file 4 consultation statement

8/13/2019 File 4 Consultation Statement

1/21

Define |Cornwall Buildings

45-51 Newhall Street |Birmingham |B3 3QR

T:0121 213 4720 W:www.wearedefine.com

l l l

l

Land Off Shelford RoadRadcliffe On Trent

Consultation Statement

Prepared on behalf of

William Davis Ltd

November 2013085 CS 211113


2/21

Consultation Statement: Land off Shelford Road, Radcliffe on Trent

2


3/21


3

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1.1 This Consultation Statement summarises the process of consultation with the local planning

authority, statutory consultees and members of the public, undertaken by the applicants,William Davis Limited and their project consultant team, in respect of the proposed

residential development of land off Shelford Road, Radcliffe on Trent.

1.1.2 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) expects applicants to work closely with

those directly affected by new development proposals to evolve designs that take accountof the views of the community. Where this liaison has demonstrably been carried out,proposals should be looked upon more favourably (para. 66).

1.1.3 The statement is therefore structured to clearly set out the scope of consultation that hastaken place during the preparation of the application (Section 2 & Appendices A-C),

summarise the main topics of discussion and feedback (Section 3 & Appendix D), andconclude with an overview of the applicants response to those matters and, where

appropriate, demonstrate how that response has been incorporated into the application

proposals (Section 4).


4/21


4

2 PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION

2.1.1 A record of the consultation undertaken is appended to this statement at Appendix A. This

lists the specific consultations that have taken place prior to the submission of the outlineplanning application.

2.1.2 The meetings and events listed were instigated and attended by representatives of theapplicant and their project consultant team. These included meetings and correspondencewith officers of Rushcliffe Borough Council (RBC) and Nottinghamshire County Council(NCC), the Highways Agency and the Environment Agency.

2.1.3 Furthermore, the emerging development proposals were presented to Radcliffe on Trent

Parish Council at a public meeting on 1stJuly 2013. This presentation was followed by anopen discussion.

2.1.4 A public exhibition of the emerging proposals was held on Thursday 18th July 2013 at StMarys Church, Radcliffe on Trent. Publicity for the exhibition included the distribution of

flyers (at Appendix B) delivered directly to businesses and local residents living inRadcliffe on Trent. 299 people signed the attendance list at the exhibition.


5/21


5

3 PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION FEEDBACK

3.1.1 Feedback from each of the consultation meetings has been recorded by way of informal

minutes, on-going correspondence between key parties and/or written summaries of thekey issues arising. This has been managed by the relevant members of the project team.

3.1.2 A questionnaire was provided at the Public Exhibition held on 18th July 2013; a copy ofwhich is appended to this statement (Appendix C). The questionnaire was also madeavailable via email and a number of responses were submitted after the event in thatmanner. A total of 258 completed questionnaires were returned during and after theexhibition. All written responses received (questionnaires, e-mails and letters) have been

summarised in the Summary of Questionnaire Responses (Appendix D) and consideredas part of this Consultation Statement.

3.1.3 Of the 258 respondents, 248 noted their interest as local residents, 4 as a local businessand 1 specified their interest as a Councillor. Of the 236 respondents that completed their

age category, 142 were 60 years of age and above, 88 were 30-59 years of age, 4 were

18-29 years of age, and 2 were under 18 years of age.

3.1.4 A summary of the feedback received through the pre-application consultation process is setout below, and the applicants response is set out in the following section of this Statement.The summary takes into account the questionnaire feedback provided in Appendix D, aswell as the extended comments provided on completed questionnaires from the public

consultation event.

3.2 KEY FEEDBACK ISSUES

Principle of Residential Development

3.2.1 The majority of the respondents (72% or 185 respondents in total) thought that the site wasnot a good location for housing within Radcliffe on Trent. The principal concernshighlighted to explain this response were traffic and access impact (125 respondents), theimpact on local infrastructure (40 respondents), the loss of Green Belt / greenfield land (35respondents), and the scale of development proposed (15 respondents). 8 respondentsnoted that they did not consider any residential development was needed within Radcliffe

on Trent.

