ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
1
This table contains the comments made against the Design Codes, Masterplan and Supporting Documents. Where changes are indicated as being necessary "Sticky Notes" have been added to the Design Code or Masterplan Slides to indicate the sorts of changes that the Forum Steering Group consider will be necessary when the Design Codes and Masterplan are updated.
2
NumberCommentResponseInitial Proposal Effect/NotationProposed Changes (including document and page number)
3
GC1Well impressed with nearly everything I have seen. Hope it will be named Chetwynd Village in the end. An identity separate from Toton or Chilwell to reflect the unique character.We could certainly propose naming the barracks development 'Chetwynd Village'No Change
4
GC2Excellent although significant aspects are out oif dateWe are aware of this, as explained in the preamble on the website, the design code work was completed pre IRP & cancellation of HS2 at Toton and will need some amendmentNote in Design Codes
5
GC3Only just started to review these documents. I've started at a small scale level with the Health Centre study. It is an excellent study - congratulations to all involved.NotedNo Change
6
GC4Thorough but constricted to current policy. Where is the vision for 20-30 years?The Vision is contained in the Neighbourhood Plan which runs to 2040No Change
7
GC5The traffic issues critically affect the quality of life in the region but surely those responsible for the traffic issues will have considered various options and solutions. How can we predict, model likely future traffic conditions and future flows? What if e-bikes and scooters are legalised for general use.A full highways/traffic flow assessment will be needed before any major development proposals are submitted, including the imapct of & requirements for active & sustainable travelNo Change
8
GC6NegativeNo Change
9
GC7Haven't had the time to look at all of it, but am dismayed at the use of green belt land when there are so many unused/ vacant/abandoned buildings in the area, which I know is not part of your remit!Masterplan
10
GC8The schemes are invasive and disrespectful to any rare free space and wildlife in the area.
There is little consideration to current residents in the neighbouring areas also.
11
GC9It is good to see a Neighborhood plan coming together.No Change
12
GC10My concerns are as follows


1) lack of communication/notification:

I have lived in the area for 4 months and not once have I received any flyers etc regard this site or these plans. The only reason I have been made aware of these plans etc so that I can engage with them is through a community whatapp group that I was offered to join when I moved in.

Since being made aware of these plans they have raised several concerns within this local community. These have been raised with our local councillors since this time who have informed us that the creators of these plans want to engage with the local community. However I struggle to put too much faith in this when the lack of effort put into informing the local community’s of these plans has been so minimal.

As a local resident I find this very disappointing.


2) Existing properties on penrhyn crescent not on map:

Some of the houses on penrhyn crescent are not only not shown on the maps regarding the placement of a nature education facility and multi faith centre but from what we can discern this buildings placement looks as if it is actually being planned to be built either touching these property’s lands or in-fact actually within the boundary’s of these gardens.

As I’m sure you can understand this is very concerning for many of my neighbours which will be affected by this should this be the case.

3) design of multi faith/educational building:

There are several iterations of this building not in terms of size/shape and higher of this buildings: one is single story and a second is double story. I would advise that the the building not only be moved further from the boundary of the existing buildings on penrhyn crescent but also strongly suggest that in the spirit of maintain peoples privacy that this building should not exceed a single story.

4) planned cut through at the top of penrhyn crescent leading to hobgoblin wood:

I do not see the point of this cut though. It is not only not needed but if in-fact it is used it is a longer route to access both the educational centre or the woods then it would be for visitors to just use the already exisiting entrance.

Not only does this make the whole idea of this shortcut kinda pointless, but it would encourage motor cyclist trying to access the wood and to lose pursuing police to use this as a getaway route… as standard police vehicles would not fit down the ally. I have lived on this street for 4 months now and in that time I have already whitenesses 2 police’s chases trying to detain motorcyclists and multiple incidences with kids on dirt bikes riding at speed along field lane and inham nook play areas… quite often riding one the payments and grass areas with little to no concern for the people and children using these areas.

Penrhyn crescent has many properties including my own with young children, who play on the street. I do not think it wise to encourage fast moving vehicles, who’s riders have little concern for the welfare of pedestrians to use this street
As a cut though by placing an alleyway at the top of it.

5) Parking:

Only one of the plans submitted for the educational building has any kind of dedicated parking. I have no problems with an educational facility being built but I feel that if this is to be done then is should have adequate dedicated parking for the facility for the visitors attending this site to use and not rely on cars just being left to clog up the nearby roads and streets.

