Burton Joyce Neighbourhood Plan 2017-2028 Consultation Summary
BURTON JOYCE STEERING GROUP
1 1. Contents 2 Introduction...... 3 3 Establishing a steering group...... 4 4 Initial Actions...... 4 5 The Steering Group...... 4 6 Vision and objectives...... 6 7 Questionnaires...... 7 8 Analysis...... 8 9 Pre-Submission Draft Regulation 14 Consultation...... 8 10 Feedback from Open Day...... 9 11 Regulation 14 feedback. Summary of resident’s written responses...... 8 12 Regulation 14 feedback. Summary of resident’s web responses...... 16 13 Regulation 14 feedback. Summary of statutory consultee’s responses...... 41 14 Appendix 1. Pre submission questionnaire covering the proposed 9 policy statements...... 43
2
2. Introduction
The power to produce a Neighbourhood Plan gives the village the opportunity to work alongside Gedling Borough Council to help shape the future growth of Burton Joyce Parish. This Draft Plan has been prepared following extensive consultation with the Burton Joyce residents at each stage of the process, and this Consultation Summary is a legal requirement under section 15(2) of part 5 of the Neighbourhood Planning Regulations which lists the following items to be covered in this document:
Details of the bodies consulted about the Draft Plan, and how they were consulted Summary of the main issues and concerns, what consideration was given to them, and where relevant, how they were addressed in the Draft Plan.
3 3. Establishing a Steering Group
It was agreed at a Burton Joyce Parish Council meeting in September 2015 to investigate the feasibility of creating a Neighbourhood Plan for the village. Four Parish councillors volunteered to investigate costs, grants, size of the Neighbourhood Plan area, the use of consultants to assist in preparation, and benefits the Parish residents would gain. This information was fed back to the Parish Council and agreement was reached to proceed using the Parish Council boundary as the Neighbourhood Plan area 4. Initial actions
A Neighbourhood Plan specialist was appointed on the 2nd December 2015. The proposed boundary Plan using the existing Parish boundary (which can be found on the Burton Joyce Neighbourhood Plan web site) was submitted to the Gedling Borough Council for a 6 week consultation on the 21st January 2016. An advert was placed in the Burton Joyce Community Magazine and on the Council web site in March 2016 asking for volunteers to join the team. By June 2016 five village residents had done so, along with a Gedling Borough Councillor. 5. The Steering Group
The first meeting of the full body was held on 30th June 2016 when it was agreed that previous village consultations would be used by the team as a guide, to give a balanced view about how Burton Joyce residents felt about their village. A decision was taken to do a SWOT analysis for the village and compare the results with the following documents:
The Burton Joyce Village Plan (issued 2011 and which received responses from 420 households, a response rate of 26% ) Gedling Workshop held in April 2015 as part of the Emerging Local Plan. (177 residents attended and 155 questionnaires completed)
The results would then be used to do a “common themes” analysis as shown below. SWOT Analysis: Common Themes Strengths
GBC Village Plan NP Workshop Feedback SWOT Themes feedback results * * * Strong community spirit * Pro-active Parish Council * * Pool of volunteers with good levels of skills and knowledge * * * Perceived as a safe place to live with low levels of crime * No areas of social deprivation * * Good communication to residents * Decent houses and plot sizes * * Good range of shops offering daily needs * * * Extensive facilities: health, meeting halls, pubs, sports etc. * Good primary and secondary schools * * Good bus links along the Nottingham/ Southwell corridor * * Extensive range of clubs and societies * * * Located in an area of natural beauty * * * Excellent network of rural and riverside footpaths * * * Surrounded by Greenbelt * * * Convenient distance from Nottingham
4 Weaknesses
GBC Village Plan NP Workshop Feedback SWOT Themes feedback results * Lack of involvement by young residents * * Limited facilities for teenagers * Restricted demographic * Ageing population * Absence of police presence * Poor communication to residents * * Trains don’t stop at station * * * Poor condition of roads and footpaths * Traffic noise * Cars being sold in front of Take-away * Inconsiderate parking on school run * Property prices * * Limited accommodation for one-person/small families * Lack of specialist housing for elderly * * * Vulnerability to flooding * Poor drainage resulting in flash flooding * * * Litter * * * Roads and footpaths in poor state of repair * * * High traffic volume through the village along with speeding * * A612 is an arterial road which cuts through the village * * * Traffic congestion in village centre hazardous * Pedestrian safety perceived as poor * * * Inconsiderate parking * Inadequate cycle paths
Opportunities
GBC Village Plan NP Workshop feedback SWOT Themes feedback results * * * Upgraded village centre with improved safety and security * * Extended use of Old School building * * * Controlled car parking * * Create youth club facilities * * * Greater control over new/types of developments * * Access to CIL funds for BJ initiatives * Improve cooperation with Police * Stakeholder involvement and contribution in NP actions * Greater use of volunteer base * Enhance links with local schools
5 Threats
GBC Village Plan NP Workshop feedback SWOT Themes feedback results * * * Over-development leading to loss of BJ character and identity * * * Erosion of greenbelt * * * Vulnerability to river and flash flooding * Industrial scale developments * * * Increased volume of traffic on A612 and Main Street * Funding cutbacks * Enhance links with local schools
6. Vision statement Drawing on the SWOT analysis a vision statement was discussed and agreed in July 2016: ‘In 15 years time Burton Joyce will be relatively unchanged. It will maintain its natural beauty surrounded by greenbelt. It will provide a safe environment with a broad range of local facilities and a pedestrian friendly centre, which is commercially attractive to existing and new business. It will retain its village identity and strong community spirit. Appropriate and sustainable development will continue to meet its demographic needs, be of a high quality, and be sensitively located in keeping with the size and character of the village.’ An initial list of 8 objectives (drawn from the SWOT Analysis and Vision Statement) was drafted in August 2016: Deliver a strategy for housing provision which meets the specific demographic and environmental needs of Burton Joyce Protect and enrich the village’s landscape and built setting through sensitive development Support and enhance excellent local facilities for residents, businesses and visitors to Burton Joyce Strengthen and support economic activity Pursue continued improvements to transport provision, utility infrastructure and digital connectivity Ensure all change and growth reflects the distinctive nature of the village Support nature conservation, protect the landscape and green spaces Always involve local people in the process of plan making, monitoring and delivery of development
6 7. Questionnaires
It was agreed that 3 questionnaires would be prepared based on the list of objectives and tailored accordingly to seek out the views of every household, business and child of school age.
The main Household Survey was split into 7 Main sections:
Village Character Housing Availability Future Development Local Business Transport Village Centre Community Facilities
The Household and Business Surveys were delivered to every Burton Joyce residence/business by hand during a 1 week period commencing 1st February 2017 with a deadline for return of the 20th March. A Children’s Survey Response Form was also prepared and hand delivered to the local Primary School. At the same time web sites were set up giving residents/ businesses/children the option of supplying an online response.
An open day was held on the 28th February 2017 at the Carnarvon Room in the centre of the village and was attended by 112 residents. Residents wrote any comments/concerns about the village on post-its. These were transferred onto the comments sheet.
Consultations also took place with the following groups from the 1st February:
Event attended Number Issues raised/action by NP attending Canarvon House Warden Aided 10 Concern expressed re: state of footpaths and cars parked Complex on corners of roads U3A 87 * Carlton-le-Willows Academy 35 Feedback can be found on Burton Joyce NP website – community consultation Women’s Institute 49 * Luncheon Club 44 * Community Market 94 * Girl Guides 26 26 questionnaires completed
* Note: After each brief introduction questionnaires were either made available for completion, or advise offered on how to access the web site, with the offer of guidance where requested.
1,400 properties received the HOUSEHOLD SURVEYS and 314 completed paper forms and 116 web responses returned before the deadline date, representing 30.7% response rate and giving the views of approximately 850 residents. (Where the response to the questionnaire included family members they were included in the total).
65 children completed the Children’s Survey and 6 businesses completed the Business Survey.
7 8. The Analysis
Members from the Steering Group commenced analysing the surveys from the end of March 2017 and a brief summary of our findings shown in the April edition of the Burton Joyce Parish Magazine.
A discussion took place to consider the issues and concerns raised in the questionnaires and how it might affect the draft plan. The detailed feedback was summarised in tables (accessed via Burton Joyce Neighbourhood Plan website – community consultation). Paper versions were also made available to view in the village library and parish office.
A meeting held 25th April 2017 with Gedling Borough Council to discuss the evidence base and scope of the survey.
9. Pre -Submission Draft. Regulation 14 Consultation
Drawing on all the feedback received a pre-submission draft was written in November 2017, placed on the web site, and advertised in the parish magazine. A shortened paper version showing the 9 Neighbourhood Plan policies was prepared for consultation with village residents (appendix 1). This was also placed on the web for a 6 week consultation. An open day was held on the 20th January 2018 for residents to see for themselves the 9 NP policies, along with the full Draft Plan and supporting documents. 66 people attended and 36 responded.
Pictures taken on open day with feedback from residents
8 10. Feedback from open day, web and paper copies for Pre Submission Draft
1. Open day. Policy Agree Disagree Uncertain Comments 1. Housing density 32 0 0 0 2. Landscape character 36 0 0 2 3. Design principles 27 0 0 2 4. Housing mix 24 1 5 9 5. Footpaths and rights of way 32 0 1 7 6. Heritage assets 30 0 0 7 7. Village centre 21 3 6 12 8. Facilities 24 5 1 7 9. Roads 20 0 0 17
2. Web response. Policy Agree Disagree Uncertain Comments 1. Housing density 78 2 1 15 2. Landscape character 79 2 0 14 3. Design principles 77 2 2 10 4. Housing mix 74 6 1 22 5. Footpaths and rights of way 80 1 0 15 6. Heritage assets 78 0 3 7 7. Village centre 75 2 4 30 8. Facilities 80 1 0 10 9. Roads 76 2 32 19
3. Paper response. Policy Agree Disagree Uncertain Comments 1. Housing density 15 0 0 6 2. Landscape character 15 0 0 6 3. Design principles 15 0 0 3 4. Housing mix 14 0 1 6 5. Footpaths and rights of way 14 1 0 4 6. Heritage assets 15 0 0 1 7. Village centre 14 1 0 5 8. Facilities 15 0 0 5 9. Roads 14 1 0 7
Based on the feedback received there was overwhelming support for each of the draft proposals. Each comment has been listed in this document and considered by the team as to what, if any, action was to be taken to amend the Draft Plan, or to refer to another body for consideration. (The team’s comments have been displayed in the last column)
Statutory Bodies were also contacted for their comments and shown in this document, with the team’s response.
9 11. Regulation 14 Comments
Summary of Residents’ Written Responses to Policies from the Open Day on 20th January 2018 and
Paper feedback: up to 15th March 2018.
