Your comments about the proposed affordable housing development will be posted here.
15/01/2010
Andrew Bulmer comments:
"It seems I am not alone in being profoundly irritated by the ongoing storm over the proposed development of 6 (not 60, get a grip...) Housing Association units in our village. In particular, the KinoultonFuture web site, which heads with...
"Welcome to Kinoulton Future, an open web site where we can discuss the future of housing in Kinoulton in a supportive and positive environment".
...How is this web site 'open'? How do we 'discuss'? In what way, exactly, is the site positive? How does it add to the debate when riven with error after error? If I contact the site, who am I writing too? How can someone with views contrary to the site editor post their opinion for discussion? So, let's not pretend this site is open for discussion, shall we? Charitably, that's a fib.
Who, indeed, are the 'We'? Why do some people hide behind anonymity? If you have a worthy opinion, debate it freely and openly. Put your name on it.
I attended the meeting in the village hall. I listened to the (depressingly low) quality of the arguments against, the wilful misinterpretation of statistics, the general ignorance of the proposals and an astonishing inability to understand simple answers given. But that is just society. 49% of the population are of below average intelligence, after all. One accepts, one moves on.
No, what truly annoyed me was the unmistakeable whiff of social intolerance; the presumption that non-wealthy, disadvantaged people, are unfit to live in Kinoulton. Especially if they are "outsiders" (that would be disregarding the local need argument clearly explained). I mean, can you imagine how our village would be "ruined" if an "outsider", especially one without a gold card, actually moved in? Horror! What if they spoke to you in the street, or in the pub? What would you say? What if your child liked their child at school? Would you hide your silver if their kid came to play? Pathetic, isn't it?
I manage several thousand properties on dozens of estates ranging from the prosaic to the highly prestigious, from the inner city to the rural idyll. Almost every estate has an element of social housing. We experience (note: that's actual experience, not assumption) as many problems from owner occupiers as from those "awful poor people". FACT: Money, education, marital status and the annual depreciation of the car (sorry, cars) on your drive are no indicators of neighbourliness or a civic minded attitude to live in peace and harmony. Even if we did get a problem occupier for a while (we've had them before and the sky didn't fall in) better that than social intolerance and exclusion.
Give me a young couple/single/family doing the best they can in life against the odds, rather than an intolerant, judgemental snob with a bit of money. Any day. Every day. And my name is Andrew Bulmer."
21/10/2009
From Kinoulton Parish Council: Affordable Housing
"The idea of pursuing a goal of affordable housing in Kinoulton arose four years ago, from the views expressed by local people in the Kinoulton Village Survey. This was followed by the Housing Needs Survey in 2006, which showed a strong level of support for a small development of houses.
In late 2008, the Parish Council was informed that potential sites were in discussion between the Housing Association and landowners.
An exhibition and consultation event was held in the Cricket Club at the end of June 2009, and a village meeting attended by over 150 people took place on 5th October.
The Parish Council also received a number of letters (many published on the website forum), Councillors had many conversations with parishioners and published information on the website to increase understanding of the scheme. At the Parish Council meeting on 20th October, and following a further discussion during Parishioners Question Time, with eight parishioners present, the Parish Council voted by a majority of six to one to support the Affordable Housing Scheme proposal for Hickling Lane, subject to a section 106 agreement limiting occupation, in line with Rushcliffe Borough Non-Statutory Replacement Local Plan 2006, which stipulates the selection criteria for occupation of a rural exception site."
19/10/09
Chris Horter writes:
"Having read with interest the various comments regarding the proposed ‘affordable housing’ I would like to add my views to the mix.
Although not born in the village I have spent the vast majority of my life here. I can remember the village when apart from the Council Houses on the right hand side of Pinfold Lane, Main Street, (plus Hall Lane & Owthorpe Lane) was ‘it’. Oakapple Cottage was the nearest dwelling to Hickling, the village allotments were on the opposite corner of Hickling Lane up to and including where Nevile Drive is now.
Since then we have the various cul-de-sacs built and I do not profess to remember whether or not these were controversial but I certainly remember that the world as we knew it would end if the Grange Estate were to go ahead. History has proved that, on the contrary, the village would be a far poorer place without these developments.