6) longevity:
If such a facility for education and faith be built then I would like to know how this plans to be funded over the long term, if this has not been decided then I would suggest that the purpose for these buildings needs to be reconsidered as the last thing we need in the area is new buildings being built to become disused and derelict within a few years due to lack of funding as these types of locations only encourage abuse and anti social behaviour.

I’m sure there is probably much more to write on this matter, however I think at this stage they are my main concerns at present.

7: What I would like going forward is clarity on the above and a creation of a two way communication platform so that future plans and issue can raised appropriately so that people can be made aware and voice there praise and concerns.

Thank you for your time

1) The Neighbourhood Forum is a voluntary organisation which has been in existence for around six years. Formed when the MOD announced that they intended to sell Chetwynd Barracks for development. Everybody who lives and/or works in the Area (Chilwell West and Toton & Chilwell Meadows) is a member of the Neighbourhood Forum. The Forum has a website (www.cttcnf.org.uk) (which is linked to pages on the Broxtowe website) and a mailing list of around 800 email addresses to whom we send updates as the Neighbourhood Plan evolves. Maintaining the list of members as people enter and leave the area is difficult and the Forum relies upon "word of mouth" to a large extent.

The Neighbourhood Plan is based upon the result of several consultations and has been through several stages of consultation both with the community and the Planning Authorities.

The Neighbourhood Plan is restricted as to what it can state and forms part of the Planning Process.

The UK's planning process is evolving and the idea of the Design Codes & Masterplan is to help to include those aspects of planning which can't be put into the Neighbourhood Plan, being more "qualitative" than "quantitaive". The Forum's Consultants have produced these documents in an attempt to define to a level of detail not possible in a Neighbourhood Plan to influence Developers when they come forward. They are not "set in stone" they are intended to be contentious (in places) so that peoiple in the area have the continuing opportunity to make their views known. These documents have been developed by the Neighbourhood Forum without any input by Local Councillors.

Comments on all documents are welcomed as are questions about random things that affect the development of the area. Questions/Comments are published on the Q&A Page of the website. The fact that you have found the information and raised comments shows that the system works (to some extent).

2) This is an unintentional error, there are probably others.

3) Within the Design Code there are statements about how high/near new buildings should be to existing properties. It could well be that the "preferred" location of the Nature Education Facility fails to meet these. However, further detail of the different Character Areas is to be created (when the Forum has funding).

4) Noted.

5) Parking will be provided at the "Plaza". No additional parking is expected to be needed at the Educational Facility. People will be encouraged to use public transport or active travel.

6) Funding the Nature Centre is one of the objectives of the Community Interest Company and the CIC has ongoing activities to generate an income stream which will be capable of supporting the facilities in the long term. The facilities will not be built until such long term funding is available.


7: The Neighbourhood Forum Website provides a platform for people to comment on the Neighbourhood Plan and the Planning activities that result. The Design Codes and the supporting documents are open to comments. Comments made are anonymised and published on the website to get feedback from members of the Forum Community.
1) No Change

