If sellers field was gifted to the children and families of ruddington by Frederick Sellors in 1947 and is still covered by a covenant ( a legal commitment ) then how is it possible for building contractors to even consider the possibility of building on the said land .
My thoughts are to engage our local MP and if necessary take it all the way to the high courts to protect this land .
I agree completely with Carole – at a suitable moment (not now given that he has just lost his wife) Ken Clarke should be involved. As a QC and past Lord Chancellor, he will understand the situation perfectly.
Having finally received my Parish questionnaire, I am somewhat confused about the 6 alternatives. For instance, why would another meeting room be needed if the Village Hall was upgraded? Do we not have enough in the village with two rooms at St Peter’s, one in the Jubilee Club House built for that purpose, the Framework Knitters’ chapel (70 years ago, this was the Church Hall for Ruddington!), the Carter Playing Fields pavilion?? All of which have to be maintained and are all underused.
Why would half a million pounds be needed to upgrade the Village Hall, which, incidentally, is also underused? As we are already paying the highest Parish Tax in the country, we do not need any more white elephants. Would like to hear comments from others on this matter, but with the threat of increased Parish tax for seemingly obvious part-alternatives, are we being “blackmailed” into agreeing the sale of Sellors’ Field?
No you are being given the facts!!!
Have you seen the state of the building? It is not that it has not been maintained it is in a state of disrepair due to its age and construction. Just ask a majority of the users what state it is in. The only parts fit for use are the main hall and toilets.
Let’s look more carefully at the facts.
On the RPC website the Council advertise the Hall for hire.
Here they describe the premises as an ideal venue for children’s party’s, with a fully fitted kitchen and with modernisation works carried out in 2012.
Disabled facilities provided and alterations to provide easy access for wheel chairs, prams and pushchairs.
They show impressive photographs of the premises with the Hall floor which is marked out for Badminton being superb.
What a contrast to the hovel they describe in the Consultation Document.
The RPC speak with forked tongue.
Unfortunately Rushcliffe Borough Council do not care about the opinions of the residents of Ruddington. They just need houses to be built in the area in order to fulfil targets set for them from above.
Development companies for their part much prefer to build on green field sites. Its far cheaper than brown field alternatives, and therefore allows them to maximise profits.
So we have companies willing to build – but only on the land they choose – and a local authority desperate to grant them permission to do so. These two factors combined will ensure the extensive development of all of the land around Ruddington village in the coming years.
Of course, underlying this is a fundamental problem: the infrastructure of the village is simply unable to cope with the development planned. It is already groaning at the seams as things are today. Traffic management in the village is terrible. Large vehicle queues form. Emergency vehicles cannot then pass. Parking is all but impossible. There is not adequate and safe cycling provision in the village centre, nor is there room to allow it. Heavy goods vehicles regularly pass through the village, on roads simply not up to accommodating them. The busses struggle to move. The schools are struggling to keep pace with current demand.
None of which is of any concern to housing developers. They just build houses. That is their business. We all live in the houses that they built. It isn’t their fault.
Such things really should be of concern to the council of course, but frankly it is easier to kick the can down the road. The council is staffed by people, and people don’t like doing difficult things. They don’t like making a concerted effort to improve infrastructure to allow greater numbers of people to enjoy the environment in which they live. What they can do easily however, is allow developers to build. Future problems can be dealt with later, and hopefully by someone else. This attitude may not be forgivable, but it is understandable.
What is plain wrong, however, is that the Ruddington Parish Council could consider selling protected community land and assets. There is amenity value for residents to Sellors Playing Field, which allows easy access for children to go and play. Why would we want this to be taken away from us, and transplanted a mile away from the village? Who on earth do the Parish Councillors think they are to do this? If the Parish Council aid and abet the housing developers and Rushcliffe Borough Council by selling this land, who is left to stand-up for us?
Well said, Michael – and all so very true. I knew Mr Sellors and he would be devastated. He gave this field that it may be used by the children that lived “down the Marl Pit” – as the lower part of Wilford Road was called in the Thirties and Forties. The Carter Playing Fields were a long walk away. Nothing has changed.
