Lyn Laking - Rushcliffe · 2019-12-16 · Dear Sir/Madam . Laking L 1139908. I am writing to you regarding the current plans to develop houses in Gotham. ... We moved to Ruddington

From:To:Subject:Date:

PlanningAndGrowth Email JFW: The Orchards Gotham 30 October 2017 09:09:55

Good morning John,

An email from a Mrs Laking has come through to the planning inbox, addressed to you.

Regards,Joe

From: lyn laking [mailto:l] Sent: 27 October 2017 10:04To: PlanningAndGrowth EmailSubject: Fw: The Orchards Gotham

FAO John King

Hope you are well.

It was great to meet you yesterday at the drop in event at Gotham, and thank you for the information regarding the local plan and the proposed development on our land (The Orchards). I would like to make it clear, as trustees, both myself and Alan Price support the proposal and will sell the Orchards to developers should the proposal be successful.

Going forward, would you direct any correspondence regarding the Orchards to myself at the address below? If there has been any correspondence already sent direct to the property please could you also send copies to me? Thank you.

Mrs Lyn Laking

Kind Regards

Lyn Laking

From: lyn laking <[email protected]>Sent: 19 October 2017 11:27To: [email protected]: The Orchards Gotham

Dear Sir/Madam

mailto:/O=RUSHCLIFFE BOROUGH COUNCIL/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=PLANNINGANDGROWTH EMAIL59D

mailto:[email protected]

EBeardsley

Rectangle

thigton

Text Box

Laking L 1139908

I am writing to you regarding the current plans to develop houses in Gotham. You have Identified The Orchards in Gotham as a preferred site to build houses. I along with my Brother Alan Price hold this land in trust. Please could you send any correspondence regarding your plans for the land to myself, address below. I have attached the 'deed of appointment' for your information.

Mrs Lyn Laking20 Restfil WayFernwoodNewarkNG24

I look forward to hearing from you

Kind Regards

Lyn Laking

Virus-free. www.avast.com

https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail

https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail

1

Elizabeth Beardsley

From:Sent:To:Subject:

Dean Lale <>27 November 2017 16:03LocaldevelopmentObjection to new homes being built in Ruddington- local plan part 2

The new Homes already built in the Village are causing strain on the Village roads, schools and other local facilities such as doctors.

There simply isn’t the infrastructure to cope with things as it stands let alone if new houses are built. Asher Lane has already been refused for these very reasons

We moved to Ruddington as we wanted to live in a quiet village NOT a small town.

We need to keep Ruddington a Village and I would urge a major rethink into housing development in the Village. 200 properties have been granted planning permission since 2011. Add in the other proposals and a total of 767 houses in 20 years ‐ an increase in the size of the Village by nearly 25% which is wholly unacceptable.

From

Dean and Joanne Lale

Residents of the village of Ruddington

Sent from my iPad

thigton

Text Box

Lale D and J 1145018

EBeardsley

Rectangle

thigton

Text Box

Lane J H 1142867

From: Adrian Large

To: Localdevelopment

Subject: COT01 - Cotgrave

Date: 03 November 2017 22:23:27

To whom it may concern,

The field which has an elevated view has a footpath which runs east to west from mill lane access down towards

the canal.

There is an excellent vista view of All Saints church that sits sheltered within the bowl effect of the old village.

The previous/ongoing new development at Hollygate has obscured this vista from the west road entering the

village which is a shame. The new development should take into account the last remaining vista from this side

of the village for the benefit of all. The new housing will now doubt enhance the village but must be done to in

a simpathic manner. I would suggest perhaps a recreational park at the top of the hill with a gap between the

housing down the slope of differing ridge heights for an unobsured view of the church.

Regards,

Adrian Large

Pear Tree House

6a Morkinshire Lane

Cotgrave

NG12 3HJ

Sent from my iPad

thigton

Text Box

Large A 1142839

From: Michelle


Subject: Local Plan Consultation

Date: 21 November 2017 08:53:47

I wanted to express my views on the proposal to build houses on the site of Abbey Road Depot in West

Bridgford.

Firstly I would like to say how appalled I am that there wasn't a drop in session about this proposal, despite me

asking for one. Just because this is a brownfield site doesn't mean local residents shouldn't be given the

opportunity to ask questions face to face and have a discussion with planning officers.

It would be easier to provide comments on the proposal after having the chance to ask questions and understand

more clearly wider details on the proposals of these are available.

Access road - is the current access road into the depot going to be used to access the houses? Crossing this road

is already a nightmare due to badly parked cars on Abbey and Eltham Road. Having more cars exiting this road

will add to the problems so a crossing of some sort needs to be introduced.

Schools - is another school planned for West Bridgford? I expect some of these houses will be family houses

which means more children needing school places. I have worked hard to save for my own house in West

Bridgford so my daughter can go to a good school. More children means more demand on places and these

houses will fall directly in my local school catchment area which means my daughter will be fighting for a

school place.

When - if this proposal goes ahead when would building start and how long will this last? What time will

building start and finish each day and will this just be week days? Houses literally back onto the Depot which

will cause a lot of disruption. Will local residents get compensation for noise and dust?

Type of houses - what types of houses are proposed? Will these include social housing? More houses in this

area will again cause problems for local residents who may have decided to buy a house on the surrounding

roads due to limited noise late at night and at weekends.

Where is the Depot going - where will the current refuse site, recycling site, offices and MOT site be moved to?

Have the cost benefits been considered on the new location of the Depot and the travel of vehicles across the

borough? Given the current financial climate the proposed development needs to outweigh the cost of

relocating the Depot.

Many thanks

Michelle

Sent from my iPhone

thigton

Text Box

Lawson M 1143882

From: Matt Lawson


Subject: East Bridgford

Date: 23 November 2017 13:23:54

Dear RBC,

I write with disappointment that you are due to build 100 new homes in EB.

Please do not ruin the village and keep it as is.

Regards

Matthew

Thanks,

Matt Lawson

MSc RD UEFA License

MLSports

www.youtube.com/channel/UCImgjhIAuiQSzdiPXo-tKaA

thigton

Text Box

Lawson M 1144005

1

Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 2: Land and Planning Policies – Preferred Housing Sites

Response Form

Please return by 5pm on Monday 27 November 2017 to: Planning Policy, Rushcliffe Borough Council Rushcliffe Arena, Rugby Road Nottingham. NG2 7YG Or to: [email protected]

Please note that your comments can be directly entered through the Borough Council’s

online consultation system: http://rushcliffe-consult.objective.co.uk/portal

Housing Development

Housing Land Supply

Question 1: Do you agree with the Council’s proposal that Local Plan Part 2 should identify enough land for around 2,550 new homes?