3.2.2 This compared to 21% of respondents (53 respondents in total) who considered it to be agood location for development, noting that the development worked well within the existingcontext with access to amenities (11 respondents) and that housing was needed in the area

(9 respondents). A number of these responses also noted that the development would

need to include traffic management / access improvement measures (15 respondents intotal) and suggested that fewer houses were needed (9 respondents). The need for gooddesign, avoidance of development within the floodplain, and potential improvements tovillage amenities was also noted.

Highways / Pedestrian Access

3.2.3 As indicated in the summary above, the principal concerns raised by respondents to the

proposed development related to highways and access. The most common concerns notedwere:

The volume of traffic that would be generated by 400 new homes;

The capacity of Shelford Road to accommodate an increase in traffic, and existingissues relating to safety, rat running, congestion and speeding;


6/21


6

That a single access point is insufficient for the proposed development;

That a roundabout is inappropriate in the proposed location;

The absence of a second connection across the railway to the A52 to divert the traffic

away from the village centre; and

There is a need to improve pedestrian and cycle connections and facilities, includinga bridge over the railway and wider paths and crossings on Shelford Road.

3.2.4 These matters were also reflected in the responses to the most important considerations fordesigning housing in this location; with good accessibility being noted by the mostrespondents.

3.2.5 Approximately 75% of respondents (193 in total) use public transport to go to or from town,with approximately 60% (153 in total) indicating that they used public transport to travel to

Nottingham. Bingham and West Bridgford were also noted as destinations by 12% and

10% of respondents respectively.

Access to Facilities / Services

3.2.6 With regard to existing facilities and services in the area, the most important services notedby the most respondents were health (54% of respondents) and schools (40% ofrespondents). Comments generally highlighted a concern regarding the capacity of existing

facilities in the village and the impact of additional housing and population on those. Thiswas reflected in the feedback both from respondents who supported the location and those

who did not, noting a lack of facilities and / or that additional facilities would be needed tosupport any development. Additional comments also stated that the doctors surgery andschools are at / over capacity and further facilities would be required to accommodate the

increase in population. However, 7 respondents noted that the existing facilities were fine.

3.2.7 Shops were the next most common facility noted by 20% of respondents as important to

people living in the area, with a general emphasis on the need to increase local shoppingfacilities.

3.2.8 Transport related facilities, including highways, parking and public transport, were eachnoted by between 17% and 20% of respondents, with comments generally reflecting thosenoted in relation to highways and pedestrian access above.

3.2.9 Many respondents suggested that there was not adequate parking within the village for

existing or additional shops. Furthermore, that the existing bus services should be made

more frequent to accommodate the new development, as currently the services do not runon Sundays or after 9pm the rest of the week.

3.2.10 Overall, the provision of community infrastructure and facilities was considered the secondmost important consideration for designing housing in this location.


7/21


7

Environmental Impact

3.2.11 Of those respondents that did not consider the site to be a good location for development,35 respondents (19%) explained that this was due to the loss of Green Belt / greenfield /agricultural land as a result of the proposed development. This was emphasised by theresponses to the most important considerations for designing housing in this location, which

referred to:

protecting Green Belt (15 respondents);

good external design, including reference to existing character (15 respondents);

proper gardens (6 respondents); and

good landscape design / retention of landscape (3 respondents).

3.2.12 With regard to open space provision, the highest number of respondents noted that natural

/ wildlife areas should be included on site, with space for childrens play noted by 115respondents, footpaths / cycle links noted by 111 respondents, and space for relaxation

noted by 101 respondents.

Design

3.2.13 A number of respondents noted a preference for a lower density of development thatreflects the existing character of Radcliffe, including 9 respondents who agreed the site was

a good location for development and 15 respondents who did not consider it a goodlocation. This response was also reflected in relation to the most important considerations

in designing housing in this location, with 15 respondents stating low density developmentas an important consideration.

