Greenbelt review and housing plans for Cotgrave

The request was partially successful.

Dear Rushcliffe Borough Council,

Under the Freedom of Information Act, please provide the following information:

1) The exact date on which Rushcliffe Borough Council concluded that further housing development in Cotgrave was necessary. Please provide a copy of the relevant Minutes of all meetings at which this was discussed.
2) The exact date on which communication from Central Government made it clear that further housing development in Cotgrave was necessary. Please provide a copy of the relevant Minutes of all meetings at which this was discussed.
3) The exact date(s) when landowners in Cotgrave approached the Council with the offer to sell green field/green belt sites adjacent to Plumtree Road and to the south of Grantham Canal (Cot 12 and Cot 13 on your Greenbelt Review paperwork). Please provide a copy of the relevant Minutes of all meetings at which this was discussed.
4) The exact date(s) when purchase of this land was completed. Please provide a copy of the relevant Minutes of all meetings at which this was discussed.
5) Details of the purposes for which the land was sold to you - ie, for housing development or for agricultural purposes. Please provide a copy of the relevant Minutes of all meetings at which this was discussed.
6) Please confirm whether or not ANY discussion with ANY housing developer/builder has taken place, regarding further housing developments in Cotgrave; or whether architects or designers have been approached for their input into any such developments. Please provide a copy of the relevant Minutes of all meetings at which this was discussed.
7) Please provide the date(s) on which such discussion with housing developers/builders, architects or designers took place. Please provide a copy of the relevant Minutes of all meetings at which this was discussed.
8) Please confirm whether or not agreements or deals have already been struck with housing developers/builders, architects or designers PRIOR TO the launch of the public consultation; or whether or not any discussions with same have taken place. Please provide a copy of the relevant Minutes of all meetings at which this was discussed.
9) Please provide details of any sums of money already paid to housing developers, architects or designers for the purposes of building further housing in Cotgrave. Please provide a copy of the relevant Minutes of all meetings at which this was discussed.

Yours faithfully,

Penny Bunn

Customerservices, Rushcliffe Borough Council

Thank you for contacting Rushcliffe Borough Council.  This is an automated
reply to let you know your email has been received and will be responded
to within 10 working days.

 

If your email is a freedom of information (FOI) request it will be passed
to the appropriate officer of the Council for them to respond to you.  You
will receive a response within 20 working days.

 

PLEASE NOTE: If your email concerns any of the following functions you
will need to redirect your email to Nottinghamshire County Council at
[email address] as these are County Council services and not
functions of Rushcliffe Borough Council and we will not be able to deal
with your enquiry.

-           schools

-           highways and transport (including street lighting)

-           on-street parking

-           children's and youth services

-           libraries

-           adult services

-           trading standards

-           village greens and commons registration

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Rushcliffe Borough Council

 

Email: [Rushcliffe Borough Council request email]

Website: www.rushcliffe.gov.uk

Visit our website to make payments, fill in forms and to find

information about all of our services.

 

Telephone: 0115 981 9911

Our Rushcliffe Community Contact Centre is open for calls from 8:30am to
5pm, Monday to Friday, and open for visitors between 8:30am and 5pm Monday
to Friday and 9am - 1pm on the first Saturday of every month. Postal
address: Rushcliffe Borough Council, Rushcliffe Arena, Rugby Road, West
Bridgford, NG2 7HY

 

 

View a copy of our customer service standards on our website:

www.rushcliffe.gov.uk/customerservicesta...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

This transmission is intended for the named addressee(s) only and may
contain sensitive or protectively marked material up to RESTRICTED and
should be handled accordingly. Unless you are the named addressee (or
authorised to receive it for the addressee) you may not copy or use it, or
disclose it to anyone else. If you have received this transmission in
error please notify the sender immediately. All GCSX traffic may be
subject to recording and/or monitoring in accordance with relevant
legislation.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Follow us on Twitter [1]https://twitter.com/Rushcliffe

