Wilford Road Green Belt – Can you help save it?

Bloor Homes has submitted yet another revised plan for the development of Green Belt land off Wilford Road, Ruddington (formally known as RUD01 now referred to as Policy 6.1).

This time it’s a full planning application for 174 homes on the site. It’s now open for public consultation until 27th June 2019 and we urge anyone wishing to make comment to do so via the official portal here or by post to the Rushcliffe Borough Council (RBC).

The Wilford Road farmland where Bloor Homes wants to build 174 houses

It seems that Ruddington has been given another chance to save this significant piece of Green Belt land. In the shadow of the controversially approved large Asher Lane development, protecting this site which is currently used as arable farm-land – has never been more important for the village.

More detailed information about the plans can be found on the original article published by RUDDINGTON.info earlier this month.

Why is this application so bad?

Residents, community groups, MPs and the Ruddington Parish Council have campaigned for some time to stop this development based on a number of concrete arguments.

This latest attempt by the developer is arguably even more contentious because it is no longer required in order for Ruddington to meet it’s Green Belt housing quota (in fact, we would considerably exceed it) following the approval of Asher Lane. Notably, the land hasn’t actually been released by the Government’s Planning Inspectorate for development, and still may not be. The RBC is also currently consulting separately on a modification to its as part of the Local Plan 2. (Please comment by the 5th July – questioning the RBC why Ruddington’s quota for green belt housing has been raised from 350 to 525 with no consultation or review of local amenities).

Why should you object?

There are a number of reasons why you might want to object and we urge anyone who does – to make sure their objection counts by using the RBC online portal or writing to them. Below you can found some reasons we have highlighted as solid arguments AGAINST the development. While we encourage you to utilise this information – we urge you to put it in your own words for more impact and to add your own thoughts.

1. It’s Green Belt Land
   The National planning policy (the NPPF) states that ‘Green Belt boundaries should only be altered where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified’ – we do not feel this proposal is justified and there are no exceptional circumstances.
2. Green Belt Housing Quota
   With the Asher Lane Development approved, Ruddington does not require another large scale development in order to meet its housing quota. It can be more than met with the three other earmarked sites that will have less negative impact on the village.
3. Local Plan Part 2 – This land is not available!
   RBC’s Local Plan Part 2 has not yet been finalised and RUD01 has not been released for development – and may not be at all! The proposal is premature and we believe designed to confuse the public into thinking it’s a ‘done deal’ to reduce the number of objections it receives. Additionally, the Local Plan Part 2 only allows for 130 homes on this site, whilst the application proposes 174 homes (with a distinct lack of actual affordable housing). Moreover, this can only be achieved by moving Packman Dyke northwards and ‘developing’ half the former RUD02 (not in the Local Plan Part 2) into a balancing pond and flood plain/wet meadow – meaning yet more Green Belt is developed and agricultural land is lost.
4. Flooding
   The area has a history of flooding. There are concerns that development could increase the risk of flooding for nearby properties and render Sellors’ Playing Field unusable for much of the year. Furthermore, the extended development plans offer limited flood prevention solutions.
5. Rural View and Ruddington’s Last Green Gateway
   Ruddington’s rural look and feel is slowly being eroded away and this area is the last remaining true green gateway into the village so must be retained to preserve rural identity.
6. Traffic and Access
   Increased traffic for an already busy route – on top of the additional traffic travelling through the village and to the Asher Lane site would cause significant issues and danger to the area.
7. Amenities and Services
   The village amenities, facilities and services including schools and GPs are already at full capacity – and no allowances or resolutions to address this have been provided.
8. Limited Bus Service
   The seven day a week Navy 3 bus service shown in the developer’s travel plan was significantly cut back in January this year. It no longer runs on Sundays, early in the mornings nor in the evenings – meaning many householders here would not realistically be able to use public transport.
9. 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.
10. Wildlife and Nature
    An important wildlife habitat would be lost.
    

Your comments DO make a difference!

RUD01 Remains at risk despite Ruddington’s Green Belt quota already being met

Bloors Homes will be holding a “Public Exhibition” Thursday 13^th December St Peter’s Rooms 3-7pm showcasing their revised plans for the controversial proposed RUD01 (the land off Wilford Road) development.  Despite not yet being released for housing, Bloors, who have been openly interested in building on this land, have once again submitted premature revised plans for the area.

