghamandoutofthevillage areinappropriateandthatonStationRoadjustbeyondNormantonLanepositivelydangerousfor motoristsandforpassengerswishingtocrosstheroad • developmentwouldleadtounrestrictedurbansprawltowardsPlumtreevillageand ultimatelyTollertonandthemergingwiththosesettlements:itisbelievedadeveloperhasanoption topurchasethelandadjacenttothatofsite8 • thecountrysideshouldbesafeguardedandusedtopromoteasenseofremotenessand separationfromothercommunities • thesiteiscurrentlyproductivefarmlandandshouldremainso • thesiteisatbedroomlevelofsomehousesonStationRoadandParkRoadgivingrisetoa visuallyintrusivedevelopmentwhichitwillnotbepossibletoscreensuccessfully • theroadatthejunctionofNormantonLane,StationRoadandNickerHillregularlyfloods whenthereareheavydownpours:ahardsurfaceonthePlattLane/StationRoadsitewillincrease thevolumeofsurfacewaterandtherebytheriskandfrequencyofflooding • theheightofthelandonsite8attheParkRoadendisseveralmetresaboveroadlevel resultinginaproblemofwaterrunoff:drainsalreadydonotcopeduringheavyrainsuchthat Stationroadfloodsasfarasthebridge • thePlattLaneplayingfieldswouldbelandlockedwithnopotentialfortheirexpansionwhich willprobablybeneededifKeyworthweretogrowappreciably. Site4shouldbeincludedassuitablefordevelopment.Ithasthepotentialforthesitingofhomesfor theelderlyandecofriendlypropertiesanditisunderstoodthelandownerispreparedtodonate somelandfortheprovisionofcommunityfacilities. Severalsmallscalesitesareidentifiedintheconsultationdocumenti.e.1,2,3,13.Ifdevelopedthey couldprovideupto175homesatlocationswhichareconvenientforlocalfacilitiesandthescaleof theirdevelopmentwouldnotdetractfromthecharacterofthevillage.Theseshouldbethepriority sitesfordevelopment.Theirscaleissuchthattheywouldbeattractivetoawidemixofdevelopers whomightbemoreimaginativeintheirproposalsthanthelargescaledevelopers.

Question 13: Do you support housing development at:

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

Site RAD11 – North of Holme Lane (potential capacity around 115 homes)

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

Any other location (please specify which)

Clickheretoentertext.

Ruddington

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

Clickheretoentertext.

Question 15: Do you support housing development at:

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

Site RUD11 – Old Loughborough Road (potential capacity around 40 homes)

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

Site RUD13 – Land opposite Mere Way (potential capacity around 170 homes)

Site RUD14 – Croft House (potential capacity around 25 homes)

Any other location (please specify which)

Clickheretoentertext.

Housing development at ‘other villages’

Yes …………………………… …………………………… …………………..

No …………………………… …………………………… ………………….

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

Clickheretoentertext.

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

Don’t Yes No know

Cropwell Bishop

East Bridgford

Gotham

Sutton Bonington

Tollerton

Any other settlement (please specify which)

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

Clickheretoentertext.

Cropwell Bishop

Clickheretoentertext.

Question 19: Do you support housing development at:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Any other location (please specify which)

14 Clickheretoentertext.

East Bridgford

Clickheretoentertext.

Question 21: Do you support housing development at: