Final chance to save the Wilford Road Green Belt

Since our last post, some seven months ago, rather a lot has happened!

WILFORD ROAD PARTIAL VICTORY

During last November’s public consultation there was considerable opposition from villagers, and even a vote by Ruddington Parish Council, to object to Rushcliffe Borough Council (RBC) including RUD01 (land off Wilford Road) in their Local Plan Part 2 shortlist. Despite this, RBC went ahead regardless and kept RUD01 in their final publication of three Green Belt sites (in BLUE on the map) they wish to sacrifice for housing development around our village.

BUT – thanks to your help – we did secure TWO very important victories:

1. Sellors’ Recreation Ground was taken out of RBC’s proposed RUD01
2. Consequently our historic Village Hall is unlikely to be bulldozed and moved to a location well away from the village centre (where remote new playing fields were mooted).

Sellors’ Recreation Ground play area

We are confident that both these amenities have now been saved for future generations of Ruddingtonians to enjoy. However, RBC still favours building 130 new houses on the flood prone land around Sellors’ Field. Adding in the numbers from the other two shortlisted Green Belt sites off Flawforth Lane and opposite Mere Way gave Ruddington a grand total of 350 houses… BUT!

 

ASHER LANE SHOCK

On 24^th May the Government’s Planning Inspectorate dropped a bombshell on village residents around Asher Lane by overturning Rushcliffe Borough Council’s refusal to grant outline planning permission for 175 homes on the Green Belt there. This was after a successful appeal by the landowner who wishes to build on his farmland. This development is now almost certain to go ahead even though the site (formerly RUD07) never made it onto RBC’s final shortlist. Therefore it is NOT included in the total of 350 homes. Worryingly that means potentially Ruddington could end up with 525 houses on its Green Belt if we villagers don’t take further action NOW.

RUSHCLIFFE’S FINAL CONSULTATION IS ALREADY ON!

PLEASE, PLEASE make sure to take the time to complete RBC’s published Local Plan Part 2 consultation via the link below by 5pm on Thursday June 28^th 2018:

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

We are asking you to urge RBC that, at the very least, it now needs to completely REMOVE RUD01 from its published Local Plan Part 2 Ruddington shortlist. Even though Sellors’ is saved, FIVE out of Protect Ruddington’s six original objections still apply:

We OPPOSE RUD01 for the following reasons – you are able to use this information in your own comments.

1. Rural view– The rural views and last remaining green fields on the edge of the village would be lost to this inappropriate development
2. Access and traffic– Increased traffic from additional housing would affect Wilford Road and other congested routes through the village
3. Flooding– The area has a history of flooding. There are concerns that development could increase the risk of flooding for nearby properties
4. Coalescence– The development of this Green Belt land would reduce the open space between the village and the City of Nottingham. This increases the risk of the two merging in the future
5. Wildlife and Nature– An important wildlife habitat would be lost

Most significantly, THREE of the above objections are echoed by Asher Lane Planning Inspector Nick Fagan himself – within his report dated May 23^rd 2018 which granted outline planning permission for the “appeal site” RUD07.

Mr Fagan states: “Whilst RUD01 is also urban fringe it is, in my judgement, far more prominent than the appeal site especially when viewed approaching the village on the south sloping Wilford Road next to the golf club. Its northern boundary is only a field ditch and this offers no screening to any new development, albeit that landscaping could be provided. Nonetheless, this boundary cannot realistically be termed strong or defensible. The green gap between West Bridgford and Ruddington is relatively narrow and development at RUD01 would narrow it even more. The majority of RUD01 is also in Flood Zone 2. Although the Council has carried out a sequential test, its decision to prioritise RUD01 above the appeal site is in essence based on the latter’s highway constraints. National policy does not favour development on sites in Flood Zones (FZ) 2 and 3 where land in FZ 1 like the appeal site is available.” 

 

YOUR VIEWS WILL BE HEARD!

