What Was It Like Then? (22-7-17)
Click on the Heritage tab for a reminder of what is was like here in Cropwell Bishop a hundred (and many more) years ago.
Click on the Heritage tab for a reminder of what is was like here in Cropwell Bishop a hundred (and many more) years ago.
On Radio Nottingham this morning, it was reported that the leader of Rushcliffe Borough Council has added his objection to plans for a huge chicken farm.
Council leader, Simon Robinson, said he's objecting in a personal capacity, saying, "This is a step too far. We just don't feel it's something we would like in Rushcliffe."
You need to know where to look to find the best places in the Vale of Belvoir. Cropwell Bishop Gardening Club know where to look. See what they found last week by clicking the Gardening tab.
As most of you will already be aware, our current Cropwell Bishop bus service will be replaced by a new one beginning on Monday 24th July.
The new timetable was published here a few weeks ago but now it is available to view or download on the Travel Page (click on the 'Travel' tab).
Cropwell Butler Parish Council has voted to lodge an objection to the proposal to build 4 Chicken Sheds on the edge of Cropwell Bishop. This comes a week after Cropwell Bishop Parish Council also voted to reject the proposal but, whereas Bishop was officially informed of the plan, Butler never was.
Many objections have been posted on the Rushcliffe Borough Council planning website by residents of both Cropwell Bishop and Cropwell Butler—over 100 from each. The closing date for comments was supposed to be last Monday but it appears to have been extended because comments were still being posted today—including the one from Cropwell Butler Parish Council.
Yesterday, a letter from the Environment Agency was added to the 'Documents' section of the planning website. It points out that the applicant will have to apply for a 'bespoke Environmental Permit'. Whether or not this will affect the progress of the application is unknown.
It looks like the planning proposal will not be discussed by the Planning Committee until its September meeting. However, it is my understanding that if the Rushcliffe Councillor for Cropwell Ward, Gordon Moore, does not object to the planning proposal then it could be passed without even being discussed by the Planning Committee.
Even if the Planning Committee does decide to discuss it at a Planning Committee Meeting then the only people who may speak to the Committee are; the applicant, an objector and the ward councillor.
Clearly, Gordon Moore's opinion is of great importance. He initially stated that he supported the planning application but last week he stated that he 'was neither for it or against it'. His email address is:
On Monday evening, Alan Wilson (Chair of Cropwell Bishop Council) and myself attended Cropwell Butler Parish Council Meeting. On the agenda was the “Chicken Farm Planning Application”. Our own Parish Council voted to reject this application when they met last week.
Oddly, Cropwell Butler Council had never been consulted by the Rushcliffe Planning Department regarding the Chicken Farm even though its residents would probably be affected by any smell, noise, etc., as much as those in Cropwell Bishop. Rushcliffe Councillor, Gordon Moore, was at a loss to explain the omission.
With numerous Butler residents using the Rushcliffe BC Planning website to strongly object to the plan, it came as no surprise that there were around 100 of them packed inside Cropwell Butler’s Village Hall. Also at the meeting were 3 people representing Russell Price: Ian Pick (who prepared the planning statement, his Land Agent, and a young, hands-on, farmer who manages several chicken farms around the country.
In a tense atmosphere, feelings were high and many of the objectors (there were no supporters present) put forward arguments for rejecting the plan. It was clear that many had done their homework and when the Parish Council Chairman had suggested the plan for the 2-yr old Anaerobic Digester had implied a chicken farm would follow, it was immediately rebutted by someone quoting that application word for word.
The 3 representatives of Russell Price were allowed to present their case for a chicken farm. It soon became clear that they were ‘old hands’ at this and could present the situation calmly and without emotion. The farmer described how the farms operate and even explained the commercial aspects of each part of the operation. Ian Pick, the businessman, told us that he had been involved with many similar applications and, because they cost about £100k to prepare, he had to be thorough to ensure a successful application: someone present suggested this happened about 75% of the time in this part of the country.
In spite of tough questioning from objectors the 3 men gave the facts and effectively remained impartial to the proceedings: they were doing what they had been paid to do and it would be up to others to make the decisions.