I do however feel that Kinoulton has always been out of range of youngsters starting out on the housing ladder, by youngsters I mean kids like yours and mine born and brought up here. When first approached about the possibility of building the proposed development on my land, my two provisos were: 1) Yes, if the village want it 2) Yes, if it gives people with a ‘true’ village connection the opportunity to live here that otherwise they couldn’t have. Having attended the village meeting on 5th October I came away feeling that there was a definite majority in favour. As for the second point, those opposed may call me naïve, however we have the assurance that the local connection is legally written in from the outset. In case no-one has noticed, I live closest to the proposed development, it will not make me a life changing amount of money and I have always joked with Jan that the only way I will leave the bungalow is in a box and that is still my view. If I thought it was going to bring drug addicts & undesirables I would not be doing this. It is to give local people a chance to stay where their roots are.
I will finish with these questions, if we are destined to have these ‘undesirables’ as has been suggested, where are they going to get their mortgage deposits? We are told that we are likely to live twenty years longer, is Kinoulton going to exist in a bubble with nothing changing? If we don’t make room for the younger generation why should another community accept them?"
18/10/09
Max and Mick Thornley write:
"We are of the opinion that 6 (or whatever) housing units for village people or those with ties to the village, who wish to live in Kinoulton, is an excellent idea.
However, is the Housing Association the best route to take?
We understand that there will be piecemeal development after the initial build, with the control being exercised by them and not us. I have heard that East Bridgeford have already had problems, which were resolved, this time. Belinda indicated that Housing Association builds in Devon have gone belly up as far as the host villages are concerned. How much do we know about what has actually happened around the country, as far as the villages are concerned, rather than what somewhat scarce statistics and company reports would seem to indicate? What alternative routes are there which would be viable propositions?
The mix of future tenants/buyers would range from people only too happy to be accommodated to those who are not. It would seem that "problem families" would form part of the statutory requirement. A friend in a nearby village had one such housed next door. It was hell in the village as a whole and also in the surrounding countryside until they were finally, yet again, rehoused. A scare story? Yes, but a true one.
Acceptance of such a development has been compared with the integration of Nevile Drive and the Grange Estate into the "old" village. This would seem to us to be a false comparison, due to the difference in the nature and purpose of the builds and the relatively permanent and the probably transient make up of those who live or will live there.
Amenities in the village will not be helpful to those without cars. There's no village shop and the Post Office outreach service is most welcome but limited in opening hours. The bus service is much improved during the daytime but there is no service in the evening. There is no recreation ground which caters for children of all ages. Where will they play? Are our schools capable of absorbing an increase in children attending? I haven't heard of truancy problems but that doesn't mean that there will be none.
We hope that a long and hard think about all the potential benefits and problems is taken before an irrevocable decision is taken to go ahead."
14/10/09
Neil Oxby writes:
"The proposal for affordable housing in the village has raised both concern and support for the scheme from residents. A report has been drafted by Councillor Neil Oxby to be considered at the next Parish Council meeting. The purpose of the report is to set out background information to the proposed affordable housing scheme in Kinoulton to enable an informed decision to be taken by the Parish Council on whether to support the scheme.
The report provides information on the planning context, affordable housing definition, rural exceptions sites, S106 Agreements, the process, and affordable housing needs."
Should you wish to attend the next Parish meeting the agenda is published below:
14/10/09
Tim Innes comments:
"I can only echo what has previously been posted: Whilst the concept of affordable housing seems a good idea, I believe it would better achieved by the development of smaller houses using a standard developer where people buy it outright as with a standard house purchase. I do not believe that the housing association will be able to accommodate residents, son, daughter , parents in the way some people think, as a first priority as these people are unlikely to score highly on the housing register in dire housing need ( overcrowded, lack of facilities, pending demolition order).
Also, looking forward the real number of this development is likely to be between 6 and 60 as mentioned. Is kinoulton an obvious place for this housing, with no shop for many miles, it doesn't seem so. There are plenty of surrounding villages/ towns with better facilities and more affordable housing.
I leave you with this thought, if the development was built, would you honestly say that it would improve the village for the majority of village residents? If you think not, then I do not believe that this development is in the best interest of the village."
13/10/09
Clive Newman comments:
"Re: Partnership with Waterloo Housing to provide Affordable Housing
I support the need for the building of some small houses at a more affordable price (not necessarily 'affordable housing') in Kinoulton and would like to see these available to people with a local connection.
However I have concerns about the partnership with a Housing association about which we know very little. Have we actively selected Waterloo Housing from the two thousand housing associations in England or have we been given no choice?
How have we been assured of Waterloo's commitment to our village? They seem to be developing many local sites (Cropwell Bishop, Tollerton, Melton Mowbray (x3), Loughborough, Bunny, Costock) and these developments seem to advance from concept to completion very quickly. It would seem that there are several neighbouring Parish Councils from whom we could obtain formal opinions about the experience of working with Waterloo Housing. How many neighbouring villages have rejected Waterloo as suitable partners?