Policy Resident Comment Amendment to the No. no. Neighbourhood Plan 1 19 Why are there no comments re. Protection of the Orchard Close proposal Noted. This is reflected in the district policy for Orchard Close and commented on in the NP 1 20 Small pieces of countryside are precious too. We don’t want large blocks of Agreed. This approach housing in the village – a few fields to be seen from the village are very is supported by the NP beneficial. Consideration, and a bit more thought is required before all available land is given over to housing, especially where green belt is concerned. 1 23 The 3 fields at the top of Orchard Close can be seen from Gunthorpe to beyond See above regarding Stoke and across the river for many miles. If built on it would spoil the whole Orchard Close character of the village. 1 26 The village cannot maintain its village status if large building projects are put Noted into operation. Please keep up the good work to keep Burton Joyce a village. I have lived here for 59 years. 1 28 The proposed development at Glebe Drive needs to remain small and in Agreed in NP keeping with the field/wood already there. 1 29 Boundaries with green space beyond are essential to maintain the village as a Agreed n NP separate entity and therefore help to preserve a feel for the village as a community with a community spirit. 1 32 It is very important that any increase in new build is coupled with an increase in Noted in NP community/health/transport service provision. If this is ignored there will be a significant in the use of cars to access facilities further afield. 2 1 What about the views from the centre of the village, to be able to still see Noted in NP green areas surrounding the village? 2 2 As long as relevant screening and landscaping is maintained on a long term Agreed basis and not just a short term fix. 2 20 Wildlife will be severely affected by the Orchard Close development ie: See above regarding squirrels, pheasants, badgers. Orchard Close 2 22 North of Orchard Close should not be built on as this is the last open meadow See above regarding in the village and contains lots of wild life. Are we going to leave our children Orchard Close with a legacy of a village with buildings but no meadows? 2 23 What about visual intrusion if planning was granted? Noted in NP 2 24 Visual intrusion should not be limited by views from over the Trent valley, but Agreed in NP also as seen from within the village. Green skylines are an important feature of not losing the village to urban sprawl. 2 25 We do not want the village to extend any further outside the village boundary, Agreed in NP regarding or too high on the hillside. ridgeline 2 26 We need to keep our landscape. Agreed in NP 2 29 Landscape exists within the village – not just outside. I would have liked to see NP2 (10) added re: tree more emphasis placed on tree preservation within the village. I have to fight replacement policy constant battles with neighbours who think a Tree Preservation Order tree in my garden should be lopped/cut down to give them a better view – at my expense too! It would be useful if I could point out that there is a policy for maintaining and adding to existing trees as part of village policy. 3 1 I think it is important that houses are individual, rather than uniform Noted in NP 3 2 How expensive will these high quality houses be? BJ is already an expensive Agreed in NP. Smaller place to buy into. dwellings but of high quality should be built 3 23 With site density you must be having a laugh! Look at the two new houses on Mentioned in NP
10 Main Street. 3 27 No more 4-5 bedroom superior executive dwellings! (especially those with Agreed in NP. Smaller electric gates). dwellings required 3 29 The village style, such as it is, seems to be 19th century brick. This should be Agreed in NP through continued with preference in new developments given to darker brick, where Village Appraisal available, and large areas of white render- which make houses stick out like analysis prepared for newly whitened teeth on television “personalities” – should be discouraged – NP especially on hilly areas where new developments or extensions are prominent in the landscape. 4 1 Gated communities do not encourage participation in the development of a See above real community. Please discourage it 4 2 How is the school going to have any increase on the children’s population? NP notes that releasing family homes by allowing people to downsize will allow this to happen 4 3 Affordable family housing is needed, not just ½ million homes! Agreed in NP 4 4 Disagree with the smaller homes for older people concept. If the village is to See above note on develop its houses for younger families that are needed. downsizing 4 5 No more 4-5 bedroom superior executive dwellings with large gardens, or large Agreed in NP solid surfaced parking areas and drives with no drainage, which causes rapid run off, or electric gated drives so new residents take no interest in the community. 4 6 Do we really need more totally out of scale, white flat roofed square houses? As above Surely more modest dwellings for young families or downsizing are required. 4 7 I agree on smaller houses for working couples, single parents and elderly. You 3 or 4 storey housing need to use height to increase stock of these house types i.e. 3 or 4 storey. not specifically mentioned in NP – not in keeping with village 4 8 What is happening to Lendrum Court? Will this be for housing or flats for the Noted – passed to PC elderly? 4 9 I think more 4 bedroom houses are required. As someone currently searching Noted in NP. Encourage for a family house there is a serious shortage! I think decent sized gardens are smaller new builds to important – many in the village are very small and this creates a cramped feel. allow downsizing 4 19 The proposed development at the top of Orchard Close would imply a NP amended to include significant increase in surface water flooding. The current services are not Orchard Close and adequate to cope with an increase in demand. The road is not suitable for the surface water problem extra traffic given the slope and acute bend at the junction of Hillside Drive. issue has been raised as Access to Main Street is already problematic, given the number of cars parked a problem to the either side of the junction, coupled with increased traffic flow and the development of the site increased risk of accidents. by Gedling Borough Why, unlike the other proposed developments, the report does not really offer Council in their site any concerns as to the potential adverse effects on the village as a whole and evaluation. the householders affected. The report outlines a requirement for starter homes and downsizing opportunities for the elderly. It is impossible to envisage, given the problems that any developer will face due to the topography of this site, that these objectives could in any way form part of their deliberations. 4 24 Not always necessary as we have good, reliable transport routes plus Noted in NP walking/cycling should be encouraged. 4 25 Some bungalows needed for the elderly. The amount of houses built must not a Noted in NP large amount as the amenities in the village will not be able to cope with it, such as schools, parking etc. 4 27 Terrible missed opportunities with the developments on Lambley Lane Agreed. NP will give a (opposite Doctor’s surgery), next to Roberts Recreation Ground and Loxley greater say in the type Close and Loxley Close (replacing Braybrook home). All homes for the rich and of housing required non-needy. 4 32 Housing should consist of property for rent as well as for sale and focus on Agreed in NP those with low incomes, single people (whatever their age), as well as families.
11 5 1 Need to retain all connection across the railway to the river, whether formal Noted in NP public rights of way or not. 5 2 We are very lucky we can use tarmac surfaced footpaths along by the river. Agreed in NP They are so popular. Thanks for access. 5 3 Consideration needs to be given to those with disabilities impacting on mobility Noted. Action by PC to with wheelchairs and walking aids. Few dropped pavements and lots of uneven raise issue with Notts footpaths also impacts on children in prams and pushchairs. CC 5 4 Many of the footpaths now have tight wire fences restricting the width of Noted. PC action point paths, also causing them to channel walkers into the middle so they get muddy. Also hedges have been planted along Occupation Road and down to the poultry farm. These cut off the views across the valley. 5 23 Seems to me that the council is more concerned with flora and fauna than NP includes additional spoiling the village in the first place by allowing more and more homes. policies to protect landscape character 5 24 Footpaths/rights of way can lead to the encroachment of housing, as evidenced Noted in NP regarding by the building up Willow Wong and what used to be called “Sellars Field”. footpath on Hillside Drive 5 27 Several paths have had new hedges planted alongside recently. If those are Noted in NP allowed to grow high they cut out the views across the valley and surrounding countryside. Also, several paths are now fenced with wire restricting the width so the middle gets churned up and muddy. 5 29 As someone who does not have a car I have therefore have to walk everywhere Noted in NP. See above in the village to get to meetings or shop at the Co-op. Please do not forget for regarding state of us the condition of existing footpaths is much more important than providing footpaths. Amendment new ones. A mix of footpaths and cycle paths can be hazardous, though to NP made regarding probably good for school children. But I do support the idea of a new footpath new footpath due to along the ridgeline between BJ and Lowdham – wonderful views! concern from NFU 6 1 Whytes Cottage, 173 Woodside Cottage and 175 Main Street. 181 and 183 Noted. Spring Cottage could also be added to the list of important heritage site, as previous Silk Weaver’s Cottages. 6 2 The area around the former framework knitter’s cottages at the end of Main Noted. Added to List. Street is worthy of heritage consideration/protection. Whyte’s Cottage, Woodside Cottage, 173 and 175, 181 and 183 Spring Cottage. 6 3 The Old Barn on Lambley Lane. Noted 6 4 More village history walks please. More public awareness – more plaques on Noted. History Society buildings? task 6 5 We own 1 one these properties – what are the implications of the building Putting buildings on a being on this list? Is this 1 step away from being listed and thus restrict future local list is not a improvements to the building? precursor to statutory listing. It merely recognises the contribution the building makes to the architectural and historic interest of the village 6 6 Gothic House on St Helens Grove Noted 6 7 A gap in the old school wall will allow pedestrians access to the area and will Under consideration by enhance the value of the village centre. task force 6 8 It’s great that the parish council has taken over the Old School. This is at the Noted locus of the village and is an important heritage building. 6 20 If more councillors lived in BJ then the prospect of more buildings would not be Noted. ALL Parish an issue. If only 0.01/% of Britain is actually built upon, why are they still trying Councillors live in the to cram houses on every little green place in our beautiful village? village. 6 27 Keep some green area on the old school site. NB There is hedgehogs there and Noted. For Task Force frogs, newts and toads in the pond. 6 29 Donkeys in the field in Lee Road are something which means Burton Joyce for Noted. The land is me, and while there are donkeys available to graze then this is part of Burton private property Joyce heritage to me. Could the field be designated a common?
12 7 1 The wording seems to give priority consideration to cars rather than The NP tries to give a pedestrians. balanced view and supports environmental improvements in the village centre 7 2 Parking in the centre should be restricted. If parking spaces were to be A difficult balance. NP increased, obviously more cars would use the village and thus create more encourages infill within traffic problems. 5 minutes walk from the village centre 7 3 The green area between the old school and the chip shop was developed as a Noted. See above wildlife garden and tree nursery. There is still a pond with newts and other wild life, as well as hedgehogs on the site. Please can this be retained as the only green area in the village centre. 7 4 Ltd. Time – 3hrs? Even as a fit person I still need to park to drop off goods, or if Noted in NP as a major I’m going on somewhere. issue 7 5 It can be very difficult to cross from the chemist to the Co-op as there are so Agreed. NP specifically many side roads eg. Chestnut Grove, Willow Wong and the traffic from mentions Wheatsheaf Court – doctor’s surgery. environmental improvement proposals in village centre 7 6 Thanks to the landlords who allow parking on their car parks. Noted. In NP 7 7 If you restrict parking in the village then the shops will not survive. Less shops Noted in NP means the village will decline so more parking is the answer. 7 8 Parking is essential, but traffic could do with being ‘calmed’ to make the centre See above more pedestrian friendly. The centre could do with more trees. 7 9 1 of the ways to enhance the village would be to make the area between the See above old school and the chip shop with a car park and have parking restrictions in the area from the Cross Keys to Willow Wong, and Co-op to community church. Could still have a garden at the front. 7 10 Improve pedestrian safety using Pelican crossing or similar? Very dangerous See above crossing Main Street at times – especially when buses stop at the Co-op. 7 11 An area between the Cop-op and shops would benefit from a 20 mph See above pedestrian area using coloured asphalt. 7 12 The village centre is too dominated by cars to the detriment of pedestrians. See above Need an off road car park. 7 21 Parking is an issue meaning it is a frequent problem for cars to be parked in an Noted in NP unsafe manner 7 22 Why not knock down to prefab and put in a village green with seating? This Task force investigating could be used for various events. different options 7 23 More parking could be provided on the grounds of the old school which is the See above biggest mess in the village. 7 24 I see the introduction of further Pelican crossings. I would not agree with stop- See above lights in the village centre. 7 27 Parking should be stopped up Padleys Lane up to Foxhill from 8am to 9.30am Noted in NP. School run (except for disabled). Also up Willow Wong to the Grove. Pay the public houses parking is a major issue. to allow drop off for these times. Do not provide more parking – it will only Notts CC are aware of attract more cars! issue 7 29 The flower bed outside the Cross Keys always lifts my spirits and might be See above worth repeating – if it fits in with other developments – outside shops, which is now even more sterile with the loss of 2 trees there. 7 32 The spread of parking to nearby streets should not adversely affect residents Noted in NP who live on those streets. 8 1 Padleys Lane school dropping off point creates traffic problems. Needs looking See above at. 8 2 Can consideration be given to the creation of a badminton court in 1 of the Noted various halls? 8 3 There will always be traffic problems at places/ times where children are being See above collected/dropped off eg: school, dancing, Brownies etc. 8 4 If the library were to be knocked down a facility located within the Old School Noted. Outside remit