3.2.14 The preferred types of housing for the site varied considerably, with the most commonresponse being that a varied mix of dwellings (48 respondents) and affordable dwellings(32 respondents) is required. There was also a fairly equal emphasis on the preference for

starter homes / young family dwellings, family dwellings and bungalows, with between 17and 19 respondents proposing each type. However, 76 respondents stated that no housing

should be provided.

3.2.15 A number of respondents, particularly those living on Clumber Drive, suggested thatbungalows should be provided along the western edge of the site to prevent overlooking ofthe existing homes. In addition, there were a number of comments proposing the proposed

buffer zone for Clumber Drive is increased in width.


8/21


8

4 PLANNING AND DESIGN RESPONSE

Principle of Residential Development

4.1.1 The concerns in relation to the traffic and proposed access are specifically dealt with in the

following sub-section. This sub-section specifically addresses the concerns raised inrelation to the scale of proposed development on a greenfield site in the designated GreenBelt.

4.1.2 RBCs emerging Core Strategy that has been submitted to the Secretary of State forExamination indicates (Policy 2) that there is a need to deliver at least 9,600 homes withinthe Borough in the period to 2026 to meet the identified housing need in the Housing

Market Area (in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). It iswidely acknowledged that the development of land within the Green Belt is necessary to

meet this requirement, as there is insufficient brownfield land available in the Borough(Policy 3). There is a commitment by RBC in the emerging Core Strategy to undertake a

review of the Boroughs Green Belt boundaries around the Nottingham urban area, but also

around the identified Key Settlements which include Radcliffe on Trent, where a minimumrequirement of 400 new homes has been identified (Policy 2).

4.1.3 The Green Belt review around Radcliffe is not expected to take place until 2014, andreleased sites allocated for development until 2015. Therefore, in the meantime the NPPFstates that inappropriate development in the Green Belt should only be permitted in very

special circumstances where the harm by way of inappropriateness and any other harm tothe Green Belt must be clearly outweighed by other matters. The Green Belt policy harm

arising from the proposed development is unavoidable, but the other actual harm in relationto the impact on the purposes of the Green Belt as set out in the NPPF is, in this case,relatively limited.

4.1.4 A full assessment is set out in the Planning Statement (that cross refers to the Landscapeand Visual Appraisal). However, the key points to note are that application site is enclosed

on 3 sides by the existing urban form of Radcliffe on Trent, there is no risk of physicalcoalescence with other settlements and in visual terms is extremely well contained by a

combination of the urban form, topography and existing vegetation. The proposedlandscape scheme will also provide an enhanced settlement edge that will form a clearerand more defensible long term Green Belt boundary. Moreover, Radcliffe on Trent is notidentified as an historic settlement and contains very limited opportunities for the

development of previously developed land. Therefore, the impact of the proposeddevelopment in terms of coalescence, urban sprawl, countryside encroachment, impact onhistoric towns and in relation to urban regeneration ranges between negligible and low.

4.1.5 The harm to the Green Belt should be given significant weight in the determination of theplanning application, but set against it are the following material factors:

There is a pressing need for new housing in the Borough, and consequently the

emerging RCS establishes a significant housing requirement that is likely to increasefurther as a result of the recent discussions with the neighbouring authorities and

Examination Inspector.

There is an acute shortage in the housing land supply shortage in the Borough andRadcliffe specifically. The proposed development of up to 400 new dwellings on theapplication site would make a valuable contribution towards remedying the shortfall.

There is a significant need for affordable housing, both across the Borough and inRadcliffe specifically. The development proposals will provide up to 120 newaffordable homes to contribute to meeting that need.


9/21


9

It is widely recognised that substantial Green Belt releases will be required to meetthe housing needs of the Borough, indeed the RCS highlights that most new housing

will have to be delivered on sites that are currently located in the Green Belt, includingat Radcliffe on Trent.