Like us on Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/rushcliffeborough

See us on Pinterest - [2]http://www.pinterest.com/rushcliffe/

Keep up to date with business news at
[3]www.linkedin.com/company/rushcliffe-borough-council

Call us on 0115 981 9911 (8.30am to 5pm, Monday to Friday), email
[4][Rushcliffe Borough Council request email] or visit [5]www.rushcliffe.gov.uk

________________________________________________________________________________

References

Visible links
1. https://twitter.com/Rushcliffe
2. http://www.pinterest.com/rushcliffe/
3. http://www.linkedin.com/company/rushclif...
4. mailto:[Rushcliffe Borough Council request email]
5. http://www.rushcliffe.gov.uk/

Clare Asti, Rushcliffe Borough Council

Dear Ms Bunn,

 

I refer to your Freedom of Information request dated 18 March 2017. Please
see our replies set out below alongside each item requested together with
the attached document.

 

Kind Regards

 

Clare Asti

Pp P.J.Cox

Senior Solicitor

 

 

show quoted sections

Dear Clare Asti,

Thank you for your response, but you have not attached your response document.

Could you please send that through as soon as possible?

Many thanks.

Yours sincerely,

Penny Bunn

Clare Asti, Rushcliffe Borough Council

I am out of the office until 24 April 2017 and will not be picking up my
emails until then.  If you are making a Freedom of Information Act
request, please send your request to [Rushcliffe Borough Council request email]

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

This transmission is intended for the named addressee(s) only and may
contain sensitive or protectively marked material up to RESTRICTED and
should be handled accordingly. Unless you are the named addressee (or
authorised to receive it for the addressee) you may not copy or use it, or
disclose it to anyone else. If you have received this transmission in
error please notify the sender immediately. All GCSX traffic may be
subject to recording and/or monitoring in accordance with relevant
legislation.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Follow us on Twitter [1]https://twitter.com/Rushcliffe

Like us on Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/rushcliffeborough

See us on Pinterest - [2]http://www.pinterest.com/rushcliffe/

Keep up to date with business news at
[3]www.linkedin.com/company/rushcliffe-borough-council

Call us on 0115 981 9911 (8.30am to 5pm, Monday to Friday), email
[4][Rushcliffe Borough Council request email] or visit [5]www.rushcliffe.gov.uk

________________________________________________________________________________

References

Visible links
1. https://twitter.com/Rushcliffe
2. http://www.pinterest.com/rushcliffe/
3. http://www.linkedin.com/company/rushclif...
4. mailto:[Rushcliffe Borough Council request email]
5. http://www.rushcliffe.gov.uk/

Clare Asti, Rushcliffe Borough Council

1 Attachment

Dear Ms Bunn,

Apologies - document now attached.

Kind Regards

Clare Asti

show quoted sections

Dear Clare Asti,

You have sent me one, very short, copy of Minutes of a meeting that took place in 2016.

There is no other documentation attached and you have not answered the list of questions I sent you.

Please send through the FULL information I requested, and which you are obligated by law to provide.

Yours sincerely,

Penny Bunn

Dear Clare Asti,

You sent ONLY a single page, referencing the Greenbelt land along Hollygate Lane.

You have NOT answered my questions, or provided the information requested, and this request is now overdue.

Please therefore provide ALL the information requested immediately, to avoid being reported to the Information Commissioner's Office.

Yours sincerely,

Penny Bunn

Clare Asti, Rushcliffe Borough Council

Dear Ms Bunn,

I write to acknowledge receipt of your emails of 12th and 19th April 2017. I apologise for the delay in replying to you. I have been out of the office on annual leave. Following your emails, we will now conduct an internal review of our reply dated 12 April 2017 to your Freedom of Information request received on 20 March 2017. A reply will be sent to you in due course. Following that, if you still remain dissatisfied you have a right of appeal to the Information Commissioner: FOI/EIR Complaints Resolution, Information Commissioner's Office, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF.