13 then it would become more of a community centre and the area where the of NP library is now would make an excellent car park and reduce the numbers of cars in the centre. 8 5 Do not take our library away! Noted 8 6 Take out the word ‘prove’ since this can only done in retrospect and not at the Noted time the developments are being considered for planning purposes. 8 7 Scout hut? Noted 8 20 If the old prefab were taken down this area would be very nice as an open See above space with seating-even a shelter roofing to be used for events ie. Christmas or summer fair, or just somewhere to relax. 8 24 Dismantle prefab and have area or village green, keeping trees and providing See above seating 8 27 The Grove should be developed to give access from Padleys Lane and restricted Noted. Access from use for dog walking, cycling, skate boarding etc. At the moment it is virtually Padleys Lane would be unused. If a through way was made it would discourage illicit use for drugs etc. via private property 8 29 The Poplars Sports ground and Roberts Recreation seem to me to be important Agreed in NP because they are facilities which attract children and young people. 9 1 Riding a bicycle along Meadow Lane and Main Street is very dangerous. Both Noted. Main Street is roads consist of a series of ruts and holes held together by potholes and rough due to be resurfaced in ground. The footpaths are similarly hazardous for pedestrians. I do not this financial year understand why Padleys Lane was regarded as a priority case for resurfacing. 9 2 Main Street surface is a disgrace. Why was Padleys Lane considered to be more See above. Note: NO important to resurface? ...I wonder how many councillors live up there? councillors live on Padleys Lane! 9 3 There doesn’t appear to be anything in the document about the train station Noted. Added to NP and protection of these few trains that do stop in BJ. 9 4 It would be nice to see the railway station supported See above 9 5 A612 looks ok to me, as a road surface. Have any councillors etc. Tried Noted. Main Street due walking/driving down Main Street from Lambley Lane to Bulcote. It’s all to be resurfaced hazardous- walking and driving. 9 6 Need another pedestrian crossing (with lights) at Bulcote end of Church Road. Noted in NP. Notts CC Crossing that busy road is dangerous for school children. It doesn’t hurt to be action point delayed a little if lights are installed. 9 7 We need double yellow lines on the opposite side of the zigzag lines outside the Noted in NP. Pc action school. People are parking there causing problems and danger. point 9 8 Parking on pavements is awful. See above 9 9 Parking at the bottom of Padleys Lane outside the school opposite the zigzag See above lines is creating a traffic hazard 9 10 Willow Wong where children cross. An accident waiting to happen. More See above zigzags? 9 11 Poor state of roads through the village, especially near Lambley Lane. See above 9 12 Traffic lights on a612 near barber’s shop should not be a pedestrian one but Noted one which controls the flow of traffic at the cross roads. This should ease congestion and slow traffic on the a612. 9 13 What about the pedestrians if the lights near the barbers are changed from Noted pedestrian lights? 9 14 Re-route the 100 Pathfinder to go down Church Road to help ease the Noted congestion in the centre. 9 15 Need 20 mph on roads in the village Noted 9 16 To help with road safety and traffic problems keep the 100 bus on the a612 – Noted not through the village 9 17 The pedestrian traffic lights near the barbers shop allow the safe crossing for Noted people who walk to the Poplars and river – young and old.` 9 18 We do not need any more yellow lines in the village. Parking for school drop- Noted offs is for a short time each day, at weekends, or at holiday time. 9 20 Please – for the safety of everyone can we have the pavements and road of See above Main Street re surfaced? 9 21 It is difficult to cross the A612. Too many times I have seen children going to Noted. An action point
14 and from school and the elderly trying to cross, either narrowly being missed by for Notts CC vehicles or standing on central reservations and nearly being clipped by wing mirrors or overhang. There needs to be a traffic light controlled pedestrian crossing on the A612 near Farnsfield Avenue. The situation is only going to get worse when the Gedling access road is built. 9 22 Let’s have a better old main road surface, and please stop the drivers (many of See above whom have children on board) from driving like maniacs. 9 23 How can allowing housing at the top of Orchard Close improve pedestrian and Noted highway safety? If, even if there was a road that did not need any more traffic it is Orchard Close. This would be going against everything it is advocating. Please fight on behalf of ALL of the residents of the village. 9 24 Improve pedestrian and highway safety by re-surfacing most of them. Also Noted consider the paths around Crifton Road, Lee Road, Gordon Road and Wellington Road – paths are mostly tilted from successive tarmac surfacing making it difficult to walk on them. 9 27 Provision for pedestrians to cross the road between Chestnut Grove and Trent Noted Lane should be made and footpaths improved.
15 12. Web Feedback: Regulation 14 Comments
Residents
Policy No Website Comment Amendment to the ID or Neighbourhood Plan Resident No 1 233 Not sure where this goes - additional housing is not on areas which Noted this is reflected in flood / and it will not have any adverse impact on other houses in the district policy terms of flooding ie. We know water runs down the hills, new particularly for Orchard buildings could channel the water a new direction into existing Close and commented on properties in the NP 1 230 In-fill should also be considered under this policy to ensure Agreed this approach is development of brown field is prioritised over development of supported by the NP garden space. The impact of development on green field requires specific consideration with regard to it reducing the effectiveness of land to drain and its possible negative impact on flood prevention/management 1 228 It would be a great pity if there is housing all the way from Victoria Agreed the NP protects retail park to Bulcote. This needs to be prevented and some breaks the open space between in the building preserved. BJ and the urban area 1 223 Why no mention of proposed development of land at end Orchard Amended - wording of Close ? NP 1 altered to make specific reference to Orchard Close This site is also mentioned as part of NP2 and in the NP narrative 1 218 As per page 32 point 116 - Feedback from the Household Survey The NP only supports the showed that 80% of respondents like Burton Joyce because of its existing site allocation at current size. This by default means that they do not want any Orchard Close and further development. If a massive 80% of households are happy policies NP1 and NP2 with it's size then the Burton Joyce Steering Group should be provide more detail representing their views by fighting any development in the village regarding the tooth and nail. Instead this plan is giving Gedling Borough Council requirements to make permission to build on our precious green belt land. The land above the development Orchard Close is green belt and had sheep grazing in it only weeks acceptable i.e. the site ago however the boundary on map 8 page 23 is WRONG as it does should not extend not show this land as green belt which is at best misleading and at beyond the existing worst dishonest. allocation and the By encouraging building in Burton Joyce NP1 Spatial Strategy landscaping, design and CANNOT fulfil item 1:- housing mix required Point c - it WILL NOT conserve or enhance the landscape character and setting, Point d - it WILL NOT avoiding the risk of damage to areas of importance for nature conservation as it is destroying precious green belt land Point e - it WILL put an unreasonable burden on the existing road network, local schools and doctors’ surgeries Item 2 point c building above Orchard Close will encroach on the open fields that are prominent from across the Valley.
16 Policy No Website Comment Amendment to the ID or Neighbourhood Plan Resident No 1 215 Congestion and access should also be highly considered as village Noted – value of existing centre already busy with lots of parked cars etc. trees to mitigate flooding Also impact on flooding e.g. building on wooded slope behind Main are recognised and policy Street must surely increase risk of flooding in village. requirement added in Also new housing should try to be more environmentally friendly e.g NP2 re tree replacement. grey water harvesting, solar panels. Current issues with car parking are recognised. Solution lies largely outside planning remit with individuals reducing car usage for short journeys to local shops 1 200 A balance must be struck between housing need and preserving Agreed natural habitat if possible. 1 188 Spatial strategy of any developments particularly the Orchard Close The NP has to be in proposed development will radically affect existing residents. general conformity to The building on any green belt land has always been strongly re- GBC’s strategic policies – buffed by the Parish Council and I do feel that by detailing spatial site allocations are part plans for contentious proposals that have yet to be agreed by GBC is of their strategic policy – tantamount to accepting that the village has to give in to the NP also development in the green belt for the sake of one extra dwelling! acknowledges the need for some additional housing in the village. It is not within the scope of the NP to fight GBCs proposals for Orchard Close. 1 179 The last remaining landscape within the centre of the village itself The NP polices set out a (Mill Hill/Langham Drive) should be conserved too. Not just the framework to protect periphery. Too much emphasis is being placed on the periphery landscape character while the centre is being allowed to be choked to death. This is the whilst balancing the need only visible piece of greenbelt within the village that actually makes for limited growth. you feel like you are in the countryside. Otherwise you could be mistaken for thinking you were in a suburb of Nottingham city. Who will pay the long term costs for the upkeep of the possibly improved or maintained services? Will it be down to the residents This is outside the scope through increased Council tax or will the developers have a long of the planning system. term investment? The extra households will not cover these costs through increase in Council tax revenue. 1 178 We would not want to see any high density building within the village Agreed density proposed is envelope, as this would ruin the character of the village. in accordance with surrounding area 1 171 Agree on housing density points. The roads in BJ too narrow to Website accommodate additional traffic if there is additional development.
1 165 I do not feel that further development is required in the village. Any more Noted – the NP supports the towards Nottingham and we will essentially merge with the more inner city retention of the open space areas. to the west of the village between BJ and the urban area. The NP does not allocate sites but cannot propose no growth where district policies and local consultation have identified a need for some additional housing
17 Policy No Website Comment Amendment to the ID or Neighbourhood Plan Resident No 1 161 Broadly agree - although I have some concern about the statement of Noted housing mix is density and reflecting character of properties surrounding development. required to meet local need based on census data and The overall document seems to be pro smaller homes - and against larger household survey for a need detached homes. And against what is termed 'white rendered' houses. The for some smaller dwellings overall document then goes on to say we want more young people involved (this is a district and in the community. national trend in rural villages) So - where owners / developers identify a need for larger homes then this should not be seen in a negative light. Those owning ( and probably under Developers are required to occupying ) larger homes are more likely to have fewer cars / impact on the demonstrate how the village - than if 2/3 smaller homes were built on the same footprint. So my proposal is meeting local point is - there needs to be more balance. need
Secondly, the document suggests white rendered houses don't fit the village. This is highly subjective. Render design is very much now NP3 amended (7) added to contemporary ( and likely to appeal to the younger generation who you say provide more flexibility over you want more involved in the village ). There is no specific vernacular in design Burton Joyce - it is a hotch-potch of styles - which may be charming - but to specifically rail against white rendered houses. There are several in Lambley Lane area - but if you look at them in comparison to the rest of the area - there is no definitive style.
So I strongly resist the assertion that contemporary design is 'bad'. There may well be development infill sites which no one can see from the village or indeed road ways - so to make specific comments on design is a bit reactionary and design proposals should be left to applicants and professional planners.
1 153 Mill Field close and Whitworth Drive are mentioned, why not Orchard close Specific ref to Orchard Close development? Maintenance of open fields to reinforce the rural aspect of added in NP 1 (2c) this section of hillside above the village is vitally important
1 151 We should not have more housing in Burton Joyce .....the amount of traffic See previous comments along the Main Road A612 is too heavy now & parking in the village is already impossible with no obvious solution as to where more parking facilities could be made. We should also not allow more housing to join Burton Joyce up with Netherfield as we will cease to be a village & become a suburb of Nottingham.
1 149 Yes .Attempts by developers to squeeze lots of houses on a piece of land Noted – the NP sets could both ruin the rural atmosphere of Burton Joyce and also create more standards for design that potential flooding problems. We must resist all pressures from those who will reinforce the character are only concerned with their own financial gain to the detriment of the of the village village. 1 19 Why are there no comments re. Protection of the Orchard Close proposal See previous comments 1 20 Small pieces of countryside are precious too. We don’t want large blocks of Agreed – the NP seeks to housing in the village – a few fields to be seen from the village are very protect landscape character beneficial.
1 Unknown Consideration, and a bit more thought is required before all available land is Agreed given over to housing, especially where green belt is concerned.
18 Policy No Website Comment Amendment to the ID or Neighbourhood Plan Resident No 1 23 The 3 fields at the top of Orchard Close can be seen from Gunthorpe to Agreed – the NP recognises beyond Stoke and across the river for many miles. If built on it would spoil the value of these adjoining the whole character of the village. fields and only supports development within the proposed GBC allocation 1 26 The village cannot maintain its village status if large building projects are Noted put into operation. Please keep up the good work to keep Burton Joyce a village. I have lived here for 59 years.