Radcliffe a key settlement in the Borough and has been identified as a sustainablesettlement where growth can be accommodated and the emerging RCS proposes a

minimum of 400 dwellings should be delivered in the settlement. Therefore, thedevelopment proposals would entirely accord with the emerging developmentstrategy and housing objectives contained within the RCS.

There are no other appropriate sites in or around Radcliffe that can accommodate the400 dwellings required, together with the primary school, health centre and publicopen space.

The proposed development will also provide a new primary school and health centre

to meet the needs of the developments residents and address existing capacity

issues within the settlement, and also support other important community servicesand facilities in the settlement, such as the secondary school which has experiencedas declining school role as a result of the aging settlement population.

4.1.6 The Planning Statement concludes that individually these matters are very significant, andtaken together and they clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by way of

inappropriateness and the limited other actual harm that would result from thedevelopment. It is concluded therefore, that the very special circumstances required by the

NPPF in order to approve inappropriate development in the Green Belt exists in thisinstance, and that the proposals accord with Green Belt policy as set out in the NPPF.

Highways / Pedestrian Access

4.1.7 The scope of the Transport Assessment (TA) that accompanies the planning applicationwas agreed in consultation with NCC and the Highways Agency. The TA confirms that the

site is suitably located for residential development, being within walking distance of thesettlement centre, the train station and a number of schools. Residents on the site wouldalso have good access to bus stops where there are hourly and half-hourly daytimeservices to Nottingham from Shelford Road and Clumber Drive.

4.1.8 The proposed vehicular access from Shelford Road is a new 3-arm roundabout junction.NCC identified a single roundabout as their preferred form of access at an early stage inthe pre-application consultation process as it would act as a gateway feature to thesettlement and help to slow traffic speeds. NCC also set out the design standards that the

roundabout junction must meet, which together with a subsequent safety audit of thescheme, directly resulted in the size and position of the final roundabout design. The TA

concludes that the roundabout will operate with sufficient spare capacity once the proposeddevelopment is complete and the design was given verbal approval by NCC as anappropriate and safe means of access to the application site on 8 thOctober 2013.

4.1.9 The TA also assesses the likely impact of the development of the site on the highwaynetwork (taking account of background growth and committed schemes), and a number of

specific off-site junctions. The TA proposes a number of improvements to appropriatelyenhance future capacity and traffic management, as well as create a safer environment for

pedestrians and cyclists and improve bus patronage including:

Improvements to the bus stops on Shelford Road and a financial contribution towardslocal bus service enhancements;


10/21


10

The provision of a travel pack (including bus passes) to new residents;

Provision of pedestrian and cycle routes through the development with connections tothe existing footway network and provision of cycle parking in the new dwelling plots;

Provision of a traffic calming scheme along Shelford Road with raised junctions and 3new and improved pedestrian crossings;

Conversion of the existing Shelford Road / Main Road mini-roundabout junction to

traffic signal control, including provision of controlled pedestrian crossings on allapproaches;

Capacity improvements at the A52 / Nottingham Road sign junction;

Capacity improvements at the A52 / Stragglethorpe Road signal junction;

Section 106 contributions towards a traffic management / traffic calming scheme in

Newton.

4.1.10 The development proposals will, therefore enhance pedestrian and cycle movement, andaccess to local bus services, whilst also improving traffic management in the area.

4.1.11 The Parish Council and a number of general public respondents have suggested that the

development should provide a new road link from Shelford Road to the A52 to the south.However, the applicants do not consider this to be a reasonable requirement of the

development for a number of reasons:

The TA has indicated that there is no need to provide this road link in order to eitherprovide an access to the development or to address highway network issues that

would arise as a result of the traffic generated by the proposed development. Itsprovision is not therefore necessary to make the development proposals acceptable

in planning terms, nor would it be directly related to the proposed development.

