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 Submitted by the same developer as the 250 dwelling application 2 years ago (which was withdrawn following over 900 objections).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.

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

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.

Parish Council Agrees To Discuss The Wilford Road Development With Residents

The Ruddington Parish Council has now agreed to allow the Protect Ruddington members and residents discuss the proposed 180 house development on Wilford Road (Sellor’s Playing Field) and the proposed ‘land swap’ with Bloors – the developers.

Annual Parish Meeting 2015 04 21 Agenda

The opportunity will be at the Annual Parish Meeting 21st April 2015 7.30pm at  St Peter’s Rooms.

The Protect Ruddington members will be submitting some questions prior to the meeting for consideration.

Councillor Allen Wood , the current Chairman of Ruddington Parish Council, has decided that, amongst other items, it would be helpful to let local electors have their say on the possible planning application from Bloors on Wilford Road and the potential ‘land swap’ of Sellor’s Playing Field.

Allen said “This is a first step in consulting local people but I must stress it is not a meeting at which binding decisions can be made on these issues. There is still a long way to go before all the information is there for a decision to be made. When the information is in, and the Parish Council has considered it, there will be a further opportunity for people to have their say before the final decision is made.”

Click here to read the Parish Council article about this meeting>>>

How to object to the: 4.2m High Sign on Sellors Playing Field

Bloor Homes have asked if they can erect a 4.2m high sign in Sellors Playing Field (the play area

Bloors application for the sign

they would like to acquire from Ruddington Parish Council to build houses on). They 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 beleive that that is an ulterior motive behind this request, in preparation for the 180 houses proposed.   As the Parish Council are currently negotiating with Bloor Homes regarding Sellors Field they may not be

Plans and drawings of the sign

permitted to comment on the request which means that we, the residents must ensure we place our own objections directly to the council.  NB: The application states ‘land north of Woodhouse Gardens’ but it really means Sellors Playing Field. 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 1st April 2015 You can make your objection on the Rushcliffe Planing website.

PLEASE NOTE THE DEADLINE TO COMMENT WAS EXTENDED TO THE 28TH APRIL 2015