Much anger was directed towards the Council Chairman, Chris Davenport, who refused (at least while I was present) to object to the plan. When told by villagers that, as an elected member, he should reflect the feelings of the majority of the population, he insisted that he, and his fellow councillors, were entitled to express their own opinions—which they would do later in the evening. He said that he had to consider the views of supporters too, even though none were present. And if anyone didn’t like his action, they should stand for election to the Parish Council and take his place!
He and Gordon Moore, together with Notts County Councillor, Neil Clarke, devoted time to explain the workings of planning applications. The realisation that residents had little power to affect the progress of a plan will have caused some objectors to feel deflated. There is so much that will not even be considered at a planning committee meeting: ethical considerations, falling house values, etc — in fact the only things that might be considered with this application would appear to be odour and traffic noise.
Odour is accepted by Russell Price to be an inevitable consequence of the farm and the Odour Study he commissioned confirms this. Ian Pick referred to the maximum odour levels allowed by the Environment Agency. He accepted that they will be exceeded on the roads around the proposed site (by as much as 3 times) but he knows that as long as people aren't living there, it doesn’t matter.
Gordon Moore revealed that if he doesn't object to the Chicken Farm plan (his current position) and if the planning committee do not identify grounds for rejecting it, the plan will be approved without even being discussed at a planning meeting. He too faced criticism for not representing the views and feelings of objectors, but claimed that he had to take account the views of supporters.
I have analysed the public comments posted on the RBC Planning Site. At this moment, Tuesday morning 11/7/17, there are 195 objectors (101 from Bishop, 94 from Butler) and 7 supporters (2 from Bishop, 5 from Butler).
I am ignoring the 47 objectors living further away, even though some live as close as Cotgrave. I am also ignoring the 22 supporters who live further away: some living as far away as Suffolk, Bedfordshire and Dorset.
Clearly, there do not appear to be many local supporters of the plan.
So where does this leave those of us who would rather not have to pass a smelly industrial estate every time we drive or cycle into or out of our village. And have to suffer unpleasant whiffs near our homes on unknown occasions throughout the year?
We might feel like attacking government regulations, planning regulations and the personal views of councillors for allowing this to happen.
However, are we being unfair to the people involved with these things: aren’t they just doing their job? None of them came up with the idea of a Chicken Farm in Cropwell Bishop and none of them will apparently profit from one.
It comes down to one person, Russell Price. He is the one who wants to have a Chicken Farm here and he is the one who will profit from it. We can dismiss claims of inevitability: he does not need to grow 1.6 million birds a year to run his digester successfully.
He may be able to show his accountant that a chicken farm is the most profitable use of this patch of land. Is this his “bottom line”? Some people see ‘making money’ as their main purpose in life, their “bottom line”: it is a simple one to choose because it avoids having to make difficult decisions about people and life.
Millions of people make their main purpose in life, their "bottom line", something other than money. They want to make the world a better place, people like teachers, nurses and social workers for example. It is all about making choices.
Russell Price is choosing to build a Chicken Farm in Cropwell Bishop because it suits him and he has the fortune to be able to do. Before making that decision he did not consult the people living near-by who would be forced to endure the consequences.
He could choose to invest in numerous alternative projects that do not impact adversely the local population.
When he chose to install his Anaerobic Digester a couple of years ago I supported the decision because I see Green Energy as beneficial to mankind. I saw it as a wise development.
I am sure that the vast majority of people living in Cropwell, see no wisdom in building a Chicken Farm here.
Thanks to Janice Towndrow for supplying these photos.
A Study in the Netherlands has concluded that people who live less than 1 km from a poultry farm get pneumonia more often.
It says that the additional pneumonia cases are probably caused by particulates and endotoxins. These small particles irritate the respiratory tract, possibly making people more susceptible to pneumonia.
The Study took 4 years to complete and the results were published on 21st June 2017.
For more details and a further link to the Study, click:
Poultry Farms and Pneumonia
Thanks to Pam Wregg who discovered this Study.
Note: The circle on the map has a radius of 1 km.
I know that many of you are tracking the flow of objections to the proposed plan as they appear on the Rushcliffe Borough Council (Planning Page) website (Ref: 17/01327/FUL).
This afternoon, Friday, there are 150 Public Comments. It is interesting to note:
- 81% of comments object to the plan
- the majority of people who support the plan live far from Cropwell Bishop, even as far away as Bedfordshire. One wonders what their link is to Cropwell Bishop.