Except the attitude of the council perhaps.
Michael I do agree what you’ve said there. The local infrastructure is simply nowhere near suitable for this number of new houses. The schools will not be prepared for the inevitable influx of children.
What I find abhorrent is that Ruddington Parish Council is even considering selling this protected land. Is nothing sacrosanct these days? Those who bequeathed the land would be turning in their graves at the prospect of it being sold by the institution they entrusted it to.
In fact Mr Sellors donated the field for recreational use of the Ruddington Residents at that time.
By moving the facility so far out of Ruddington it becomes out of reach of many. Same goes for the Village Hall. The existing Ruddington residents are the losers.
Those who gain are Bloor Homes who will produce expensive ,very sellable properties on our beautiful Green Belt. And of course the purchasers of these new properties, (probably mostly from out side of Ruddington), who will have these new facilities on their doorstep. Lucky them, but I doubt this is what Mr Sellors intended.
Correct. Mr Sellors – a successful businessman and a Justice of the Peace – who lived opposite the Playing Fields bequeathed by Sam Carter, at what is now Balmore Care Home, specifically covenanted these fields for the use of children and young people living in the lower part of the village. Very few people owned cars at that time, and many could not afford a bicycle. This field should certainly not be sold for housing. A covenant is exactly that. The Parish Council should respect it.
I suggest everyone has a look at the a Ruddington Parish Council Website, Facilities section and Hire of the Village Hall. Information for hirers.
You will see a very impressive description of the Village Hall.
Modernised kitchen, disabled facilities, new toilets, ideal for children, recent complete revamp, etc ,etc.
Then read the RPC Consultation document which invites your views on its destruction.
There it is described as a bit of a wreck and due for demolition.
Please do not let this biaised document encourage you to vote for the removal of this much loved amenity.
Bravo Michael – and as to “adding” a new, small hall at the back of the present Village Hall, please check on what is available for hire in this category in the village and underused, including St Peter’s Rooms (2 rooms), Jubilee Pavilion, Carter pavilion, Methodist Hall, Framework Knitters Chapel, Hermitage, several pub-type catering rooms, etc.
The parish council seem to regard the loss of our green belt as inevitable and state that they wish to “get something out of this for the village”. It seems to me that selling off village amenities only to have them replaced outside of the village is a poor return. I would like to see them lobbying hard for the improvements in infrastructure that are really needed for growth i.e. roads, schools, doctors. I was upset that there was no opportunity in the consultation to make comments like this.
If the houses don’t go there where will they go? Will our hand not be forced ?
Are the comments in this from people who live near the field or from residents across the village in general? This village hall is a mess, my sister in law had used this on a number of occasions and always complains about the facilities, not being able to park, not being able to open windows because of noise. Slightly pointless village hall in my eyes.
I drive down wilford road 4 times a day, I could count on 1 hand how many times I’ve seen people using that field for playing !!! Not dog walking….
I don’t understand how someone has said it will be out of reach of so many residents ? Are we not taking a 5 min stroll to where the new field would be ? And for village hall users would we not be easing the congestion of wilford road as they will now be able to park off road at a new hall ?
We are very Lucky in ruddington, we have a high street with a decent selection of shops, good doctors, a decent village supermarket, some lovely pubs and restaurants. Do we all want to keep these ? I do.. But as times get tougher will they all survive.. Maybe this housing will ensure they all do and for more years we can continue to enjoy what some many envy.
“This village hall is a mess, my sister in law had used this on a number of occasions and always complains about the facilities”
If this was true why would you continue to return?
“I drive down wilford road 4 times a day, I could count on 1 hand how many times I’ve seen people using that field for playing !!! Not dog walking…. ”
Yeah the hedging you can’t see past will do that, you must drive a monster truck.
“we have a high street with a decent selection of shops, good doctors, a decent village supermarket, some lovely pubs and restaurants”
Which one of these do you have a vested interest in then? Your fabrications and agenda is hilariously transparent.