All public comments on the published Local Plan Part 2 submitted to Rushcliffe Borough Council between now and June 28^th will, by law, have to be passed on to the Government’s Planning Inspectorate for them to see. THEY will actually be making the final decision about rescinding (or not rescinding) any further Green Belt sites in Ruddington, so objecting AGAIN to RUD01 is the best chance for ALL concerned residents who wish to reduce the potentially alarming new Green Belt housing total in our village.

 SO PLEASE HAVE YOUR SAY NOW – BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE!

Public Consultation on Ruddington’s housing plans – 17th October, St Peter’s Rooms 4-8pm

Following the recent scare that the fate of Ruddington’s Green Belt was to be decided on 12th September, we now have been informed of further consultation on Local Plan Part 2:Preferred Housing Sites.

Consultation on the Local Plan will commence on Monday 9 October 2017 and finish at 5pm on Monday 27 November 2017 with an exhibition event to be held at St Peter’s Rooms, Tuesday 17th October 4-8pm. 

This is great news, that there is still hope for guiding the Council to make appropriate decisions for the village however, it is essential that residents take this opportunity.  The last consultation attracted a disappointing 130 responses out of over 7,000 residents-  yet was still taken into account in decision making.

We have asked our representatives to re-alliterate concerns over RUD 1 as well as concerns that consultations are not being communicated effectively enough to gain what can be considered a representative response.

How to make your comments:

• At the event on the 17th October
• Via email  localdevelopment@rushcliffe.gov.uk
• Online (once made available) http://www.rushcliffe.gov.uk/planningpolicy/

What’s new?

During the meeting on the 12th it was unanimously voted to recommend the following:

Recommendation: 

It is RECOMMENDED that Cabinet

a) Supports the proposed housing and mixed use site allocations as recommended in the report;

b) Supports publication of the proposed housing and mixed use site allocations for the purposes of public consultation; and

c) Delegates authority to the Executive Manager-–-Communities, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning and Housing, to determine the form of consultation and the detail of the main consultation document.

This means that Ruddington is still in line for the following housing allocations by 2028:-

 

The main concern here is that the plan and the main decisions to be made are regarding rescinding areas of Green Belt in Ruddington to make room for what is now nearly double the number of homes originally proposed. There are 4 areas in Ruddington that appear on the cards – most worryingly what is listed at RUD 1 – which still appears to included the covenanted land of Sellors’ Playing field.

We encourage everyone to once again take this opportunity to have their say.

Ruddington Green Belt could lose its Green Belt Status

Rushcliffe Borough Councillors will decide which sites in Ruddington will be removed from our Green Belt in order to make space for over 400 new homes on Tuesday 12th September.

Most notably, the report which the councillors will no doubt take into account identifies RUD1 ( Sellors’ Playing Field and the surrounding area) as land that should have its Green Belt Status removed. Should this happen, the controversial development of 180 homes could quite easily go ahead.

Protect Ruddington and The Ruddington Residents Association (RCA) that successfully secured the Sellor’s Playing Field as an Asset of Community Value urge residents to contact our council representatives ASAP for a final chance to have their voices heard. The RCA have written an open letter to the 3 councillors asking for their support.

“I have been asked to write to you on behalf of the Ruddington Community Association regarding the meeting, this Tuesday, on the future of the Green Belt in Rushcliffe.

There are a number of views around the future growth of housing on the Green Belt. The majority of our members are very concerned at building on any of the Green Belt which we believe is a significant step forward in diluting the village status of Ruddington. We do not believe that building in Ruddington is necessary for Rushcliffe to meet the targets set by Government. The decision to allow additional building on our local greenbelt is solely a decision of the Council. We have inherited this protected space and should consider the legacy we leave in making any decision.

Where members of Ruddington Community Association are unanimous is that the legacy of Sellors’ Playing Field should be respected, protected and cherished. This was a gift to the people of Ruddington through a covenant, not just for one generation but many. We believe it would be wrong for one generation to sell out this gift, at an entry point to the village, for future generations. We have gone so far as registering Sellors’ Playing Field as an asset of community value. A registration accepted by the Council and we are on the Council’s list of community assets.