It would require the provision of significant length of road (a minimum of 1km) and anew road bridge over the Nottingham to Grantham railway line. That would representan unreasonable scale of investment for a development of the scale proposed and

require the specific consent of Railtrack and the rail service operators.

It would also require a new road junction on the A52 a strategically important trunkroad that is already operating at capacity. The HA have already indicated (in relation

to alternative sites/schemes) that a new junction on the A52 is unlikely to be

acceptable.

The applicants do not control the land required to deliver the entire length of the roador its connection to the A52. Third party land would therefore, be required that is

unlikely to be readily available.

Access to Facilities / Services

4.1.12 The public consultation responses highlighted the local importance of both the schools anddoctors surgery in Radcliffe on Trent, and the general concern in relation to their capacity.Subsequently consultation with the Education Department at NCC confirmed that there is ashortage of primary school places at both the infant and junior schools in Radcliffe and that

is projected to remain the case until at least 2017. Furthermore, there is limited scope toexpand provision on the existing sites. However, the secondary school - the SouthNottinghamshire Academy- could accommodate the number of children generated by the


11/21


11

development. Similarly the consultation with the GPs has confirmed their capacity issues,

and the limited ability to expand provision on their existing site.

4.1.13 Consequently, the planning application includes a proposal to provide a 1.5ha serviced siteon the application site to accommodate a new one form entry primary school and potentiallya health centre as an integral part of the proposed development.

4.1.14 Outdoor children and youth play facilities will also be provided within the development,

together with allotments and a significant amount of amenity green space. Sports provisionwas noted by only 12 respondents as an important facility and by a similar number in

relation to the types of open space required. Consultation with the Leisure and RecreationDepartment of RBC has highlighted a preference for the provision of a financial contributiontowards off-site provision. That will be secured via a Section 106 Agreement attached tothe grant of planning permission. RBC have also highlighted a potential requirement for a

financial contribution to sports hall and swimming pool provision in the area. That wouldalso be secured via the Section 106 Agreement.

4.1.15 As part of the application determination process relevant local facility providers will beconsulted on the proposals. If that identifies a capacity issue in any other relevant serviceor facility as a result of the proposed development, that will be addressed through theprovision of appropriate financial contributions, again secured through the Section 106

Agreement (assuming the requirement accords with Regulation 122 of the Community and

Infrastructure Levy Regulations).

4.1.16 However, it is important to note that the proposed development will also help to support the

viability of all local facilities and retail services in the settlement in the long term (notably thesecondary school) by generating additional population and economic activity within the

area.

Environmental Impact

4.1.17 Detailed assessments of the application site and proposed development have beenundertaken in relation to landscape character and visual amenity, trees, hedgerows,archaeology, ecology, agricultural land value, flood risk, noise and vibration. A summary ofthe assessments undertaken and the key conclusions can be found in the PlanningStatement. However, they have all highlighted that the application site is relatively

unconstrained. The conclusions of the assessments have also informed the developmentproposals, and this has ensured that appropriate mitigation to address potential impacts

that may arise from the development has been incorporated into the proposals.

4.1.18 For example, the drainage strategy for the site responds to the Flood Risk Assessment,

taking into account existing ground conditions and drainage provision in the area, andproposes the provision of sustainable urban drainage systems as part of the overall

landscape scheme. Furthermore, the development proposals include for the retention of allthe existing trees within the site and the vast majority of the existing hedgerows. Whilst

some hedgerow will be lost to facilitate access to the site, the landscaping schemeproposes significant additional tree and hedgerow planting. Together with the proposed

sustainable urban drainage systems the proposed landscaping will enhance the ecologicalpotential of the open spaces, reinforce the local landscape character and soften the

interface of the existing urban form with the countryside.