Yes ……………………………………………………………………………..

No …………………………………………………………………………….

Don’t

know

…………………………………………………………………………….

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

Your Details Agent details (where applicable)

Tracy Leavesley Name Click here to enter text.

77 Woodview, Cotgrave, Nottinghamshire NG12 3PH

Address Click here to enter text.

E-mail Click here to enter text.


http://rushcliffe-consult.objective.co.uk/portal

thigton

Text Box

Leavesley T 1075926

2

Whilst I agree, in principle, that there needs to be a further development to accommodate new residents, I do not agree with the option for further development within Cotgrave and the surrounds without first developing the existing inappropriate infrastructure. The village has now gained an additional 450 homes in the Hollygate Park development without any visible improvements to any of the local facilities or public transport, in fact, there has now been a reduction in the provision of local public transport, with the recent removal of the Villager 2 bus from service. If the Councils propose to build and further develop our village, then we will need a greater number of school places (we currently have a small primary school and no secondary school), a larger GP surgery (it is currently almost impossible to get a GP appointment without jumping through flaming hoops of telephone consultations first) and more local shops with associated parking spaces.

(please continue on a separate sheet if necessary)

Housing Sites within the Main Urban Area

Question 2: Do you agree with the Council’s proposed allocation of the Abbey Road Depot (site WB01) for the development of around 50 new homes?

Yes

……………………………………………………………………………..

No

…………………………………………………………………………….

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

You may like to give your views on what development should look like, in terms of

the design, mix and layout of new housing and other uses (for example, open space)

on site.

Click here to enter text.


Housing Sites adjacent to the Main Urban Area

Question 3: Do you agree with the Council’s proposal that no sites adjacent to the

main urban area of Nottingham (within Rushcliffe) should be allocated for housing

development through Local Plan Part 2?

Yes

……………………………………………………………………………..

3

No

…………………………………………………………………………….




Housing Development at the 'Key Settlements'

Bingham

Question 4: Do you agree with the Council’s proposal that no sites adjacent to

Bingham should be allocated for housing development through Local Plan Part 2?

Yes

……………………………………………………………………………..

No

…………………………………………………………………………….


Bingham has the infrastructure and local transport to easily accommodate further development and is more readily accessible via the main A46 and A52 than any of the other proposed sites. Why on earth would this not be considered!!??


Cotgrave

Question 5: Do you agree that Local Plan Part 2 should allocate greenfield land for

housing development at Cotgrave for around 350 homes in total?

Yes

……………………………………………………………………………..

No

…………………………………………………………………………….

4


I do not agree with the option for further development within Cotgrave and the surrounds without first developing the existing inappropriate infrastructure. The village has now gained an additional 450 homes in the Hollygate Park development without any visible improvements to any of the local facilities or public transport, in fact, there has now been a reduction in the provision of local public transport, with the recent removal of the Villager 2 bus from service. If the Councils propose to build and further develop our village, then we will need a greater number of school places (we currently have a small primary school and no secondary school), a larger GP surgery (it is currently almost impossible to get a GP appointment without jumping through flaming hoops of telephone consultations first) and more local shops with associated parking spaces.


5

Question 6: Do you support the proposed allocation for housing development of the

following sites at Cotgrave:

Yes No

Site COT01 – Land rear of Mill Lane/The Old Park

(estimated capacity around 170 homes)

Sites COT09 – Land south of Hollygate Lane (1); COT10 – Land south of Hollygate Lane (2); and COT11a – Land south of Hollygate Lane (3a) (estimated capacity around 180 homes)


For each of the proposed housing sites, you may like to give your views on what

development should look like, in terms of the design, mix and layout of new housing

and other uses (for example, open space) on site.

I do not agree with the option for further development within Cotgrave and the surrounds without first developing the existing inappropriate infrastructure. The village has now gained an additional 450 homes in the Hollygate Park development without any visible improvements to any of the local facilities or public transport, in fact, there has now been a reduction in the provision of local public transport, with the recent removal of the Villager 2 bus from service. If the Councils propose to build and further develop our village, then we will need a greater number of school places (we currently have a small primary school and no secondary school), a larger GP surgery (it is currently almost impossible to get a GP appointment without jumping through flaming hoops of telephone consultations first) and more local shops with associated parking spaces.


East Leake

Question 7: Do you agree with our proposal that only sites EL01, EL02, EL04, EL05 and EL08 (as shown at Figure 4) should be allocated for housing development at East Leake?

Yes

……………………………………………………………………………..

6

No

…………………………………………………………………………….




Keyworth


housing development at Keyworth for around 580 homes in total?

Yes

……………………………………………………………………………..

No

…………………………………………………………………………….


Keyworth is also well placed with existing infrastructure to support further development and should be considered for more development.



following sites at Keywort.

Yes No

Site KEY4a – Land off Nicker Hill (1)


Site KEY8 – Land between Platt Lane and Station Road (estimated capacity around 190 homes)

7

Yes No

Site KEY10 – Land south of Debdale Lane (1) (estimated capacity around 190 homes)

Site KEY13 – Hillside Farm (estimated capacity around 50 homes)


For each of the proposed housing sites, you may like to give your views on what development should look like, in terms of the design, mix and layout of new housing and other uses (for example, open space) on site. Click here to enter text.


Radcliffe on Trent


housing development at Radcliffe on Trent for around 820 homes in total?

Yes

……………………………………………………………………………..

No

…………………………………………………………………………….


Radcliffe on Trent is a large town with great transport links to Nottingham and Leicester and the surrounding countryside and has an existing infrastructure to easily support further development.


Question 11: Do you support the proposed allocation for housing development of

the following sites at Radcliffe on Trent.

8

Yes No

Site RAD01 – Land north of Nottingham Road

(estimated capacity around 150 homes), with

employment development to the west of the

powerlines that separate the site.