Kind Regards

Clare Asti
Legal Assistant
pp P.J.Cox
Senior Solicitor

show quoted sections

Dear Clare Asti,

The information I have requested is extremely straightforward, and I have no idea why you are struggling to provide a simple list of dates, with accompanying documentation where appropriate.

It is RIDICULOUS to have responded to this request with a single sheet of paper referencing only one question in my Request.

If the Internal Review does not conclude that this straightforward information should be sent through to me immediately, you may be quite sure that I will be contacting the Information Commissioner's Office and asking him to fully investigate my complaint.

Yours sincerely,

Penny Bunn

Dave Mitchell, Rushcliffe Borough Council

Dear Ms Bunn

 

I refer to your request that the Council reconsider your freedom of
Information request regarding the Green Belt review and housing plans for
Cotgrave. I can confirm that your request has been responded to correctly
and that you have been provided with all of the relevant information held
by the Council in relation to this request.

 

Kind Regards

 

David Mitchell BSc(Hons), Ceng, CEnv, MICE

Executive Manager Communities

Rushcliffe Borough Council

Tel Direct Dial : 0115 9148267

 

 

 

From: Penny Bunn [[1]mailto:[FOI #395840 email]]

Sent: 25 April 2017 11:03

To: Clare Asti

Subject: RE: Matter 14145 - Freedom of Information request - Greenbelt
review and housing plans for Cotgrave

 

Dear Clare Asti,

 

The information I have requested is extremely straightforward, and I have
no idea why you are struggling to provide a simple list of dates, with
accompanying documentation where appropriate.

 

It is RIDICULOUS to have responded to this request with a single sheet of
paper referencing only one question in my Request.

 

If the Internal Review does not conclude that this straightforward
information should be sent through to me immediately, you may be quite
sure that I will be contacting the Information Commissioner's Office and
asking him to fully investigate my complaint.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Penny Bunn

 

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Mitchell,

I am in receipt of your response.

I do not believe that the only piece of paper the Council holds, reference the planned future building in Cotgrave, is a single piece of paper referring to the Green Belt land at Hollygate Lane.

I will therefore be referring this case to the Information Commissioner's Office, for his investigation.
Yours sincerely,

Penny Bunn

Penny Bunn left an annotation ()

Anybody following this Request, please see my updated Request, 'Greenbelt review and housing plans for Cotgrave - 2nd Submission'.
The second submission has been necessary because Rushcliffe provided only the barest responses to my original questions, taking them in the most literal sense and providing only minimal information.
Therefore, based on the communication as part of my complaint to the Regulator, I've reformulated the questions as per the advice given, and hope that 'submission 2' will finally provide the answers this community is waiting for.

Paul Cox, Rushcliffe Borough Council

The following additional  information is now provided in response to
requests for clarification:

 

a) Earlier in the year the council launched a consultation exercise on the
‘Local Plan Part 2’. This included a map with numerous potential sites for
development in the Cotgrave area. If no decision had been made about
potential development in the area, how and why were these sites
identified?

 

It is assumed that the document that is being referred to is the
‘Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 2: Land and Planning Policies: Further
Options’
([1]http://www.rushcliffe.gov.uk/media/rushc...)
consultation document.  Ms Bunn in her first question to the Council asked
for: ‘The exact date on which Rushcliffe Borough Council concluded that
further housing development in Cotgrave was necessary. Please provide a
copy of the relevant Minutes of all meetings at which this was
discussed.’  In response to this question is was stated that “The Borough
Council has not, as yet, concluded that further housing development at
Cotgrave is necessary, in terms of allocating further sites for
development.”  This is factually correct.  As set out at page 14 of the
Further Options document, it is identified that it may be necessary for
Cotgrave to accommodate more housing development, not that it had been
concluded that development was necessary.  The very purpose of the
consultation was to take views on whether or not there should be further
housing development at Cotgrave, ahead of any decisions being taken.  It
is entirely normal practice, following relevant town and country planning
related legislation and government planning guidance, to consult on a
range of options before any decisions are taken.  The reasons why Cotgrave
formed part of this ‘options’ consultation are also referred to at page 14
of the Further Options document, where it is set out that the range of
services and facilities it contains and employment opportunities locally
may enable it to support some extra housing development over the coming
years.  