- Cropwell Bishop Council and Cotgrave Council were informed of this planning application but, amazingly, not Cropwell Butler. Being downwind and with no hills in the way, Cropwell Butler would appear to be very much at risk of drifting odours. Additionally, many residents make use of the old A46 to access their village—right in front of the proposed Sheds and past the "Dead Bird Shed" which is predicted to have 6000 rotting birds pass through it every month. Cropwell Butler Councillors did attend the Cropwell Bishop Council Meeting and would appear to have alerted many of their residents because an increasing number of objectors are Butler residents.
- The Dead Bird Shed is 6m long and 4m wide. Assuming each dead bird is, on average, a 10cm cube (4" cube) 6000 birds would occupy a volume 6 cubic metres, so the shed should be big enough to accomodate the carcases—assuming they are all removed by the end of the month.
- The comments of some objectors appear as "not available". In some cases their objections were made by email and so their comments appear as documents alongside the planning documents. They appear at the top of the list. Some people have simply stated their support (or objection) without actually making a comment, for example the very first comment which was posted by Councillor Gordon Moore.
- The new owner of the Garage at the Stagglethorpe junction is concerned. His/her representative is even questioning the legality of the planning application. To read his letter, go to the RBC planning page and view the Document described as "Nick Roberts" published on 7th July.
Remember that the "Standard Consultation Expiry Date" is Monday 10th July: submit your comment by then. I believe this means by the end of Monday but it might be safer to submit it by the end of Sunday.
This year’s "Best Flower Display in an Outside Container" competition saw many entries in the village and the Parish Council would like to say a huge thank you to all those who took part.
We would also like to thank our judges, Sue Ward and Natalie Pearson, for taking the time on Friday 30th June to walk around the village and judge all the fabulous entries.
In first place was Irene Hepple with this fabulous Bicycle made to look amazing:
In second place was Pat Westmoreland with a beautiful display of baskets:
In third place was Sue Coe again with a beautiful hanging basket:
You may be aware that St Giles’ Church has been the victim of a series thefts this year: money stolen from the donations box and electrical equipment worth several hundred pounds also taken.
We are saddened by such mean crimes as they strike at the heart of the community. The Church Council is keen to keep the church open during daylight hours because it provides a peaceful place for people to come in for prayer or simple reflection or just to admire the beauty of this 800 year old building.
However the Council is equally determined that those responsible for committing such mean offences should be caught and prosecuted. There are other churches in neighbouring villages and towns both in the Vale and over the borders into Leicestershire and Lincolnshire which have suffered similar attacks, leading us to suspect that there is an organised team of thieves operating in the area.
In view of this the Church Council has been in direct contact with the District Commander at West Bridgford Police Station and met with PCSO John Heaps who is responsible for policing in Cropwell Bishop. John passes through the village several times every day he is on duty and so the police have promised extra vigilance towards the Church as well as support for the measures the Council is itself putting in place to catch these thieves. Thanks to the vigilance of one particular member of the Church family information of great interest has been passed to the police following two men seen acting suspiciously whilst inside the Church.
We would like to ask for your help too. We know that many of you walk past the Church on either Church Street or Fern Road almost every day: taking children to school, visiting The Old School, the doctors or the shops, walking the dog. Others come to visit the church itself or to walk in the churchyard or lay flowers at a grave. So if you see (or hear) anything suspicious or someone hanging around who looks uncomfortable or simply out of place, please would you let us know.
You may pass on information (which will be treated confidentially) to:
Hilary Tabron (Churchwarden) 0115 989 4836
or Mick Beazley (church council member) 0115 989 2315
otherwise contact John on 07525 22 64 66 or email:
Thank you for your support.
The planning application for the chicken sheds includes a ‘Study’ by a Computer Modelling company.
The aim of this study is to predict the intensity and spread of odour produced by the chicken sheds once they are up and running. Once the sheds are operational, it will be too late to complain about smells so we have to rely upon computerised predictions to enable us to make an informed decision.
The Study is quite complex and uses a lot of mathematics to explain its findings. I aim to explain its findings using everyday language. Let’s start by considering what happens in just one of the sheds.
Where does the odour come from?