Site RAD02 – Land adjacent Grooms Cottage (estimated capacity around 50 homes)

Site RAD03 – Land off Shelford Road (estimated capacity around 400 homes)

Site RAD05a – Land north of Grantham Road to south of railway line (1a) (estimated capacity around 140 homes)

Site RAD06 – 72 Main Road (estimated capacity around 5 homes)

Site RAD13 – The Paddock, Nottingham Road (estimated capacity around 75 homes)




Ruddington


housing development at Ruddington for around 410 homes in total?

Yes

……………………………………………………………………………..

9

No

…………………………………………………………………………….





the following sites at Ruddington.

Yes No

Site RUD01 – Land to the west of Wilford Road (south)


Site RUD05 – Land south of Flawforth Lane (estimated capacity around 50 homes)

Site RUD11 – Old Loughborough Road (estimated capacity around 10 self and custom- build homes)

Site RUD13 – Land opposite Mere Way (estimated capacity around 170 homes)




Housing Development at the 'Other Villages'

10

Cropwell Bishop


housing development at Cropwell Bishop for around 160 homes in total?

Yes

……………………………………………………………………………..

No

…………………………………………………………………………….





the following sites at Cropwell Bishop.

Yes No

Site CBI02 – Land north of Memorial Hall(1)


Site CBI05 – Land east of Church Street (estimated capacity around 70 homes)


For both of the proposed housing sites, you may like to give your views on what development should look like, in terms of the design, mix and layout of new housing and other uses (for example, open space) on site. Click here to enter text.


East Bridgford


housing development at East Bridgford for around 100 homes in total?

11

Yes

……………………………………………………………………………..

No

…………………………………………………………………………….





the following sites at East Bridgford

Yes No

Site EBR06 – Closes Side Lane (west)


Site EBR07 – Closes Side Lane (east) (estimated capacity around 20 homes)

Site EBR8 – Land to the north of Butt Lane (estimated capacity around 15 homes)

Site EBR10 – Land south of Butt Lane (estimated capacity around 45 homes)




Gotham

12


housing development at Gotham for around 100 homes in total?

Yes

……………………………………………………………………………..

No

…………………………………………………………………………….





the following site at Gotham:

Yes No

Site GOT5a – Land east of Gypsum Way/The Orchards (1)



You may like to give your views on what development should look like, in terms of the design, mix and layout of new housing and other uses (for example, open space) on site. Click here to enter text.


Bunny Brickworks

Question 20: Do you support the proposed allocation of the former Bunny

Brickworks (site BUN01) for a mixed development of around 100 new homes and

employment development?

13

Yes

……………………………………………………………………………..

No

…………………………………………………………………………….


You may like to give your views on what development should look like, in terms of the design, mix and layout of new housing and other uses (for example, open space) on site.

The redevelopment of old factory and colliery sites is well proven to help improve the local surrounds. The colliery site at Cotgrave has recently been developed and has been improved, now it would be good to see the same level of improvement on this site.


Flintham – Former Islamic Institute

Question 21: Do you support the proposed allocation of the former Islamic Institute

at Flintham for the development of up to 95 new homes?

Yes

……………………………………………………………………………..

No

…………………………………………………………………………….




Other Issues

Question 22: Please identify any matters related to housing development which are

not covered here or elsewhere and which you wish to raise.

When the previous consultation was held at Cotgrave, we came along and asked the

14

question of the representatives from both Rushcliffe and County Councils whether it was a foregone conclusion that the development would take place and what we were actually being asked was which site we would prefer to have developed. We were reassured at that time that this was not the case and it was likely that Cotgrave would not be chosen for further development at this time, as there is not an existing infrastructure of healthcase, educational organisations, local shopping, parking and transport to simply support the established and new members of the community at Hollygate Park. The reassurance provided appears to have been completely fabricated and we are extremely disappointed that this is the case. I would like to register my objection to further development in our area in the strongest possible terms and hope that this time, perhaps the views of local residents might be heard.

(please continue on a separate sheet if necessary) Please return by 5pm on Monday 27 November 2017 to: Planning Policy, Rushcliffe Borough Council Rushcliffe Arena Rugby Road Nottingham. NG2 7YG

Or to: [email protected] Please note that your comments can be directly entered through the Borough Council’s


Data protection: The details you submit to the Borough Council will be used in the plan making process and may be in use for the lifetime of the Local Plan and associated processes in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998. Please note that comments and personal details cannot be treated as confidential and may be made available for public inspection both physically and/or through the Borough Council’s website. We may publish all names, addresses and

comments received, including on our website. We will use our best endeavours to not publish signatures, personal telephone numbers or email addresses. By sending the Council your details you will automatically be informed of future consultations on planning policy documents unless you indicate otherwise.



1

John King

From:Sent:To:Subject:

elizabeth lee <e> 27 November 2017 14:09 LocaldevelopmentLocal plan deadline today

Dear Madam/Sir

I am sending this email because there are no questions to answer on the 'survey' and when I click the link for the 'portal' it says link does not exist! A very user un- friendly process!

Wherever the new houses are built, the council must give much more consideration to infrastructure and in particular transport links. I am a regular user of the A60 from WB to Ruddington and traffic has increased noticeably at the roundabout crossing the ring road in recent months since the new houses have been built near Wheatcrofts. There was gridlock last Friday. Rushcliffe has been an attractive place to live, but this will diminish if roads continue to get more crowded.

Despite new cycle lanes, I have given up cycling after many years because of inconsiderate speeding drivers.

Housing and traffic cannot be separated. Please choose wisely.

Yours faithfully

Elizabeth Lee

thigton

Text Box

Lee E 1143991

From: Robert


Subject: Proposed housing development

Date: 24 November 2017 16:22:56

Good afternoon

I am emailing my comments on the proposed housing developments at East Bridgford. I am an

East Bridgford resident.

My concern has less to do with the proposed building of the houses than with the capacity of the

local services to cope with them when completed.

In the Preferred Housing Sites section of The Rushcliffe Local Plan – Part 2, it states that while

the village sites chosen for housing development “...do not provide for a full range of

facilities........... the basic level of facilities (eg schools; shops) that are available are judged

capable of potentially supporting a relatively limited level of housing growth...” The report goes

on to say that East Bridgford has the scope to sustain about 100 dwellings based on evidence

gathered including the “..capacity of local services..”.

I question this judgement. 100 new dwellings in East Bridgford is an increase of 12%. This is not

a “...relatively limited..” development, but a large increase in such a small place. It will have

huge implications for the services available in the village.