1 28 The proposed development at Glebe Drive needs to remain small and in Agreed - the NP seeks to keeping with the field/wood already there. protect landscape character
1 29 Boundaries with green space beyond are essential to maintain the village as Agreed the NP the NP seeks a separate entity and therefore help to preserve a feel for the village as a to protect landscape community with a community spirit. character
1 32 It is very important that any increase in new build is coupled with an Amended CO 5 reference increase in community/health/transport service provision. If this is ignored added to impact on doctors there will be a significant in the use of cars to access facilities further afield. and local school and impact on services added at NP1 (e) 2 230 Maintaining the "soft edge" is imperative to the village retaining its Agreed character and individuality.
2 222 Very important to maintain the sky line 'soft edge' from Hillside Drive. Agreed 2 218 Building on green belt land IS NOT protecting the landscape See previous comments character of the Parish. 92%of households in the survey considered retaining the green belt as important or very important. These developments will inflict a "visual intrusion" on the landscape particularly from public footpaths and the view from the river. NP2 point 1 a -DOES represent a significant visual intrusion into the landscape setting. The view corridors highlighted in Map 11 are particularly sensitive in this respect and the development WILL have a significantly adverse impact on these publicly accessible views. Point 2 a -the retention of existing trees - this is a very sore point as 2 perfectly healthy trees have been removed from the front of the Amended – replacement Charity shop & bakery with no consultation nor resistance - will tree policy added at NP2 these be replaced at any time? If these 2 very prominent trees (10) and more in cannot be saved how can you guarantee any further success? biodiversity in CO and Point 4 - It is NOT possible to minimise the visual impact of NP2 (9) development at Orchard Close from the public footpath along the south-eastern boundary or from across the Valley.
2 217 Any 'urban creep' should be fiercely resisted to maintain the Agreed Supports NP village's identity. 2 200 This is helpful and benefits both new residents and existing Agreed Supports NP residents 2 197 would be keen to ensure 'visual intrusion' is properly articulated to Agreed Supports NP any developers
19 Policy No Website Comment Amendment to the ID or Neighbourhood Plan Resident No 2 193 Whilst I agree that screening should be done using native trees, I Agreed – character area feel that along the roads and footpaths the trees used should be on analysis has identified a more human scale lending a park like feel to the neighbourhood. areas where trees and My example would be Brusty Place where many years of neglect landscaping are of a high have led to the area becoming a dump for garden waste and quality – NP policies are littering. required to reinforce this 2 188 What about the visual intrusion from development on existing See previous comments properties? Are you seriously more concerned about the view from a footpath than the consequences of existing houses being overlooked by new development! The only way to protect the landscape is to leave it alone, not to sanction green belt incursions by speculative developers. How high do you need to make a hedge to hide new housing! 2 179 It is important that BJ maintains it greenery as this is a very strong Agreed Supports NP feature/characteristic of the village that attracts people to it. 2 175 Maintaining the green belt between Burton Joyce and Nottingham is Agreed Supports NP important for the village. 2 170 This policy needs to be extended. Who is responsible for the upkeep Noted and agree of the said trees and hedges? For example, St Helens Crescent has many overgrown trees bordering the dyke yet finding someone ultimately responsible to trim, and thin the trees seems impossible. The county council did make an appearance in October and spent almost an hour (yes that long!) pulling branches from the dyke, shredding the branches and removing a third of a trailer of foliage but nothing more appears to have happened. Having a policy of soft edges is important, but the upkeep must be mentioned as well. It could be difficult to enforce, especially if the homeowners are reluctant to look after their soft edge, but is something I feel should be included. 2 161 Strongly agree - the landscape that can be seen should be Agreed Supports NP protected. 2 151 Tree planting should be a priority. See previous comments 2 149 Yes, what makes Burton Joyce special is that it is "well treed" and Agreed Supports NP we need to conserve and develop the more rural aspects of the village. 2 1 What about the views from the centre of the village, to be able to Agreed – the views out of still see green areas surrounding the village? the village are important (see para 125). The view corridors work both ways VP3,4, 5 and 6 look into and out of the village and their value is identified in the analysis on character areas which is in turn picked up in NP 3. 2 2 As long as relevant screening and landscaping is maintained on a Noted long term basis and not just a short term fix. 2 20 Wildlife will be severely affected by the Orchard Close development Noted ie: squirrels, pheasants, badgers.
20 Policy No Website Comment Amendment to the ID or Neighbourhood Plan Resident No 2 22 North of Orchard Close should not be built on as this is the last open Agreed See previous meadow in the village and contains lots of wild life. Are we going to comments leave our children with a legacy of a village with buildings but no meadows? 2 23 What about visual intrusion if planning was granted? The NP seeks to minimise the impact of visual intrusion and requires high quality design and landscaping 2 24 Visual intrusion should not be limited by views from over the Trent Agreed and noted valley, but also as seen from within the village. Green skylines are an important feature of not losing the village to urban sprawl.
2 25 We do not want the village to extend any further outside the village Noted – see previous boundary, or too high on the hillside. comments 2 26 We need to keep our landscape. Agreed 2 29 Landscape exists within the village – not just outside. I would have Agreed – tree liked to see more emphasis placed on tree preservation within the replacement policy village. I have to fight constant battles with neighbours who think a added NP2 (10) Tree Preservation Order tree in my garden should be lopped/cut down to give them a better view – at my expense too! It would be useful if I could point out that there is a policy for maintaining and adding to existing trees as part of village policy. 3 230 My view would be that major developments should not only Agreed NP3 seeks to conform to National standards, but should be encourage to exceed achieve high quality them at every opportunity. Additionally, materials should not just design reflect the surrounding area, but should be encouraged to match them when deemed appropriate. 3 228 Limits to owners selling off their gardens for infill building Agreed. Supports NP
21 Policy No Website Comment Amendment to the ID or Neighbourhood Plan Resident No 3 218 NP3 does not address the unacceptable additional burdens on the See previous comments Parish’s infrastructure (particularly the drainage and the narrow re Orchard Close village roads). The local consultation did NOT support the development above Orchard Close due to the potential to exacerbate flooding which is already a problem in Burton Joyce. Page 24 point 93 states "The risk of flooding in the village has been reduced since the construction of flood defences in 2000. Flooding incidents since then have been due to surface water run- off that occurs in times of very heavy rain as water runs off the ridgeline and down into the village. The site allocation for Orchard Close is required to have a site-specific flood risk assessment focusing on surface water flooding in recognition of this issue."
Therefore my conclusion is that the key objectives of the neighbourhood plan (page 27) have NOT been addressed:- Objective 1 - d) By not exacerbating the existing flooding issues in the village! - Having a "site-specific flood risk assessment" DOES NOT address the flooding issue. Objective 3 - b) The long views and vistas from the ridgelines above the village looking south across the Trent Valley are protected! - Building on the site above Orchard Close invalidates this objective.
3 207 Already too late - eg new houses on Lambley Lane Noted 3 200 The look of new housing should be in line with existing building to Agreed preserve unique design and historical context of existing village 3 188 Views afforded by the development? Noted What about the existing views of houses surrounding proposed development? It seems to me that the plan only considers the impact of others looking at potential development and does not take into account the fact that nobody wants the development in the green belt in the first place. 3 170 Completely agree but this clearly hasn't been adopted by the two Noted – NP policy should new houses built on Main Road. They are oversized for the plot and address this issue in the stand out like the proverbial sore thumb! future
3 161 I refer to my comments in policy 1HOUSING DENSITY - there must Amended NP3 (7) added be provision for contemporary design in the absence of a village vernacular. 3 151 Some of the houses that have had planning permission in the past Agreed – the Village are not in keeping with properties already here....eg white boxes on Appraisal provides an Lambley Lane. analysis of this and NP3 seeks to ensure design that reinforces local character 3 149 No big block houses or tall fences! Supports NP 3 1 I think it is important that houses are individual, rather than uniform Agreed
22 Policy No Website Comment Amendment to the ID or Neighbourhood Plan Resident No 3 2 How expensive will these high quality houses be? BJ is already an Noted expensive place to buy into. 3 23 With site density you must be having a laugh! Look at the two new Noted – NP policy should houses on Main Street. address this issue in the future 3 27 No more 4-5 bedroom superior executive dwellings! (especially ones Noted – NP policy should with electric gates). address this issue in the future 3 29 The village style, such as it is, seems to be 19th century brick. This Agreed – the Village should be continued with preference in new developments given to Appraisal provides an darker brick, where available, and large areas of white render- analysis of this and NP3 which make houses stick out like newly whitened teeth on television seeks to ensure design “personalities” – should be discouraged – especially on hilly areas that reinforces local where new developments or extensions are prominent in the character landscape. 4 230 Housing mix in the village is significantly skewed towards larger, Agreed NP policy seeks detached houses. A rebalance is required, however, in looking to to address this achieve this, existing infrastructural constraints must be considered eg schooling, medical care etc 4 228 Anyone looking to downsize but stay in the village will have real Agreed NP policy seeks problems. to address this 4 227 There should also be provision for housing for younger people Agreed NP policy seeks (including single person households) and families. to address this 4 225 Don't forget about provision for young first time buyers Agreed. Supports NP 4 218 Burton Joyce is a popular rural village where people aspire to live. Noted but beyond remit What safeguards are in place to ensure that the elderly or first time of NP buyers from Burton Joyce will benefit from these "smaller houses" How will you protect smaller dwellings from being bought by the wealthy to rent out? 4 217 Whilst a noble idea in theory, this may be difficult to achieve given NP policy seeks to the current development laws which allow larger developers to just address this pay a sum to avoid building smaller houses and affordable housing.
4 216 This has been repeatedly ignored previously, making it very difficult NP policy seeks to for older people to move nearer village centre address this 4 215 Better parking scheme directly links to this. Many drive in to centre NP recognises this issue and so better footpaths/cycle paths in to centre plus better car improvements to village parking needs to be addressed to tackle increased congestion. centre subject to funding would improve pedestrian movement 4 208 Define 10-minute walk. Is it for an elderly, disabled or a young fit Standard measure ref in person? footnote no 37 4 204 Couldn't agree more!! Noted 4 197 agree in particular the point re provision of smaller houses for older Supports NP people
23 Policy No Website Comment Amendment to the ID or Neighbourhood Plan Resident No 4 188 Burton Joyce has always been a very desirable place to live and Bulcote Garage site is not property prices reflect this, the proposed development of the within BJ parish – note Bulcote Garage site will more than satisfy the needs of older people concern with too much wanting to move to sheltered housing, yes there is a shortage of of one type of small bungalow's in the village but developers are very adverse to development – test will building single storey houses due to land prices. What we could end remain to meet local up with if we are not careful, are developments of three storey flats housing need which is for which create an even bigger eyesore than medium sized detached a mix of house types houses. Be careful what you wish for! 4 187 A site has recently been developed on Leach's workshop land. 2 NP policy seeks to monstrous homes have been allowed to be built which are not at all address this in keeping with the surrounding houses. How can we be sure that this will not continue? 4 179 There should be more affordable starter homes for young people NP policy seeks to deliver too. smaller market houses Affordable Housing policy is in line with GBC’s 4 171 Whilst also taking into account the previous points on housing Agreed. Supports NP density. 4 170 Agree but are there any suitable plots of land? The former petrol station at the end of Church Road has been looked at regarding a retirement home, but this is clearly not a "small house". The rear of the Wheatsheaf could potentially be used. The rear car park appears infrequently used and four (maybe more) small houses could be constructed. The problem though is that a developer will not be interested in building a small house. The two new houses on Main Street are a case in point. 4-6 houses could have been built on this NP policy seeks to land but instead we have two houses which aren't in keeping with address this their surroundings. To maximise profits, developers will always look to what they can ultimately sell a property for. The most recent small houses built are on Main Street next to Tim Lane. These are small 3 bedroom bungalows. It took approximately three years to sell all the bungalows...... so whilst the policy of wanting smaller houses and believing there is a need the policy will need to be amended the include the key word of "affordable".
