The Steering Group would be grateful if you could provide any comments on our Design Codes and Supporting Documents by 30th June 2023.
If you haven’t done so already, please follow the above link to view all the documents, see other comments that have been made together with responses to date, and a link to the comment form itself.
We hope you have found these informative. We know these are big documents, but please don’t be put off providing your thoughts and comments. The more views we have, the better they will become. Thank you.
Land ownership of Chetwynd Barracks
Please supply information on Land Ownership for the land on the West side of Penrhyn Crescent between Hobgoblin wood and Field Lane. The MOD has in the past told us it is not owned by them and nobody seems able to give a straight answer.
Corner path to Hobgoblin Wood from Penrhyn Crescent.
The plan shows a path through from the south-western corner of Penrhyn Crescent to Hobgoblin Wood. Is this an error? There is no such path and it would not be possible to fit one across the gardens and drives of the corner houses; and also would give no real gain. Surely, any access to this side of Hobgoblin wood would be via Field Close from the north or south, or from the cemetery from the east. Putting a path at the south-west corner of Penrhyn Crescent would cause a very real safety issue with visitor parking and congestion, especially around the sharp corners of Penrhyn Crescent.
References:
Chetwynd Community Buildings Study: 2100CT_KD_1ZZ_AXX_Tm_A_0001
Chetwynd Road Junction Study: 2100CT_KD_7ZZ_OZZ_Tm_A_0001
CTTCNF DESIGN CODES: 2100CT_KD_5ZZ_AZZ_Tm_A_0000
Buffer zone between existing long established developments and the new proposed plan for Chetwynd.
For the west side of Penrhyn Crescent, the area will change from an established green space, woodland and field to a very large commercial/council two story building up against 7 or 8 existing properties and blocking all views from the rear of the properties. Surely, there should be a buffer area for new developments that immediately border existing developments which are completely out of character to those existing residences. To support this there would be no need to take down the existing narrow woodland area with established trees and give existing properties control over that natural screen to filter views of any new development.
I understand the South side of Penrhyn Crescent has in the past been given (offered for sale at special rate), extra land, effectively doubling their garden length and buffering any noise/activities from the army camp / cemetery area. Even after about 30/40 years, you can still make out on Google maps the original line of the gardens.
The East side of Penrhyn Crescent cannot be extended because of the access road to the cemetery, though I know some of the gardens are extended by a leased area of land in case the army ever needed to widen the access road – presumably this will no longer be an issue when the army camp move out and the leased land will be given / sold at a reduced price, to the residents.
The North side of this area is Field Lane which is the main access loop road around the housing developments in this part of Chilwell.
This leaves the west side of Penrhyn Crescent, which will be most impacted by the Chetwynd development. Will a buffer strip of land be offered to the residents, both protecting the woodland strip of established trees from being cut down, which is against your own aims at protection of the biodiversity of this development. This will also allow the residents to control the screening of any new development on the Chetwynd Barracks site, allowing them at least to try and keep some aspect of their environment for which they originally bought those properties.
References:
Chetwynd Community Buildings Study: 2100CT_KD_1ZZ_AXX_Tm_A_0001
Chetwynd Road Junction Study: 2100CT_KD_7ZZ_OZZ_Tm_A_0001
CTTCNF DESIGN CODES: 2100CT_KD_5ZZ_AZZ_Tm_A_0000
Review of PROs and CONs on your proposal for choosing the siteing of the Nature Education Facility at Option 2.
There are 2 options for this site in document 2100CT_KD_1ZZ_AXX_Tm_A_0001.
Your summary in your document
Option 1
PROs
• Protects the biodiversity of the area by generating interest & income for it. YES – and your own report says this option will generate more interest and has more biodiversity than option 2.
• Well located adjacent to woodland and grassland habitats. YES – whereas option 2 will only be woodland.
• These woods are considered to be of higher value for biodiversity than Hobgoblin wood. If TRUE YES – I have seen no report to support this.
• Prominent but secluded location. YES – the local wood buffers the proposed building from any existing housing development.
• Well located for potential grounds-keeping facilities for the wider green corridor network. YES – centrally located – with direct access to most of the other green areas.
CON’S
• Public transport accessibility due to distance from primary North-South route. I don’t understand why this is a CON: (i) It is within 200m of the proposed North South route through the Chetwynd development which presumably will cater for a public transport route. (ii) It is also within 200m of the existing North South road in the area (Stapleford Lane) – which lists the 510 bus route supporting Beeston – Toton – Stapleford. Chilwell would be supported by the Field Lane bus route which is maybe 300m walk mainly on the flat as this route is along the top of the hill. Also, the Field Lane bus route would probably be extended to go through the new development as it is a terminal loop on the current route. So actually: public access from all directions.