2) Design Codes

3) Design Codes

4) Masterplan

5) Masterplan

6) Masterplan

7: No Change
13
GC11Hi. Was impressed with the design provided but what consideration has been given to the ground contamination from the explosion that demolition & construction would potentially disturb? What studies have been conducted or are planned to assess the safety of workers, residentsA "Ground Conditions" Report is being drafted by Avison Young on behalf of the DIO. This report will (possibly) affect where buildings can be constructed. However, the information has not been made available to the Forum and this may change some of the proposals outlined in the Masterplan.Masterplan
14
GC12Comments from Oxalis/Bloor Homes
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aRf55b5EVy1GD9_uMVf6aDZy1btJET6Q/view?usp=share_link
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1azoXW8KVL5sYBwZ5LJRVvcCU7XS7rqOm/view?usp=share_link		https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XF9-0J86arIsOyoa0QLGg54oCCxA6_P4/edit?usp=share_link&ouid=102235683687135572334&rtpof=true&sd=true
15
GC13Comments from Broxtowe Borough Council
https://drive.google.com/file/d/10QP7AQxbyxIGJWa23xGTuhFHoTCYMjbR/view?usp=share_link		https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iQ7eMFouMiIA_eQ0xrGVohauEnNxk-tb/edit?usp=share_link&ouid=102235683687135572334&rtpof=true&sd=true
16
GC14Comments from Avison Young on behalf of HE/DIO https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EZycU-U6eG_FfYGTMqwfKi7EgDlJfvmx/view?usp=share_linkSee Comments GC14-1 tp GC14-15 at the end of this spreadsheet
17
18
Design Code (Issue 1) Comments
19
DC1Diagram on Page 27 and other places: Why is Bardills Roundabout design like this?We asked our consultants to come up with alternative road layouts which would improve traffic flows, particularly towards what was (at the time) going to be the HS2 Hub. We recognise that the result is contentious and we expect other options to be designed over time.MasterplanComment on Page 5 of Masterplan applies to all underlying maps.
20
DC2Well impressed with nearly everything I have seen. Hope it will be named Chetwynd Village in the end. An identity separate from Toton or Chilwell to reflect the unique character.We could certainly propose naming the barracks development 'Chetwynd Village'No ChangeNo Change
21
DC3I do wonder about silly things - but has provision/space been allocated for sewage treatment works - surely needed by a development of this size? Also power distribution (sub stations etc etc) which will be huge given electric car charging provision, and on site power storage.The Design Codes & Masterplan give a "vision" of what we would like the areas to look like, focussing on street layouts, buildings, roads, green spaces, housing densities, etc.. The detail of things like substations, water treatment works etc., will come in the detailed development plans for the Neighbourhood Area MasterplanNo Change
22
DC4Ample parking should be provided for residents vehicles. Cars are parked on the pavements in the local area e.g. Johnson Way and Wilkinson Avenue. The council and the police both say it is not their responsibility. Pedestrians should not have to walk in the roadThe Neighbourhood Plan and the Design Codes both recognise the need to ensure there is adequate parking and these are detailed in section 3.2 of the Design Codes. 
These cannot be retrospectively applied to existing developments.No ChangeNo Change
23
DC5Moving the HS2 Hub from Toton has a substantial impact upon possible employment increase in the area. Is it still realistic to assume 18,000 sqm of employment in the area?This will need to be confirmed with Broxtowe BC and EMDevCo in due courseDesign Codes & MasterplanComment on Pages 1, 7 of Masterplan
Comment on Page 1 of Design Codes
24
DC6Is it still realistic to assume 4,500 new homes in the area? If George Spencer does not move and the area west of the trainline is not sold for development (it is largely inaccessible) the area of the "Strategic Land for Growth" is reduced to around 55 hectares which (at 20 homes per hectare) is around 1,100 homes meaning that the total number of new homes in the area will be around 2,600.Our present understanding is that the January 2023 ‘Preferred Approach’ consultation of the Greater Nottingham Strategic Plan proposed 1,400 - 1,700 homes during the plan period at the Strategic Location for Growth at Toton site and 1,500 at Chetwynd Barracks (gnplan.org.uk/media/3375921/preferred-approach-document.pdf). Whilst even these figures will need to be revised to assess what can be delivered up to 2041, this does reflect that the Toton SLG is unlikely to be allocated for a full 3,000 homes and the additional delivery above the 1,700 figure (if that is the final confirmed number) is likely to be dependent upon ‘unlocking’ the land west of the railway line. However we stress that the results of EM DevCo’s work in relation to potential development capacities / mixes at the site may impact upon this.Design Codes & MasterplanNo Change
25
DC7Traffic Roads & Public Transport - are the buses intended to be electric, gas powered? Am concerned about the pollution and noise from ICE powered vehicles in densely populated communities.Not a subject for the Design Codes (although the Forum is keen to ensure that noise and pollution are minimised)No ChangeNo Change
26
DC8It’s unfortunate that the geographic scope of the Forum’s CTTCNF Design Codes (1) and Road Junction Feasibility Study (2) is narrower than that of Broxtowe BC’s Toton & Chetwynd Barracks Strategic Masterplan SPDThere are two reasons for this:
1. The Neighbourhood Area is not the same as the area covered by the Broxtowe SM-SPD; and
2. We didn’t have the funds to cover the whole area in the first instance and so concentrated upon those areas where housing was to be built and would be less affected by the Government IRP which cancelled the HS2 Hub at Toton.		No ChangeComment on Masterplan Page 1
27
DC9It’s also unfortunate that neither Broxtowe BC nor the Forum seem to be making “contingency plans” for the Bloor-controlled land between the tramway and the A52.This area is green belt and likely to remain so until at least 2038 as per the Greater Nottingham Strategic Plan Preferred ApproachNo ChangeMasterplan Page 3
28
DC10Does there need to be some liaison between CTTCNF and Stapleford Town Council, so as to ensure consistency between the two Neighbourhood Plans regarding areas near the boundary?Potentially, but STC have only just published their pre-submission (Regulation 14) draft Neighbourhood Plan, whereas CTTCNF are nearly at the final referendum stageNo Change
29
DC11
For the profitably positive benefit of all, can the following be considered/implemented please?:


1: Integrate into the plan from the outset to go profitably and cleanly sustainable/renewable for power, heating, transport, and recycling.