I live opposite the field in question and my children are always at the park as our garden is tiny. I have never understood why the park has not been renovated as it is pretty pathetic as parks go, although the field is great for football. Maybe a new one will benefit all. As for the village hall, when I have emailed them to make enquiries about using its facilities no one has bothered to respond so in 10 years we have never used it. I really am not keen on more developments in but nor am I a nimby, as Steve points out, the homes will be built regardless and if we get better amenities then fine.
Yes, we are lucky in Ruddington to have good shops and facilities.
That is why companies like Bloors want to build here, knowing that houses will sell easily at very high prices.
The problem is that Ruddington is creaking at the seams and there appears to be no plans in hand to cater for all these new residents. Except of course to demolish a village hall, and sell a park to make room for yet more properties.
Let’s retain the Ruddington we love and vote for option 6.
Ruddington’s history is full of famous individuals who contributed to the development of the village.
Philo mills, Thomas Parkyns, James Peacock, the Lawsons and the Carters, etc.
And including the Paget sisters for the village hall and the Sellors family for the recreation ground.
Now we have Bloors offering large sums of money to our Local Council for the sale of these treasured assets.
Not because they want to improve and promote our village, but so they can build expensive properties and enhance their own bank balance.
What would those generous benefactors think about that. Some of them must be turning in their graves
Well said, Michael. My family have been here for well over 100 years and knew several of the village benefactors. These were important gifts of their time. And they MUST be saved! Bloors can go and build elsewhere, we don’t need them.
As you so rightly pointed out, the infrastructure comes first. Schools, medical centres, traffic diversions away from the village centre, parking facilities, and what of policing? It’s a sad situation.
The infrastructure of Ruddington is the responsibility of Nottingham County Council and Rushcliffe Borough Council the Parish Council can only make comments on any infrastructure matters. The Parish have through the years run surveys on various matters and the response from 3900 houses has been less than 10% the most recent survey was on transport and parking.
It does not help when your County Council give the Youth Centre on the Green to a PRIVATE COMPANY RENT FREE FOR 10 years when the Parish Council wanted the building and land to provide a modern village facility. Please note WE HAVE BEEN WITHOUT A YOUTH CLUB FOR APPROX 12 MONTHS and this was in the AGREEMENT that it would be provided from OCTOBER 2014 when bidding for the building was discussed.
The RPC and RBC have two choices.
1 To sell two important assets of the village, allow Bloors to build on the beautiful Green Belt bringing Ruddington nearer to Nottingham, and allow them to make huge profits from the type of properties Ruddington does not need, and increase the congestion to roads and services in the village.
or
2 To fight for Ruddington and preserve the village most of us love.
The big question is.
WILL THE RPC TAKE THE DOSH?
No planning application has been submitted therefore no deal has been done. The field is full of BLACK GRASS a very invasive weed which chokes any crops that is why it has not been sown with a new crop.
Just a few facts so people can make up their own mind. The whole field was sown with rape last Autumn, it was all growing well but in February the crops on that part of the field South of Packman Dyke were poisoned leaving the field in a complete mess. The first time I had seen that happen in 43 years. Is it a coincidence that the area destroyed was exactly the area on which Bloor Homes wish to build and happened about two weeks before their exhibition of the housing scheme.
The rape in the remaining section of the field grew well and has been harvested.
There seems to be some very clever and selective Black Grass about.
The field is once again full of BLACK GRASS a very invasive weed. The field is now more of an eyesore than previous. If this weed spreads to your garden will you be so inclined
Let’s get the facts correct.
It is only that section of the field upon which Bloors propose to build which has been made an eyesore.
The remainder produced a crop of rape which was recently harvested. That section of the field looks attractive as Green Belt land should.
My concern is more about the flooding that development could cause than some seemingly very selective Black Grass
BLACK GRASS cannot be planted by the farmer or intended developer, it is an invasive weed which chokes crops and this is the case. The land over Packman Dyke does not have this weed.