Proposal for RUD1 does clearly include Sellors’ Playing Field in the withdrawal of Green Belt status and we would ask that this be amended.
Our strong preference is that RUD1 is rejected; if this is not the case we would ask that RUD1 is amended to exclude Sellors’ Playing Field and keep this in the protected Green Belt.
We would ask you as one of our local councillors to speak out against taking away part of our Green Belt and undermining our village identity.
We would hope your legacy as a councillor is to be seen to stand up for our village and not to have supported the dilution of our village identity and the undermining of a village asset.

Kind regards,

Ruddington Community Association”

You can read more about this and the other proposed sites by clicking here.

Asher Lane Ruddington – Planning Application for 175 dwellings on Green Belt

Another application has been submitted for a potential 175 dwellings on Asher Lane, Ruddington. Submitted by the same developer as the 250 dwelling application 2 years ago (which was withdrawn following over 900 objections).

The new application, stipulates a smaller number of houses but fails to address any of the issues previously raised by residents. With this in mind,  the same support from our Parish Council and the residents; as a community we are in a good place to once again stop this application in its tracks.

Therefore we urge everyone who previously objected to do so again and encourage their friends and neighbours to support the cause.

Deadline is 1st February 2017

Any objections must be made directly to the borough council here: Click here to submit your objections to the council.

On what grounds are residents objecting?

There are many different reasons why people are objecting to this application. Here is a sample of some of the reasons provided by residents two years ago and over the past few days.  You can use these to help you submit your comments.

1. A short notice period for comments provided
2. This is green belt land – one of the few truly rural areas left within the village boundaries
3. Traffic through the village is already really bad, access to this estate would  be via the village centre and down Asher Lane which is already single file traffic and would affect the existing residents negatively not to mention emergency vehicles. Any suggestions for limited parking along Asher Lane would be unfair on existing residents.
4. The rail track is regulatory used (which the developer claims is ‘disused’) and would cause a lot of noise for the new estate – which could lead to the rail track and heritage centre being closed
5. The local kennels could also prove to be too noisy for the new estate – again could be forced to close
6. Local schools are unable to cater for additional families (already at breaking point)
7. GP appointment waiting times are regularly around 3 weeks already
8. This is a rural landscape which supports a variety of wild life
9. Ruddington simply cannot take any more houses despite the allocated number we have to build by 2028
10. The ownership of the road accessing the site is still unknown – and the developer would look to take ownership – which could cause country park, allotment, local business and farm access issues.

Any objections must be made directly to the borough council here: Click here to submit your objections to the council.

Do we really need to build on the greenbelt?

As submitted to the Parish Council  by Ian Wilson

Each new housing application leads to the same conversation: why are we building more houses around our village?

The answer, we are told, is because it is in “the plan” known as the Core Strategy that we must build them. This is said as if this should be the end of the debate. The plan was written by Rushcliffe Borough Council, where we have three councillors. The plan for new houses can be changed by Rushcliffe Council.
In 2012, the Council had a total target for the borough and Ruddington’s share was 250 houses, to be built outside what most of us recognise as the current village boundaries. Any new houses in the village do not count towards this total.

If, like me, you feel that we need to do much to improve the quality of life in the village, then it is time for this to be revisited and the 250 houses not to go ahead.  There are many reasons for Rushcliffe Council to change their plans, my main three are:

East Leake has had twice the growth set out in the plan. East Leake had a target of 400 houses, though will build 800 at least. If East Leake is contributing an extra 400 houses and the total has not changed, why do we need to have the extra 250 houses in Ruddington?

Each change seems to be encouraging us to become a commuter village. The character of the village could be tipped dramatically if there is a poorly integrated mix and location of these extra houses. There was good reason for many of the other sites in Rushcliffe with improvements in job opportunities and transport links; this is not the case for Ruddington.

There has been significant public investment in broadband and Rushcliffe’s superfast coverage will increase to over 90%, with many rural houses gaining superfast broadband access for the first time. Given the aim is to allow connectivity to those living in rural areas, why do we not see new housing being sympathetically planned to be based around our changing infrastructure? This could be a significant step in supporting the viability of smaller rural communities.