• Impact of education centre on habitats and biodiversity has to be carefully managed as this is one of the more valuable areas in that respect. Again, no access to any reports so I can only compare with tools such as Google maps. There looks to be zero woodland clearance required to support option 1 in order to place the building and access, unlike option 2.
• Hill top position is considered to be more challenging for active transport access. YES – again same as option2 which is even higher on the other end of the same hill.
• Location favours Toton residents over Chilwell. YES, it Is closer to Toton. Having said that, it still has far better access and road system for public transport from around the area. It is also close to the Toton Park and Ride site (probably less than 300m), giving access to the Nature Education Facility for private transport and large groups, the Tram Network, as well as visitors from outside the local areas. So not really such a CON.
Summary for Option 1: PROs in general reasonable, CONs don’t really hold water.
Option 2
PROs
• Protects the biodiversity of the area by generating interest & income for it. Your own report states this is a poorer biodiverse site and would not attract as many visitors as option 1; and contains only Woodland and not additional Grassland and other adjoining green areas like option 1. By cutting down woodland to site this building and blocking animal migration routes – hardly protecting biodiversity in the area. So not really a PRO.
• Reasonably secluded location. NO – Not at all secluded for the 7 or 8 properties from an existing and long established development which will now have a very large 2 story building backing onto their property replacing the existing established woodland trees (which would be cut down) and field… And absolutely not in keeping with the existing housing in the immediate area. Again, not a PRO at all.
• Creates opportunity for improving biodiversity in Hobgoblin wood. There is no need for the building to be sited here to allow improvement of biodiversity in Hobgoblin Wood. Indeed, the building itself very much reduces biodiversity in the area due to the 3 or 4 dozen established trees which will have to be cut down to support the building, parking and road widening for access, and loss of all the wildlife they support including many species of birds, bats (which may be roosting in those trees), squirrels and foxes to name but few which are common sites every day.
• Low likelihood of net biodiversity loss due to weak habitats in existing Hobgoblin wood. Again, can’t find a report to support this statement. But, by cutting down of the many mature trees running into Hobgoblin Wood, and the disruption of animal / bird / bat habitats as well as their migration paths, this will seriously reduce the biodiversity further. Again, not really a PRO for the site itself.
CON’S
• Average public transport links to Field Lane and tram line. Not even average – the only public bus transport access is from Beeston / Nottingham. The tram network, which again is only Beeston and Nottingham (and tram access from the Toton Park and Ride site for those from outside the area with private transport), as already mentioned is not suitable for anyone with even minimal mobility issues due to the walk up a very long steep hill from any of the tram stations to this site.
• Hobgoblin wood has lower quality habitats, therefore the centre would have less to visit and experience. If so, then YES it is a CON
• Hill top position is considered to be more challenging for active transport access. YES
• Location favours Chilwell residents over Toton. YES and unlike Option 1, the access from any area is not obvious for any Public Transport except from the East.
• Limited habitat types close by primarily Hobgoblin wood. YES – just Hobgoblin Wood. Option 1 has several other neighbouring woodland, grassland and green areas.
Summary for Option 2: PROs don’t really hold water, CONs in general reasonable.
Additionally, not really highlighted above:
Access by private transport.
Option 1 has two main roads servicing it: an existing one and a proposed north south development road; and will not require cutting down of woodland to provide a car park. It can also be serviced by Toton Park and Ride Site for group and private transport.
Option 2 is only supported by minor housing estate roads with speed limiting measures. Any off road car parking will require cutting down of woodland. Any on street parking will cause significant congestion and also add safety concerns to these local roads which already force cars to meander down roads to navigate the offset speed humps. i.e. certainly not suitable for the commercial vehicles associated with the Ground Maintenance function of the Nature Education Facility. There are currently no direct routes to this option from any direction but the east. The Chetwynd development may include minor road access off the proposed north south development road.
The only non generic statement on your reason for choosing Option 2 according to document 2100CT_KD_1ZZ_AXX_Tm_A_0001, is “It can improve the biodiversity for Hobgoblin Wood.” Surely the main Educational facility should be at the area you consider to be the richest for biodiversity which the report says is Option 1. You have said yourself in your report “Hobgoblin wood has lower quality habitats, therefore the centre would have less to visit and experience”. It would not be a difficult task to “improve the biodiversity for Hobgoblin Wood” from a main site at Option 1 which is not a significant distance away and is centrally located as your report states.
In summary, looking at the above concerns, the impact on existing housing developments and woodland, and your own PROs and CONS, I am still confused why you have chosen Option 2. It seems quite clear (not even close) that option 1 is far less intrusive and can cater better for the needs and access of the Educational and Ground Maintenance requirements for the site. Please explain.