Black Grass seeds are spread in the wind.
We get strong South winds regularly occurring, so it is strange that the seed did not make the 2 metre jump across the stream.
There are other effective, less evasive ways of reducing the damaging affect of Black Grass.
Plenty of information on web sites.
There was no need to destroy the environment.
Just a comment on RPC’s failure to get the Youth Centre building. It is my understanding that the RPC could not meet the terms of the lease, whereas the private company could.
As a user of the premises I must say the new tenant has made a massive improvement to the building and facilities.
Maybe it is just as well the RPC did not get hold of it.
If the Village Hall has been allowed to run down as much as they say it has, and they are not prepared to renovate, then it would have been a crying shame to see the Youth Club building go the same way.
I am sorry to be late with my comments but the present situation with Sellors Playing Field has only just come to my attention. My first comment is that knowing Mr Sellors very well, as he was my Grandfather, he would have wanted the area to remain green belt, not only for the benefit of children, but also of their families, and to keep an open area in the middle of the village. Secondly as the land was given with a covenant, to remain as a recreational area, I don’t think he would be too happy if it was to be used for housing. If he had given the land to be used in any way the village saw fit then he would never have put a covenant on it. He was a forward thinking and fair person who liked things to be right.
Surely the proposed thousands of dwellings development on Fairham (Clifton) Pastures make it not necessary to build any houses in the surrounding villages.
Protect Ruddington 
Great work – thanks. Will certainly support your initiative.
LikeLike
I don’t want not to see the playing fields opposite my BnB disappear and my customers don’t either.
Regards
Peter Groves
LikeLike
Don’t remove the playing field please. My customers in my BnB enjoy seeing the local people enjoying it.
Regards
Peter Groves
LikeLike
If sellers field was gifted to the children and families of ruddington by Frederick Sellors in 1947 and is still covered by a covenant ( a legal commitment ) then how is it possible for building contractors to even consider the possibility of building on the said land .
My thoughts are to engage our local MP and if necessary take it all the way to the high courts to protect this land .
LikeLike
I agree completely with Carole – at a suitable moment (not now given that he has just lost his wife) Ken Clarke should be involved. As a QC and past Lord Chancellor, he will understand the situation perfectly.
LikeLike
Having finally received my Parish questionnaire, I am somewhat confused about the 6 alternatives. For instance, why would another meeting room be needed if the Village Hall was upgraded? Do we not have enough in the village with two rooms at St Peter’s, one in the Jubilee Club House built for that purpose, the Framework Knitters’ chapel (70 years ago, this was the Church Hall for Ruddington!), the Carter Playing Fields pavilion?? All of which have to be maintained and are all underused.
Why would half a million pounds be needed to upgrade the Village Hall, which, incidentally, is also underused? As we are already paying the highest Parish Tax in the country, we do not need any more white elephants. Would like to hear comments from others on this matter, but with the threat of increased Parish tax for seemingly obvious part-alternatives, are we being “blackmailed” into agreeing the sale of Sellors’ Field?
LikeLike
No you are being given the facts!!!
Have you seen the state of the building? It is not that it has not been maintained it is in a state of disrepair due to its age and construction. Just ask a majority of the users what state it is in. The only parts fit for use are the main hall and toilets.
LikeLike
Let’s look more carefully at the facts.
On the RPC website the Council advertise the Hall for hire.
Here they describe the premises as an ideal venue for children’s party’s, with a fully fitted kitchen and with modernisation works carried out in 2012.
Disabled facilities provided and alterations to provide easy access for wheel chairs, prams and pushchairs.
They show impressive photographs of the premises with the Hall floor which is marked out for Badminton being superb.
What a contrast to the hovel they describe in the Consultation Document.
The RPC speak with forked tongue.
LikeLike
Unfortunately Rushcliffe Borough Council do not care about the opinions of the residents of Ruddington. They just need houses to be built in the area in order to fulfil targets set for them from above.
Development companies for their part much prefer to build on green field sites. Its far cheaper than brown field alternatives, and therefore allows them to maximise profits.