Design

4.1.19 There has been a sensitive approach to the design of the development proposals, whichhas taken into account the environmental and technical assessments that have beenundertaken, as well as RBCs advice and the conclusions of the pre-application


12/21


13/21


13

5 SUMMARY

5.1.1 The process of consultation as detailed in this Statement has been an essential part of the

pre-application scheme design development and planning process. In particular it hasenabled the applicant and their project consultant team to establish a clear set of

development requirements and identify opportunities and constraints that have informed theparameters for the proposed development of the application site. These have been

incorporated into the scheme proposals set out in detail in the Design and AccessStatement that also accompanies the planning application.


14/21


14

APPENDIX A Land off Shelford Road: Record of Consultation

Rushcliffe Borough Council (RBC) Planning correspondence dated 23rdApril 2013 in relation

to the EIA Screening, meetings held on 24

th

May, 28

th

June, 7

th

August 18

th

August and 18

th

October 2013 at RBCs Civic Offices and signing of Planning Performance Agreement on the

7thNovember 2013.

The formalised pre-application consultation procedure with RBC Planning Department referredto above included direct and indirect (via RBC) consultation with the Nottinghamshire County

Council (NCC) as the Highways and Education Authority (see below), the Highways Agency(correspondence dated 17th June 2013, 15th August and 13th September 2013), theEnvironment Agency (correspondence dated 10th June, 5th July and 27th September 2013),RBC Design and Landscape (correspondence dated 21st June 2013), and RBC Leisure andRecreation (correspondence dated June & 6 thAugust 2013).

NCC Highways meeting held on 28th

June 2013 at County Hall, West Bridgford, site meetingon 24thAugust 2012, and email correspondence throughout pre-application process.

Radcliffe on Trent Parish Council public meeting on 1stJuly 2013 at the Grange, Radcliffe onTrent.

Public Exhibition St Marys Church, Radcliffe on Trent on the 18thJuly 2013.

NCC Education and Radcliffe GPs- meeting at RBC Civic Offices on the 7thNovember 2013.


15/21


15

APPENDIX B Land off Shelford Road: Public Exhibition Flyer


16/21


16

APPENDIX C Land off Shelford Road: Public ConsultationQuestionnaire

PROPOSALS FOR SHELFORD ROAD, RADCLIFFE-ON-TRENT:PUBLIC EXHIBITION QUESTIONNAIRE

We would like to hear your views on the development proposals on display at the

exhibition today and would be grateful if you would complete the questionnaire below.

Please make any additional comments within the box overleaf.

Age: Under 18 30-59

18-29 60 and over

What is your interest here today?

Local resident

Local businessOther (please specify) !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1. Do you think this site is a good location for some of the housing development neededwithin Radcliffe-on-Trent? YES/NO * (please explain your answer)

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2. What type of housing should be provided on site?

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

3. Do you use public transport to go to or from the town? YES/NO *

If YES, where do you travel to or from by public transport?

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

4. What existing facilities / services do you think are important to people living in the area?

Are there any that need improving or are not available to residents?

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

5. What do you think are the most important considerations for designing housing in this

location?

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

* delete as appropriate

Please note that any feedback provided by you will be used for the purposes of informing the submission ofa planning application and a summary of all responses will be collated into a Consultation Statement

to be submitted as part of that application.


17/21


17

APPENDIX C Land off Shelford Road: Public ConsultationQuestionnaire (continued)

Any completed questionnaires not returned at the exhibition or further comments can be sent byemail to: [email protected] OR by post to:

Define, Cornwall Buildings, 45-51 Newhall Street, Birmingham, B3 3QRThe deadline for receipt of questionnaires is 1stAugust 2013

6. What do you think the open space provided on site should include?

Footpaths / cycle links

Space for relaxation

Natural / wildlife areas

Space for childrens play

Allotments

Other (please specify)

Please write any additional comments you would like to make here:

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


18/21


18

APPENDIX D - Land off Shelford Road: Summary ofConsultation Questionnaire Feedback

Attendees 299Consultation forms 258

Age:

Under 18 2 respondents

18-29 4 respondents

30-59 88 respondents

60 and over 142 respondents

Unspecified 14 respondents

What is your interest here today?