Chetwynd Community Buildings Study: 2100CT_KD_1ZZ_AXX_Tm_A_0001
Chetwynd Road Junction Study: 2100CT_KD_7ZZ_OZZ_Tm_A_0001
CTTCNF DESIGN CODES: 2100CT_KD_5ZZ_AZZ_Tm_A_0000
Questions on your proposal for the Nature Education Facility.
You have proposed Option 2 as the one you intend to go forward with. This is a very large 2 story building proposed to be sited on the garden fence line of a long established housing development. It stretches across 7 or 8 houses and would have direct visibility into those houses and their upstairs bedrooms. It would change the outlook for the existing residences from Woodland and field, to a 2 story wall completely out of character; and not in keeping with, the existing residential development. Surely this narrow strip of woodland area should be part of a buffer region between existing housing developments and the Chetwynd development in general; and align with your biodiversity aims.
The plan you have implies there is far more space available than is visible on Google Maps for the building to be sited. Please confirm that these houses on Penrhyn Crescent are not proposed to be knocked down or that there is any intent to compulsory purchase land as part of this development. I ask because overlaying your plans with Google maps implies that the building is in the middle of the existing residential gardens, not on the MOD land. Also, the tracking of Field Close on your map is in error making the space available for the Nature Education Facility look far bigger than it is.
It may not be obvious from your plans, but in order to site this new building, (and its necessary parking area and widening of the existing road for access into the Chetwynd development), you would have to cut down 3 or 4 DOZEN well established mature trees which have been there for many decades, which form a narrow woodland area at the “entrance” to Hobgoblin woods, which is the area you are supposed to be protecting as part of the overall development. How does this in any way align with the purpose and aims of your biodiversity codes. i.e.
3.3.23. Preserve mature trees intact, including Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs), veteran and ancient trees.
3.3.25 Consider Woodland as the most appropriate habitat in the green area space, . . . .
3.3.26 Ensure the presence of the following vegetation types in the area are maintained:
• Native woodland & Grassland
…….
• Street-side trees
As the site for this building is effectively woodland, there will also be a significant impact on the wildlife using this area which of course includes many species of birds, bats, (which may be roosting in some of these trees), squirrels and foxes (which use this area as a safe path to other green areas). These are just the common species that we can see every day, I’m not an expert as to all the others that are probably using this area attached to Hobgoblin Wood. Again, your own biodiversity code 3.3.21 talks of protecting existing wildlife sites from development & construction activity and providing a 200m buffer between them and the nearest hard-landscaping or building. The distance between Hobgoblin Wood and this proposed building is 10-30m(depending on where you consider the boundary of Hobgoblin wood), or 0m is you consider this woodland lead-in to be part of Hobgoblin wood. So again, against your own codes. Also 3.3.27 talks of existing green spaces to be combined with hedgerows and allow animal migration. This is an animal migration path to/from Hobgoblin Wood. This building will be sited on an existing green space with healthy communities of wildlife and would block any animal migration.
[The alternative site, Option 1, would not block animal migration routes. Although it is not 200m distant from its associated woodland, it would not require cutting down of woodland and could be distanced to give some sort of buffer zone.]
Access to the Option 2 area is not suitable for such a building which it appears may also house offices and storage for the Ground Maintenance functions for all green areas in the Chetwynd and Toton development. The existing housing estate roads to this site is meant as a local feeder road for the existing housing developments and is not suitable for commercial vehicles, especially considering the abundance of speed humps. Your proposed North South route through the Chetwynd development does not pass close to this site (but does pass close to Option 1 !). If additional direct access was developed to the A52 roundabout at Bardills, this would turn all the existing housing development roads into a rat run for through traffic to and from the motorway and clog up Beeston and Chilwell as well as the local area.
This building would effectively be sited on the edge of the overall Chetwynd/Toton development. Direct local transport is only available by bus from the Beeston/Nottingham direction, which limits the use of access for visitors by Public Transport. The tram access is a significant distance from the site for anyone with ANY form of mobility issue, no matter how minor, as the footpaths are up a steep long hill and the stations are a significant distance from the site. Option 1 is a similar distance from tram stops, but is a much flatter walk (and through the proposed green space rather than through housing estates roads and pathways). As for the alternate use of Ground Maintenance for the entire Chetwynd and Toton development, your own reports say that this is not a suitable place for it to be positioned. There is currently no direct access to other green areas without significant expansion of roads. Option 1 is much more central and has good access to all the other green areas as well as major road access from outside the area.
We are extremely concerned about the Nature Center which will back immediately onto our small back gardens on Penrhyn Crescent Chilwell. It is not clear what this building will be used for. Why does it have to be 2 stories and why right up to the fence when there are other spaces it could be? Mature trees which are full of nesting birds will have to be felled to make way for a nature center which is ironic. They have already starting felling trees and during the nesting season.