2: Closely integrating with the NCT tram and extending that to connect into Long Eaton should be a strong goal.

3: Include provision for supporting infrastructure for electric buses. This mode of transport is already becoming highly prominent. That will give a fantastic promotional feature for the area to be a "Clean Green" area.

4: Greatly reduce the expansive sprawl of roadways. Focus more on the central area to be for people, business, and the tram as a deliberate feature. Restrict the roads to the periphery and to be for access only. No "vehicle rat runs"!

5: We have a large virgin expansive green fields area, yet that aspect appears to be ignored in the plans. Instead of blindly treating the area like some 'clean sheet' wasteland, take positive advantage of the richness that is already there. Sculpt the design to positively take advantage of the views and the existing natural green area.

6: This development is easily large enough to be completely self-sufficient. This is in itself profitable. Also, this can profitably attract additional investment to show off just how good a "good sustainable development" can be "very good".

7: Involve Nottingham University? Sponsor positive ideas from students? Innovate?? Hold a design competition?

8: Be inspired with:

Greenwich Design District review – a lesson in how to make somewhere out of nowhere
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2021/sep/19/greenwich-design-district-review

‘An architectural fashion show’: Greenwich peninsula’s Design District
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2021/jun/02/an-architectural-fashion-show-greenwich-peninsula-design-district

Greenwich Peninsula Design District: Our inside guide to London’s coolest new destination
https://www.standard.co.uk/insider/greenwich-peninsula-design-district-guide-london-coolest-new-destination-b958180.html

How a 23-Year-Old Solved Urban Sprawl
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qwbp9T-WS-I

Architecture Classics: Habitat 67 / Safdie Architects
https://www.archdaily.com/404803/ad-classics-habitat-67-moshe-safdie

How Buildings Can Power Our World
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sORlCf0czPk

9: Bright colours and "interesting" features and a positive environment for people is good. Good for both people AND business. For example, see the good example for the creative quarter at Greenwich (listed above)...

10: Connect the Toton Park and Ride scheme DIRECTLY to Bardills roundabout without the intrusive detrimental deterrent of any intervening junctions.

11: The plans show Bardills Garden Centre and the Japanese Water Gardens area to be encircled by roads to be marooned from their connection to green space. Remove the northern looping road so that we maintain the healthy quirky green nature of that lively area for people to continue to enjoy. That area can be made a special feature within the plan.

12: For good multifunctional use, move any car parking to be under the buildings, or under a green canopy for people, or under a canopy of solar panels.


My own personal views, remarks, opinion for the proposed plans are:

a: Make special mention to include solar power, geothermal heating, and Passive-House design. Include multiple small self-contained distributed solar-and-storage installations for each group of buildings? Plan in such positive features from the outset.

See, for just one example, Trent Basin:

Trent Basin Sustainable Housing Project
https://www.evoenergy.co.uk/case-study/trent-basin/

Immerse Yourself in Trent Basin
https://www.trentbasin.co.uk/


b: This is a very large virgin area where a Carbon Zero future can be designed in, now, from the get-go. Anything less is dumb criminal. Better yet, going sustainable/renewable is PROFITABLE for both business and people and the environment. Senseless not to take advantage of that?

c: Good to see some research about bright colours enhancing people's perception and living experience... Shame about regressing to 1970's concrete car park design... Please avoid the unnecessary and outdated minimalist design of "Bakhmut Borg Cubes of Concrete". I'm greatly reminded of the views as seen here:
https://metro.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/SEI_138675726-d667.jpg
https://cnnespanol.cnn.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/230123172214-rba-ucrania-full-169.jpg
... Instead, innovate with modular multifunctional freedom to build on such as the Habitat 67 example, but with modern day modular prefabricated higher performance materials?

d: Why such an unimaginative grimly abominable barrier wall of brick for the housing? ... Instead, for very positive aesthetics, simply use insulated rendering with multiple different textures and colours? Add a mix of appealing windows to taste.

e: Make the tramway a highly desirable central positive feature.

f: The road bridge across Toton sidings appears somewhat frivolous... Keep the road vehicle traffic minimised and local. Instead, include a pedestrian/cycle bridge to connect long distance paths. Connect with the Erewash Valley Trail?

g: Please note: Broad green corridors are good! Sympathetic views are also good!

h: With a people-centred view, this new area can become a well connected (highly profitable) desirable hub with The Motorcar banished to be no nearer than the Toton park and Ride.

i: Aim for a passionate high quality of work for the good of both the developers, and people, and good living!

j: Good luck and best wishes.