4 165 Why are more homes required? See previous comments 4 162 There is a definite shortage of bungalows in the area. noted 4 161 Whilst I appreciate that there needs to be a mix - the statement NP policies require a suggests that all developments should see smaller homes - balance of good design – irrespective of ownership / needs, surrounding houses. and to meet local For example It would be folly to insist on two small houses instead housing need of a larger house on an infill site - where the surrounding houses were all larger. It doesn't make sense.
4 151 Smaller houses & particularly bungalows are required due to the Supports NP above average ages of the Burton Joyce residents.
4 150 The box shaped houses recently built on Lambley Lane are not in character Agreed – the Village with other houses in the vicinity and this is recognised by others visiting Appraisal provides an from outside the village. analysis of this and NP3 seeks to ensure design
24 Policy No Website Comment Amendment to the ID or Neighbourhood Plan Resident No that reinforces local character
4 149 This is most important. These is a plentiful supply of large family NP policy seeks to houses in the village but a dearth of accommodation that either address this younger people could afford or for elderly with large houses people to downsize to. It is a great shame that a few massive palatial houses were built at the bottom of Lambley Lane. The area of land would have been perfect for building retirement homes 4 1 Gated communities do not encourage participation in the Agreed NP policy seeks development of a real community. Please discourage it to address this 4 2 How is the school going to have any increase on the children’s Noted NP1 requires an population? assessment of the impact on local services 4 3 Affordable family housing is needed, not just ½ million homes! Noted 4 4 Disagree with the smaller homes for older people concept. If the Smaller houses can be for village is to develop it’s houses for younger families that are either younger families needed. or older people this point is made in the NP4 (1) text added to make this clear 4 5 No more 4-5 bedroom superior executive dwellings with large Agreed NP policy seeks gardens, or large solid surfaced parking areas and drives with no to address this drainage, which causes rapid run off, or electric gated drives so new residents take no interest in the community. 4 6 Do we really need more totally out of scale, white flat roofed square Agreed – the Village houses? Surely more modest dwellings for young families or Appraisal provides an downsizing are required. analysis of this and NP3 seeks to ensure design that reinforces local character 4 7 I agree on smaller houses for working couples, single parents and Noted elderly. You need to use height to increase stock of these house types i.e. 3 or 4 storey. 4 8 What is happening to Lendrum Court? Will this be for housing or Question referred to the flats for the elderly? PC 4 9 I think more 4 bedroom houses are required. As someone currently There is a need for a mix searching for a family house there is a serious shortage! I think of housing types decent sized gardens are important – many in the village are very small and this creates a cramped feel. 4 19 The proposed development at the top of Orchard Close would imply Noted this is a site a significant increase in surface water flooding. The current services allocated by GBC – the are not adequate to cope with an increase in demand. The road is concerns are recognised not suitable for the extra traffic given the slope and acute bend at but the NP cannot block the junction of Hillside Drive. Access to Main Street is already site allocations as these problematic, given the number of cars parked either side of the are part of strategic junction, coupled with increased traffic flow and the increased risk policy of accidents. 4 Unknown Why , unlike the other proposed developments, the report does not See previous comments really offer any concerns as to the potential adverse effects on the village as a whole and the householders affected.
25 Policy No Website Comment Amendment to the ID or Neighbourhood Plan Resident No 4 Unknown The report outlines a requirement for starter homes and downsizing The planning process can opportunities for the elderly. It is impossible to envisage, given the require a mix of house problems that any developer will face due to the topography of this types site, that these objectives could in any way form part of their deliberations. 4 24 Not always necessary as we have good, reliable transport routes Noted plus walking/cycling should be encouraged. 4 25 Some bungalows needed for the elderly. The amount of houses built Supports NP must not a large amount as the amenities in the village will not be able to cope with it, such as schools, parking etc.
4 27 Terrible missed opportunities with the developments on Lambley Supports NP Lane (opposite Doctor’s surgery), next to Roberts Recreation Ground and Loxley Close and Loxley Close (replacing Braybrook home). All homes for the rich and non-needy.
4 32 Housing should consist of property for rent as well as for sale and Noted Affordable focus on those with low incomes, single people (whatever their housing policy is within age), as well as families. the Local Plan
5 233 Is there a minimum width for pathways? And would be preferred for Yes 2m for new roads a grass verge between footpath and any major road... Nervous issue raised with NCC about kids near A612 and PC 5 230 Having come across intentionally blocked rights of way whilst Agreed this matter has walking the area, it is imperative that landowners are aware of their been passed onto the PC obligations when making development proposals and are fully aware of the consequences of blocking or neglecting rights of way over their land 5 229 Walking area/path to access new development where Tall Trees Noted – the NP was. encourages the provision of new routes subject to landowner consent 5 228 We use the footpaths a great deal. A pathway along the ridge to This specific reference Lowdham would be very welcome. was removed from the submission version of the NP due to comments from the Landowner – the principal to work with willing landowners to extend walking routes remains in the NP 5 218 Burton Joyce already has many well used footpaths, cycle routes Noted and bridleways. Any development will not enhance or encourage this further. 5 217 This is a major draw to many people in the village and also an Supports NP attraction to people from further afield. This aids local businesses, such as pubs and cafes as well. 5 215 Walking in to the village from the Nottingham end of the village Supports NP along the A612 is quite unpleasant due to traffic and a cycle path/footpath into the village would also be very welcomed.
5 200 This is very important as everyone benefits from opportunity to Supports NP walk outdoors no matter what age they are
26 Policy No Website Comment Amendment to the ID or Neighbourhood Plan Resident No 5 193 I strongly support this policy as the footpaths in and around the Agreed. Supported in NP village are one of its principal attractions in my view. There is much scope for improving and better maintaining areas of land adjacent to these, thereby enhancing the experience of walking through them for all users. 5 188 Good idea! Noted 5 178 Care would need to be taken where routes traverse farmland, so Agreed. NP amended. that livestock are not affected by dogs, or walkers. 5 175 A walking route between Burton Joyce and Lowdham would be a See comment to web ref. great addition to the village. 228 above 5 174 Heavy cycle use of footpaths can damage the surface making This is partly the issue walking less attractive! with Green lane and the need to improve Green Lane is identified in the NP 5 161 Strongly agree Supports NP 5 150 Cyclists should be encouraged to use bicycle lanes when provided. Noted shared footpath cycle ways more suitable for younger cyclists 5 149 All these will add to the rural atmosphere of the village. Supports NP 5 1 Need to retain all connection across the railway to the river, Noted whether formal public rights of way or not. 5 2 We are very lucky we can use tarmac surfaced footpaths along by Noted the river. They are so popular. Thanks for access. 5 3 Consideration needs to be given to those with disabilities impacting Noted on mobility with wheelchairs and walking aids. Few dropped pavements and lots of uneven footpaths also impacts on children in prams and pushchairs. 5 4 Many of the footpaths now have tight wire fences restricting the Noted by the PC width of paths, also causing them to channel walkers into the middle so they get muddy. Also hedges have been planted along Occupation Road and down to the poultry farm. These cut off the views across the valley. 5 23 Seems to me that the council is more concerned with flora and Noted fauna than spoiling the village in the first place by allowing more and more homes. 5 24 Footpaths/rights of way can lead to the encroachment of housing, Noted as evidenced by the building up Willow Wong and what used to be called “Sellars Field”. 5 27 Several paths have had new hedges planted alongside recently. If Noted by the PC those are allowed to grow high they cut out the views across the valley and surrounding countryside. Also, several paths are now fenced with wire restricting the width so the middle gets churned up and muddy. 5 29 As someone who does not have a car I have therefore have to walk Noted and supported - everywhere in the village to get to meetings or shop at the Co-op. agree issue of shared Please do not forget for us the condition of existing footpaths is cycle and footpath only much more important than providing new ones. A mix of footpaths suitable for younger and cycle paths can be hazardous, though probably good for school cyclists children. But I do support the idea of a new footpath along the ridgeline between BJ and Lowdham – wonderful views!
27 Policy No Website Comment Amendment to the ID or Neighbourhood Plan Resident No 6 230 I agree in general, however, as owner of one of the assets on the Noted. The buildings list, I am unsure what this means in terms of my obligations to the shown on the list are of asset and the quid pro quo as regards contributions from the PC or important historic GBC to maintain the asset. Additionally, where such an asset is the interest, but do not have last of its type (others having been demolished to make way for conservation status. garages etc) how will applications be affected when developmental However the NP will give precedents are in place? Also, will restrictions placed on greater powers to development of an asset impact me financially in terms of the value influence planning of the asset reducing due to such restrictions? At the open day, no applications. definitive answer was available and this still needs an answer.
6 215 Some discreet signage to indicate the history of the building would Noted. also be good. 6 208 Not sure how "important heritage sites" are defined. Appendix F contains the list of heritage assets and is based on criteria approve by GBC 6 171 I hope that investment in one particular asset, The Cross Keys pub Cross Keys pub and car and car park, to enhance its status as a public house and asset to park is an asset of the village (parking facility, toilets in the village, as well as its community value in important social contribution) could be encouraged. recognition of its status – it is privately owned 6 161 I refer to my comments in item 1 - regarding contemporary design - Amendment made NP3 7 where it is appropriate. added 6 151 Unlike the white box houses that have been built recently. More Supports NP bungalows required. 6 149 For example- a careful watch will be need to be kept on the Supports NP the Village development proposals for the end of Criftin Road to ensure that Appraisal provides an any houses built are in keeping with the Victorian style of the road analysis of this and NP3 seeks to ensure design that reinforces local character
6 1 Whytes Cottage, 173 Woodside Cottage and 175 Main Street. 181 Added to list and 183 Spring Cottage could also be added to the list of important heritage site, as previous Silk Weaver’s Cottages.
6 2 The area around the former framework knitter’s cottages at the end Added to list of Main Street is worthy of heritage consideration/protection. Whyte’s Cottage, Woodside Cottage, 173 and 175, 181 and 183 Spring Cottage. 6 3 The Old Barn on Lambley Lane. Noted 6 4 More village history walks please. More public awareness – more Noted and passed on to plaques on buildings? the PC 6 5 We own 1 one these properties – what are the implications of the Noted. See above building being on this list? Is this 1 step away from being listed and comments. thus restrict future improvements to the building?
6 6 Gothic House on St Helens Grove Noted 6 7 A gap in the old school wall will allow pedestrians access to the area Noted and comment and will enhance the value of the village centre. passed onto the PC
28 Policy No Website Comment Amendment to the ID or Neighbourhood Plan Resident No 6 8 It’s great that the parish council has taken over the Old School. This Noted and comment is at the locus of the village and is an important heritage building. passed onto the PC 6 20 If more councillors lived in BJ then the prospect of more buildings Noted. would not be an issue. If only 0.01/% of Britain is actually built upon, why are they still trying to cram houses on every little green place in our beautiful village? 6 27 Keep some green area on the old school site. NB There is hedgehogs Noted. there and frogs, newts and toads in the pond.
6 29 Donkeys in the field in Lee Road are something which means Burton This is outside the remit Joyce for me, and while there are donkeys available to graze then of the NP common land this is part of Burton Joyce heritage to me. Could the field be is usually in public designated a common? ownership or there is a legal agreement in place to ensure public access in perpetuity. 7 233 Can we include enhanced access to the primary school too? Noted 7 232 Problems with parking and obstructed view at junctions already Noted 7 230 Space for car parking is an issue, however more importantly in my Parking issues in the opinion is the flagrant disregard certain motorists have for where village are identified – they park and how they park. Often cars are parked dangerously at improvements to the junctions (on Main St) and on white lines (especially outside the chip village centre as set out shop). Parking regulations need to be enforced to improve safety. in appendix D would assist. 7 229 Safe crossing coop to shops Improvements to the Safe crossing Padleys lane to Primary School village centre as set out in appendix D would assist 7 228 Less charity shops and more small business units. Really miss that Noted outside scope of old hardware shop Newcombes. NP 7 227 Apart from the Co-op, there is a risk of the village centre being Noted outside scope of dominated by charity shops and takeaways. Even the Bluebird NP Coffee Shop no longer opens on Saturdays, and it never did on Sundays. There is a risk of the Village Centre becoming a rather desolate area. 7 223 It is a mess! Improvements to the A few years ago we had some excellent designs for revamp of village village centre as set out centre by Nottingham university students and I think we should in appendix D are revisit these designs with a view to adopting one. supported by the NP I understood at the time any proposed development would be thwarted by the owners of the land in front of the shops. Is this still the case ? If so maybe we should seek designs for the other side of the road to incorporate more pedestrian access and the Old school building and land around could be the daily meeting place for the village.