The event, which has had minimal promotion, with the flyer only just hitting some local resident’s homes in the last week or so will no doubt be designed to try and “alleviate” concerns that were raised in their 2015 plans – that showed no regard for the local area and infrastructure. However, the new plans fail to do so, in fact in some regard are worse as the development is no longer needed to fulfill Ruddington’s Green Belt quota, following the disappointing approval of the Asher Lane development.

We believe the developer will be relying on a minimal turn out at this event, to show reduced negativity towards the plans –  having needlessly arranged the event during this busy time of year and doing little to advertise it.   Thus, we urge everyone who opposes these plans, should the land be released; to ensure they are heard either by attending, writing to Bloors and/or Rushcliffe’s planning department.

The Plans were recently discussed at Government’s Planning Inspectorate on the 4^th of Dec – where representatives from Ruddington, such as the Parish Council and community groups including Protect Ruddington; spoke out incredibly well on behalf of residents against this development. Further details can be found over at RUDDINGTON.info who covered the story earlier this month.

Not only has the developer opted to resubmit these plans prior to the land even being released for development; Bloor’s “solutions” to some of the key concerns about this area remain insufficient. Their document fails to address local infrastructure concerns, suggest further unnecessary changes of use to surrounding agricultural land to help reduce flooding, and propose 170 homes on land that even if allowed to build on has only been allocated 130.

A member of Protect Ruddington and local resident commented “IF RUD01 is released, it is quite clearly ludicrous to suggest Bloor’s could accommodate 170 houses within the footprint they show and yet still leave a nice clear outlook of fields from along Wilford Road PLUS bungalows with long gardens bordering existing housing. Diverting Packman Dyke to accommodate their balancing pond and thus actually “develop” further Green Belt land which is not even in the Local Plan Part 2 is also completely unacceptable. Not only that but raising the land around Sellors’ Playing Field would cause surface water to run off into it and make it unusable for half of the year. That is NOT where we want Ruddington’s new swimming pool!”

Most notably, and frustratingly, the developer states that they have ‘chosen’ to not include Sellors’ Playing field in their plans – when in fact it was local campaigning that led the Parish Council to decided not to sell the land for development. This act alone, puts into perspective the intentions and questionable methods of this particular developer – who from what we understand has been engaged in pre-proposal discussions for some time.

So, despite not requiring the additional Green Belt development, RUD01 seems to remain at risk. Campaigners, local groups and some councillors remain vigilant and proactive in the removal of these plans – but we ask that you remain vocal and not give up on saving the only remaining rural area within the village.

Save Sellors’ Playing Field and the Green Belt

Rushcliffe Borough Council (RBC) wants your views on which Ruddington Green Belt areas should be sacrificed for new housing. We urge you to stop RUD01 being one of them!

Green Belt known as RUD01 in the RBC Local Plan

RUD01(the land off Wilford Road which includes Sellors’ Playing Field) is an important area of Green Belt valued by residents. Protect Ruddington believes there are alternative sites in Ruddington that would be more suitable and cause less harm to the village.

 What to do Next

Complete the RBC questionnaire or visit Rushcliffe-consult.objective.co.uk/portal to fill it in online. You must respond by Monday 27^th November.

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

1. Children’s playing field – It includes Sellors’ playing field, which was donated to the village in the 1940s. There is a covenant protecting it and it is a registered Asset of Community Value
2. Rural view – The rural views and last remaining green fields on the edge of the village would be lost to this inappropriate development
3. Access and traffic – Increased traffic from additional housing would affect Wilford Road and other congested routes through the village
4. Flooding – The area has a history of flooding. There are concerns that development could increase the risk of flooding for nearby properties
5. 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
6. Wildlife and Nature – An important wildlife habitat would be lost

Tell RBC that you don’t want housing on RUD01. Your views WILL influence RBC’s decision. Make sure to fill out the questionnaire and tell them why you object.

If you don’t have access to the internet or need a copy of the questionnaire, you can collect them from St Peter’s Rooms.

There is also a Parish Council public meeting on 14th November RPC on their Rushcliffe Local Plan Consultation Response in St Peter’s Rooms at 7.30pm.

For more information email protectruddington@gmail.com

Additional green belt sites identified for development in Ruddington – and new threat of even more than 250 houses

See original post here as published by Ruddington.info 18/02/2017

Following last year’s public consultation, a further FOUR sites where new housing developments might be built in Ruddington have now been identified by Rushcliffe Borough Council.  Furthermore, the document states that the original allocation of 250 houses may have to be increased.

The council are now looking for further input from residents until 5pm on Friday 31 March 2017.

The documents are rather hard to follow and may take some time but you can get an idea of the main facts by joining in the conversation on the Village Facebook Page here.