 

In respect of those sites that are identified on the map at page 16 of the
Further Options document, these are all sites that have been put forward
by landowners and/or developers as available for housing development.  The
Borough Council has no control whatsoever over the submission by
landowners/developers of sites for consideration.  Site details are
received throughout the year irrespective of whether or not the Council
has undertaken a specific consultation.  In many cases, the details for
particular sites were first submitted a number of years ago.  Once
received, however, the Borough Council is required by legislation/national
planning policy to consider their suitability for development and, as
appropriate, to also consider the views of local residents and other
consultees in this process.  The fact that the sites are highlighted on
the map at page 16 of the document is not therefore evidence that the
Borough Council had first decided that further housing development at
Cotgrave is necessary.

 

b) At an open evening for residents, it was communicated that the council
had underestimated the amount of housing needed in the future, taking
account of the need created by the Hollygate estate. If no conclusion had
been drawn about the need for extra housing in the Cotgrave, why was there
a consultation? What role did any government requirements or targets play
in deciding there was a shortfall in housing in the borough?

 

As communicated at the event referred to, but also as set out at page 6 of
the Further Options document, the potential need for extra housing sites
relates to the whole of Rushcliffe Borough, not specifically to Cotgrave. 
While no conclusion had been drawn about the need for extra housing
specifically at Cotgrave, as referred to above, the Council has a duty to
consider different options before deciding whether and where this
development should take place across Rushcliffe.  As the Further Options
document sets out, a number of settlements and numerous specific sites (as
put forward by landowners/developers) are being considered as options for
future housing development.  The reason why there was a consultation is
because we are legally required to include the public and other relevant
individuals/bodies when considering options for development.

 

The Government no longer sets specific housing targets for local
authorities but, instead, as set out in national planning policy, requires
local authorities to define their own requirements taking into account
evidence of housing need.   The reasons why extra housing sites may be
required in Rushcliffe Borough are explained at page 6 of the Further
Options document.  These reasons do not relate to any specific
communication from Government to the Borough Council to identify extra
housing sites at Cotgrave.

 

c) Why did German Fisher, agents of David Dunthorne (owner of land in
Cotgrave), submit a document to the council ‘Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 2:
Land and Planning Policies – Issues and Options’, indicating its viability
for development if there had been no decision in the council to explore
this? In the Rushcliffe Green Belt Review’, published in February 2017,
1.7 states: ‘Although the Issues and Options consultation included no
housing site options on the edge of Cotgrave, the January 2016 review also
examined the performance of sites submitted by developers/landowners for
development on the edge of Cotgrave’. Please explain the status of the
German Fisher submission.

 

As referred to above, the Borough Council has no control whatsoever over
what details may be submitted by landowners/developers or over what
development proposals they might suggest.  It is common for
landowners/developers to submit proposals for development irrespective of
whether the Council is actively exploring such proposals or not.  The
Fisher German submission referred to was made in response to a
consultation the Borough Council conducted in early 2016.  This was an
earlier round of consultation, which was also part of considering the
options available to meet new housing requirements across Rushcliffe.  
The submission made by Fisher German was simply to identify that their
client’s land is an available as an option for development and to argue
that it should be allocated by the Council for new housing, for the
reasons set out in their submission.  It was entirely Fisher German’s and
their client’s decision to make this submission and they were not
specifically requested to do so by the Borough Council.

 

Can you signpost me to the Issues and Options Consultation Document
referred to in the Local Plan Part 2: Land and Planning Policies: Further
Options, and explain the relationship between these two documents, as well
as the Core Strategy.  What was the consultation process for this
document?