The report has realised that new developments bring problems. “All developments would need

to fund improvements to local facilities where necessary to support the new homes. This is

likely to include expanding existing primary school provision and enhancing local healthcare

facilities.” However, on the first of these two points, it is my understanding that the school is

operating at capacity despite recent additional classroom building, and there is no land available

for further expansion.

Secondly, people who use the village’s Medical Centre include many who do not live in East

Bridgford. Recent improvements to the Medical Centre have meant a reduction in the car

parking spaces. Public transport is hourly to Bingham, Newton and Gunthorpe, but 2 hourly to

Car Colston, Screveton and Flintham, making bus travel for patients from those villages an

impossibility. Staff and patients now park along Main Street, Cross Lane, Ludgate Drive and

Brookes Close. 45 dwellings built in the field next to the Medical Centre would make this

current difficulty into a problem.

This consultation is not the place to bring up traffic passing through the village, though that will

be a big issue, particularly the increase of vehicles on Cross Lane and Butt Lane if the

development goes ahead as planned.

I understand that we all have to live somewhere, that Rushcliffe has to try to meet its housing

needs and that the development will probably go ahead whatever concerns I may have. In

which case, I hope there will be further serious consultation on what kind of housing is needed.

Sheltered accommodation and starter homes are in short supply. East Bridgford has an ageing

population, some of whom would like to leave their 4 and 5 bedroom houses, and move to 2

and 3 bedded bungalows. What the village does not need is more expensive developments of

large detatched properties.

thigton

Text Box

Lee R 1144156

Finally, if/when the development begins, please make sure that the enhancing of the local

facilities happens before the building of the houses, not afterwards.

Thank you.

Robert Lee

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

Online response Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 2: Land and Planning Policies – Preferred Housing Sites

Respondent no: 1136144

Housing Development Housing Land Supply Question 1: Do you agree with the Council’s proposal that Local Plan Part 2 should identify enough land for around 2,550 new homes?

Answer

Yes



Respondent

Agent details (where applicable)

Mrs Julie Leone

Name

Organ-isation

1136144

ID number


Answer

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers. You may like to give your views on what development should look like, in terms of the design, mix and layout of new housing and other uses (for example, open space) on site. What is the question you are asking above? It is not clear!

Housing Sites adjacent to the Main Urban Area Question 3: Do you agree with the Council’s proposal that no sites adjacent to the main urban area of Nottingham (within Rushcliffe) should be allocated for housing development through Local Plan Part 2?

Answer

Yes


Housing Development at the 'Key Settlements' Bingham Question 4: Do you agree with the Council’s proposal that no sites adjacent to Bingham should be allocated for housing development through Local Plan Part 2?

Answer

Yes


Cotgrave Question 5: Do you agree that Local Plan Part 2 should allocate greenfield land for housing development at Cotgrave for around 350 homes in total?

Answer

Yes


Question 6: Do you support the proposed allocation for housing development of the following sites at Cotgrave:

Answer

Site COT01 – Land rear of Mill Lane/The Old Park (estimated capacity around 170 homes)

Yes


Yes

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers. For each of the proposed housing sites, you may like to give your views on what development should look like, in terms of the design, mix and layout of new housing and other uses (for example, open space) on site.

East Leake

Question 7: Do you agree with our proposal that only sites EL01, EL02, EL04, EL05 and EL08 (as shown at Figure 4) should be allocated for housing development at East Leake? Answer

Yes


Keyworth Question 8: Do you agree that Local Plan Part 2 should allocate greenfield land for housing development at Keyworth for around 580 homes in total?

Answer

Yes


Question 9: Do you support the proposed allocation for housing development of the following sites at Keywort.

Answer

Site KEY4a – Land off Nicker Hill (1) (estimated capacity around 150 homes)

Yes


Yes


Yes

Answer


Yes


Radcliffe on Trent Question 10: Do you agree that Local Plan Part 2 should allocate greenfield land for housing development at Radcliffe on Trent for around 820 homes in total?

Answer

No

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your response. worried about the volume of traffic this will create for Radcliffe on Trent and this is an awful lot of houses for this area

Question 11: Do you support the proposed allocation for housing development of the following sites at Radcliffe on Trent.

Answer

Site RAD01 – Land north of Nottingham Road (estimated capacity around 150 homes), with employment development to the west of the powerlines that separate the site.

Yes

Answer


No


No


Yes


Yes


Yes

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers. For each of the proposed housing sites, you may like to give your views on what development should look like, in terms of the design, mix and layout of new housing and other uses (for example, open space) on site. As said above - the concern is about the volume of traffic on Shelford Road

Ruddington Question 12: Do you agree that Local Plan Part 2 should allocate greenfield land for housing development at Ruddington for around 410 homes in total?

Answer

Yes


Question 13: Do you support the proposed allocation for housing development of the following sites at Ruddington.

Answer

Site RUD01 – Land to the west of Wilford Road (south) (estimated capacity around 180 homes)

Yes


Yes


Yes


Yes


Housing Development at the 'Other Villages' Cropwell Bishop

Question 14: Do you agree that Local Plan Part 2 should allocate greenfield land for housing development at Cropwell Bishop for around 160 homes in total?

Answer

Yes


Question 15: Do you support the proposed allocation for housing development of the following sites at Cropwell Bishop.

Answer

Site CBI02 – Land north of Memorial Hall(1) (estimated capacity around 90 homes)

Yes


Yes

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers. For both of the proposed housing sites, you may like to give your views on what development should look like, in terms of the design, mix and layout of new housing and other uses (for example, open space) on site.

East Bridgford Question 16: Do you agree that Local Plan Part 2 should allocate greenfield land for housing development at East Bridgford for around 100 homes in total?

Answer

No


I agree that some more houses need to be built in this area but these tend to be overpriced and local/young people cannot afford to stay in the village. If the properties were affordable for young people or those who want to downsize I would possible think differently. Also the idetntified plots would cause havoc with traffic and makes these roads dangerous. . We already have enough traffic coming through Cross lane and main street. Why not build up at Kneeton ?

Question 17: Do you support the proposed allocation for housing development of the following sites at East Bridgford

Answer

Site EBR06 – Closes Side Lane (west) (estimated capacity around 20 homes)

No


No


Yes


No

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers. For each of the proposed housing sites, you may like to give your views on what development should look like, in terms of the design, mix and layout of new housing and other uses (for example, open space) on site. I have said yes to the latter EBR10 as this is feasible - defintely no to the others.

