The Big Picture

Sally Harrison says:

30.03.2010

hi my views are that keyworth is a growing village, I have lived here for 34 years I think we need opportunities like this to extend services etc. at the moment I travel to asda every week for grocery shopping and also clifton for morrisons and wilkos. If we had a tesco it would encourage me to stay in the village not use my car less carbon emissions. At the moment I try to use coop and budgens but since somerfield has gone it has really gone down hill the village square is virtually dead as most people are going to budgens. Ive never used the local butchers as they are too expensive so wether tesco comes or not I still wont use them. We need to think of keyworths future 70 jobs for local people cant be bad I am lucky to work in the village already but know plenty of others who would love to. I know the older people on selby lane dont want this but the site could have been sheltered housing but they all went against this plan if keep putting up objections will probably end up as a drug rehab centre!! I think people are forgetting that the site wasnt originally a pretty field it was a noisy garage with a bus depot!!

David Thornhill says:

10.02.2010

Introduction

Nottinghamshire Better Transport (NBT) is supportive of RBC's opposition to the housing allocations. We oppose the large schemes at Gamston and Clifton. This response looks at the transport implications of the consultation.

River Trent

The geographic location of Rushcliffe ought to help define where to locate housing. Being close to Nottingham City may help with employment, but this is north of the River Trent. The river marks the border of Rushcliffe along much of its northern boundary, hence the housing would all be south of the river. Any major increases in population in Rushcliffe would put an impossible to accommodate load on the already congested river bridges and their approach roads.

NBT has constantly opposed the ‘Fourth Trent Crossing' and for the foreseeable future such a massively expensive scheme is unlikely to happen, without even considering the enormous environmental catastrophe such a scheme would deliver.

DaSTS

Consultants are currently working on various studies across the East Midlands towards implementing DaSTS. It is the view of NBT that government department does not speak to government department as the huge housing allocation for Rushcliffe is completely inconsistent with DaSTS.

The DCLG and the DfT need to explain how their policies are compatible. Devolving the solution to the local level is a complete abrogation of responsibility by national government and is to be condemned.

Can the roads and public transport cope with more housing?

NBT is disappointed with this section on the website.

The RBC statement on the A46:

‘The widening of the road will have many social and economic benefits for Rushcliffe with safer roads for residents, less congestion, quicker travel times and wider economic benefits for the whole of the East Midlands.'

We vehemently disagree with this statement and believe it inconsistent with RBC's opposition to the housing allocations. RBC cannot have it both ways - you both protect the green belt and ‘think out of the box' on how we go forward on transport or you don't. All RBC says about the A46 and A453 is actually supporting massive housing allocations in Rushcliffe's green belt.

This section has nothing about heavy rail despite the under-utilised Nottingham - Grantham line running through Rushcliffe. The disused Cotgrave branch and the nearly disused ‘test track' to Melton Mowbray are in the borough too.

The tram extension seems to be considered a positive, yet Nottinghamshire County Council has withdrawn its support for this scheme.

In summary there is some very confused thinking here at both borough and county levels.

World Cup

We are opposed to this for the same reasons as the housing allocations. There cannot be a more inappropriate site for the football stadium, just considering the transport and environmental implications.

We have great concern too at the way the World Cup bid has been ‘sold' to Greater Nottingham citizens, with minimal reference to the housing and other development that rides on the back of the football stadium.

David Thornhill
Chair - Nottinghamshire Campaign for Better Transport