Have the Audit Commission (who inspect Housing Associations) issued a report about Waterloo Housing? I can find two reports about associations which are part of the Waterloo group. The findings were mixed with one association rated 'satisfactory' in the areas of 'antisocial behavior' and 'repairs' whilst the other had 'scope for improvement' in both of these areas with 'most tenants being generally dissatisfied with the repairs service'.
I have no idea whether the Waterloo group are a good Housing Association or not but as we are trusting them with a significant development in our beloved Village I am sure we need to find out before committing ourselves.
If villagers have significant concerns about trusting an external organisation, would we be better off setting up our own Housing Association? Establishing Kinoulton Housing Association would keep control of the development within the village and potentially allow us to use local builders and craftsmen.
Do we need a Housing Association at all to meet the objective of building small houses at a more affordable price and making them available to people with a local connection? I understand that 13 plots of land in the village were identified for potential development but suspect the landowners were asked ‘whether they would be prepared to sell plots to a Housing association’. This is of course a very different question to asking about their willingness to support the development of small houses.
Conclusion:
I request that the Parish Council press the 'pause' button to allow time to properly evaluate:
the suitability of Waterloo Housing as partners for Kinoulton the viability of the village establishing its own Housing Association alternative mechanisms of developing small houses in the village.
We all want the best for our village but I feel we need to pause and ask some key questions about our development partner before it is too late."
11/10/09
Alistair Moreland comments:
"Could I just make it clear that there is no organised 'anti' campaign in Kinoulton, we are a tiny handful of resourceless villagers who'll be living next door to the new scheme. We're just trying to find out what's happening and why it's happening so quickly. Personally, with working full time on a shift pattern, family commitments, organising Cubs and the Corn Dolly etc, I could do without it. However, I feel it would be wrong to say nothing and I don't know what stage of planning/construction we'd be at now if nothing had been said. I asked for a public meeting to initiate discussion around this issue, and I was asked to distribute flyers to advertise it - I came up with the flyer in 10 mins flat with very little forethought - I did not mean to cause offence and am truly sorry if this has happened. I have tried to be completely open, have put my name to every written submission, and have discussed everything personally with Jan and Jon at every stage and will continue to do so. I received an email from the housing association giving answers to my questions (which I submitted on 18th Sept) one hour before the Monday 5th Oct meeting and was somewhat confused when the meeting opened. I have since been able to make a few enquiries to clarify some of their answers. I wish to make it absolutely clear that I have no objection whatsoever to affordable housing - quite the opposite in fact. I have three young children whom I would love to have the opportunity to be offered the chance to remain in the village. I could never afford to give them this opportunity myself. My own personal objection is now secondary to the wider issues raised, but initially I was very concerned as I am acutely aware that housing associations, despite housing 95% of residents whom I would be more than happy to live next door to, also have a statutory duty to house extreme problem tenants who are not currently represented in our village, or anywhere near it. As a village we need to consider the wider issues. I am not a solicitor, so don't quote me - but I'm reasonably sure of the following points and would like to share them with you for discussion. The big question is; can these properties be tied in to local people? For the (currently five) shared ownership properties, the answer would appear to be no. Although there may be selection criteria, if the housing association cannot sell to local people in a difficult market, they may sell to anyone. Selection criteria are not legally binding. Apparently a formula exists for selection which is based on the ability to pay and not on housing need. For the (currently one) rented property, their could be a 'nominations agreement' to prioritise local people, but if no local people meet the housing needs criteria then this would be spread out to other areas. (For information, a 'Section 106' is a planning agreement relating to the percentage of affordable housing on a development, roads, schools, etc, and is not relevant to the allocation process.) We need to consider alternatives. An informal meeting of a few Nevile Drive residents on Thursday 8th October raised many issues. Nobody knew what the original survey was to be used for. It was an expression of opinion (by household, not by a democratic individual vote) and was not hard evidence of a housing need and the basis for a development over which there was no subsequent consultation. In any case the survey is way out of date, far exceeding its statutory two year limitation. No site was suggested at that time and the actual process of selecting a site appears to have been done without public involvement or scrutiny. This entire process needs to be revisited and done properly and openly. One alternative suggested was the creation of something like a 'Kinoulton housing trust' which would be a sub-committee or trust working under the auspices of the Parish Council. It would identify local need and oversee development and be controlled by the Parish council. We are fortunate that our local landowners are local people. They might be willing to sell small amounts of land to a trust which would genuinely work 'in perpetuity' for the good of our residents. Very rough calculations indicate that affordable houses could be built this way for about £100k - more affordable than the current £150k being proposed and we could decide what mix of mortgage/rent would be appropriate in each case to suit individual circumstances. There would be no housing association taking a 'cut'. With a potential saving of about £50k per property (on the current sheme) it might be possible to hire a project manager to see through each development. Local builders and the local economy would benefit - built by local people for local people. There is also the possibility that new developments might be aesthetically more pleasing, spread out around the village in a comfortable, inclusive, and sustainable manner - surely far preferable to a much larger development of single-purpose properties on the edge of the village? Finance could come from a mixture of private investment and government grants; there have already been expressions of interest from local residents to financially support such a scheme. Above all the scheme would be controlled locally. There are a few such schemes already in existence -they are called 'Community Land Trusts'. Google it if you would like to find out more. The Government is apparently keen to support them. They give control over occupancy to local people.There may be yet other alternatives. Would it be an idea to have a working party to consider the matter? This is for the long-term sustainability of the village. We seem to have gone a long way down one particular route; we don't seem to have explored any others. I believe the Parish council should consider withdrawing its support for the current scheme. Although they can be over-ruled by the local authority, this would be unusual, and it might buy us sufficient time to give this matter proper consideration and plan carefully for the future."