Gotham Question 18: Do you agree that Local Plan Part 2 should allocate greenfield land for housing development at Gotham for around 100 homes in total?

Yes

Answer


Question 19: Do you support the proposed allocation for housing development of the following site at Gotham:

Answer

Site GOT5a – Land east of Gypsum Way/The Orchards (1) (estimated capacity around 100 homes)

Yes

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers. You may like to give your views on what development should look like, in terms of the design, mix and layout of new housing and other uses (for example, open space) on site.

Bunny Brickworks Question 20: Do you support the proposed allocation of the former Bunny Brickworks (site BUN01) for a mixed development of around 100 new homes and employment development?

Answer

Yes


Flintham – Former Islamic Institute Question 21: Do you support the proposed allocation of the former Islamic Institute at Flintham for the development of up to 95 new homes?

Answer

Yes


Other Issues Question 22: Please identify any matters related to housing development which are not covered here or elsewhere and which you wish to raise.

1


Response Form




Housing Development

Housing Land Supply


Yes ……………………………………………………………………………..

No …………………………………………………………………………….

Don’t

know

…………………………………………………………………………….



Mr Richard Ling Name Click here to enter text.

46a South Road West Bridgford Nottingham NG2 7AH





thigton

Text Box

Ling R 988407

2





Yes

……………………………………………………………………………..

No

…………………………………………………………………………….


You may like to give your views on what development should look like, in terms of

the design, mix and layout of new housing and other uses (for example, open space)

on site.




Question 3: Do you agree with the Council’s proposal that no sites adjacent to the

main urban area of Nottingham (within Rushcliffe) should be allocated for housing

development through Local Plan Part 2?

Yes

……………………………………………………………………………..

No

…………………………………………………………………………….



3


Housing Development at the 'Key Settlements'

Bingham

Question 4: Do you agree with the Council’s proposal that no sites adjacent to

Bingham should be allocated for housing development through Local Plan Part 2?

Yes ……………………………………………………………………………..

No …………………………………………………………………………….




Cotgrave


housing development at Cotgrave for around 350 homes in total?

Yes ……………………………………………………………………………..

No …………………………………………………………………………….




4


following sites at Cotgrave:

Yes No

Site COT01 – Land rear of Mill Lane/The Old Park




For each of the proposed housing sites, you may like to give your views on what

development should look like, in terms of the design, mix and layout of new housing

and other uses (for example, open space) on site.



East Leake


Yes

……………………………………………………………………………..

No

…………………………………………………………………………….




5

Keyworth


housing development at Keyworth for around 580 homes in total?

Yes

……………………………………………………………………………..

No

…………………………………………………………………………….





following sites at Keywort.

Yes No

Site KEY4a – Land off Nicker Hill (1)







6


Radcliffe on Trent


housing development at Radcliffe on Trent for around 820 homes in total?

Yes

……………………………………………………………………………..

No

…………………………………………………………………………….





the following sites at Radcliffe on Trent.

Yes No

Site RAD01 – Land north of Nottingham Road

(estimated capacity around 150 homes), with

employment development to the west of the

powerlines that separate the site.




7

Yes No






Ruddington


housing development at Ruddington for around 410 homes in total?

Yes

……………………………………………………………………………..

No

…………………………………………………………………………….





the following sites at Ruddington.

8

Yes No

Site RUD01 – Land to the west of Wilford Road (south)



Site RUD11 – Old Loughborough Road (estimated capacity around 10 self and custom-

build homes)



For each of the proposed housing sites, you may like to give your views on what development should look like, in terms of the design, mix and layout of new housing and other uses (for example, open space) on site.



Housing Development at the 'Other Villages'

Cropwell Bishop


housing development at Cropwell Bishop for around 160 homes in total?

Yes ……………………………………………………………………………..

No …………………………………………………………………………….



9



the following sites at Cropwell Bishop.

Yes No

Site CBI02 – Land north of Memorial Hall(1)




For both of the proposed housing sites, you may like to give your views on what development should look like, in terms of the design, mix and layout of new housing and other uses (for example, open space) on site. Click here to enter text.


East Bridgford


housing development at East Bridgford for around 100 homes in total?

Yes

……………………………………………………………………………..

No

…………………………………………………………………………….




10


the following sites at East Bridgford

Yes No

Site EBR06 – Closes Side Lane (west)








Gotham


housing development at Gotham for around 100 homes in total?

Yes

……………………………………………………………………………..

No

…………………………………………………………………………….




11


the following site at Gotham:

Yes No

Site GOT5a – Land east of Gypsum Way/The Orchards (1)



You may like to give your views on what development should look like, in terms of the design, mix and layout of new housing and other uses (for example, open space) on site. Click here to enter text.


Bunny Brickworks

Question 20: Do you support the proposed allocation of the former Bunny

Brickworks (site BUN01) for a mixed development of around 100 new homes and

employment development?

Yes

……………………………………………………………………………..

No

…………………………………………………………………………….





12


Question 21: Do you support the proposed allocation of the former Islamic Institute

at Flintham for the development of up to 95 new homes?

Yes

……………………………………………………………………………..

No

…………………………………………………………………………….




Other Issues

Question 22: Please identify any matters related to housing development which are

not covered here or elsewhere and which you wish to raise.

The analysis set out in the documentation for allocating sites in rural settlements in the Borough is flawed in that much of the decision making process for allocating sites relates to spare education or other capacity rather than the intrinsic planning merits and demerits of the sites themselves. An example is Tollerton where no new development sites are proposed mainly it would appear because of the lack of school spaces. This settlement has a range of services and is close to the main urban area and would be a sustainable location for new development. The assessment of surplus educational spaces is notoriously volatile over even a short time period and CIL and/or S106 Agreements can enable funding for new school spaces/new schools which would also provide a wider community benefit. The Council’s assessment should be reviewed to deal with these flaws.


13

Please return by 5pm on Monday 27 November 2017 to:

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

Or to: [email protected]



Data protection: The details you submit to the Borough Council will be used in the plan making process and may be in use for the lifetime of the Local Plan and associated processes in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998. Please note that comments and personal details cannot be treated as confidential and may be made available for public inspection both physically and/or through the Borough Council’s website. We may publish all names, addresses and

comments received, including on our website. We will use our best endeavours to not publish signatures, personal telephone numbers or email addresses. By sending the Council your details you will automatically be informed of future consultations on planning policy documents unless you indicate otherwise.