29 Policy No Website Comment Amendment to the ID or Neighbourhood Plan Resident No 7 218 I see no problem with the pedestrian movement between the Co-op Agreed – value of and shops nor do I have problems accessing the shops on Main existing trees to mitigate Street. flooding, for biodiversity I agree with protecting the car parking provision in the village and health benefits are centre. recognised and policy I have to mention again that the rural village character of the centre requirement added in has been badly affected by the removal of the two beautiful trees NP2 (10) re tree outside the shops on main street. replacement The trees gave a truly leafy village feel to the area giving vital shady areas in the summer and looked wonderful covered in Christmas lights in the winter. The neighbourhood plan mentions many times the importance of trees, that they "accentuate the close proximity of the countryside to the urban area" NP2 point 2a encourages "the retention of existing trees". Replacing the trees would preserve the rural character of the village centre. To add insult to injury I notice that the picture on the front of the hard copy of your questionnaire shows an old picture of the village centre with leafy trees in situ!!! Perhaps it is because the trees enhance the rural feel to the village?
7 217 Living on a road close to the centre, we already suffer from people Noted leaving their cars on the street all day, whilst they presumably get the bus to Nottingham. Any scheme which pushed cars further out from the centre and exacerbated this problem would not be supported by me or my neighbours. 7 212 The village centre needs to be made a lot safer for pedestrians and a Improvements to the crossing of some sort should be placed to assist crossing the road village centre as set out especially for school children. in appendix D are supported by the NP 7 209 Improve access for disabled people including the provision of better Noted parking 7 208 Appears to be pushing for pedestrianisation which is contrary to Scheme proposes a mix rural character. of pedestrianisation and parking 7 207 Would it be possible to move the bus stop from outside the Coop to noted the opposite side of Meadow Lane outside the Old School where the road is wide enough for a bus pull-in thus allowing traffic to move more freely when the bus is stopped at the bus stop?
7 202 Adopt one of the excellent plans drawn up by university students a Improvements to the few years ago. village centre as set out in appendix D are supported by the NP 7 197 I think we could benefit from improved shopping/café facilities than Noted currently exist whilst not impacting further on parking issues. 7 193 I would like to see aspects of this policy extended to include See previous comments enhancement of pedestrian access throughout the village. There are too many places where pedestrians must walk in single file or step into the road because the paths are too narrow. Many footpaths are unsuitable for mobility scooters. 7 191 Car parking is a major problem, particularly at the front of the Cross See previous comments Keys. Double yellow lines and parking enforcement should be considered. Also a problem around the school where parents don't
30 Policy No Website Comment Amendment to the ID or Neighbourhood Plan Resident No always park considerately.
7 188 What is the problem crossing the road between the co op and the Noted shops? Any crossing installed will take up parking spaces and as this road is designated a 20mph speed limit, how about enforcing this and the no parking on the white lines as inconsiderate parking causes more problems for pedestrians than crossing the road. For god’s sake don't put speed humps in! Consider that more houses in the village will create a greater need for more on street parking. We already struggle at school start and finish times which can cause gridlock.
7 187 Perhaps it would help with parking issues if a white line on roads in Noted – outside scope of the centre of the village was to be painted with a one hour parking NP raised with PC restriction imposed on these roads. This would prevent people using the village centre as 'a park and ride facility'. Many cars are parked for a long time during the day so that the driver can park near to a bus stop. It is not necessary for this one hour to be same on all the roads 7 183 The cars are a nuisance for parking and why do they park on Noted – outside scope of corners. Where's the Village police man or community officer? NP raised with PC 7 179 The flow of traffic through the centre of the village should also be Noted given careful consideration as well as parking. The more houses built the greater the flow of traffic. Most households own 2 cars so for every house built we should assume that there will be an additional 2 cars driving through the village centre at some point of the day. This is not viable especially when it comes to the school run. The main road is already in a terrible state of disrepair. More traffic would mean more wear on a road that is already a danger and embarrassment to the village. You should try cycling on it. It is safer cycling along the A612! 7 178 There is a need for more parking provision in the village centre, not Noted see previous less. You cannot rely on the Cross Keys always allowing their car comments re Cross Keys park to be used by non patrons.
7 176 Making the village centre more pedestrian-friendly is crucial - it is See previous comments currently dominated by cars, making crossing Main Street hazardous, especially for those with limited mobility. Drivers should feel they are invading a pedestrian space instead of the other way round. 7 174 Village centre still needs a bit of greening as well as parking issues. Noted 7 171 Would very much hope that the postponed village centre Improvements to the development could be reinstated as soon as possible, via innovative village centre as set out funding if required. in appendix D are supported by the NP
31 Policy No Website Comment Amendment to the ID or Neighbourhood Plan Resident No 7 170 The simple solution to the parking problem in the village is to have Noted – parking lines and double yellow lines put down. But how is this arranged? Many of enforcement outside the people parking cars in the centre live on Lambley lane and scope of the NP issue parley lane. They drive down into the centre of the village and then raised with PC catch the bus to their destination. Whilst Policy 7 makes sense, it doesn't go far enough in considering the root cause and addressing that issue. 7 168 I'm not sure if this is the correct place to say this but BJ needs longer Noted outside scope of co op opening times on a Sunday. There are no other facilities in the the NP area after closing. 7 161 Strongly agree Noted. 7 156 I know it’s not technically in the centre- but could the parking on Noted – parking lines and Trent lane be given consideration double parking down there is enforcement outside blocking access to refuse collections and emergency vehicles and scope of the NP issue causing issues with Trent Lane residents raised with PC 7 151 Parking is a real issue in the village & will only get worse if more Noted. Parking issues houses are built. identified in NP 7 150 The village centre is sometimes difficult to access due to parking of Parking issues identified vehicles on the streets near the centre. Parking is a major issue as in the NP some park irresponsibly on or near to corners causing hazards. The bus stop outside the co-op adds to the difficulty.
7 149 This is a very confusing statement and would benefit from being re Wording amended in written to avoid ambiguity! NP9 to provide clarity .It would seem to suggest that car parking is a priority over better and safer conditions for pedestrians! i would disagree strongly with this .The choking of the village centre with parked cars is a real issue for me. Car parking creates great dangers for pedestrians. Very soon an elderly person trying to weave their way around parked cars to cross the road will get knocked down. I think the Parish council need some radical and creative thinking to create car parks in the village and clear the central area of parked cars except for the disabled.
7 1 The wording seems to give priority consideration to cars rather than Wording amended in pedestrians. NP9 to provide clarity 7 2 Parking in the centre should be restricted. If parking spaces were to See previous comments be increased, obviously more cars would use the village and thus create more traffic problems. 7 3 The green area between the old school and the chip shop was NP8 amended to ref developed as a wildlife garden and tree nursery. There is still a pond value of wildlife garden with newts and other wild life, as well as hedgehogs on the site. Please can this be retained as the only green area in the village centre. 7 4 Ltd. Time – 3hrs? Even as a fit person I still need to park to drop off Comment unclear goods, or if I’m going on somewhere. 7 5 It can be very difficult to cross from the chemist to the Co-op as Improvements to the there are so many side roads eg. Chestnut Grove, Willow Wong and village centre as set out the traffic from Wheatsheaf Court – doctor’s surgery. in appendix D are supported by the NP 7 6 Thanks to the landlords who allow parking on their car parks. Noted 7 7 If you restrict parking in the village then the shops will not survive. Noted Less shops means the village will decline so more parking is the answer.
32 Policy No Website Comment Amendment to the ID or Neighbourhood Plan Resident No 7 8 Parking is essential, but traffic could do with being ‘calmed’ to make Improvements to the the centre more pedestrian friendly. The centre could do with more village centre as set out trees. in appendix D are supported by the NP 7 9 1 of the ways to enhance the village would be to make the area Noted between the old school and the chip shop with a car park and have parking restrictions in the area from the Cross Keys to Willow Wong, and Co-op to community church. Could still have a garden at the front. 7 10 Improve pedestrian safety using Pelican crossing or similar? Very Improvements to the dangerous crossing Main Street at times – especially when buses village centre as set out stop at the Co-op. in appendix D are supported by the NP 7 11 An area between the Cop-op and shops would benefit from a 20 Noted mph pedestrian area using coloured asphalt. 7 12 The village centre is too dominated by cars to the detriment of Noted pedestrians. Need an off road car park. 7 21 Parking is an issue meaning it is a frequent problem for cars to be Noted parked in an unsafe manner 7 22 Why not knock down to prefab and put in a village green with Use of garden supported seating? This could be used for various events. by NP 7 23 More parking could be provided on the grounds of the old school Noted which is the biggest mess in the village. 7 24 I see the introduction of further Pelican crossings. I would not agree Noted with stop-lights in the village centre. 7 27 Parking should be stopped up Padleys Lane up to Foxhill from 8am Noted to 9.30am (except for disabled). Also up Willow Wong to the Grove. Pay the public houses to allow drop off for these times. Do not provide more parking – it will only attract more cars!
7 29 The flower bed outside the Cross Keys always lifts my spirits and Noted might be worth repeating – if it fits in with other developments – outside shops, which is now even more sterile with the loss of 2 trees there. 7 32 The spread of parking to nearby streets should not adversely affect Issue acknowledged in residents who live n those streets. the NP 8 232 Poplars sport ground is only of use to club members Website 8 231 Please provide some car parking in the Old School Building site to All noted garden and reduce roadside parking. Please pedestrianise the area between pedestrianisation school and shops. Also the remaining area around the Old School supported should be a Community Garden. 8 230 I agree in principle, however ensuring these facilities remain Noted financially viable should not simply be that the precept is increased if costs to operate increase. Each facility needs to merit its place within the village to the extent that the Parish Council should not simply subsidise one facility with the profits from another, but should look critically at each facility within the context of what it contributes and what it costs.
33 Policy No Website Comment Amendment to the ID or Neighbourhood Plan Resident No 8 229 Facilities for teenagers-youth club, access to grass/field area to play Issue identified in the NP on as no access to poplars sports ground unless a member of BJ improving access to the football club. Then it’s limited to 3G use. poplars is a project
8 228 Open up the grass football pitches for casual use in school holidays Issue identified in the NP so young people can access the site as they do on the cricket field in improving access to the Gedling. poplars is a project 8 227 There should be direct access to the Grove from the north side of Access would be through the village, from Padleys Lane / Foxhill Road / Copse Close. private property. 8 223 see comments in section 7 Noted 8 188 Makes sense. Noted 8 187 Don' t forget the library! This used to be a valuable meeting room Library added to NP8 for groups in the evenings, and is not used at all at the moment. 8 161 Strongly agree Noted 8 159 It should be the aspiration to have real time displays located at all NP supports the use of bus stops in Burton Joyce, to complement the next stop planning gain to secure announcements and real time tracking that is provided on the buses public transport on service 100. improvements see NP 8 (3) NOTE: The Sunday daytime service on route 100 operates every hour and not 2-hourly as suggested in the document. 8 149 Yes! A further thing which makes BJ special is the sense of Noted community. i feel l that more could be done to develop the community potential of the old school. 8 1 Padleys Lane school dropping off point creates traffic problems. Noted Needs looking at.