The time has come for Rushcliffe Borough Council to revisit these plans and lift the shadow of 250 new houses.

Ian Wilson

Letter to the Parish Council from Roger Sellors (Grandson of Frederick William Sellors)

Sent by recorded delivery
23rd November 2015

 

For the attention of Councillor Alan Wood
Ruddington Parish Council
St Peter’s Rooms
Church Street
Ruddington
Nottingham
NG11 6HA

 

Dear Ruddington Parish Council

I would like the contents of this letter to be read out at the next full meeting of Ruddington Parish Council.

I am writing to you after being informed of your proposal to enter into negotiations with a developer, who wishes to purchase a piece of land which was given to the village of Ruddington by my Grandfather, Frederick William Sellors.

This land was generously donated to the village, and Covenanted, so that it could be enjoyed by all villagers, as I understood, in perpetuity. It wasn’t given for a certain period of time so that after that time the Council could do with it what they wanted.

If the Council wanted to change its use during his lifetime I am sure that he would not have given permission for any change. If the Council had come up with this plan the year after his death then I am sure most people would say ‘it is too soon’. How soon is too soon? If he had mentioned in his Will that after his death they could use the field for what purpose they wanted, then I am sure he would have said so. He did no such thing so to me the original Covenant should still stand.

The registration of Sellors’ playing field as an asset of community value certainly is in line with my Grandfather’s wishes.

It makes no sense to build on this land and then have a replacement playing field to the north of the site, taking it further away from the village, and far more inconvenient for mothers of young children and the elderly. It is mentioned frequently in the media that today’s children spend too much time in front of electronic devices and too little time exercising outside. What you are doing is exacerbating this forward march into obesity for the future generation by making the area less accessible to established residents.

Surely it would make far more sense to build on the proposed area for the new playing fields and leave Sellors’ playing field as it is, which would then be situated in the centre of the development, rather than being pushed to the perimeter.

Obviously I am not aware of all the Council’s future plans but a more sceptical person might suggest that the Council have ulterior motives for building on this site.

I understand that Bloor Homes are the builders who the Council wish to develop in this area as they approached the Council (suggesting that the Council hadn’t even considered developing Sellors’ field until the approach by Bloors). I would ask, only out of ignorance, were any other builders consulted about developing the area? If so what were their plans and did they differ from those of Bloor Homes?

Perhaps another builder could have submitted plans which would have obviously included new homes but at the same time preserved the wishes of the Covenant which my Grandfather bestowed on the village, and also would be in line with the wishes of the villagers.

For a Council to ignore the wishes of those people who put them in a position of trust, power and representation is to my mind a total act of ignorance and arrogance. I understand that nearly 1,000 residents objected to your proposed plans, which must stand for something.

I am also writing to you to express my disgust at your total disregard for the English language, which manifests itself in your incorrect use of an apostrophe. A small point you might think but my family name is Sellors (not Sellor) and Fredrick William Sellors gifted Sellors’ Field. On this issue the Council have not had the decency to check how an individual’s name is spelt. You have now put on record, in a consultation document, which has over 30 references to Sellor’s, that my name and that of my ancestors has been changed from Sellors to Sellor. (It is now being quoted incorrectly in the Nottingham Evening Post. thank you very much!). Would you like your name to be changed by a Council, or anyone else for that matter?

Whilst on this subject I am also aware that there is a road in Ruddington called Sellars Avenue. I would like you to confirm whether this road/avenue was named after Frederick Sellors. If so no doubt you can see what I am getting at.

I await your reply with anticipation

Yours sincerely

 

Roger William Sellors

Copies to : Rushcliffe Borough Council
Nottingham Evening Post
Bloor Homes
Protect Ruddington Action Group

THE MALMIC LACE HOUSING APPLICATION – BROOKSIDE ROAD, RUDDINGTON

Following recent events you could be forgiven for thinking that #ProtectRuddington are against all proposed housing development within our village. This is untrue. We are not.