The chickens and their poo. On day 1 of the 45 day cycle, baby chicks have clean bedding and the smell is a minimum.
During the next 38 days, the birds will grow and the amount of poo they deposit will increase. The amount of odour produced will increase, not just steadily, but at an increasingly greater rate. By day 38 it will be about 8 times greater than on day 1.
After 38 days all the birds are removed and during the next 7 days the shed is cleaned out: this is when the production of odour peaks to its highest level, particularly during a 2 hour period when the shed is cleared out and hosed down.
All poo and spent litter is transferred by trailer to the storage area beside the Anaerobic Digester and covered with sheets. During this period the odour emission will be several times higher than at any time during the previous 6 weeks.
It should be noted that whilst each shed is cleaned out only once every 45 days, because production in the 4 sheds is staggered, there will be a shed clean-out on site every 11 days.
Where does the odour go?
Out of the shed roof. Fresh air enters the sides of the sheds and high-speed fans blow the polluted air out through the roof. The rate at which the odour is extracted from the shed depends on how fast the fans are running (the ventilation rate).
Is the rate of emission of odour polluted air steady?
No. The rate at which the fans blow out polluted air will vary considerably. On warm days it may be several times higher than on cold days. However, the amount of odour (smell) coming out of the roof will depend on both the intensity of the odour and the volume of air. A small volume of very smelly air is just as polluting as a large volume of less smelly air
How are odours measured and compared?
If you have an average sense of smell and are sitting in a clean room, you will detect an odour once its concentration reaches a value of 1 (more correctly; “1 European Odour Unit per metre cubed of air”). Whether the smell is a pleasant scent or repulsive odour is irrelevant.
If you are able to detect an odour against background odours in the open air then its level is between 2 and 3.
If an odour is recognisable (if known) then its concentration is 5.
If an odour is strong, persistent and intrusive then its concentration is 10.
Are all smells the same?
To humans, no.
Coffee roasting odours are classed as “less offensive”.
Intensive livestock rearing odours “moderately offensive”.
Decaying animal odours “most offensive”.
So, you might be happy to sit in a coffee shop where the coffee odour (“less offensive”) is at a high concentration level of 10 (strong, persistent). But you would be repelled by the smell of rotting animals (“most offensive”) even if its concentration was only 2.
What level of odour pollution is acceptable (according to the Environment Agency)?
An odour does not have to be continuous to be unacceptable. If it exceeds a “benchmark exposure level” for longer than 2% of the time, then that will be deemed unacceptable. This is an average of 2% over a whole year so could be: 1 minute an hour, 28 mins a day or 14 hours a month.
The odour concentration level chosen as benchmarks are:
1.5 for most offensive odours (rotting animals)
3.0 for moderately offensive odours (intensive animal rearing)
6.0 for less offensive odours (coffee roasting)
So, if computer modelling predicts that the concentration of odour from a chicken shed is over 3 for 28 mins a day, then that is “unacceptable odour pollution”.
Is computer modelling accurate?
There are limits to computer modelling but in general it is getting better all the time - witness weather forecasting and exit poles at Elections. Modelling the odour produced by the Cropwell Bishop chicken sheds takes account of wind speeds and directions, ambient temperature and terrain.
What does the computer modelling show?
If you drive (or cycle) by the chicken sheds on the old A46 road leading to Cropwell Butler, you can expect a strong, persistent, most offensive odour 28 mins a day (on average) of level 10. NB: you will be passing the dead bird shed as well as the chicken shed. This is 3 times higher than the “unacceptable odour benchmark”.
If you are driving down the new A46 (in either direction), or coming to Cropwell Bishop down the slip road from the A46, you will recognise a moderately offensive odour 28 mins a day (on average) of level 5. This is almost double the “unacceptable odour benchmark”.
If you are travelling along Nottingham Road or visiting the nearby garage, you can expect a moderately offensive odour 28 mins a day (on average) of level 3. You can expect the same if you take a walk along the Grantham Canal.
The modelling study states that "the population may be exposed to short term concentrations which are higher than the hourly average" and that "fluctuating odour is often more noticeable than a steady background odour".
The map showing these odour levels is displayed below. To download a copy of the Odour Study, click: Odour Study
If you wish to submit a comment to Rushcliffe Borough Council regarding this planning application, go to their website:
and enter 17/01327/FUL as the keyword. You have until Monday 10th July.
