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

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

Open Meeting: Tuesday 8th September – Parish Council will make decision on whether or not to sell the Village Hall and Sellor’s Playing Field

TUESDAY 8th SEPTEMBER 7.30pm St Peter’s Rooms…

…is the next very important date for your diary following the end of Ruddington Parish Council’s consultation about whether or not they should potentially sell off our historic Village Hall AND Sellor’s Recreation Ground for new housing development.

It’s been previously stated that this is the biggest decision that the Parish Council has faced since 1910. Now RPC has published the stats it collected from all those who completed their questionnaire:
http://ruddingtonparishcouncil.gov.uk/…/results-of-parish-…/

As you can see the results are inconclusive. This may in part be due to the most obvious and cheapest alternative of just repairing and refurbishing the existing village hall not even being given by RPC as an option!? Meanwhile threats of increases in council tax were used to put people off the listed options RPC did not want us to choose.

Ruddington Parish Council’s actual DECISION will be made in public AT THIS MEETING – when Councillors will try to argue these findings give them the mandate they need to sell off land and property covenanted and gifted to our village.

Consequently ALL residents who care about the future of Ruddington are encouraged to go along to St. Peter’s Rooms this Tuesday 8th September at 7.30pm. The consultation’s outcome will be discussed by Parish Councillors and decisions made about what the next steps will be.

FIRST there will be a presentation of the results from the survey THEN an opportunity for members of the public to comment and ask questions. It is AFTER hearing these contributions that the Parish Councillors will hold their discussion. No further comments or questions from the public will be allowed beyond this point in the meeting.

SO PLEASE DON’T MISS THIS FINAL OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE YOUR SAY!

‪#‎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

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.

Application for the 4.2 m Bloors sign has been REJECTED by the Rushcliffe Borough Council Planning Department

Success! We are pleased to announce that the Bloor’s application to erect a 4.2m high sign on Sellor’s Playing fields has been rejected by the Rushcliffe Borough Council Planning Department.

Planning consent rejected – Letter to Bloors

You can download the letter sent to Bloors with reasons by clicking here: Planning consent reject – Letter to Bloors

You can download the full report with reasons here: Declined consent full report

After a number of delays , it is great to finally hear that everyone’s efforts were NOT WASTED. Not only is it great news that our village is able to keep its long tradition of no large advertising signage but it is especially fantastic to see that part of the rejection refers to elements such as ‘street scene’ and ‘Greenbelt’,  which we believe provides us with a positive outlook should Bloors eventually submit their planning proposals for development on the Wilford Road fields and potentially Sellor’s Playing Field itself.

Thank you to all the residents who submitted their objections to the sign, this successful outcome proves that we CAN make a difference to the future of our village and hopefully we can all pull together again and again… to help protect Ruddington.

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)

Extended Deadline to Comment on the Proposed 4.2m High Sign on Sellors Playing Field

On the 14th April we were pleased to receive communication from the Rushcliffe Borough Council Planning Department that the deadline to comment on the proposed 4.2m high Bloors sign on the Sellor’s Playing Field has been extended to the 28th April.

Download a copy of the letter here: Notification of deadline extension

The basis of the deadline extension is due to the to the misleading information regarding the location of the sign on the original application – a matter which was raised by a great many very early on as well as commented on by many of the 80 + residents who have already made objections (thank you to everyone who has done so).  The original application stated that the sign would be on ‘the land north of Wood House Gardens’, which was clearly misleading. In their development proposals, Bloors refer to the Sellor’s Playing Field and Wilford Road on a number of occasions therefore we see no excuse for this ‘mistake’ in wording.  We are concerned that not only does this not show good faith but also didn’t no allow residents the opportunity to make informed comments and objections, because they didn’t know how much this sign would effect the village in its true location.

NB: The email communication between the Planning Department and the developers also refers to the Bloors agreeing to the sign being up for only up to 1 year or until the final house on Silk Gardens is sold – however no formal notification of this change has been noted.

Why Object? 

View of field from Sellor’s Playing Field

Bloors want to use the board to advertise their Silk Gardens housing estate. The Silk Gardens houses are accessed via Camelot Street and are nothing to do with the land on Sellors Playing Field. The request is for a temporary board’, but it also states that it would remain in the field until 2019, which is unnecessary for advertising 14 homes which are already, in the main, sold but also not even accessible directly from Wilford Road. This leads us to believe that there is an ulterior motive behind this request, in preparation for the 180 houses proposed on the playing area and surrounding fields.

As the Parish Council are currently negotiating with Bloor Homes regarding Sellors Field they may not be permitted to comment on the request which means that we, the residents must ensure we place our own objections directly to the council.

It has been advised that using all or some of the following terminology would add credence to objections as they are current ‘hot topics’ for council’s to consider.

1. Ruddington Gateway – the entrances to the village – in this case the sign would be more prominent than the Ruddington village sign.
2. Street scene – something that does not fit in with the area/buildings around it – in this case a sign on a children’s play area.
3. Setting a precedent – this sign would set a precedent for all developments, property sales, promotional events, etc. in the village – they’d all be expecting to get permission to advertise.

You can download an example of an objection below – we encourage you to make your objection your own and add your own opinions and use this only as guidance.

Download Document: Example Objection

Objections to this sign must be made by 28th April 2015 You can make your objection on the Rushcliffe Planing website.