So we have companies willing to build – but only on the land they choose – and a local authority desperate to grant them permission to do so. These two factors combined will ensure the extensive development of all of the land around Ruddington village in the coming years.
Of course, underlying this is a fundamental problem: the infrastructure of the village is simply unable to cope with the development planned. It is already groaning at the seams as things are today. Traffic management in the village is terrible. Large vehicle queues form. Emergency vehicles cannot then pass. Parking is all but impossible. There is not adequate and safe cycling provision in the village centre, nor is there room to allow it. Heavy goods vehicles regularly pass through the village, on roads simply not up to accommodating them. The busses struggle to move. The schools are struggling to keep pace with current demand.
None of which is of any concern to housing developers. They just build houses. That is their business. We all live in the houses that they built. It isn’t their fault.
Such things really should be of concern to the council of course, but frankly it is easier to kick the can down the road. The council is staffed by people, and people don’t like doing difficult things. They don’t like making a concerted effort to improve infrastructure to allow greater numbers of people to enjoy the environment in which they live. What they can do easily however, is allow developers to build. Future problems can be dealt with later, and hopefully by someone else. This attitude may not be forgivable, but it is understandable.
What is plain wrong, however, is that the Ruddington Parish Council could consider selling protected community land and assets. There is amenity value for residents to Sellors Playing Field, which allows easy access for children to go and play. Why would we want this to be taken away from us, and transplanted a mile away from the village? Who on earth do the Parish Councillors think they are to do this? If the Parish Council aid and abet the housing developers and Rushcliffe Borough Council by selling this land, who is left to stand-up for us?
LikeLike
Well said Michael I whole heartedly agree. Our village is already swamped and won’t stand further development.
Regards
Peter Groves
LikeLike
Well said, Michael – and all so very true. I knew Mr Sellors and he would be devastated. He gave this field that it may be used by the children that lived “down the Marl Pit” – as the lower part of Wilford Road was called in the Thirties and Forties. The Carter Playing Fields were a long walk away. Nothing has changed.
Except the attitude of the council perhaps.
LikeLike
Michael I do agree what you’ve said there. The local infrastructure is simply nowhere near suitable for this number of new houses. The schools will not be prepared for the inevitable influx of children.
What I find abhorrent is that Ruddington Parish Council is even considering selling this protected land. Is nothing sacrosanct these days? Those who bequeathed the land would be turning in their graves at the prospect of it being sold by the institution they entrusted it to.
LikeLike
In fact Mr Sellors donated the field for recreational use of the Ruddington Residents at that time.
By moving the facility so far out of Ruddington it becomes out of reach of many. Same goes for the Village Hall. The existing Ruddington residents are the losers.
Those who gain are Bloor Homes who will produce expensive ,very sellable properties on our beautiful Green Belt. And of course the purchasers of these new properties, (probably mostly from out side of Ruddington), who will have these new facilities on their doorstep. Lucky them, but I doubt this is what Mr Sellors intended.
LikeLike
Correct. Mr Sellors – a successful businessman and a Justice of the Peace – who lived opposite the Playing Fields bequeathed by Sam Carter, at what is now Balmore Care Home, specifically covenanted these fields for the use of children and young people living in the lower part of the village. Very few people owned cars at that time, and many could not afford a bicycle. This field should certainly not be sold for housing. A covenant is exactly that. The Parish Council should respect it.
LikeLike
I suggest everyone has a look at the a Ruddington Parish Council Website, Facilities section and Hire of the Village Hall. Information for hirers.
You will see a very impressive description of the Village Hall.
Modernised kitchen, disabled facilities, new toilets, ideal for children, recent complete revamp, etc ,etc.
Then read the RPC Consultation document which invites your views on its destruction.
There it is described as a bit of a wreck and due for demolition.
Please do not let this biaised document encourage you to vote for the removal of this much loved amenity.
LikeLike
Hear hear and well said Michael.