We accept that, in Rushcliffe Borough Council’s Core Strategy, Ruddington is expected to find sites for 584 new houses by 2028. However, this is still 13 years away – so we believe that all Brownfield options which may continue to arise during that time should be exhausted before any building on our Green Belt is even considered.

If and when Green Belt land has to be sacrificed, development should not be detrimental to the character of our village and its rural gateways. Nor should it threaten to cause coalescence of Ruddington with the Nottingham conurbation which is now so perilously close.

Consequently when former industrial land within our boundaries becomes available for housing we really must embrace it!

One such application submitted on the 24th of August 2015 is 15/01793/FUL. This proposes the

Malmic Lace – Ruddington. Image source: propertylink.estatesgazette.com

demolition of the current Malmic Lace factory (and two houses) and the erection of 28 dwellings, with associated infrastructure, on land West Of Malmic House on Brookside Road.

Click here to view the application and documents.

The existing factory frontage is not especially pretty and is possibly not suitable for conversion into a larger number of smaller flats. But it may be worth planners considering that option rather than just demolition? This would likely give us more than the 28 dwellings currently proposed – and possibly these could be more affordable houses, too? Otherwise the plans for semi-detatched houses would seem to fit in with the other properties currently on Brookside Road. However it would be nice to see more trees and greenery added into the plans – as some green open space would be lost.

Also we would like to see measures included to reduce the current amount of kerbside parking on Brookside Road and potential parking on Woodhouse Gardens. This has already been causing problems in recent years on the only access route for residents on this estate – especially with the increased volume of traffic passing through it. And the imposition of a 20MPH speed limit might be a good idea.

You may wish to attend tonight’s Ruddington Parish Council Amenities Committee meeting (Weds 23rd Sept) to share your views – in St Peter’s Rooms from 7.30pm – as they will be debating their response to this application.

How do you comment on this proposal?

Any comments you have to improve the proposed design should be made to Rushcliffe BC by letter or via their website.

Click here to comment online.

But we suggest either supporting or remaining neutral on this application rather than objecting to it. It’s better than the alternative of building on our Green Belt!

Here are some points you may choose to include in your comments:

1. Any new houses should be sympathetic in design to the village, not
necessarily to the new estate these properties are being built next to.

2. Consideration and funds should be contributed to traffic and road
signage – with additions along Camelot Street and Brookside Road – including
speed reduction e.g 20 mhr speed limit (not speed bumps).

3. Greenery and planting at the front of the new properties should be considered in order to go some way in making up for the loss of the current large open green focal point.

4. Properties should be affordable – allowing current Ruddington residents and their families the opportunity to buy and stay in the village.

5. Though it’s a smaller quantity of houses compared with other development proposals, the developers should be asked to make some contributions to improving local facilities such as the Medical Centre – and especially towards the closest amenities such as Sellors’ Playing Field and the Village Hall.

#PROTECTRUDDINGTON

Our Historic Village Hall is Under Threat

Did you know that the Village Hall in Ruddington is under threat of being sold for development by Ruddington Parish Council? If you live in the village and have read the consultation booklet written by the Parish Council you might be forgiven for thinking the Village Hall is an unused shell of a building that isn’t worth saving.

Well, did you know that Ruddington Village Hall is over a century old and, like Sellor’s Recreation Ground, was also built on land donated to the village?  The Parish Council’s own website sings the praises of this historic building and details its fascinating past:

Here’s what the Parish Council website says about the Village Hall

”Ruddington Village Hall was constructed in 1912 at a cost of £800 on land donated by the Misses Paget, who also contributed £400 towards the construction costs. The remaining funds were raised by public subscription and the hall was opened to celebrate the coronation of King George V. It is typical of its period being built with solid brick walls with timber pitched roof covered in slate.

Originally there were 12 trustees, one of whom had to be the Vicar of the Parish. These trustees appointed 10 other persons annually to manage the affairs of the hall. Interestingly, the initial trustees stipulated that the hall must not be let on Sundays and Good Friday, also that there must be no games of chance, and no intoxicating beverages were to be bought or sold on the premises. There was no endowment and therefore the Committee was expected to make the hall pay its own way.