8 2 Can consideration be given to the creation of a badminton court in 1 Noted of the various halls? 8 3 There will always be traffic problems at places/ times where Noted children are being collected/dropped off eg: school, dancing, Brownies etc. 8 4 If the library were to be knocked down a facility located within the Noted and raised with PC Old School then it would become more of a community centre and the area where the library is now would make an excellent car park and reduce the numbers of cars in the centre.
8 5 Do not take our library away! Noted 8 6 Take out the word ‘prove’ since this can only done in retrospect and Noted not at the time the developments are being considered for planning purposes. 8 7 Scout hut? Added to NP8 list 8 20 If the old prefab were taken down this area would be very nice as an Noted. Steering group open space with seating-even a shelter roofing to be used for events looking at various ie: Christmas or summer fair, or just somewhere to relax. options.
8 24 Dismantle prefab and have area or village green, keeping trees and Noted providing seating 8 27 The Grove should be developed to give access from Padleys Lane Noted . See above and restricted use for dog walking, cycling, skate boarding etc. At the moment it is virtually unused. If a through way was made it
34 Policy No Website Comment Amendment to the ID or Neighbourhood Plan Resident No would discourage illicit use for drugs etc.
8 29 The Poplars Sports ground and Roberts Recreation seem to me to be Noted important because they are facilities which attract children and young people. 9 233 Surely the safety along the A612 footpath is more important than Wording of NP 9 trees/hedgerows or am I not reading it right? The footpath amended to better Wheatsheaf side is not very wide in places and quite dangerous - I reflect the planning would not like to see it narrower because of character plants... balance of loss of hedgerows versus pedestrian safety. 9 232 Better cycle way to Gedling required Noted 9 230 Do not forget the safety of cyclists on the A612 Noted 9 229 The A612 should be 30mph from Millfield Close to Carlton le willows Noted but outside the academy (presently 40mph) due to large number of pupils scope of the NP walking/cycling to /from school along often narrow areas of path. It is also a cycle route & Traffic is heavy at all times of day with cars, lorries & a main bus route into Nottingham. 9 227 Apart from roads and traffic, it is important to consider public Ref is made to buses and transport provision, including trains and buses. trains in the NP 9 223 appalling surfaces.... Noted 9 218 Any developments in the village will only exacerbate the traffic Noted problem. 9 217 Existing roads and pavements, especially Main Street, are already in Noted poor repair and need remedial action now, not just a promise of improvement over the next 5 years.
9 212 I think pedestrian safety should be the highest priority over Noted aesthetics. 9 208 Proposals are too vague and pedestrian safety must not be Noted compromised in favour of trees and hedgerows. 9 202 Appalling! !! Noted 9 197 the A612 is already a busy road, especially at rush hour. It is Noted extremely difficult to turn right out of the village in rush hour without taking your life in your hands. I am also increasingly concerned about cars parked dangerously close to the bottom of Padleys Lane, particularly around school start and finish times, where it is impossible to edge out into the road safely. Likewise on Padleys Lane itself, I am concerned that it has become a chicane of parked vehicles, very dangerous indeed for road users and pedestrians alike 9 191 A612 is very busy, often difficult to join the road (particularly if Pedestrian trying to turn right towards Nottingham from the village centre side improvements to A612 is of the road. Also appears to be a problem with speed of vehicles a project in appendix A along A612.
35 Policy No Website Comment Amendment to the ID or Neighbourhood Plan Resident No 9 188 Wait until the Teal close development has been completed, if you Noted think things are bad now you will not be able to pull out onto the A612 in a car or cross the road on foot without traffic lights stopping the flow of vehicles. I say again, more development, more cars, more traffic and pedestrian problems. Pity you could not have saved the lovely trees outside the shops from the chop, the village lost much of its rural character when these were felled. 9 179 As mentioned previously the main road through the village is in an Noted extremely poor state. During the school run it struggles to cope with the amount of cars dropping-off and picking-up children. There has already been one accident this school year. More traffic would increase this risk. 9 176 Many roads and pavements require resurfacing - roads, especially Noted Main Street, are full of potholes and pavements are uneven making them very difficult to negotiate for those with limited mobility
9 161 Whist I agree that traffic and road safety should be paramount - this Noted. This is only should be left to professional planners and highway staff to assess. development within the To say every development should improve pedestrian and highway village centre and safety is over the top - it should not be adverse. wording has been clarified 9 156 the amount of traffic through the village is getting ridiculous and Noted also parking on the pathway is becoming commonplace and needs stopping 9 151 More houses will mean more traffic! Noted 9 150 See previous comments re village centre. Noted 9 149 Masses! But there isn't room here! i Noted
I have sent an email to the parish mag. concerning this
9 1 Riding a bicycle along Meadow Lane and Main Street is very Noted dangerous. Both roads consist of a series of ruts and holes held together by potholes and rough ground. The footpaths are similarly hazardous for pedestrians. I do not understand why Padleys Lane was regarded as a priority case for resurfacing. 9 2 Main Street surface is a disgrace. Why was Padleys Lane considered Noted to be more important to resurface? ...I wonder how many councillors live up there? 9 3 There doesn’t appear to be anything in the document about the Amendments made to train station and protection of these few trains that do stop in BJ. add more on train station NP 9 4 It would be nice to see the railway station supported Amendments made to add more on train station NP 9 5 A612 looks ok to me, as a road surface. Have any councillors etc. Noted Tried walking/driving down Main Street from Lambley Lane to Bulcote. It’s all hazardous- walking and driving.
9 6 Need another pedestrian crossing (with lights) at Bulcote end of Noted Church Road. Crossing that busy road is dangerous for school children. It doesn’t hurt to be delayed a little if lights are installed.
36 Policy No Website Comment Amendment to the ID or Neighbourhood Plan Resident No 9 7 We need double yellow lines on the opposite side of the zigzag lines Noted outside the school. People are parking there causing problems and danger. 9 8 Parking on pavements is awful. Noted 9 9 Parking at the bottom of Padleys Lane outside the school opposite Noted the zigzag lines is creating a traffic hazard 9 10 Willow Wong where children cross. An accident waiting to happen. Noted More zigzags? 9 11 Poor state of roads through the village, especially near Lambley Noted Lane. 9 12 Traffic lights on a612 near barber’s shop should not be a pedestrian Noted one but one which controls the flow of traffic at the cross roads. This should ease congestion and slow traffic on the a612.
9 13 What about the pedestrians if the lights near the barbers are Noted changed from pedestrian lights? 9 14 Re-route the 100 Pathfinder to go down Church Road to help ease Noted the congestion in the centre. 9 15 Need 20 mph on roads in the village Noted 9 16 To help with road safety and traffic problems keep the 100 bus on Noted the a612 – not through the village 9 17 The pedestrian traffic lights near the barbers shop allow the safe Noted crossing for people who walk to the Poplars and river – young and old.` 9 18 We do not need any more yellow lines in the village. Parking for Noted school drop-offs is for a short time each day, at weekends, or at holiday time. 9 20 Please – for the safety of everyone can we have the pavements and Noted road of Main Street re surfaced? 9 21 It is difficult to cross the A612. Too many times I have seen children Improvements to A612 is going to and from school and the elderly trying to cross, either a project in appendix A narrowly being missed by vehicles or standing on central reservations and nearly being clipped by wing mirrors or overhang.
9 Unknown There needs to be a traffic light controlled pedestrian crossing on Improvements to A612 is the A612 near Farnsfield Avenue. The situation is only going to get a project in appendix A worse when the Gedling access road is built.
9 22 Let’s have a better old main road surface, and please stop the Noted drivers (many of whom have children on board) from driving like maniacs. 9 23 How can allowing housing at the top of Orchard Close improve See previous comments pedestrian and highway safety? If, even if there was a road that did not need any more traffic it is Orchard Close. This would be going against everything it is advocating. Please fight on behalf of ALL of the residents of the village. 9 24 Improve pedestrian and highway safety by re-surfacing most of Noted them. Also consider the paths around Crifton Road, Lee Road, Gordon Road and Wellington Road – paths are mostly tilted from successive tarmac surfacing making it difficult to walk on them.
37 Policy No Website Comment Amendment to the ID or Neighbourhood Plan Resident No 9 27 Provision for pedestrians to cross the road between Chestnut Grove Noted and Trent Lane should be made and footpaths improved. Additional 232 Are these houses really necessary See previous comments comments Will problem families be housed in social houses ..not wanted The village mostly fits into the valley/hills. Exceptions can be seen from miles around. High density housing will look out of place with no space for trees etc Access roads to new developments will no doubt be on existing extended avenues, are these roads really suitable Houses on hills will be seen for miles and overlook existing houses Why all these houses. The schools are full, doctors over worked, parking in centre near shops over full already with use of pub car park. Yellow lines needed to maintain clear junctions, 20mph required, better bus service
227 The train service is neglected, and the frequency of trains is very Noted but outside scope poor. To improve the train service, there is a requirement for: (1) a of the Plan more frequent train service - at least hourly; (2) provision for more car parking space (e.g., at the infrequently used car parking area, owned by Severn Trent). This could lead to a much-needed Park & Ride Facility at Burton Joyce to improve transport opportunities for residents and visitors. The Concessionary Bus Pass Scheme does not allow the use of the Pass before 09.30 hrs (Mondays to Fridays). However, the first bus after 09.30 hrs (Mondays to Fridays) is at 10.04 hrs. There is a bus at 09.24 hrs, and, exceptionally, it should be possible for pass-holders to use this bus. The Concessionary Bus Pass Scheme should be extended to include train travel, as it already does in some areas. It is not in the interest of public transport to restrict its use to buses.
225 We must make it possible for young people to be able to stay in the Agreed in NP village and not be forced out because of a lack of suitable properties. 218 I am concerned that there is a conflict of interests with regard to the CIL is a national Parish Council receiving CIL money for new planning applications government policy and (page 9 point 23-26). will not influence the PC Whilst the Council can argue that the CIL contributions will be used in its approach to to fund local projects I fear that this incentive could sway decisions development proposals in favour of developers. The Parish Council should be free to make unbiased decisions. 215 Encouraging the planting of native plants and trees and protection Additional emphasise and enhancement of local wildlife should not just be considered given to biodiversity when new development is being carried out. Likewise, enhancement of pedestrian routes and cycle paths.
211 keep up the good work! it's obvious a lot of time and effort has gone Noted into producing said document
38 Policy No Website Comment Amendment to the ID or Neighbourhood Plan Resident No Additional 200 The village centre and surroundings roads urgently needs upgrading. See previous comments comments It's right that builders who finance new builds should direct some funds towards this upgrade or our village will become a place people live in but do not spend any time or money within the village with a danger the village will become a 'ghost town' as many other villages have. BJ is a great village to live in currently as it has a good range of shops and facilities which makes it possible for people to sustain themselves without travelling great distances or having to rely on a car- this should be treasured and valued.
199 My positive responses above not only reflect the responses made Noted whilst visiting the recent 'open day' at the old school ,but also my enthusiastic support for the initiative that has been taken in launching and progressing the 'Neighbourhood Plan Project' and particularly with the conclusions now set out which I believe will prove of great benefit to those who know and love our village both now and in the future. Thank you to all those who have devoted a great deal of time and effort on this most worthwhile project.
188 I have given my comments speaking from the heart and if you find See previous comments them extreme I make no apology for my views on the village and its future. We seem to be under attack from all sides and whether its from housing developments or quarrying without a strong voice from the community, we will be ignored and sidelined. I can see some of the vision that you have tried to envisage and I am sure that everyone involved in the plan has the continuation of unspoilt village life as a priority but red lines must be drawn if we are to truly protect what we already have. Housing developments in the greenbelt present the biggest threat to our village, and once the Parish Council give in to one such incursion developers will be queuing up to propose more and more, and before we know it what we have now will be unrecognisable in the future as we will have just become another large urban town. I thank everyone for their effort in putting the plan together, but feel you do need to be more forthright in the protection of our lovely village and take existing residents views more seriously.