Local resident 248

Local business 4

Other 1 (Councillor)

Not specified 6

Do you think this site is a good location for some of the housing development

needed within Radcliffe on Trent?

Yes 53 (21%)

No 185 (72%)

Unspecified 20 (7%)

Extended answers yes

Needs traffic management / access improvement (15 respondents)

Works well with context / access to amenities (11 respondents)

If fewer dwellings than proposed (9 respondents)

Housing is needed (9 respondents)

If village amenities can cater / improved (4 respondents)

Not in flood plain / manage drainage (2 respondents) Needs good design (1 respondents)

Extended answers no

Traffic / access impact (125 respondents)

Lack of infrastructure / facilities (40 respondents)

Loss of Green Belt / greenfield / agriculture (35 respondents)

Too many houses proposed (15 respondents)

No more development needed / wanted in village (8 respondents)

Flooding / drainage impact (5 respondents)

Too far from village (2 respondents)

Proximity to existing houses (1 respondent)


19/21


19

What type of housing should be provided on site?

None (76 respondents)

A varied mix of dwellings (48)

Affordable dwellings (32 respondents)

Starter homes / young family dwellings (19 respondents)

Family dwellings (17 respondents)

Bungalows (17 respondents)

Low / very low density (16 respondents)

No more than two storey (9 respondents)

Larger dwellings (8 respondents)

High quality design (7 respondents)

Elderly dwellings / sheltered housing (7 respondents)

No / minimal affordable dwellings (5 respondents)

Not high rise / apartments / flats (3 respondent)

Apartments / flats (3 respondents)

No more large dwellings (2 respondents)

Self build (1 respondent)

Do you use public transport to go to or from the town?

Yes 193 respondents

No 38 respondents

Unspecified 18 respondents

If YES, where do you travel to or from by public transport?

Nottingham (153 respondents)

Bingham (32 respondents)

West Bridgford (27 respondents)

Clumber Drive (16 respondents)

Shelford Road (16 respondents)

Village centre / Radcliffe-on-Trent (15 respondents)

Newark (8 respondents)

Further afield, e.g. Leicester, Melton Mowbray, Derby, Leeds, York, London (7

respondents)

Gunthorpe (3 respondents)

Bottesford (2 respondent)

Grantham (2 respondents)

Newton (2 respondents)

Ruddington (1 respondent)

East Bridgford (1 respondent)


20/21


20

What existing facilities / services do you think are important to people living in the

area? Are there any that need improving or are not available to residents?

Health 140 respondents

School 101 respondents

Shops 54 respondents

Highways 52 respondents

Parking 48 respondents

Public transport 44 respondents

Parks / green space 21 respondents

Sports / leisure facilities 12 respondents

Existing facilities are fine 7 respondents

Cycle links 4 respondents

Pubs 4 respondents

What do you think are the most important considerations for designing housing in

this location?

Good accessibility 77 respondents

Community infrastructure / facilities 22 respondents

Good external design, including reference

to existing character 15 respondents

Low density 15 respondents

Protecting Green Belt 15 respondents

Provision of infrastructure 14 respondents

Existing residents 12 respondents

Proper gardens 6 respondents

Good landscape design / retention of

landscape 3 respondents

Good internal design, including internal

dwelling layout 3 respondents

What do you think the open space provided on site should include?

Natural / wildlife areas 118

Space for childrens play 115

Footpaths / cycle links 111

Space for relaxation 101

Allotments 87

Not specified 82

Other 31


21/21


Other suggestions:

Sports provision, football pitches, exercise, leisure

Farm shops

Agriculture, farmland

No allotments

Needs link away from vehicle roads

Water features (stream / pond / lake, etc)

Screening on Shelford Road side

file 4 consultation statement

Documents