The hall was declared open on 15th March 1913 by Lord Henry Bentinck, brother of the Duke of Portland. Lord Bentinck was Member of Parliament for the South Division of the City of Nottingham and was for some years a resident of the village.

During the 1939-45 War the building was taken over by the Civil Defence Committee of the County Council for possible use as a rest centre for the homeless but in the meantime it was used as a recreation room for troops stationed in the district.

With increasing costs of maintenance, it was difficult to introduce modern amenities and the management committee proposed to the trustees that Ruddington Parish Council be asked to accept the Village Hall along with all its assets.  After nearly 3 years of discussion and correspondence with solicitors and the Charity Commissioners, the transfer was completed in December 1955. The Trust’s Deed was suitably amended to cater for modern needs allowing Sunday opening, the sale of intoxicating beverages and the games of chance.

Following the Parish Council’s appointment as Trustees, structural alterations were made in the late 1950’s in order to cater for increased lettings and modern catering equipment, with a further £20,000 spent on refurbishing the hall in 1998.

The building comprises a main hall with refurbished wooden floor which is suitable for dancing, etc. and marked out for badminton. There is a small function room, bar room and large kitchen with serving hatches. Male and female toilets and cloakroom areas with an additional toilet adjacent to the kitchen.

In December 2012, further improvements were made to the premises to enable easier access for people with disabilities, wheelchair users and people with pushchairs and prams. A ramp was installed at the front of the building and a spacious toilet / washroom installed which also accommodates the baby changing facilities.”

The above words are on the current Parish Council website, highlighting our existing Village Hall’s great value to Ruddington.  Even though the Hall is well used by villagers of all ages, is centrally located and generates the highest income of any Parish Council amenity, the Parish Council favour selling it and building a new hall towards Wilford rather than maintain this great building.

It is an attractive and historic asset that is part of our heritage. With vision and some investment it could provide a great performance and recreational space to generate even more income for years to come. ‘Issues’ with parking at the Hall could also be resolved if the Council consulted with local businesses regarding a car park sharing scheme.

It is also in a most convenient location for residents of the northern end of our village.  But suddenly it is under threat of being lost to a characterless modern replacement.  This proposed new structure might either be at Elms Park (where alternative venues already exist) or possibly not even within our village boundary at all!  This would needlessly use up further precious Green Belt land.

Tell the Parish Council what YOU want by 31st August 2015

At least the Parish Council has finally agreed to consult with villagers before making a decision – so we urge you to make your views known to them HERE:  by 31st August at the very latest.  Or please make sure to fill in and return the booklet you should have received in the post.

#PROTECTRUDDINGTON

21st April 2015 Ruddington Annual Parish Meeting #ProtectRuddington Review (revised)

NB: This article was revised and re-published on the 28th April on request of the Parish Council. We appologise for any inconvenience caused.

So FINALLY Ruddington residents got their chance to ask questions that needed to be asked about all the new housing threats to Ruddington – particularly the one involving building on Green Belt along Wilford Road.  It was tremendous to see such a good turnout of villagers at the Annual Parish Meeting wanting to Protect Ruddington.  St Peter’s Rooms was packed with concerned residents hoping to hear the facts and some answers.  And they did.

The Parish Council must be congratulated on presenting the housing dilemma facing the village in a clear and concise way – using helpful slides to facilitate this.  ((Click here to see/download the slides.)

Many probably did not appreciate that the Core Strategy endorsed by Rushcliffe Borough Council has stated that Ruddington has a target of around 584 new homes by 2028.  After identified SHLAA sites (mostly “brownfield”) have been used this still leaves 250 homes that there is no “space” for other than by using precious Green Belt land.  But one resident pointed out that these SHLAA locations DO NOT include a potentially very large number of houses that could be built (on the former EcoPlants site) along Flawforth Lane. If this oversight could be remedied as soon as possible this would further reduce the required number to be built on undisturbed agricultural Green Belt.