Response Form


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

Housing Development

Housing Land Supply


Yes ……………………………………………………………………………..

No …………………………………………………………………………….

Don’t know

…………………………………………………………………………….



David Linnington Name Click here to enter text.

26 Ludgate Drive East Bridgford NG13 8NW



1



thigton

Text Box

Linnington D 1144446





Yes ……………………………………………………………………………..

No …………………………………………………………………………….






Question 3: Do you agree with the Council’s proposal that no sites adjacent to the main urban area of Nottingham (within Rushcliffe) should be allocated for housing development through Local Plan Part 2?

Yes ……………………………………………………………………………..

No …………………………………………………………………………….



2

(please continue on a separate sheet if necessary) Housing Development at the 'Key Settlements' Bingham Question 4: Do you agree with the Council’s proposal that no sites adjacent to Bingham should be allocated for housing development through Local Plan Part 2?

Yes

……………………………………………………………………………..

No

…………………………………………………………………………….

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your response. Click here to enter text.

(please continue on a separate sheet if necessary) Cotgrave Question 5: Do you agree that Local Plan Part 2 should allocate greenfield land for housing development at Cotgrave for around 350 homes in total?

Yes

……………………………………………………………………………..

No

…………………………………………………………………………….



3


Yes No


Sites COT09 – Land south of Hollygate Lane (1); COT10 – Land south of Hollygate Lane (2); and COT11a – Land south of Hollygate Lane (3a)






East Leake


Yes ……………………………………………………………………………..

No …………………………………………………………………………….




4

Keyworth

Question 8: Do you agree that Local Plan Part 2 should allocate greenfield land for housing development at Keyworth for around 580 homes in total?

Yes ……………………………………………………………………………..

No …………………………………………………………………………….





Yes No








5



Yes

……………………………………………………………………………..

No

…………………………………………………………………………….


(please continue on a separate sheet if necessary) Question 11: Do you support the proposed allocation for housing development of the following sites at Radcliffe on Trent.

Yes No





6

Yes No



Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers. For each of the proposed housing sites, you may like to give your views on what development should look like, in terms of the design, mix and layout of new housing and other uses (for example, open space) on site. Click here to enter text.

(please continue on a separate sheet if necessary) Ruddington Question 12: Do you agree that Local Plan Part 2 should allocate greenfield land for housing development at Ruddington for around 410 homes in total?

Yes

……………………………………………………………………………..

No

…………………………………………………………………………….


(please continue on a separate sheet if necessary) Question 13: Do you support the proposed allocation for housing development of the following sites at Ruddington.

7

Yes No






(please continue on a separate sheet if necessary) Housing Development at the 'Other Villages' Cropwell Bishop Question 14: Do you agree that Local Plan Part 2 should allocate greenfield land for housing development at Cropwell Bishop for around 160 homes in total?

Yes

……………………………………………………………………………..

No

…………………………………………………………………………….


8

(please continue on a separate sheet if necessary) Question 15: Do you support the proposed allocation for housing development of the following sites at Cropwell Bishop.

Yes No



Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers. For both of the proposed housing sites, you may like to give your views on what development should look like, in terms of the design, mix and layout of new housing and other uses (for example, open space) on site. Click here to enter text.

(please continue on a separate sheet if necessary) East Bridgford Question 16: Do you agree that Local Plan Part 2 should allocate greenfield land for housing development at East Bridgford for around 100 homes in total?

Yes

……………………………………………………………………………..

No

…………………………………………………………………………….

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your response. One hundred houses is far too many for a village of our size, it will destroy the ‘village’ feel of the community, making us into a ‘commuter’ village Too many people all at one time will be difficult to intergrate into the village. The roads within and the exits from the village are very congested and the added traffic with add a further strain to the infrastructure. Our roads and footways are in poor repair and the extra traffic will only increase the pressure on them. The traffic and parking around the school causes a lot of problems especially around dropping off and picking up times.

9

Can the school take any more children? It is always good to have some growth that can be assimilated into the village but 100 houses just seems too many at this timeand not knowing what sort of housing is being proposed.

(please continue on a separate sheet if necessary) Question 17: Do you support the proposed allocation for housing development of the following sites at East Bridgford

Yes No





Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers. For each of the proposed housing sites, you may like to give your views on what development should look like, in terms of the design, mix and layout of new housing and other uses (for example, open space) on site. EBR10 is far too large a development, especially with 15 houses on the opposite side of the road, meaning 60 new homes emptying onto one small length of road. This would massively ‘unbalance the village. Butt Lane is far too narrow to accommodate the additional volume of traffic that would be generated.Please rethink this element of your proposal Although I have said YES to EBR06 I feel that the roads around that area are very narrow and an extra 20 houses (40 if EBR07 is also developed) will be too great. Gradual small developments have intregrated well over the years, it is the proposal of so great a number and especially 45 on one site that seems to be all wrong with the ‘spirit’ of our village, we don’t want to become a ‘suburban’ area.

(please continue on a separate sheet if necessary) Gotham

10

Question 18: Do you agree that Local Plan Part 2 should allocate greenfield land for housing development at Gotham for around 100 homes in total?

Yes

……………………………………………………………………………..

No

…………………………………………………………………………….


(please continue on a separate sheet if necessary) Question 19: Do you support the proposed allocation for housing development of the following site at Gotham:

Yes No


Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers. You may like to give your views on what development should look like, in terms of the design, mix and layout of new housing and other uses (for example, open space) on site. Click here to enter text.

(please continue on a separate sheet if necessary) Bunny Brickworks Question 20: Do you support the proposed allocation of the former Bunny Brickworks (site BUN01) for a mixed development of around 100 new homes and employment development?

11

Yes

……………………………………………………………………………..

No

…………………………………………………………………………….


(please continue on a separate sheet if necessary) Flintham – Former Islamic Institute Question 21: Do you support the proposed allocation of the former Islamic Institute at Flintham for the development of up to 95 new homes?

Yes

……………………………………………………………………………..

No

…………………………………………………………………………….

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers. Click here to enter text.

(please continue on a separate sheet if necessary) Other Issues Question 22: Please identify any matters related to housing development which are not covered here or elsewhere and which you wish to raise. Click here to enter text.