10/10/09
Max & Mick Thornley comment:
"We applaud the building of 6 units of Social Housing for people who live in the village or have connections with it and who actually wish to live in Kinoulton.
However, is the Housing Association route the one to follow? It would seem to be that a piecemeal increase would follow the initial batch. Given the housing unit projections given at the meeting, the numbers of village people, followed by offers to surrounding parishes, who are happy to live in Kinoulton would soon be exhausted. This would lead to the housing of families, some of whom have no particular wish to live in Kinoulton, especially as there is no shop and a limited (but most welcome) Post Office outreach service.
In other developments round the country villagers have regretted that the original permission had been granted. Let's hope that this doesn't happen in Kinoulton."
06/10/09
Jon Gladstone has asked that the Kinoulton Question and Answer Session document be posted to the site for anyone who wants able to attend last night's meeting to read:
06/10/09
Diana & Peter Hadfield comment:
"Having attended the meeting last night, we would just like to add our support for the housing proposal. We hope it goes ahead."
6/10/09
One villager comments:
"I am against the proposed building of any new housing outside the village boundaries. I see it as a shortcut to achieving planning consent where it wouldn't normally be given which, in future years would pave the way for the building of further houses. As stated at the meeting last night, there is no limit on the number that could be built. You only have to look back at the "affordable" housing that was built with agricultural ties that have now had them lifted using the argument they could not be sold. However, had these properties been offered at an "affordable" price then I am sure they would have been used for the purpose for which they were intended. Just take a look around the countryside and see the amount of building that is going on. For me this is not a matter of not wanting people in the village it is a planning issue."
6/10/09
Martin Halliwell additionally comments:
"It was clear from last night's village hall meeting on affordable housing that there is a strong consensus for another ballot amongst Kinoulton residents. This second ballot is necessary given two important factors: (i) that during the last ballot only 59% of those 25% that voted were in favour of the general plan for affordable housing: in real terms, this means that, say there are 300 houses within the village, only 44 households voted in favour of a plan which will affect the geography of the whole village; and (ii) that this ballot was carried out at a time when there were no specific plans on the table and the site on Hickling Lane had not been located. A number of villagers spoke out in favour of another ballot at this stage, focusing on two elements: (a) the principle of affordable housing in Kinoulton and (b) the specific green field site just outside the village boundary on Hickling Lane. As the town planner in the village hall made clear, these two elements need to be separated out in order to differentiate between a general principle and a specific plan, in terms of the site and the number/type of residences.
It will be a weak democracy if this specific plan is pushed through when such a small percentage of the village voted in favour of a general principle.
Villagers also need reassurance from the Parish Council that this specific development will not lead in the future to new properties being built on green field land extending along Hickling Lane - a potential scenario that neither the landowner nor the property developer denied."
5/10/09
Angela Doherty, Housing Strategy & Development Officer at Rushcliffe Borough Council has sent this guide on affordable housing in rural communities and requested it is published here for interested parties to read:
3/10/09
Jim Malone comments:
It appears the term NIMBY (Not in My Back Yard) has never been so appropriate.
