Plans to build on greenbelt are a ‘disgrace’
ANGRY REACTION TO SCHEME IN BID TO MEET HOUSING TARGET
PLANS proposing the building of 3,000 new houses on the Hucknall green belt have been labelled a ‘disgrace.’
The Ashfield Independents administration moved forward with the plan at its cabinet meeting on Monday, agreeing to launch the first six-week consultation stage in October.
But people in the area have voiced fears over the impact on the environment and local services.
The document outlines the authority’s plan for housing and wider development until 2038, including two major housing settlements to bring 4,000 new homes.
The Sutton-in-ashfield development will allocate land in Cauldwell Road, on the Mansfield-ashfield border, to be used for 1,000 homes.
Sites have been allocated for development in Hucknall, Kirkby, Sutton, Selston, Jackdale and Underwood.
If approved, the document would allow 457 new homes to be built in the district every year until 2038. This was down from a Government target of more than 800.
The document includes plans for two large, mixed-use housing developments - one in Hucknall and the second in Sutton-in-ashfield.
The plan shows a new development which will bring 3,000 extra houses to Hucknall and will be built on Hucknall’s Green Belt at Whyburn Farm.
Around 1,600 of the homes will be delivered by 2038 and the development includes plans for a potential extension to the tram network and a park-and-ride facility.
The Post visited the area to speak to residents about the new proposed plans.
John Cantrill, 81, retired, thinks it is a ‘disgrace’ to Hucknall.
He said: “We have got enough houses here now.
“It is an absolute disgrace, and I know there will be a lot of public objection.
“What greenery will we have left for the younger generation with these developments.
“The fields should be left, farmers should be able to use them.”
Both developments include proposals for an on-site primary school, a local centre with retail and community facilities, and seek contributions towards secondary education.
Many residents’ main concerns were Hucknall’s infrastructure, especially trying to get a doctor’s appointment.
Jane Wheatley, 84, retired, is against the proposal.
She said: “I think it is a terrible idea.
“We don’t have enough facilities, no doctors, not enough police. “I think it is disgusting. “Everything has gone too far, I don’t like to see the fields being built on. “They’re just building too many.” Tina Worley, 61, cleaner, also thinks that Hucknall can’t handle the increase in population from the proposed development.
She said: “I just think it is ridiculous.
“The doctors are horrendous already, we only have two secondary schools as well.
“It is awful and we have enough houses.
“We need to leave a few fields around here, it is too far.”
Members of the cabinet confirmed they are not entirely happy with the level of housing in the plan, viewing the Government as setting too high a target to be achieved each year. Speaking in the meeting, councillors said it means putting forward a “controversial” plan which includes building on greenbelt land.
Councillor Jason Zadrozny (Ash Ind), leader of the council, said: “There’s no getting away from the fact this plan is controversial because some people don’t want to see changes.
“But I feel our cross-party working group, and the portfolio holder, have done a significant amount of work to steer this in a more positive way.
“It’s fair to say we’re not 100 percent happy with it, but that’s why we want to make sure the consultation is done.
“This isn’t a plan we’re foisting on people, we want to ask the public what they think so we can make any changes.”
The authority will issue information on its website, hold in-person events with Covid-safe measures, and display copies of the plan, documents and posters in libraries. A second consultation is planned in March and April next year, with the document expected to be submitted to the Government in August 2022.
Cllr Matthew Relf (Ash Ind), portfolio holder for regeneration and planning, said: “We know people don’t want to see fields builton, and we feel exactly the same way.
“Our plan uses every brownfield site available, but to achieve the Government’s targets the greenfield sites have to be built on.”