12

Please return by 5pm on Monday 27 November 2017 to: Planning Policy, Rushcliffe Borough Council Rushcliffe Arena Rugby Road Nottingham. NG2 7YG

Or to: [email protected] Please note that your comments can be directly entered through the Borough Council’s online consultation system: http://rushcliffe-consult.objective.co.uk/portal Data protection: The details you submit to the Borough Council will be used in the plan making process and may be in use for the lifetime of the Local Plan and associated processes in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998. Please note that comments and personal details cannot be treated as confidential and may be made available for public inspection both physically and/or through the Borough Council’s website. We may publish all names, addresses and comments received, including on our website. We will use our best endeavours to not publish signatures, personal telephone numbers or email addresses. By sending the Council your details you will automatically be informed of future consultations on planning policy documents unless you indicate otherwise.

13




Response Form


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

Housing Development

Housing Land Supply


Yes ……………………………………………………………………………..

No …………………………………………………………………………….

Don’t know

…………………………………………………………………………….



Hilary Linnington Name Click here to enter text.

26 Ludgate Drive East Bridgford NG13 8NW



1



thigton

Text Box

Linnington H 1073299


(please continue on a separate sheet if necessary) Housing Sites within the Main Urban Area Question 2: Do you agree with the Council’s proposed allocation of the Abbey Road Depot (site WB01) for the development of around 50 new homes?

Yes

……………………………………………………………………………..

No

…………………………………………………………………………….


(please continue on a separate sheet if necessary) Housing Sites adjacent to the Main Urban Area Question 3: Do you agree with the Council’s proposal that no sites adjacent to the main urban area of Nottingham (within Rushcliffe) should be allocated for housing development through Local Plan Part 2?

Yes

……………………………………………………………………………..

No

…………………………………………………………………………….


2

(please continue on a separate sheet if necessary) Housing Development at the 'Key Settlements' Bingham Question 4: Do you agree with the Council’s proposal that no sites adjacent to Bingham should be allocated for housing development through Local Plan Part 2?

Yes

……………………………………………………………………………..

No

…………………………………………………………………………….


(please continue on a separate sheet if necessary) Cotgrave Question 5: Do you agree that Local Plan Part 2 should allocate greenfield land for housing development at Cotgrave for around 350 homes in total?

Yes

……………………………………………………………………………..

No

…………………………………………………………………………….



3


Yes No





(please continue on a separate sheet if necessary) East Leake


Yes

……………………………………………………………………………..

No

…………………………………………………………………………….



4


Yes

……………………………………………………………………………..

No

…………………………………………………………………………….


(please continue on a separate sheet if necessary) Question 9: Do you support the proposed allocation for housing development of the following sites at Keywort.

Yes No






5



Yes

……………………………………………………………………………..

No

…………………………………………………………………………….


(please continue on a separate sheet if necessary) Question 11: Do you support the proposed allocation for housing development of the following sites at Radcliffe on Trent.

Yes No





6

Yes No




(please continue on a separate sheet if necessary) Ruddington Question 12: Do you agree that Local Plan Part 2 should allocate greenfield land for housing development at Ruddington for around 410 homes in total?

Yes

……………………………………………………………………………..

No

…………………………………………………………………………….


(please continue on a separate sheet if necessary) Question 13: Do you support the proposed allocation for housing development of the following sites at Ruddington.

7

Yes No






(please continue on a separate sheet if necessary) Housing Development at the 'Other Villages' Cropwell Bishop Question 14: Do you agree that Local Plan Part 2 should allocate greenfield land for housing development at Cropwell Bishop for around 160 homes in total?

Yes

……………………………………………………………………………..

No

…………………………………………………………………………….


8

(please continue on a separate sheet if necessary) Question 15: Do you support the proposed allocation for housing development of the following sites at Cropwell Bishop.

Yes No



Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers. For both of the proposed housing sites, you may like to give your views on what development should look like, in terms of the design, mix and layout of new housing and other uses (for example, open space) on site. Click here to enter text.

(please continue on a separate sheet if necessary) East Bridgford Question 16: Do you agree that Local Plan Part 2 should allocate greenfield land for housing development at East Bridgford for around 100 homes in total?

Yes

……………………………………………………………………………..

No

…………………………………………………………………………….

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your response. One hundred houses is far too many for a village of our size, it will destroy the ‘village’ feel of the community, making us into a ‘commuter’ village Too many people all at one time will be difficult to intergrate into the village. The roads within and the exits from the village are very congested and the added traffic with add a further strain to the infrastructure. Our roads and footways are in poor repair and the extra traffic will only increase the pressure on them. The traffic and parking around the school causes a lot of problems especially around dropping off and picking up times.

9

Can the school take any more children? It is always good to have some growth that can be assimilated into the village but 100 houses just seems too many at this timeand not knowing what sort of housing is being proposed.

(please continue on a separate sheet if necessary) Question 17: Do you support the proposed allocation for housing development of the following sites at East Bridgford

Yes No





Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers. For each of the proposed housing sites, you may like to give your views on what development should look like, in terms of the design, mix and layout of new housing and other uses (for example, open space) on site. EBR10 is far too large a development, especially with 15 houses on the opposite side of the road, meaning 60 new homes emptying onto one small length of road. Although I have said YES to EBR06 I feel that the roads around that area are very narrow and an extra 20 houses (40 if EBR07 is also developed) will. Gradual small developments have intregrated well over the years, it is the proposal of so great a number and especially 45 on one site that seems to be all wrong with the ‘spirit’ of our village, we don’t want to become a ‘suburban’ area.

(please continue on a separate sheet if necessary) Gotham Question 18: Do you agree that Local Plan Part 2 should allocate greenfield land for housing development at Gotham for around 100 homes in total?

10

Yes

……………………………………………………………………………..

No

…………………………………………………………………………….


(please continue on a separate sheet if necessary) Question 19: Do you support the proposed allocation for housing development of the following site at Gotham:

Yes No



(please continue on a separate sheet if necessary) Bunny Brickworks Question 20: Do you support the proposed allocation of the former Bunny Brickworks (site BUN01) for a mixed development of around 100 new homes and employment development?

Yes

……………………………………………………………………………..

11

No

…………………………………………………………………………….


