Ref: BROXTOWE BOROUGH, GEDLING BOROUGH and NOTTINGHAM CITY ALIGNED CORE STRATEGIES WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEARING OF THE GEDLING BOROUGH COUNCIL CONSERVATIVE GROUP MATTER 2 1 MATTER2: THE SPATIAL STRATEGY AND HOUSING POLICY The Future of Broxtowe, Gedling and Nottingham City in the Context of Greater Nottingham Population Trends 1. Whilst the figures within the document (Section 2.2.9) indicate a population growth across Greater Nottingham of 8.9% in the years 2001 – 2010, recently published figures from the 2011 census clearly indicate that population growth is by no means consistent across the area of the plan. 2. Nottingham City has experienced population growth of some 13.7% whilst Gedling Borough has only experienced growth of 1.6% with the population of the Borough rising from 111,800 to 113,600. 3. Net Migration within the Greater Nottingham area including Gedling Borough is generally negative with the only increase being within the 16 -24 year old age group. This in-migration is clearly linked to the success and popularity of the University of Nottingham and Nottingham Trent University. (Section 2.2.10) 4. It is a matter of fact that the bulk of the student population reside within the City of Nottingham and the areas to the South and West of the City. There is no evidence of any demand for additional student accommodation within Gedling Borough, nor, owing to the constraints of transport and distance, is there ever likely to be. 5. Ravenshead and Newstead are, as outlined within Section 2.2.10, primarily within the Mansfield Travel-to-Work Area (TTWA) and not the Nottingham TTWA. (Section 2.2.10) Connections 6. Much of the proposed new residential development within Gedling Borough is to be situated within the Parished Areas to the North and East of the Borough, rather than adjacent to the PUA’s of Arnold or Carlton. These are areas which in many cases have insufficient public transport links to the City of Nottingham and where the road infrastructure is woefully inadequate in terms of being able to accommodate the level of additional traffic that is likely to be generated by the size and scale of the proposed developments. 2 7. As identified in Section 2.2.16 there is already significant traffic congestion during peak hours on main radial and orbital routes across the area. Green Infrastructure, Open Space and Landscape 8. As identified in Section 2.2.22 ‘the area’s countryside and open spaces are an important part of its local distinctiveness’ and the size and scale of the proposed developments within the Parished areas will seriously erode the green corridors which ensure the distinct individual identities of the rural villages. 9. The proposals for the development within the Parish of Linby would, if approved, lead to the creation of a new ‘town’ within the Parish of 1,000 plus new residential homes, plus additional commercial and industrial sites. This would make the existing historical conservation village of some 86 properties no more than an adjunct to the new development. 10. Similarly the build of 600 new properties on land north of Papplewick Lane, on land within Gedling Borough but adjacent to the PUA of Hucknall, would virtually link the conservation village of Papplewick to the Sub-Regional Centre of Hucknall by eradicating much of the Open Space between the two settlements. Spatial Vision 11. This element of the consultation document which is intended to reflect back from a future 2028 to the present time refers to the completion of ‘30,550 new homes developed since 2011’ (Section 2.3.3) and I quote ‘sustainably accommodated within the existing built up area of Nottingham which has assisted in reducing the need to travel, made the most of existing infrastructure and has driven the regeneration of parts of the urban area. The built up area of Nottingham has been expanded and new development is creating successful communities, well integrated into the urban area, and with excellent connectivity to the wider city, especially the City Centre and other job opportunities.’ 12. It is difficult to reconcile this statement with the intention to construct huge residential developments within the rural Parish areas, remote from the City of Nottingham, with insufficient road infrastructure and little public transport, in villages in which there is a total reliance on the private motor car as a means of transport and in which there are little or no commercial or industrial job opportunities. Spatial Objectives 13. Section 2.4.1 makes the first of many references to the Gedling Colliery/Chase Farm site in Gedling Borough, but whilst this substantial brown-field site is referred to throughout the document as a site of possible future development, 3 there is no strategy evidenced for making this site accessible and deliverable, nor is there any element of housing provision allocated to it. This despite the fact that the majority of the funding for the Gedling Access Road (GAR) has now been secured, which will allow this site to take its proper place in the available site hierarchy, thus reducing the element of Greenfield sites required to accommodate the headline requirement figure of 7,250 new residential properties. 