Response to RBC’s rejection of the inspectors recommendation. Thank you for continuing to involve me in the planning process. Although my experiences have not always been completely positive, I think it is important that the people who know and live in an area get to contribute to its evolution. Here is my comment, a word which I have to say does not do justice to my feeling on the issue. I will do my best to comply with the directions for my comment, but please bear in mind that for me and others this is not always easy. I will focus on responding to RBC’s response to the inspectors report. Green Belt The response asks us to consider other recently adopted plans, such as in Gedling, concludes that it is difficult to reconcile the inspectors concerns about Edwalton with other Green Belt land releases. The fact that the Green Belt is being destroyed across the borough (and beyond) is no reason to condemn another site to the same fate. If my interpretation is correct that seems like saying “we’ve spent nearly all our money. Lets spend the rest” All Green Belt loss is a shame to many people such as myself but Sharphill offers all the best things that a Green Belt can be; it is available for everyone, it is very bio-diverse, its views are spectacular and it offers us a resource that cannot be substituted by cinemas and the like. Could it be that the combined factors, which the inspector obviously considered, convinced him that preserving Sharphill would go someway to compensate the other loss? From reading his report I believe that the inspector fell in love with Sharphill as do many who spend time there. I have lived in Nottingham for 25 years and have yet to find a site which so encapsulates the region and offers such potential for relaxation and recreation. I have no wish to move elsewhere as was recommended to me by one of the members of the panel at our January 2004 meeting, whose name I recall. Is it not proper to leave a place in a better state than one found it? The Green Belt can in this instance be more than simply a border between counties. Sharphill can provide anyone who cares to visit with a unique glimpse of a vast area of England. I do not believe that the council have properly considered the potential for multiple use that Sharphill offers, and the opportunity it presents. The local report asks us to consider the recently adopted local plans, a good place to do this is from atop Sharphill. To the north is Compton Acres, a huge development which took place in the 80s and 90s. Myself and others would explore and ride around the remaining areas after school until they too were converted. To its right is Gresham. Here I have seen a terrible impact a place which I was lucky enough to know well. In March this year many wonderful trees were torn down. I have photographic evidence of stumps revealing over 80 years of growth cut short, and two piles of felled trees larger than mini buses. Was this really necessary considering the wider picture of plummeting bird populations and the effects of too much Carbon Dioxide (which the trees absorb)?. Simultaneously major flood defences are being built where the field meets the Trent. Looking East we see Gamston, the most recently completed of these, which from this vantage does not complement the overall aesthetic of the city. Are we really to expect great things for Nottinghamshire from the development at Sharphill? The next point in my response concerns the requirement of identifiable enduring boundaries and that a bridal path and double hedgerow would “develop into a significant landscape feature, thus meeting PPG2 requirements”. It is hardly significant compared with the current border and offers no support to the city council businesses and organisations such as GNPartnerships who want to make Nottingham a core city of varied culture with something for everyone. This should include a place to walk in peace. Do the RBC and other organisations have a shared cohesive vision of the city and its surroundings? (Bovis Homes not included). Landscape and Biodiversity The response notes that the inspectors primary concern in landscape terms, is the role that the lower slopes below the wood play in providing its setting as a feature. It then claims that it is a “fact that this impact is insignificant in the wider view”, and that “Sharphill Wood will be retained as a feature” This is no way to plan a landscape, people deserve a place worth visiting, not just looking at from a distance. No other such place is available near Nottingham. I believe this should be given considerable weight when considering the balance of issues. I quote “the inspector has given limited sufficient weight to the substantial environmental benefits and enhancements that the Edwalton scheme will deliver…these will more than compensate for the negative elements which are an inevitable bi product of the development process” But what of the RBC, or Bovis’ sufficient weight? Is the report refering to the four football pitches which the proposal offers? These are an example of the poor quality and insensitivity of the proposal. Levelling Lodge Farm to monocultural grass, destroying badger habitat and a charming area of hedges and fields so that the few can play football is surely bad. Some prefer to take walks in the country rather than play sports to keep fit. The only reference to biodiversity is concerning badgers. What of other residents, such as the stoat and the kestrel? The response twice says that badgers are a conservation issue, not a welfare issue and therefore not a bar to development. Why does an issue change when given a different name? In the last paragraph in this section the response appears to say that even a good management plan would provide a diminished setting for Sharphill Wood, but “as it is recognised that the wood is in need of management this cannot be considered to be a significant negative effect”. Unfortunately I cannot help but consider this to be a significant negative effect and incidently am not impressed with the recent management undertaken over the past year. The response makes no reference to the loss of views from the site, or offers any alternative sites for its current users. It makes no reference to the historical value of the place, or its assistance with nuturing the forested legend of Nottingham. I do not believe that the proposal adequately offers substantial long term landscape solutions or sufficiently considered the wider sustainability issues facing us today. Access and Transportation It is unsurprising that Bovis Homes recently produced a report since that of the inspectors saying that the roads and motorways will be able to accommodate 1200 homes and their transport habits. But as a pedestrian and cyclist I consider this fanciful. With these and more concerns about the proposal occupying the minds of many, why not take a fresh look at the true potential of the place known as Sharphill, bearing in mind RBC’s slogan of promoting “a good place to live, work and play”. I would love to help you find new options for the area. As a volunteer in a community centre I understand the importance of wholesome activities for the nations youth. The natural environment and related responsibilities can transform lives. The site can provide a special area where people of all ages can learn to live harmoniously, with respect for others and their environment. Me and my friends are happy to volunteer, several of us having teaching qualifications, relevant experiences and required legal certificates. I hope you will consider the more detailed proposal we will soon provide for you. Thank you again, I shall hope for further correspondence. Don’t forget to check out Sharphill and beyond this summer!