(please continue on a separate sheet if necessary) Flintham – Former Islamic Institute Question 21: Do you support the proposed allocation of the former Islamic Institute at Flintham for the development of up to 95 new homes?

Yes

……………………………………………………………………………..

No

…………………………………………………………………………….

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers. Click here to enter text.

(please continue on a separate sheet if necessary) Other Issues Question 22: Please identify any matters related to housing development which are not covered here or elsewhere and which you wish to raise. Click here to enter text.


12

Please return by 5pm on Monday 27 November 2017 to: Planning Policy, Rushcliffe Borough Council Rushcliffe Arena Rugby Road Nottingham. NG2 7YG

Or to: [email protected] Please note that your comments can be directly entered through the Borough Council’s online consultation system: http://rushcliffe-consult.objective.co.uk/portal Data protection: The details you submit to the Borough Council will be used in the plan making process and may be in use for the lifetime of the Local Plan and associated processes in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998. Please note that comments and personal details cannot be treated as confidential and may be made available for public inspection both physically and/or through the Borough Council’s website. We may publish all names, addresses and comments received, including on our website. We will use our best endeavours to not publish signatures, personal telephone numbers or email addresses. By sending the Council your details you will automatically be informed of future consultations on planning policy documents unless you indicate otherwise.

13






Answer

Yes



Respondent


MRS YVONNE LISHMAN

Name

Organ-isation

1142111

ID number


Answer

Yes



Answer

No



Answer

No



Answer

No



Answer


Yes


Yes


East Leake


Yes



Answer

Yes



Answer


Yes


Yes


Yes

Answer


Yes



Answer

Yes



Answer


No

Answer


Yes


Yes


No


No


No



Answer

No



Answer


No


No


No


Yes




Answer

Yes



Answer


Yes


Yes



Answer

Yes



Answer


Yes


Yes


Yes


Yes



Answer

Yes



Answer


Yes



Answer

Yes



Question 21: Do you support the proposed allocation of the former Islamic Institute at Flintham for the development of up to 95 new homes?

Answer

Yes






Answer

Yes

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your response. See section Cropwell Bishop - replies to questions 14 & 15

Respondent


Mrs Catherine Lloyd

Name

Organ-isation

1072690

ID number

Housing Sites within the Main Urban Area Question 2: Do you agree with the Council’s proposed allocation of the Abbey Road Depot (site WB01) for the development of around 50 new homes?

Answer



Answer



Answer



Answer



Answer




East Leake




Answer



Answer




Answer




Answer



Answer


Answer








Answer



Answer








Answer

Yes

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your response. All developments must fund improvements to local facilities where necessary to support the new homes


Answer


Yes


Yes

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers. For both of the proposed housing sites, you may like to give your views on what development should look like, in terms of the design, mix and layout of new housing and other uses (for example, open space) on site. The existing road surfaces are very poorly maintained throughout the village. The extra traffic from 160 homes, not to mention the construction work vehicles will only make matters worse. I feel strongly that the work should be supported by highway improvement in terms of both layout and surface quality.


Answer



Answer







Answer



Answer




Answer



Answer






Answer

No

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your response. I do not feel that failure to develop existing sites is sufficient reason to allocate additional greenbelt to meet targets. Attention should be given to working with developers to bring existing allocations and brownfield sites into use and address the barriers that are preventing progress.

Respondent


Ms Cath Lovatt

Name

Organ-isation

1142202

ID number

Housing Sites within the Main Urban Area Question 2: Do you agree with the Council’s proposed allocation of the Abbey Road Depot (site WB01) for the development of around 50 new homes?

Answer



Answer



Answer



Answer



Answer




East Leake Question 7: Do you agree with our proposal that only sites EL01, EL02, EL04, EL05 and EL08 (as shown at Figure 4) should be allocated for housing development at East Leake? Answer



Answer



Answer



Answer





Answer



Answer


Answer








Answer



Answer


No


Yes


Yes


Yes

Please provide any comments you wish to make to support your answers. For each of the proposed housing sites, you may like to give your views on what development should look like, in terms of the design, mix and layout of new housing and other uses (for example, open space) on site. I am commenting specifically on Ruddington and my objection is to the inclusion of allocation RUD01. 1) RUD01 is designated greenbelt. My key concern is that I do not feel that delay in development of existing sites is sufficient reason to allocate additional greenbelt to meet targets. Attention should be given to working with developers to bring existing allocations and brownfield sites into use. Encroachment into this area is unnecessary and makes it more likely that this infill will continue and meet urban areas of Nottingham, contrary to the character of the village, and to the detriment of residents and wildlife. 2) Traffic on Wilford Road

and the already congested centre of the village will increase, with impacts both increases in air pollution and noise in the greenbelt area. Other allocations in the village are close to infrastructure that is better able to bear additional traffic. 3) Sellors playing field is a long-standing community asset, valued by residents, and should continue to be protected for this purpose, not moved or surrounded by housing development. 4) Plans to building on this land could potentially increase the likelihood of flooding, in an area which is close to Fairham Brook and are already prone to problems. This allocation doesn't take appropriate account of this risk, especially as flooding risks may need revisiting in light of climate change predictions - this year is the fourth year in a row when global temperatures have risen. 5) There will be a negative impact on Wildlife. The allocation itself doesn't have environmental protection, but development will still represent a significant loss of habitat, particularly of the hedgerow corridor, an essential link between different habitat areas for a range of threatened species such as hedgehog which relies on such links for foraging. Nearby Wilwell Farm Cutting Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), is to the North of the Allocation. Key areas of the reserve were flooded due to miscalculations in the plans for installation of the Tram.This could recur due to increased run-off and inappropriate drainage on development of the site, further damaging this important protected site. Together I believe these reasons render the the allocation completely inappropriate. We should reject this proposal.

Housing Development at the 'Other Villages' Cropwell Bishop Question 14: Do you agree that Local Plan Part 2 should allocate greenfield land for housing development at Cropwell Bishop for around 160 homes in total?

Answer



Answer


Answer




Answer



Answer



Answer





Answer



Answer




Answer



Answer


Other Issues

Question 22: Please identify any matters related to housing development which are not covered here or elsewhere and which you wish to raise.

Documents

Lyn Laking - Rushcliffe · 2019-12-16 · Dear Sir/Madam . Laking L 1139908. I am writing to you regarding the current plans to develop houses in Gotham. ... We moved to Ruddington