Quite simply every year Kinoulton is losing valued and community active long term residents and friends, many of whom have lived here for decades or been residents since they were born, some where their families have been in Kinoulton for generations. My opinion is that the synergy of this village is being eroded due to lack of affordable housing. (Synergy - Simply defined, means the whole is greater than the sum of the individual parts.)
I know of many community active people, both young and up and coming and mature and down sizing, who have, as a result of the cost of housing, had to move out of Kinoulton, especially the youth of the village who experience a lack of housing at an appropriate cost to their earnings during their early working years.
One comment above uses the term 'professional classes' and whist credit should be given for actually saying what they think, I suspect that behind what may be genuine concerns, others in Kinoulton are hiding snobbish elitist views. Are they missing the point of what makes a community vibrant, varied and this village a joy in which to live and participate? Have their views have been too easily affected by the exaggerated words of others, for example 'anti' campaigners who termed this development as 'Social Housing'.
I myself have no wish to see the proposed new housing enable residential access to undesirable persons; however I am astonished at the scaremongering going on by some and the assumption you need 'Loadsa Money' to be of value to a community. Working class and young and up and coming professional class people have aspirations too. As I see the current details and controls on the proposed housing development this is not nor would ever be able to become 'Social Housing'. Not only would the cost to purchase what ever % is adopted of a dwelling be prohibitive, the cost and practicalities of every day life living in Kinoulton would prevent social undesirables from even wishing to live here.
If, as I hope the proposal for this new housing is agreed, I believe it is the parish council in particular who should ensure the contract detail of the development is written in accordance with the views of the village to maintain on going affordable housing for local availability.
Can I also ask that the person(s) responsible for shoving litter through my letterbox to desist. I refer to whoever was responsible for a leaflet headed 'Wake Up Kinoulton' I term it as litter not because I disagree with every point made nor even that the high and mighty tone it has been written in disgusts me - but because it is anonymous."
28/9/09
Martin Halliwell comments:
"As a resident of Kinoulton I would like to protest strongly against the proposed plans to build affordable housing on Hickling Lane. Not only will this destroy the coherence of the Kinoulton village boundary on the Hickling side, but it would erode the confidence of current residents that we live in a sustainable environment; there would be nothing, for example, to prevent further houses extending along Hickling Lane. With the recent closure of the post office/village shop on Hall Lane and minimal public transport infrastructure, most current residents are reliant on a least one car - and two for many houses - for work and general shopping. The prospect of another 6 houses and very possibly 12 cars crammed into a greenbelt area will irreparably spoil that edge of the village, with its unbroken views of the fields in both directions. Multiple cars regularly turning into and out of these proposed properties would, more worryingly, create a constant danger for junior/child members of Kinoulton Cricket Club situated across the road, as well as children on Nevile Drive. As one of the flagship clubs for junior cricketers in Nottinghamshire and the Vale of Belvoir, Kinoulton Cricket Club has flourished over the last decade because of its junior membership. If parents from Kinoulton and from surrounding villages stop bringing their sons and daughters for training and game for safety reasons, the club will suffer and its sustainability may be jeopardised.
There is no persuasive reason why this is a good area to build new houses, and there are many reasons why it would be a retrograde plan with potentially disastrous consequences."
24/9/09
Mike and Elaine Richards comment:
"I have read with interest the proposal to build six houses to fulfil a perceived affordable housing need within Kinoulton. My wife and I have lived in the village for nearly 25 years. We were not here when the Grange Estate was proposed but have lived happily here for the whole of this time. When we moved here we were well aware that there had been a strong campaign against its building. I am sure there are still benefits and drawbacks to this estate but the people that live here have certainly added to the life of the village.
The need for six dwellings of the social housing type to my mind has not been fully demonstrated at this time. Who exactly are the six people or couples or families who currently live here in shared accommodation or wish to move to the village as they were brought up here and cannot afford a house here because of cost? If this is not a real demand the risks to the village and its people are aired elsewhere.
By definition people that live in affordable housing probably have a lower income than the "average" person in the village. This would mean that they may have to rely on public transport but despite the recent improvements the service is still vary sparse and hangs on a knife edge supported by grants. Despite just passing sixty and having obtained a bus pass I find the bus service still so poor that I cannot make use of it except at the expense of a huge part of my day.
I have noticed that most houses in the village have at least two vehicles parked outside them at night because they are needed due to the poor bus service. By poor you just have to look at the time of the last bus from Broadmarsh at night. This means that even in an affordable house it is likely that if there are two adults living in the house there will be a need for two cars per household. Thus I would say that as a planning stipulation there needs to be at least two off street parking spots per household. If not there will be cars parked on the street or on Hickling Lane. I believe this is dangerous.