LikeLike
Bravo Michael – and as to “adding” a new, small hall at the back of the present Village Hall, please check on what is available for hire in this category in the village and underused, including St Peter’s Rooms (2 rooms), Jubilee Pavilion, Carter pavilion, Methodist Hall, Framework Knitters Chapel, Hermitage, several pub-type catering rooms, etc.
LikeLike
The parish council seem to regard the loss of our green belt as inevitable and state that they wish to “get something out of this for the village”. It seems to me that selling off village amenities only to have them replaced outside of the village is a poor return. I would like to see them lobbying hard for the improvements in infrastructure that are really needed for growth i.e. roads, schools, doctors. I was upset that there was no opportunity in the consultation to make comments like this.
LikeLike
If the houses don’t go there where will they go? Will our hand not be forced ?
Are the comments in this from people who live near the field or from residents across the village in general? This village hall is a mess, my sister in law had used this on a number of occasions and always complains about the facilities, not being able to park, not being able to open windows because of noise. Slightly pointless village hall in my eyes.
I drive down wilford road 4 times a day, I could count on 1 hand how many times I’ve seen people using that field for playing !!! Not dog walking….
I don’t understand how someone has said it will be out of reach of so many residents ? Are we not taking a 5 min stroll to where the new field would be ? And for village hall users would we not be easing the congestion of wilford road as they will now be able to park off road at a new hall ?
We are very Lucky in ruddington, we have a high street with a decent selection of shops, good doctors, a decent village supermarket, some lovely pubs and restaurants. Do we all want to keep these ? I do.. But as times get tougher will they all survive.. Maybe this housing will ensure they all do and for more years we can continue to enjoy what some many envy.
LikeLike
“This village hall is a mess, my sister in law had used this on a number of occasions and always complains about the facilities”
If this was true why would you continue to return?
“I drive down wilford road 4 times a day, I could count on 1 hand how many times I’ve seen people using that field for playing !!! Not dog walking…. ”
Yeah the hedging you can’t see past will do that, you must drive a monster truck.
“we have a high street with a decent selection of shops, good doctors, a decent village supermarket, some lovely pubs and restaurants”
Which one of these do you have a vested interest in then? Your fabrications and agenda is hilariously transparent.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I live opposite the field in question and my children are always at the park as our garden is tiny. I have never understood why the park has not been renovated as it is pretty pathetic as parks go, although the field is great for football. Maybe a new one will benefit all. As for the village hall, when I have emailed them to make enquiries about using its facilities no one has bothered to respond so in 10 years we have never used it. I really am not keen on more developments in but nor am I a nimby, as Steve points out, the homes will be built regardless and if we get better amenities then fine.
LikeLike
This village is congested enough without all the proposed development
Peter Groves ( thelodgeatruddington.com)
LikeLike
Yes, we are lucky in Ruddington to have good shops and facilities.
That is why companies like Bloors want to build here, knowing that houses will sell easily at very high prices.
The problem is that Ruddington is creaking at the seams and there appears to be no plans in hand to cater for all these new residents. Except of course to demolish a village hall, and sell a park to make room for yet more properties.
Let’s retain the Ruddington we love and vote for option 6.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ruddington’s history is full of famous individuals who contributed to the development of the village.
Philo mills, Thomas Parkyns, James Peacock, the Lawsons and the Carters, etc.
And including the Paget sisters for the village hall and the Sellors family for the recreation ground.
Now we have Bloors offering large sums of money to our Local Council for the sale of these treasured assets.
Not because they want to improve and promote our village, but so they can build expensive properties and enhance their own bank balance.
What would those generous benefactors think about that. Some of them must be turning in their graves
LikeLike
Well said, Michael. My family have been here for well over 100 years and knew several of the village benefactors. These were important gifts of their time. And they MUST be saved! Bloors can go and build elsewhere, we don’t need them.
As you so rightly pointed out, the infrastructure comes first. Schools, medical centres, traffic diversions away from the village centre, parking facilities, and what of policing? It’s a sad situation.