There were concerns about the very high levels of peak time traffic in the village already – even before further housing developments within the village and future impacts from the two massive estates proposed in neighbouring Clifton and Edwalton.  Having sent out a clear “NO” message to the Asher Lane housing plan it was very clear the vast majority of Ruddington residents at this meeting also believe the northern boundary of the village is not the right place to build either.  Traffic issues, spoiling a major rural village gateway and pushing the Ruddington boundary unacceptably close to the Nottingham conurbation were key objections. It was also pointed out that all these properties were not required until 2028, so why the rush?  If they get built now there will be more developers jumping on the bandwagon later, meaning Ruddington could end up with far more new houses than originally designated.

But the greatest worries were about flooding of new and existing houses. It was suggested that the information provided by Bloor Homes experts might be understating the flood risk by a considerable margin. The statement of the proposed site being “1 in 100 years flood risk” whilst the area to the north of Packman Dyke being “unsuitable” is a typical example. The truth is that the proposed housing area has flooded several times in recent years.  So it is actually the land to the south of Packman Dyke which is unsuitable for building.  Within the last three years residents have canoed and skated across most of this field over a couple of feet of water and ice!  Previous to that, existing properties on Brookside Gardens were actually flooded. A crucial question the Parish Council seemed unable to answer is WHO would be responsible if the project causes more flooding to existing properties?  Though no decisions could be made at the Parish meeting, the council did state that they would consider engaging an independent flood expert to give an impartial assessment regarding flooding.

Unfortunately it has been the contentious decision to allow Bloor Homes to erect a large advertising sign on Sellors Field for a charge of £1000 (over which no official vote was taken by the Parish Council until their meeting of the 28th April 2015) that has caused outrage among residents of late. This was touched upon in one of the questions submitted by a resident.  He subsequently asked if the Parish Council would support the residents in putting up a sign “save our village” on the same field and asked if a sign half the size would be at a cost of £500. (We were advised this would have to go via the formal planning applications procedures.) Of course this temporary Bloor’s structure is subject to getting planning permission from Rushcliffe Borough Council – which hopefully will not happen now that over 100 villagers have objected to the sign, giving many valid reasons why it should not be erected in that location. (You can still view the planning application and comment up to the 28^th of April HERE).

Residents also made their views known about the proposal to sell Sellors Field to Bloor Homes for housing development, despite it being covenanted land given in perpetuity to the young people of Ruddington for recreational purposes.  The Bloor Homes / Parish Council proposal would use up even more Green Belt land to the north of Packman Dyke for a new playing field and a very remote “community centre” to replace the existing village hall.  Again, this plan was drawn up without any meaningful consultation with residents who use and value the community playing field and the village hall.  Not only that, but the Parish Council is proposing a consultation period of JUST 14 DAYS in June for all seven and a half thousand residents to give their views on the proposal to sell Sellors Children’s Play Area to Bloor Homes!  This does NOT even seem to include a proper full public meeting like the one held when the Asher Lane plans were submitted.  Remember how the Parish Council even drew up objection letters for residents to sign and send off?  (Was Wilford Road already on the cards then, we wonder?)

The meeting finished on a couple more worrying notes:

1. The Chairman did not act on a request to allow an informal show of hands as to whether people at the meeting were FOR or AGAINST the Bloor Homes Wilford Road plans (potentially fearing a humiliation).

2. If villagers overwhelmingly REJECT these housing plans and/or building on Sellors Playing Field and/or keeping the existing Village Hall after the “consultation period” the Parish Council agreed that they would have to “take residents views into account” but made no commitment to mirror those views in their final vote.

There were, of course, some positives that came out of this meeting; most notably the number of residents who attended, the passion behind them and the overwhelming unity in the room – true village spirit.  The Parish Council did allow residents to submit questions and attempted to answer them – showing some willingness to consult.  And finally, the village HAS now spoken in a public forum, many cards are on the table and future decisions will be made under the watchful eye of residents.

Parish Annual Meeting Presentation – 21st April St Peter’s Rooms 7.30 pm

Annual Parish Meeting 2015 04 21 Agenda

On the evening of the 20th April we were provided with the proposed presentation slides for the meeting on the 21st April 2015.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE SLIDES YOU WILL NEED A PDF READER)