I presume that the services, electricity, water, gas and sewerage are adequate and this has been assessed."
18/9/09
Alistair Moreland comments:
"Hi I would just like to let everyone know that there will be a public meeting in Kinoulton Village Hall at 8pm on Monday 5th October with the Parish Council, Rushcliffe Borough Council, and Waterloo Housing to discuss this issue. Please come along and make your views known. This is likely to be our only chance to have any form of debate in public. Questions I would like answers to are:
- Who are these properties for? (Do you need to be on the Housing Needs Register? What is this? What are the criteria for getting on the list? How many local people are on this list? What type of people can we expect to be living next door to?)
- Who decides who moves in?
- What happens if there are problems related to anti-social behaviour?
- What sites have been/are being looked at in the area, and around the village? (who did this, when, why have they chosen this site, and what other sites are currently under consideration?)
- If properties are being built on cheap land and sold for £150,000, how much profit is being made and who is this profit going to?
- What is the likely effect going to be on nearby house prices?
- Why are we building them if the wider area has already met its target for affordable housing?
- What are the likely benefits going to be for the current residents of Kinoulton?
- What is the likelihood of further affordable housing developments in the village?
- What is the likelihood of further development in general in the village?
- Why have you chosen a green field site when there appear to be in-fill options available?
- What options do residents have now and in the future to oppose this scheme?
- What is the development process?
- What stage are we at now?
Any development of social housing brings a risk of social problems. These cannot be dealt with practicably by anyone. The only realistic option available to people who have to face this on a day-to-day basis is to move. We need to be clear about what we are getting into here. Please do not be complacent - as I understand it the location has not yet been finalised - this development could be coming to that nice field right next door to you. 'Affordable housing' is a concept not seen in Kinoulton before and carries a significant risk of altering the social makeup of the village permanently. Come along and let's debate this matter properly."
16/9/09
Martin Bailey comments:
"The issue seems pretty plain to me. We all get on pretty well, (give or take), which is the principle reason why Kinoulton is such a delight to live in. If that happy state is to continue then we need to ensure the next generation of residents are equally pleasant. That can be done in two ways: 1. Keeping house prices relatively high to ensure only the "professional classes" can afford to live here. 2. Encouraging our sons & daughters to stay in the village to maintain our values.
It is the second point which (for some of us) raises the need for affordable housing. Whether it be older folk wishing to downsize, twentysomethings who haven't yet maximised their wages or agricultural workers being paid a fraction of their true worth, Kinoulton needs low cost housing.
Of course, there are risks. Will the proposed development set a precedent for more building? Will the houses be occupied by "undesirables"? Might the assurances we are being given on these points be brushed under the carpet in a few years time? We don't really know... but there are ways of making decisions binding down the years. Legally binding covenants that no further development will take place. Perhaps designing a couple of houses specifically for the elderly/infirm, so that they are unsuitable for younger people. Maybe involving the Parish Council as joint-landlord or estate manager to ensure prospective residents are deemed suitable.
Overall my vote is fully in favour of the proposed development... but on condition that the "assurances" are turned into guarantees.
Martin Bailey
PS. I completely agree with Rita's point on anonymity. Surely we are respectful enough of each other's opinions to hear them out, even if we may disagree."
6/9/09
Peter Horter comments:
I would like to post a comment in favour of the proposed development in Kinoulton:
I have grown up in the village and still have family connections here; I am hoping to start up the Explorer Scouts and would one day like to move back.
One of the beauties of Kinoulton is that ten years after leaving, I can return to village events and be confident of knowing people! Any real community needs this stability. As I walked through the village on Monday, I saw many houses (I stopped counting at 12) that have been extended since I left - a sign that people are choosing to stay.
Kinoulton should be an aspirational place to live, but the barriers to entry have been raised significantly by this type of development: smaller properties becoming larger 4-5 bedroom houses puts them out of my generation's grasp.
Over the last 50 years I believe that Kinoulton has had six instances of development bigger than this proposal without the degeneration of the village community or disruptive levels of traffic. The school was apparently faced with the threat of closure until the Grange Estate was built. People who have moved in have been involved in Beavers, Guides, The Parish Council and the WI, to name but a few.
Six new, energy efficient houses, tied to those with a village connection, are something to welcome. I hope that people's concerns can be answered quickly and sensibly to allow this to go ahead. I believe that a small amount of development will be of benefit young people in the village who would like to stay or return."