Do not let the complex nature of the documents put you off commenting. The main arguments are clear:

• Green belt should not be used when brown field sites may come available before deadline date of 2028
• The village infrastructure and facilities are not geared up for any additional houses no matter 250 plus 250 or more on green belt (significant investment would need to be made – not a round about here or there)
• Large scale developments are not in keeping with the village – these are more appealing to developers because its more costs effective but smaller less invasive developments would be more suitable in Ruddington
• Nearly all of the proposed sites would impact township boundaries – especially the ones towards Clifton

Comments can be made:

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

BY EMAIL to localdevelopment@rushcliffe.gov.uk

or BY POST to:

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

It is worth noting that the document does factor in adequate facilities and infrastructure requirements – so we believe there is still much to fight for – as we all well know that the village currently cannot cope. The recent results from Highways and Transport in regards to the Asher Lane proposal, which was a recommendation to refuse development because of the sheer amount of works that would need to be carried out – also provide us with hope that common sense may prevail.

These are shown as RUD11, RUD12, RUD13 & RUD14 on a newly published map – adding to ten original sites aiming to accommodate at least another 250 houses on our greenbelt by 2028.
A statement on their planning website about The Local Plan Part 2 explains “We are now undertaking an additional round of consultation to consider further where new homes might be built. The main reason for this latest consultation is because extra land may potentially be needed for housing development within Rushcliffe. This could include identifying sites for new homes at a wider range of towns and villages than was previously being considered. This includes the villages of Cotgrave, Cropwell Bishop, East Bridgford, Gotham, Sutton Bonington and Tollerton.”

 

We encourage all residents to have their say – and stop the unnecessary use of green belt land for development!

TUE 15th MARCH: IMPORTANT MEETING TONIGHT!

Should Ruddington Parish Council express ‪#‎GreenBelt‬ housing opinions to Rushcliffe when they are land owners on one of the sites under consideration? Or should they stand aside and just let villagers have our say in Rushcliffe’s consultation?

Additionally if councillors do express preferences on locations they are liable to divide village residents – ALL of whom they are meant to serve.

Go along to let them know your opinion at their meeting TONIGHT, at 7.30pm, in St Peter’s Rooms. The public can comment on any agenda items before councillors make their decision.

Download the agenda here: https://t.co/aNfsdseVlQ

11th February – Rushcliffe Local Plan Consultation – To include new a draft Green Belt Review for Ruddington

Identified potential housing developments in Ruddington

The Rushcliffe Borough Council are now preparing the second part of their Local Plan which will include policies and proposals for housing, greenbelt, employment, retail, open spaces and nature conservation among other matters. They invite Rushcliffe residents to engage and provide their views on these topics.

In short, there are a number of documents available for you to read and then comment on. Which can be found here on the Rushcliffe website and there will be a drop-in event at St Peter’s Rooms 11th February.

The truth of the matter is that there is a lot to look at and understand and trust us- we know that this is not an easy task when we have lots of other things to juggle –  but consultations likes this are important in ensuring decisions are made with resident’s views in mind. There are not many opportunities like this, where you can comment directly to the Borough Council (instead of going to the Parish Council, which doesn’t have any clout in these matters) so it is essential that if you feel strongly about any of the issues above; you set some time aside to make your views heard – it is the ONLY way your opinion WILL be counted.  Recent events within our village substantiate the need for us residents to take the future of our village into our own hands.

The Borough Council will also be holding a public drop-in event at St Peter’s Rooms on 11th February 2016 3pm- 8pm as part of the consultation. 

In their letter to pre-registered consultees the Council recognises that a key issue and part of the plan is to address the need for identifying housing development sites within Rushcliffe’s larger towns and villages – of which Ruddington is one.  The consultation gives you the chance to tell the council where you think they should and shouldn’t be built.  Unfortunately not to have any new development isn’t an option due to housing targets approved in the first part of the plan in 2014.

The full letter and identified Ruddington sites can be seen below.

Feedback and comments can be sent to localdevelopment@rushcliffe.gov.uk or via post:

Planning Policy
Ruschcliffe Borough Council
Civic Centre
Pavilion Road
West Bridgford
Nottingham
NG2 5FE

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

Can you save our beloved Village Hall and Sellors’ Playing field from being sold off?

Come back soon to find out how you can help us save the Ruddington Village Hall and Sellor’s Playing Field. 

On the 27th July the Parish Council will be distributing a questionnaire which will determine the future of these two fantastic village amenities. We’ll be providing you with as much information as we can to help you make an informed decision.