14. The plan within Section 2.4.1(ii) instead refers to the SUE’s at Top Wighay Farm and North of Papplewick Lane to the north east of Hucknall as supporting the regeneration of Hucknall as a Sub-Regional Centre, notwithstanding that the relevant Local Authority, Ashfield District Council, are openly hostile to these developments. 15. Additionally the Key Settlements of Bestwood Village, Calverton and Ravenshead are to be developed ‘to make the best of their accessibility to services and infrastructure capacity’. 16. Bestwood Village has one corner shop, no public house or Doctor’s surgery and a Primary School that is over-subscribed. It operates an hourly bus service on week- days only and has one significant road, Moor Road, into and out of the village. 17. Calverton, it is accepted, is better placed in terms of a village centre, Doctors Surgery, schools and public transport but has already suffered heavily in recent years in terms of substantial infill and new development. 18. Ravenshead, as already identified is primarily within the Mansfield TTW area, has an over-subscribed Doctors Surgery, Primary Schools both to capacity, and a small privately owned shopping complex and is already the area of highest in-fill development (garden-grabbing) within Gedling Borough. 19. Ravenshead has traditionally had defensible boundaries of Main Road to the North, Chapel Lane to the East, Nottingham Road (A60) to the West and Kighill Lane to the South. Those boundaries have become blurred in recent years with some development on Green-field sites to the east of Chapel Lane and proposals within the plan would erode the boundary to the north, by potentially allocating development between Main Road and Ricketts Lane, thus narrowing the green corridor between the village of Ravenshead and the Harlow Wood development in Ashfield. 20. Quite where the referred to ‘services and infrastructure capacity’ is to be found is somewhat of a mystery to the respective Parish Councils and their communities. 21. Section 2.4.1x refers to the aspiration of Excellent transport systems and reducing the need to travel: to ensure access to jobs…..reducing the need to travel especially by private car… 4 22. As already outlined these identified ‘Key Settlements’ have little or no employment opportunities, are isolated in rural areas and would require a great deal of ‘need to travel’ to offer any form of employment to their enhanced and enlarged communities. Gedling Spatial Portrait/Local Distinctiveness 23. As identified in Section 2.8.1 Gedling Borough is a mix of urban and rural with around 80% of its residents living in the Greater Nottingham suburbs of Arnold and Carlton. The reason for this is quite simply that the bulk of residents, who do not actually serve the commercial or service industry requirements of the immediate area itself, are employed within the Greater Nottingham area. (Section 2.8.6) 24. Transport links between the different settlements within the rural parts of the Borough are poor with some of the rural settlements being relatively isolated. (Section 2.8.1.) The Delivery Strategy Policy2: The Spatial Strategy 25. We have already referred to the anomaly of Bestwood Village, Calverton and Ravenshead being identified as Key Settlements for growth. (Section 2.c.) ii.) 26. Within the overarching figure of 7,250 new homes identified for Gedling Borough and despite all the references to the need to site new developments adjacent to and supportive of Greater Nottingham itself, for all the reasons already identified above, only 2,840 of the new Gedling homes are to be sited in or adjoining the existing built up area of Nottingham. (Section 3a.) 27. This leaves some 60% of the proposed new development therefore to be built on green-field sites in the rural Parished areas of the Borough, which appears contrary to all the rhetoric contained within the strategy document as to the need to align with and support Greater Nottingham itself. 28. Again the brown-field site of Gedling Colliery/Chase Farm is referred to in passing as an area of future housing development only (Section 3a) i.) 29. Section 4 g) and (5 with reference to retail development) for the first time makes reference to the Gedling Colliery/Chase Farm site with the addendum if development commences in the plan period and Section 6 b) i) Highways Improvements identifies the site as a scheme with no committed funding, but which remains important to the delivery of the Core Strategy.