 

The Issues and Options consultation document can be found at:
[2]http://www.rushcliffe.gov.uk/media/rushc...

 

As set out on pages 2 and 3, the Issues and Options was the first stage of
preparing the Local Plan Part 2. It identified a number of key issues that
need to be addressed in preparing Local Plan Part 2 and asked for the
views of the public and other consultees on these issues.  In relation to
a number of these issues, the Local Plan Part 1 (Core Strategy) (adopted
December 2014) has already set out that further relevant policies and
proposals would follow in Local Plan Part 2.  For many of the issues
identified, the Issues and Options document also identified options for
addressing them and asked for views from consultees on the suitability of
these options.

 

The Further Options was an additional stage of consultation that took
place to supplement the Issues and Options stage.  It considered some
further issues relating to housing development and identified a number of
extra potential housing site options.  Again, the views of residents and
other consultees were sought on the issues and options identified.

 

The views obtained through the Issues and Options and Further Options
consultations will help to inform the Council’s decision as to what should
be included in Local Plan Part 2 when it is finalised.

 

The Core Strategy, adopted in December 2014, is the first part of the
Local Plan (Local Plan Part 1).  It provides the overall spatial vision,
objectives and strategy for the Borough to 2028.  This includes setting
out the level and location of new housing and employment land as well as
the identification of a number of strategic allocations and policies.  The
Local Plan Part 2, when completed, will set out the non-strategic
development allocations and a number of detailed policies for managing new
development, following on from the strategic framework set out in the Core
Strategy.

 

The consultation process for the Issues and Options covered an eight week
period ending on 24 March 2016.  Six consultation exhibitions were held as
part of the Issues and Options consultation stage during February and
March 2016.  Various means were used to advertise the consultation and the
events, including contacting everyone on our consultation database (around
3,500 individuals/organisations at the time) and posting leaflets to in
excess of 10,000 Rushcliffe households.  A similar level of consultation
was undertaken for the Further Options stage.     

 

In your reply you say that the German Fisher submission was in response to
a consultation in 2016.  What was this consultation? Was it the Issues and
Options Consultation above? How was the consultation carried out (if not
already answered in the above question).

 

It was the Issues and Options consultation.  Consultation was carried out
as set out above.

 

 

Paul J Cox LLB. DipLG

Senior Solicitor

Tel 0115 9148215

E-mail: [email address]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

This transmission is intended for the named addressee(s) only and may
contain sensitive or protectively marked material up to RESTRICTED and
should be handled accordingly. Unless you are the named addressee (or
authorised to receive it for the addressee) you may not copy or use it, or
disclose it to anyone else. If you have received this transmission in
error please notify the sender immediately. All GCSX traffic may be
subject to recording and/or monitoring in accordance with relevant
legislation.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Follow us on Twitter [3]https://twitter.com/Rushcliffe

Like us on Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/rushcliffeborough

See us on Pinterest - [4]http://www.pinterest.com/rushcliffe/

Keep up to date with business news at
[5]www.linkedin.com/company/rushcliffe-borough-council

Call us on 0115 981 9911 (8.30am to 5pm, Monday to Friday), email
[6][Rushcliffe Borough Council request email] or visit [7]www.rushcliffe.gov.uk

________________________________________________________________________________

References

Visible links
1. http://www.rushcliffe.gov.uk/media/rushc...
2. http://www.rushcliffe.gov.uk/media/rushc...
3. https://twitter.com/Rushcliffe
4. http://www.pinterest.com/rushcliffe/
5. http://www.linkedin.com/company/rushclif...
6. mailto:[Rushcliffe Borough Council request email]
7. http://www.rushcliffe.gov.uk/

Looking for an EU Authority?

You can request documents directly from EU Institutions at our sister site AskTheEU.org . Find out more .

AskTheEU.org