All just my personal opinion,









1. The Neighbourhood Plan includes an "Aspiration" for the Neighbourhood Area to be "Energy Positive" (that is to generate more energy than it consumes). It also includes a requirement to reduce water useage and to use rainwater capture and recycling where possible and to use enery efficient heating.
Making the whole Area energy efficient involves updating the existing housing stock as well as focussing on newbuild.

2. The Neighbourhood Plan shows an extension of the NET down to the proposed communications hub. Extending the NET to Long Eaton is outside our control.

3. See 1. above

4. Increased public transport and "15 minute neighbourhoods" are two of the building blocks. The two developments are integrated into the existing community which makes it difficult to restrict roads to the periphery as they would then be "hard up" against existing homes. In general, the roads have been proposed as access. However, there is a debate about making the roads "permeable" to avoid major thoroughfares or providing simple through routes. The "North-South" route through the Barracks is intended to ease traffic congestion on Stapleford Lane for traffic coming from Beeston to the M1.

5. The detail of the Character Areas is yet to be completed. A basic principle of the design was to take advantage of the views and to leave large amounts of the area as public "green space". The Neighbourhood Plan suggests how much of the Area should be left as "greenspace" but concerns are expressed that this will fragment the development and make it unaffordable.

6. See 1. above. The Local Plan indicated that there would be 10,000 new jobs in the area, driven by HS2. This has been scaled back by the Integrated Rail Plan but it is still an assumption that the Area will see significant employment and therefore can be self sufficient.

7. Nottingham University Students have been involved all the way through and we are continuing to use their capabilities. University Students have been used to provide work on the "Energy Positive" Aspiration and the CIC is applying for PhD students to take this forward.

8. Noted (and we are trying our best).

9. The Forum is a group of volunteers which is open to active members with skills/knowledge.

10. The Road Layout was an idea which was intended to stimulate discussion. It was agreed that much more work was required before a definitive road layout could be put forward.

11. See 10. Above

12. See 1. Underground parking is a target but expensive to achieve.

Thankyou for your views. They accurately reflect many of the comments received during the consultations and are the sort of things included in the Neighbourhood Plan. Many of the are "qualitative" and therefore cannot be included in a Neighbourhood Plan Policy (which has to be "measurable") and are the reason why the Forum started the Design Codes (which can be more "qualitative"). You will see that the whole Area is segmented into a number of "Character Areas" which will have more detailed proposals (when funding permits).

As regards energy efficiency (Trent Basin) we have commissioned some work by Nottingham University students (which will be published when available) which looks into the question "can we apply 'Trent Basin' to existing housing?" recognising that (at most) the development (when complete) would only increase the number of homes in the Area from 6,500 to 11,000. Existing homes also need to be enhanced to meet the objective of an "energy positive" Area. We are presently considering whether & how we can do that.




a: The Neighbourhood Plan includes Policies for Sustainability which are embodied within the Design Codes. These include PassivHaus and BREEAM design criteria, water conservation, solar power (for net and existing homes), etc..


b: See a:


c: The Design Codes include a number of Character Areas intended to give the overall whole a sense of place with individual areas identifiable within that.


d: The Housing Types study is a first pass of what is a complex qualitative subject of appearance. Each of the Character Areas will have a different appearance but are intended to integrate into a coherent whole.


e: Please suggest how that can be achieved.


f: Whilst the objective is to use active transport as far as possible, there are times when vehicular access is required to all properties (deliveries, waste collection, house moving, etc.). All areas therefore have to be connected in a manner that allows lorries to access the homes.


g: Noted


h: See f above


i: The purpose of the Design Codes is to positively influence Developers with the expectations of the Community at an early stage.