183 Where are all the cars going to go? Cars getting bigger. Cars and Noted lorries. 178 We think the land where the prefab stands next to the old school Noted building should be made into a short stay car park, which could also be used for village events such as the Christmas Fair.
39 Policy No Website Comment Amendment to the ID or Neighbourhood Plan Resident No Additional 171 I fully support the Village Neighbourhood Plan document. Additional comments comments added re value of train However, can I ask for additional emphasis to placed on the station importance of retaining the Burton Joyce railway station and the development of additional services and facilities. With the emphasis around the country and even within Government on the importance of railways, I would hope that is not lost in the Neighbourhood Plan.
170 Parking!! See previous comments A common moan and gripe in the village is parking. My own personal experience is that often I find that I cannot Park on my own drive as some thoughtless person has parked in such way that I cannot drive onto my own property (I live on St Helens Crescent). Coupled with this are the recent letters send by Gedling council to St Helens Crescent resident stating that refuse collections on a Friday are not always completed due to parked cars restricting access for the refuse lorry. In the last two months my bins have been unemployed on no less than four occasions. Solution? Very, very simple. What the costs involved will be I have no idea, but introduce parking permits for the village. This suggestion would have impact upon local businesses and may create unwanted parking elsewhere in the village, but it is a solution.
As an aside, this is a really well thought out questionnaire :-) Credit to whoever has put it together. Really well done!
168 More traffic calming measures for church road to prevent speed and Noted noise from all traffic including lorries which thunder past from 5 in the morning to boy racers in the evening.
165 I do not feel that further housing is required in the village See previous comments whatsoever. I do feel that foot/cycle paths and public rights of way should be improved.
40 13. Statutory Consultees
Consultee Comment Amendment to the Neighbourhood Plan
Environment We note that none of your current policies make No - district flood risk policies considered Agency reference to flood risk, and so it may be useful to adequate to cover development in flood include a policy requirement for any new zones in Burton Joyce development in high flood risk areas to ‘investigate the possibility of reducing flood risk to the site and third parties’. Highways No comment England Historic England Consult with NCC re Historic Environment Record Done as part of statutory Reg 14 process
Natural England No comment Coal Authority No comment Severn Trent Provided specific guidance on how you can reduce No district policies considered adequate to water consumption in the home cover this aspect of development in Burton Joyce Canals and River No comment Trust BJ Players No comment NCC Request to include contribution to public transport NP8 (3) added as planning gain Correction to frequency of bus service Amended Clarification on suggested new footpath route Proposal removed between BJ and Lowdham Ref to spatial planning for health Already in the NP Notts Wildlife Advised amending NP1 to specific areas of Ref to biodiversity added to Community Trust importance of nature conservation and ref to Objective 3 and sustainable development Biodiversity Action plan sections. NP1 (d) added NP2 (9) added Specific ways in improving biodiversity listed Sport England No comment Woodland Trust Need to reinforce value of veteran trees, ancient NP2 (10) added tree replacement policy 2:1 woodland and value of trees – suggested ratio replacement tree policy NP1 (d) ref to ancient woodland and veteran trees NFU Landowners whose land would be affected by the The chair of the PC wrote to the landowners proposal to extend a walking route along the advising them that it was only identified as a ridgeline from BJ to Lowdham strongly opposed community project to seek approval for the the idea. proposal. Given their response the wording has been changed – the principal of extending footpath routes remains but no specific reference is made to this route. The wording in appendix A has been changed to work with ‘willing’ landowners GBC Amend timescale of Plan to match Aligned Core NP timescale changed to run to 2028 strategy and Publication Draft Local Plan part 2 Done Minor amendments to reflect this change in the text Added Revised map showing landscape character areas Add more detail to key principle on pre-application consultation (note wording changed to engagement) 2a-d added in key principle Housing trajectory figures updates in sept 2018
41 Consultee Comment Amendment to the Neighbourhood Plan
NP1b change average to minimum for density NP1c suggest either delete or amend Table 4 amended NP2 concerned that some of the view points were outside the parish Done Suggested more information in NP2 section 2 for NP1c amended in accordance with advice clarity Wording in NP2 1a) amended to provide NP3 suggest use words where viable proposals greater clarity. should demonstrate use of BFl12 Amendments made
No change NPSG consider good design is vital NP4 suggested alternative wording to explain Life and BFl12 is an industry approved and time homes and M4 (2) standards government endorsed way to assess a NP5 minor amendments suggested proposal NP6 minor amendments suggested Amendments made NP8 suggested more information needed on the community facilities listed in NP8 Done Need for s SA screening to be undertaken Done
Work done and in appendix
This was agreed and undertaken by GBC
42 Appendix 1 Pre Submission Questionnaire Burton Joyce Neighbourhood Plan
NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN STEERING GROUP Burton Joyce Neighbourhood Plan - Pre Submission Document
Following on from the Household Survey Response Summary completed earlier this year, the Steering Group is pleased to announce that a Draft Neighbourhood Plan is now finalised and almost ready to submit to the Gedling Borough Council (GBC) and, if approval is given, to the government appointed independent examiner. Before this can happen we are legally obliged to seek out your views about the Draft Plan via a 6-week consultation process. The Draft Plan is a very detailed 82 page evidentially based document (as required under the Localism Act 2011) and can be viewed on the web site www.bjneighbourhoodplan.org.uk/neighbourhood-plan or via a small number of hard copies which will be held in the library and parish office. To date all the work in getting to this stage has been funded by central government and co-ordinated by volunteers.
The proposed Plan draws out 9 key policy proposals for the village (pages 32 -58). These statements will help shape the future of the village and we have summarised the policy statements in the questionnaire overleaf.
We would like you to tick 1 of the boxes for each policy and add comments, if you feel it is necessary.
The feedback we receive will be analysed and summarised and maybe used to alter those policies before submission to the GBC.
The Steering Group would like to thank you for your continued support and do hope you can find the time to complete the questionnaire.
Cllr Terry Hazard - Chair of the Burton Joyce Steering Group Burton Joyce Parish Council
43 POLICY 1 – HOUSING DENSITY NP1 - Spatial Strategy - Page 32 This policy ensures that any developments in the village take account of the density of the number of existing buildings (which is higher in the village centre) and appropriately reflects the character of those properties surrounding the proposed development. It also ensures the character of the landscape is either conserved or enhanced and important nature habitats are protected. All development proposals must ensure the continuation of large areas of open countryside, in particular between the edge of the village at Mill Field Close and the start of the built-up area of Netherfield. Similarly, landscape schemes for development on Whitworth Drive should maintain the wooded slopes to reinforce the rural aspect of this area on the edge of the built-up area. Within this policy, transport, schools, doctors and other such services must be maintained or improved as a result of any developments.
Agree Disagree (tick where appropriate)
Any comments about Housing Density?
POLICY 2 – LANDSCAPE NP2 - Protecting the Landscape Character of Burton Joyce Parish - Page 36 This policy looks particularly at the landscape surrounding the village which give it its “soft edge”. Developments from Mill Field Close for example are required to have trees and hedges along their boundaries to maintain the rural village character and replacement planting in any development should be of native species. Developments must demonstrate that they do not inflict a “visual intrusion” on the landscape, especially from public footpaths, and that the visual impact should be minimised by screening with native trees, shrubs and plants.
Agree Disagree
Any comments about Landscape?
44
POLICY 3 – DESIGN NP3 - Development Design Principles - Page 45 Proposals should demonstrate a high design quality that will contribute to the character of the village and any major developments must conform with national design standards. New development proposals should demonstrate how they will reinforce the character of the area as defined in the Burton Joyce Village Appraisal. Particular attention should be given to boundary treatment (native trees and hedgerows) that reflect the surrounding character and the views afforded by the development. Size, density and materials used should be in keeping with the existing character and integrated into current housing stock as much as possible, providing well- defined streets and attractive green spaces that fit in with what is already there.
Agree Disagree
Any comments about Development Design?
POLICY 4 – HOUSING MIX NP4 - A Mix of Housing Types - Page 49 A need for smaller houses (1-3 bedrooms) in the village has already been identified, so planning applications for new schemes are required to demonstrate how the housing mix addresses this local need. The provision of smaller houses, especially those suitable for older people, should be encouraged in locations up to a 10-minute walk from the village centre.
Agree Disagree
Any comments about Housing Mix?
45
POLICY 5 – FOOTPATHS & PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY NP5 Conservation and Enhancement of Non-Vehicular Routes - Page 50 Depending on how big and where the development is, proposals which aim to enhance walking, running, riding and cycling in the area will be encouraged. Where wildlife and nature conservation areas will not be harmed, proposals to improve, extend or create new footpaths, cycle routes or bridleways will be encouraged, particularly circular ones. The provision of a new walking route running along the ridgeline between Burton Joyce and Lowdham would be particularly supported. Development proposals near existing public rights of way should ensure that the visual impact of the development from the footpath is minimized by using layout and landscape schemes that provide a soft green edge to the development.
Agree Disagree
Any comments about Footpaths and Public Rights Of Way?
POLICY 6 – HERITAGE NP6 - Protecting and Enhancing Heritage Assets - Page 53 As well as statutory listed buildings, the retention of locally important heritage assets is encouraged in this policy and development proposals affecting these will need to fit in with Gedling Borough policies. In addition to these, planning permission will only be granted for development proposals affecting locally important heritage assets in Burton Joyce where:
the proposal is in keeping with the character of the area in relation to historic development patterns and plot sizes the design of the proposal preserves or, where possible, enhances the heritage attributes of the locally important heritage asset and the materials used for the proposal should visually reflect those used in the nearby area and be in keeping with the surrounding architecture.
Designated locally important heritage sites are listed on page 79.
Agree Disagree
Any comments about Heritage?
POLICY 7 – THE VILLAGE CENTRE
46 NP7 - Supporting Burton Joyce’s Village Centre - Page 55 Environmental improvements to the village centre will be supported where they enhance the existing rural village character of the centre by
enhancing pedestrian movement between the Co-op and the shops improving access to the shops on Main Street.
Development proposals that result in the loss of or adversely affect car parking provision in the Village Centre will not be supported unless it can be clearly demonstrated that the loss of parking will not have an adverse impact on existing parking issues in the village centre or adequate and convenient replacement car parking spaces will be provided on a street nearby.
Agree Disagree
Any comments about The Village Centre?
POLICY 8 – FACILITIES NP8 - Protecting and Enhancing Community Facilities - Page 57 The redevelopment of the following community facilities for non-community uses will be resisted unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of Gedling Borough Council that the operation of the facility is no longer financially viable or necessary, or that a replacement facility of equal size and quality is provided in an equally accessible location:
Community Church and School Room St Helen’s Church and Hall Old School Building and grounds Village Hall Old Church Hall Carnarvon Room Poplars Sports Pavilion and Grounds Roberts Recreation Ground The Grove
Proposals to improve or extend community facilities within the Parish will be supported where it can be demonstrated that the scheme is appropriate in its location, scale and design (in accordance with the Burton Joyce Village Appraisal). Such developments should prove not be detrimental to the character and appearance of the surroundings, the amenities of nearby residents will not be adversely affected by the nature of the use, noise or traffic generated and that there will not be an unacceptable impact on the local road network.
47 Agree Disagree
Any comments about The Facilities?
POLICY 9 – ROADS NP9 - Traffic and Road Safety - Page 58 All development proposals within the village will be required to demonstrate that the development and its access arrangements have been designed to improve pedestrian and highway safety in the immediate vicinity of the site. Proposals for improving pedestrian safety along the A612 through Burton Joyce Parish will be supported where it protects existing trees and hedgerows that contribute to the character of the village in accordance with the Burton Joyce Village Appraisal.
Agree Disagree
Any comments about The Roads?
Any additional comments
Your Name: ______
Thank you for completing the survey
48