LikeLike
The infrastructure of Ruddington is the responsibility of Nottingham County Council and Rushcliffe Borough Council the Parish Council can only make comments on any infrastructure matters. The Parish have through the years run surveys on various matters and the response from 3900 houses has been less than 10% the most recent survey was on transport and parking.
It does not help when your County Council give the Youth Centre on the Green to a PRIVATE COMPANY RENT FREE FOR 10 years when the Parish Council wanted the building and land to provide a modern village facility. Please note WE HAVE BEEN WITHOUT A YOUTH CLUB FOR APPROX 12 MONTHS and this was in the AGREEMENT that it would be provided from OCTOBER 2014 when bidding for the building was discussed.
LikeLike
The RPC and RBC have two choices.
1 To sell two important assets of the village, allow Bloors to build on the beautiful Green Belt bringing Ruddington nearer to Nottingham, and allow them to make huge profits from the type of properties Ruddington does not need, and increase the congestion to roads and services in the village.
or
2 To fight for Ruddington and preserve the village most of us love.
The big question is.
WILL THE RPC TAKE THE DOSH?
LikeLike
With no activity in the farming land opposite me I’m thinking its a done deal with RPC – what say you?
LikeLike
No planning application has been submitted therefore no deal has been done. The field is full of BLACK GRASS a very invasive weed which chokes any crops that is why it has not been sown with a new crop.
LikeLike
Thank you for that information.
LikeLike
Just a few facts so people can make up their own mind. The whole field was sown with rape last Autumn, it was all growing well but in February the crops on that part of the field South of Packman Dyke were poisoned leaving the field in a complete mess. The first time I had seen that happen in 43 years. Is it a coincidence that the area destroyed was exactly the area on which Bloor Homes wish to build and happened about two weeks before their exhibition of the housing scheme.
The rape in the remaining section of the field grew well and has been harvested.
There seems to be some very clever and selective Black Grass about.
LikeLike
The field is once again full of BLACK GRASS a very invasive weed. The field is now more of an eyesore than previous. If this weed spreads to your garden will you be so inclined
LikeLike
Let’s get the facts correct.
It is only that section of the field upon which Bloors propose to build which has been made an eyesore.
The remainder produced a crop of rape which was recently harvested. That section of the field looks attractive as Green Belt land should.
My concern is more about the flooding that development could cause than some seemingly very selective Black Grass
LikeLike
BLACK GRASS cannot be planted by the farmer or intended developer, it is an invasive weed which chokes crops and this is the case. The land over Packman Dyke does not have this weed.
LikeLike
Black Grass seeds are spread in the wind.
We get strong South winds regularly occurring, so it is strange that the seed did not make the 2 metre jump across the stream.
There are other effective, less evasive ways of reducing the damaging affect of Black Grass.
Plenty of information on web sites.
There was no need to destroy the environment.
LikeLike
Just a comment on RPC’s failure to get the Youth Centre building. It is my understanding that the RPC could not meet the terms of the lease, whereas the private company could.
As a user of the premises I must say the new tenant has made a massive improvement to the building and facilities.
Maybe it is just as well the RPC did not get hold of it.
If the Village Hall has been allowed to run down as much as they say it has, and they are not prepared to renovate, then it would have been a crying shame to see the Youth Club building go the same way.
LikeLike
A forked tongue, indeed, Michael. Well said.
LikeLike
I am sorry to be late with my comments but the present situation with Sellors Playing Field has only just come to my attention. My first comment is that knowing Mr Sellors very well, as he was my Grandfather, he would have wanted the area to remain green belt, not only for the benefit of children, but also of their families, and to keep an open area in the middle of the village. Secondly as the land was given with a covenant, to remain as a recreational area, I don’t think he would be too happy if it was to be used for housing. If he had given the land to be used in any way the village saw fit then he would never have put a covenant on it. He was a forward thinking and fair person who liked things to be right.
LikeLike
Surely the proposed thousands of dwellings development on Fairham (Clifton) Pastures make it not necessary to build any houses in the surrounding villages.
LikeLike