j: Thanks		1. No Change

2. No Change

3. No Change

4. Design Code Page 25

5. Design Code Page 1

6. No Change

7. No Change

8. Noted, Design Code Page 1

9.Noted: Design Code Page 1

10. Masterplan Page 5

11. Masterplan Page 5

12. Design Code 3.2.27 seeks to maximise underground parking. The CIC is looking into solar in car parks.

a-j: No Change

30
DC12An impressive and far-reaching body of work.No Change
31
DC13A comprehensive and far-reaching plan. No Change
32
DC14Comments from EMDevCo:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BNCB0APrXVYYlqHYinLki_hZlzv4B-KM/edit?usp=share_link&ouid=102235683687135572334&rtpof=true&sd=true
33
DC14ADiscussion on new development height and density in proximity to existing homes: 3.1.03 & 3.1.04 are open to interpretation and need to be clarifiedDesign CodesDesign Codes Page 21
34
DC14BRoad hierarchy and requirements for walking/cycling provision – generally street design and location of segmented vehicle access lines : 3.2.7 need to define which roads are which and where the cycle lanes would run for each type of street for example where segregation would be necessary (like a primary road), maybe add a speed related code to the key on the design codes and have set speed limits for each type of road (primary, secondary, residential etc). Design CodesDesign Codes Page 23
35
DC14CBlock parameters for efficiency and connectivity: 3.2.10 need a definition of the block needed, 50m is not enough as threatens security, maybe every 100-150m would be more suitable. It needs to be good level of permeability whilst not infringing any other policies. Point out high level of accessibility but without more specifics.Design CodesDesign Codes Page 23
36
DC14DDistance to amenities and public transport stops: 15 min neighbourhoods – is this 15 minutes from all amenities via foot or active travel? 3.2.17 need to put comments on spreadsheet for future improvements and identify document and paragraph numberDesign CodesDesign Codes Page 24
37
DC14EExtent of land for open space: This covers a greater neighbourhood area than what is covered in the design codes not just what is within the red line, need to make this clearer. Masterplan Page 2
38
DC14FProvision for green corridors: What is the ecological reason for the green corridors? Need to justify the reason for specific measurements, MC is believed to have this information already but as not present this is something NF need to check. Mace advised the exact specifics would be a bone of contention for many. Design Codes Page 29
39
DC14GBuffering from existing wildlife areas: 3.3.21 advised as above, guidance given on detail.Design Codes Page 31
40
DC14HPublic/private/front and back discussion – 3.4.C What is the diagram trying to communicate? The language and text are fine, but the diagram is a little confusing. There is a security issue on the diagram, 3.4.11 & 3.4.D make clear what type of street, add a label to clarify primary etc. Design Codes Page 33
41
DC14IDesign of frontages onto streets and spaces – expectation of active percentages – Could put in your speeds as roads identified. It is not clear where the high street is on the diagram. Advised to take out development and building as it takes focus off the primary, secondary and high street. No commentary on the residential streets. Street types diagram, the primary street has no bus lane. 30% frontage minimum is huge if this is not a high street. Wouldn’t add %, the two diagrams appear to be the wrong way around, possibly remove the top one. Need to reconsider the % and the enclosure ratio. Design Codes Page 35
42
DC14JCalculations of density, open space, and housing numbers – Mace haven’t added this to their design codes. Is your density high enough? You would likely get push back from developers on minimum 40 dwelling per hectare. Averages are fine but specifying min & max will back you into a corner. May be better to specify we need variety of homes and list types. Fix what is key, example, no more than 10 4-5 bed homes
Design Codes Page 43
43
DC14KSpecifics on mix of types and tenures – Mace advised it is very specific on exactly what the mix has to be, most design codes don’t go into this much detail. There is a disconnect between figures and density. Need to re-evaluate the way the need for smaller homes is written as seems not encouraging families, be firm in that you want smaller homes but be mindful of how it comes across. Definition of intermediate homes is incorrect, could delete.Design Codes Page 43
44
DC14LCar Parking Ratios – 3.5 was mentioned we need to stick to council guidelines. Won’t get underground parking at Chetwynd. Do you want car parking next to gardens? You could consider a decked car park used by everyone in one location. There is no issue with the number just how it is represented.Design Codes Page 26
45
46
DC15Comments :
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KB98ov9FsQhCMoeAt0sfYJ2MG0UiETk9/edit?usp=share_link&ouid=102235683687135572334&rtpof=true&sd=true
47
48
Masterplan (Issue 1) Comments (Slides & Interactive)
49