4/9/09
Claire Wilkins comments:
"A friend who is concerned about this development and who, unlike me, would be directly affected, asked that I take a look at the comments so far on this website. My Husband, Alan, had visited the “exhibition” of the proposed development and had come away thinking that affordable housing was good in principle but not convinced of how it would actually work in this case. Initially I felt awkward about getting involved, I thought – surely social housing is a good thing? It is, if set up to be fit for purpose, is adequately controlled and is well administered. I am not convinced from what I have read and heard that the way this is to be set up and then administered will actually do what it says on the can.
The consultation/informing process, was dubious, the cynic in me could imagine this was designed by the developer, based on experience, to avoid any formal opposition so the plan could gather sufficient momentum to carry it through. Could this be a clever rouse (sic) by the developer for getting round planning laws in green belt? After all no one wants to be seen to oppose something for the greater social good. The information and analysis provided by Alistair made me mindful of the law of unintended consequences.
As a villager, who like others came here because of how it is, I would echo the concern that with respect to further development. The point is also well made that this is based on a survey that was carried out some time ago when we had a thriving post office and shop as well as the Farm shop nearby. My thoughts align with Rita’s as to how this should be set up and managed should it go ahead - it would then be more controlled and stand more chance of fulfilling any current and ongoing local need."
24/08/09
Laraine Porter comments:
"As a Nevile Drive resident, I would like to voice my opinion against the proposed affordable housing project at the end of our Drive on Hickling Lane. Whilst I appreciate the need for a range of housing in villages like Kinoulton, I am very much against developments that encroach on the green belt, extending the village into the fields and pasture around it. We should be fighting to protect our natural environment and villages like Kinoulton from over development. The village is currently an attractive place, with a range of mixed housing, which is why we chose to move here in the first place, to develop it further, would spoil something that currently works well and has reached a substantial size, whilst still remaining a village.
If we need to develop houses, then there are spaces within the village boundaries i.e. infill/brownfield that could be considered as a better option in the first place.
So, I strongly object on the grounds that it would adversely affect the environment with the added impact of extra car use – potentially 12 new cars in a relatively compact area.
I am also convinced that the development would not stop at its proposed size and have no confidence that this will not be extended in the future, as we have seen around other villages and greenbelt. There are substantial housing developments planned for Nottingham and Rushcliffe elsewhere and in principle we should fight to protect our rural environment while we still can."
20/08/09
Rita Piper comments:
"I support the idea of affordable housing in Kinoulton and 6 houses seems a reasonable number. I don't have an objection to the proposed site although the piece of wild land almost opposite the Village Hall in Main Street would be a better location.
I do think it is important these houses are genuinely affordable. Allocating 50% for rent is more likely to achieve this than merely allocating 1 as there is a dirth (sic) of houses available for long term rent (plenty for short term lets). The remainder could be offered for sale, with the proviso they are sold back to the housing association who ensure they are offered to individuals with a connection to Kinoulton.
If the properties have been purchased at, say 70%, of market value they are sold back at 70% of then market value. Something along these lines happens with some sheltered housing developments. It would allow low income first time buyers the security of knowing they can sell if they have to + the possibility of making an investment which would allow them to move up the housing ladder.
What's with all the anonymity on the comments page? If people don't like my views they're free to say so. Surely the village isn't the kind of place where a lynch mob will arrive because someone's expressed an unpopular opinion?
I have responded to Rita to explain that giving villagers the chance to express opinions on a non-attributable basis was offered as an option to encourage contributions about what may be considered a sensitive subject.
18/8/09
One villager (name and address withheld) comments:
"My concern relates to the disproportionate scale of the reaction by the council, and these subsequent plans, given the number of people who had responded saying that affordable housing was an issue. We are a village of c.1100 people, but this affordable housing project has been planned on the basis of the responses of only 7 or 8 individuals - hardly representative of the views of the majority of people living here!"
18/8/09
One villager (name and address withheld) comments:
"I visited the exhibition with an open mind and came away feeling that the proposal would not benefit the village. I agree with the previous writers comments entirely. My wife and I fel that it is the wrong type of development in the wrong place. Any survey only guages rough opinion. A real proposal can be considered. Having considered this one I feel that it would be better shelved.
Any future proposal would be better if it gave the opportunity for older residents to downsize whilst remaining in the community."
10/8/09:
One villager (name and address withheld) comments:
"I have no problem in principle with affordable housing being made available in the village specificaly because we need to be able to accommodate people who work locally; typically these people are agricultural workers, but I have yet to meet anyone employed in such a role who would be able to afford the £150k price tag associated with these proposed homes!"
