Councillors fear the further use of greenbelt land could lead to more flooding as Gedling Borough Council tries to meet its new housing targets.
During a meeting on November 16, Cllr Sam Smith (Con), who represents Trent Valley, questioned whether more greenbelt land needed to be “concreted” over for new homes.
His question came after he and fellow Trent Valley councillor Mike Adams had to assist people in Burton Joyce after the village flooded in October.
They fear more villages may be at risk of flooding if more housing is built on the greenbelt and green spaces, amid the drafting of the Greater Nottingham Strategic Plan.
The plan sets out housing development sites across Broxtowe, Gedling, Nottingham and Rushcliffe up until 2038.
The four authorities are drawing up the plan together, and each council’s cabinet will then vote on a preferred approach document later this year before it is put to the public.
Cllr Sam Smith (Con), asked the Portfolio Holder for Sustainable Growth and Economy, Jenny Hollingsworth (Lab), for comment on his concerns during a meeting of the full council.
Cllr Smith said: “My residents of Trent Valley and I are fed up with our greenbelt and green spaces being concreted over with yet more housing.
“We have all seen the negative impact and contribution that this has had on the recent flooding of Burton Joyce.
“Can the Cabinet member responsible for planning confirm that no land will be taken out of the Borough’s existing green belt to enable housing allocations as part of this Council’s contribution to the Greater [Nottingham] Strategic Plan?”
Cllr Hollingsworth replied to say Gedling Borough Council would fail to meet its housing requirements if greenbelt land is not used during the expansion of developments including nearby Teal Close, where hundreds of homes are proposed.
Speaking after the meeting Cllr Smith told the Local Democracy Reporting Service the playground at the new school in Teal Close needed to be “built-up” as otherwise children “would have needed armbands instead of skateboards”.
“You can only imagine what extra houses would do,” he added.
The flooding concerns come after Ashfield councillors also raised issue with the Top Wighay Farm site off the A611 Annesley Road bypass in Linby.
It is now understood 1,445 homes could be built on the land at Top Wighay between 2024 and 2038 if the Greater Nottingham Strategic Plan is approved.
While the development sits in the Gedling Borough, it has caused concerns about its potential impact on Ashfield’s health services.
In her response Cllr Hollingsworth added: “The draft Greater Nottingham Preferred Strategic Approach Document was recently shared with a reconvened cross-party working group following approval by the joint advisory board on September 27.
“The meeting was used as an opportunity to explain the background to preparing the Greater Nottingham Strategic Plan and talk through the content.
“Cllr Smith attended the working group in the absence of Cllr Adams so he should be familiar with the proposals.
“Most of the planned housing growth is already included in the existing local plans, however for clarity the approach document includes reference to the strategic sites carried forward from the aligned core strategy which have planning permission, but where works have either yet to start or a significant amount of development is still to take place.
“In line with the sustainability principles and the settlement hierarchy, set out in the preferred approach, as much housing is as feasible will be located within the adjoining main built-up area of Nottingham for Gedling Borough.
“Development continues at Teal Close, Netherfield and at Chase Farm site.
“In addition, strategic-scale releases for growth are proposed including an extension for Teal Close to accommodate 360 homes.
“The sub-regional centre of Hucknall is also an appropriate location for growth, and two sites which adjoin the Hucknall area are carried forward within the preferred approach document at Top Whighay Farm and land north of Papplewick Way.
“In addition an extension to the urban extension at Top Wighay Farm is proposed within the existing safeguarded land for 640 homes.
“The preferred approach does therefore propose the removal of land from the greenbelt at Teal Close, as it is not possible to meet our future housing requirements within the existing urban boundary and previously allocated land.
“The preferred approach document is supported by a comprehensive evidence-base.”
A detailed report is to be debated by the cabinet on December 8, seeking approval of Gedling’s portion the Greater Nottingham Strategic Plan, before it will be sent for public consultation.
Cllr Smith added: “I’m disappointed land is going to be taken out of the greenbelt again but we will take part in the consultation.”
Where does that argument end.-‘meeting targets’ the green belt was created to protect against urban sprawl, to keep land permanently open and preserve the characteristic of the existing settlements. If this planning goes ahead the ‘sprawl’ will engulf Stoke Bardolph let alone destroy the local environment. There needs to be an ‘exception in government policies’ to justify building on green belt land. Can we see what the reasoning behind this destructive decision? Can they justify this ‘exception’ in a way that we can understand? Since a ‘target’ driven decision does not justify as an ‘exception’ in the case when none greenbelt land could be used !
You can’t keep taking land from greenbelt especially if it’s also flood plane. Flooding existing homes is not exceptable just because you need to meet a target.
The area of Stoke Bardolph greenbelt is used by a large number of people coming to enjoy the outdoor green space for there wellbeing. If you keep building on greenbelt soon those people will have to stay overnight to reach the country side. Not to mention the effect it has on local wildlife. The Gedling conservation Trust has developed with very little or no support from local government. Yet it plays a vital role in providing habitat for now rare species, more building on its boundary on greenbelt puts this at risk.
Severn Trent will sell more farm land used to feed the bio plant locally and then have to truck in from further and further away to feed it. Has any consideration been given to the climate impact of all this diesel. The plant was sited as ecology beneficial to the Borough when planning for it went in, it certainly wouldn’t be if Maize is being hauled hundreds of miles to run it. We are in a climate crisis even in Gedling!
Despite the new collier Road the area can not sustain the vast increase in population and their cars. There is no way to get around Burton Joyce because of the river. So single lane traffic continues to build in the area. Queuing traffic is increasing daily in the area adding to more air pollution. Building on the scale we are seeing in Gedling with vast estates is building on the cheap. With maximum profit for the large building companies. Build smaller pockets of housing on none greenbelt land, would have less impact and be far more manageable.
And last but by far the most important issue for the greenbelt land in Stoke Bardolph there is a public health risk. There is an anthrax pit in the area. There was an outbreak in 1952/54 in the area at the old farm where Teal close is. The slaughtered cattle were buried in pits. If they are disturbed airborn spores can be released. This disease has a 75% fatality rate. People will die. Locally we have been warning of this putting our concerns in writing had no response. Please please investigate.
If the plan for Gedling goes ahead it will mean housing is only 1 field width away from Stoke Wood and Stoke Lock. With his review of housebuilders Michael Gove needs to call a halt to this environmental nonsense as well for a serious rethink
It’s the government that sets the housing targets, not the local council. The local council then has to plan to meet the target by allocating land for building.
Failure to produce this plan would result in devlopers buying land wherever they wanted and then applying for planning permission.
This would have to be granted if the development met other necessary criteria.
A far worse situation than we have at the moment.
A lot of people (the government included) don’t seem to understand what the greenbelt was for and why it was created. It was created in tandem with the National Parks Act and was designed to ensure everyone had open space for recreation, clean air, etc. It wasn’t to stop development entirely, it was to stop existing cities getting any larger and encourage development in villages beyond the greenbelt, thus avoiding situations like in the West Mids Black Country, which is one massive belt of urban sprawl. The stoke bardolph estate should have been built out towards Bleasby/Thurgarton way, or out towards the Vale of Belvoir. Unfortunately, a combination of greed, nimbyism, poor planning and govts desire to have most of us living within metropolis’ has lead us to a situation where we are today
When you see co-ordinated responses justifying further housebuilding in what is, effectively, the council’s newspaper you have to question people’s motives. Does cash change hands? What part of ‘it will cause flooding’ don’t people understand?