MP1The Strategic Land for Growth was changed from Green Belt because of "Strategic National Developments". As the HS2 Hub has been moved from Toton, there are no reasons for the land to be removed from the greenbelt. Has the Neighbourhood Forum considered demanding that the land be re-designated as greenbelt?No, because the Part 2 Local Plan still includes the SLG for development, as do the SM-SPD and EMDevCo design codesNo ChangeNo Change
50
51
52
Housing Types (Issue 1) Comments
53
HT1
54
55
56
Housing Numbers (Issue 1) Comments
57
HN1Accommodation - currently a ‘middle class’ residential area with mixed use. The proposed ratio of apartments and retail units will alter this to become an attractive town BUT by building that here, what does that do to the ongoing economic degradation of long eaton? Beeston has seen significant improvements.Long Eaton is outside the Forum Area, nevertheless the Forum has been careful to minimise any unintended impact of its Neighbourhood Plan on surrounding areas. If there are concerns then Erewash BC and Broxtowe BC should liaise to resolve them. It is outside the scope and remit of the Forum to do so.No Change
58
HN2Keen to understand how migrants are modelled. Where do you see population moves FROM?The Design Code work comes at the end of a lot of other studies. The Forum have to react to requirements placed upon them by Central Government, County Autorities (through the Greater Nottingham Strategic Plan) and Local Government (through Broxtowe's Local Plan). The basic Housing Numbers (3,000 homes on the SLG and 1,500 Homes on Chetwynd Barracks) are set by those documents and not the responsibility of the Neighbourhood Forum.No Change
59
HN3The Housing Numbers seem to have an overly strong bias towards small homes with nearly half of the proposed homes being studio or single bedroom homes. There don't appear to be any population statistics within the report that justify such a dramatic change which might been seen to discourage families moving to the area. Whilst it is reasonable to provide a bias towards smaller homes, the numbers proposed seem too extreme. Do you have population figures that support this?Design Codes Pages 41 & 43Design Codes Pages 41 & 43
Housing Numbers Page 1
60
HN4 - EditorialPage 2 Abbreviations - MOD should be corrected to Ministry of Defence. The abbreviation only appears on page 4 under Annington Homes, so as described on P2 doesn't make sense.Thankyou, will be considered at the next issueHousing Numbers Page 1
61
HN5 - EditorialPage 8 New Toton South - first sentence of the second paragraph says ".... proximity to the train lines towards the left of the site." This should say "west of the site." for consistency.Thankyou, will be considered at the next issueHousing Numbers Page 1
62
HN6 - EditorialPage 8 & following pages with Housing Numbers by Type & Size tables - including columns that don't appear in the accompanying map 'key' is confusing, especially as those columns just show zeros e.g. E & F in most tables/maps.Thankyou, will be considered at the next issueHousing Numbers Page 1
63
HN7 - EditorialPage 9 New Toton East - the first sentence should be deleted.Thankyou, will be considered at the next issueHousing Numbers Page 1
64
HN8 - EditorialPage 14 Chetwynd South - the map shows an area 'F' outside the masterplan boundary. This isn't shown on any of the other maps and should be corrected.Thankyou, will be considered at the next issueHousing Numbers Page 1
65
66
Community Buildings Study (Issue 1) Comments
67
CB1Why have you proposed to move George Spencer from its present location?
Is the prefered solution not within the Green Belt?		Whilst we recognise the George Spencer Academy have no plans to move from their present location, the traffic at Bardill's roundabout makes for poor air quality and the split site is less than ideal. When the idea was originally proposed, much HS2 Hub traffic would pass close to GSA, to the south of its present location. The Academy would therefore be "surrounded" on three sides by high traffic roads, particularly at rush hour. The preferred solution is therefore to move the Academy further from the junction adjacent to the Leisure Centre so that the facilities can be shared.
Any relocation/espansion of George Spencer Academy is the responsibility of the LEA and the Academy and, with the reduced number of homes being suggested for the SLG, it is possible that any new Leisure Centre could be located within the SLG.		Introductory Statement / MasterplanMasterplan Page 3
68
CB2Why have you proposed the Leisure Centre to be in Green Belt?As identified in the Part 2 Local Plan, South Broxtowe needs improved Leisure Centre Facilities. The preferred location puts the Leisure Centre close to the NET allowing a larger catchment area using public transport. Putting it adjacent to the proposed location for the Secondary School means that the facilities can be shared.
Yes, it uses GreenBelt land but this could be a "swap" for the present location of George Spencer Academy which (whilst within the Strategic Land for Growth) is not allocated for development.