10/8/09:
One villager (name and address withheld) comments:
"I agree with all of the concerns raised in Alistair's article but my biggest fears are:
The proposed development of 6 dwellings at the location on Hickling Lane could so easily grow (by little or large steps) to a much bigger housing estate in the future, sited as it would be at the edge of the village and in the corner of a very large field! Rushcliffe BC seem very keen to keep building!
Vehicles already travel very quickly on this stretch of road and the traffic and parking problems generated by the cricket club would make this a dangerous point for new residents to be entering Hickling Lane.
While the first occupiers of the affordable houses may be local people, there appears to be no guarantee that this will always remain the case, opening the way for potentially less desirable householders to move to the village. I understand that Waterloo Housing have not been the ideal custodians of other affordable housing developments."
14/7/09:
Alistair Moreland writes:
Background
There are strict restraints nationally and locally on rural development.These can be relaxed in exceptional circumstances where new housing would meet a specific locally identified need. This is called a 'rural exception'. A survey is carried out into local needs and a plan for new housing is drawn up. This plan has a shelf life of 2 years, I believe, according to regulations. Consent should only be given if there are most, but not necessarily all, of the following: regular public transport, shop, recreation area, health centre, pub, school, church (all within walking distance). Developments should ideally be placed to fill in gaps within the existing village boundary. The Parish Council must support the scheme. It must be impossible to meet the housing needs in any other way. Rushcliffe Borough Council started this process in 2004. In October 2006 a survey was carried out in Kinoulton: 400 questionnaires were sent out and 174 were returned. 166 were not used as these people already had secure homes. The remaining 8 questionnaires form the basis of the proposed site on Hickling Lane. 3 respondents were living at home with parents, 2 were families, 1 was a couple, 1 was living outside the Parish and wished to return, 1 was an elderly person. All indicated a wish to have affordable housing in the village. On the basis of this, Waterloo Housing Group - a housing association - now wish to build 4x2-bed houses (shared ownership ie half the property is mortgaged), 1x2-bed bungalow (shared ownership), and 1x3-bed house (for rent). The Housing Association is the landlord of all properties and they will decide who lives there. Priority will be given to people with a connection to the village but they are not allowed to let them stand empty and will have to offer them to a progressively wider community if they cannot be filled locally. Similar developments have recently been built at Aslockton and East Bridgford.
Recent events
The proposal is still at the consultation stage. There are no firm plans in place. Residents mostly became aware of the proposal early in July 2009. An informal presentation was held at the cricket club by Waterloo Housing Group which identified only the Hickling Lane site. It is understood that Rushcliffe Borough Council may be considering other sites around the village. A few residents were aware of the presentation and attended; many did not. Of those who did attend, several found the information on offer limited and contradictory. One resident - myself! - was surprised at the stage the proposal had reached without proper public consultation. I immediately sought the opinions of my neighbours and found them largely unaware of the impending development. I invited their comments by email.
Residents' concerns
Summarised as follows, in no particular order: - survey is out of date - village amenities do not support development - needs could be met by other means eg convert existing houses into flats - social housing is often associated with social problems - building into the 'green belt' - is this the thin end of the wedge, given the huge current pressures on Rushcliffe BC? - landscape impact - doubts over net gain to village - wrong type of development - the wider region has already exceeded its target for affordable housing by 46% - will the properties ever get on to the open market eg via mortgage defaulters? - what alternative sites are/have been considered by Rushcliffe BC? - how will the houses be tied to the needs of local people for ever?
Benefits
We should be very aware that should the above be addressed there would be clear and major benefits for the local community. Elderly residents would be able to downsize and stay in the village, young local people could afford to buy, and other genuine local needs could be accommodated. These are all vital issues central to the future sustainability of a healthy village community. Similar developments are up and running in East Bridgford (Fosters Close NG13 8NZ); Aslockton (Crawfords Meadow NG13 9BJ); Willoughby (Virginia Close); and Clipstone (Dunsil Row NG21 9BN). I would urge anyone with concerns to have a look at one of these developments to help build up an accurate picture. Waterloo Housing claim to be very aware of the impact of their residents on the community. It is also important to recognise that without any development at all our village is likely to stagnate and not adapt to the needs of its present and future generations.
What Happens Next?
We need to balance the risks and advantages of this proposal. There can be no cast-iron guarantees around certain issues; many will require informed personal judgement. Open and honest debate is surely the way forward, perhaps in the form of contributions to this website followed by a public meeting? The proposal has not yet reached the planning stage and any residual concerns can be addressed there.