The development of the Design Codes predated the publication of the IRP.		Introductory Statement / MasterplanMasterplan Page 3
69
CB3Along with the new build for Chilwell School, the local authority is investing funds to ensure that the school is given increased capacity to include housing gains. Chilwell will increase in size from 6 form entry (AN 180) and become an 8 form entry (AN 240) school. Place planning have met and submitted this directly to the Department for Education last month.Chilwell School lies outside the Forum Area. The LEA is responsible for secondary education provision in conjunction with local schools in the wider area impacted by new development.

Publication of the funding for Chilwell Scool post dates the start and development of the Design Codes.		No Change
70
CB4Comments CB4 to CB21 have been replaced with comments CB23 to CB31 but are included below for completeness
71
CB5
72
CB6
73
CB7
74
CB8
75
CB9
76
CB10
77
CB11
78
CB12
79
CB13
80
CB14
81
CB15
82
CB16
83
CB17
84
CB18
85
CB19
86
CB20
87
CB21
88
CB22Please 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.An map produced by the DIO in 2016 suggests that the land mentioned is part of the "Annington Homes" Estate (it is marked as "SFA Sites" with no further explanation. As you may be aware, in May 2023, the MOD challenged the 1996 sale and leaseback of the 38,000 MOD homes. The long term ownership of the land is therefore unclear. More information can be found here: https://www.engage.hoganlovells.com/knowledgeservices/news/uk-high-court-confirms-leasehold-enfranchisement-by-ministry-of-defence
and here: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9441/		MasterplanComments added to Masterplan Page 3 & 13
89
CB23Is a Nature Centre really needed? Attenborough Nature Reserve houses a nature centre and Special Outdoor Education Area managed by Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust.Attenborough Nature Reserve is approaching capacity and, considering it is an SSSI, the quantity of habitat accessible for education purposes is limited. As well as education for schools, the purpose of the centre could be as a training point for professionals which Attenborough only provides in a limited sense.

The Environmental Focus Group felt that the increased population in the area from the ~4,500 new homes would justify having another centre and an associated Forest School.		No ChangeNo Change
90
CB24Who will run the new centreIt is one of the projects that the Community Interest Company would be responsible for funding. No ChangeNo Change
91
CB25The various maps do not show the houses on Penrhyn Crescent which border Chetwynd Barracks. This should be corrected as soon as possible.This was an error. The underlying maps used throughout the Masterplan and Design Codes fail to include the houses to the west of Penrhyn Crescent. This has knock-on effects to the selection of the location of the Nature Centre. The location of the Nature Centre therefore needs to be reviewed in the light of this.Masterplan & Design CodesComments added to Masterplan Page 27
92
CB26The map on page 28 of the Community Buildings Study (and others in the Design Codes and other documents) appears to show a footpath from the corner of Penrhyn Crescent through existing housingSee CB25Masterplan & Design CodesComments added to Masterplan Page 27
93
CB27Page 28 of the Community Buildings Study shows the Nature Centre Study as a two storey building between Field Close and the Barracks boundary, very close to the backs of existing houses on Penrhyn Crescent. To locate the building here and to supply adequate parking would require several trees to be removed, would potentially intrude upon the existing properties and would block the open space views of existing homes. This location is not acceptable.The location of the Nature Study Centre is under review, see CB25MasterplanComments added to Masterplan Page 27
94
CB28Page 17 of the Community Buildings Study shows an option to put the Multi-Faith space very close to the backs of existing houses on Penrhyn Crescent. To locate the building here and to supply adequate parking would require several trees to be removed, would potentially intrude upon existing properties and would block the open space views of existing homes. This location is not acceptable.The location of the Nature Study Centre or any other building in this location is under review particularly considering Design Code paragraphs 3.1.03 & 3.1.04 which would appear contradict the use of this location. See CB25MasterplanComments added to Masterplan Page 27
95
CB29A good definition of an acceptable buffer zone between existing homes around Chetwynd Barracks and any new buildings needs to be defined. This definition should take into account the fact that the existing boundary is a "transparent" wire fence which gives existing homes views of greenspace.The wording of DEC 3.1.03 & 3.1.04 needs to be clarifiedDesign CodesComments added to Masterplan Page 27
Comments added to Design Codes Page 21
96
CB30The greenspace behind Penrhyn Crescent around Field Close is part of the green corridor from Inham Park, Ghost House Wood, Ghost House Lane to Hobgoblin wood. Building on this area will break the link between those areas. The location of the Nature Study Centre or any other building in this location is under review particularly considering Design Code paragraphs 3.1.03 & 3.1.04 which would appear contradict the use of this location.MasterplanComments added to Masterplan Page 28
97
CB31A lot of established wildlife uses the habitat which would be disturbed. This wildlife includes bats, green woodpeckers, herons, hedgehogs. The removal of this existing mature greenspace is opposed by the local community.The location of the Nature Study Centre or any other building in this location is under review particularly considering Design Code paragraphs 3.1.03 & 3.1.04 which would appear contradict the use of this location.MasterplanComments added to Masterplan Page 28
98
99
Health Centre (Issue 1) Comments
100
HC1This Health Centre study is a terrific piece of work - my congratulations to Kefa and the Forum for producing such an ambitious, yet realistic, vision for the Centre. The location is perfect, close to the proposed Plaza, but equally close to the existing road infrastructure of Swiney Way.NotedNo Change