Last night, the Parish Council voted to reject the Planning Application but that is just the first step in the planning process.
Yes, there will be smells from the proposed chicken farm.
Russell Price has commissioned a company to produce an Odour Report. The company has used computer modelling to predict the extent of the smell and its intensity. Not an easy thing to do because the smell will depend on the strength and direction of the wind, the air temperature inside and outside and even the day in the growing cycle of the birds.
The sheds operate on a 45 day cycle. When the 1 day old birds arrive, everything is clean and the smell is at a minimum. As the birds eat, poo and grow the smell intensity increases. If you have a cat or dog, imagine the smell if you were not to empty its litter tray for 38 days. Now multiply that by 55,000.
Switching on a fan and opening a window reduces the smell in your house but passes it on to your neighbours.
At a chicken farm it gets more complicated as dead birds add to the smell.
The "Odour Report" makes use of statistics to make predictions about the spread of the smells. Because this makes it difficult to comprehend on first reading, I will publish its findings, without resorting to maths, tomorrow.
It is impossible to make precise predictions for such a complex situation but there will be no avoiding of smells and if the farm is built we will all have to live with a persistent smell.
How will that affect the prospect for new housing developments, the making of Stilton Cheese, the lasting impression on visitors and your enjoyment of a family BBQ?
An "enriched environment ... (with).. the opportunity to express normal behaviour", according to Russell Price.
Based on data in the planning proposal and assuming that all the interior space is available to the birds, then, on average, 20 birds will occupy each square metre (that is 2 birds per square foot).
It will become slightly less crowded during their 6 week stay in Cropwell Bishop because one (on average) of the 20 will die before they leave. It will be the job of the two workers on site to collect the 230 dead birds that die each day (on average) and put them into the "Dead Bird Shed".
NB: the image on the left is an online stock image for illustrative purposes only.
The proposed poultry breeding sheds would be big: see image and drawings above.
The drawing shows side elevations and includes dimensions in mm. So, for example, each shed is 111m (365 ft) long and 21m (81 ft) — which is bigger than quoted by Russell Price (previous news article). Note that the height of the sheds is 6.3m (20.7 ft) — not the 9 ft quoted by Russell Price.
To get an idea of the area they would occupy, take a look at the Memorial Hall Field: the sheds would occupy the same area as the whole site from hedge to hedge.
We would like to build a chicken farm in the field next to the anaerobic digester, creating two new jobs, which would produce chickens to supply Tesco amongst others. This will be a conventional farm producing chicken for the table, the chickens being raised in a carefully managed environment using the highest welfare standards, similar to several other farms that can be seen locally. The chickens will roam freely within the sheds, objects will be placed within the sheds to allow them to express normal behaviour and there will be natural daylight through side windows (at chicken level). The farm will dovetail in with the anaerobic digester, which will use the chicken manure as feedstock and in the long term provide electricity and heat back to the farm.
We would like to build four sheds and some ancillary buildings, each shed would be 300' long and 80' wide holding approximately 50,000 birds. Whilst the sheds are large they are only 9' tall (lower than the height of the adjacent silage clamps) and would be clad in green (the same colour as the grain stores and anaerobic digester) which, combined with the location adjacent to the anaerobic digester and the A46, and a landscaping scheme similar to those we have completed in the past, will have a minimal impact on the landscape. Access would be from an existing access on the old A46 and should have a minimal effect on residents, traffic will not go through Cropwell Bishop or the surrounding villages.
The sheds will all be stocked at the same time with chicks, the birds then taking about six weeks to reach their target weight. The birds are taken in two tranches, the first 30% are taken earlier, allowing more space for the remainder to grow on. The sheds will have computer controlled ventilation, heating, light, water and feed systems, with stock men walking the sheds to visually check the stock. The ventilation systems draw air in from the sides of the shed, which exits from the roof.
Will the new farm smell?
Due to the nature of the process, there are times in the bird growing cycle when we can expect some odour from the farm. This is infrequent, normally for only a limited period every 7-8 weeks around mucking out time. The site will be operating under a permit issued by the Environment Agency, part of which covers odour, and the odour assessment study which we have completed and presented to the Environment Agency shows that the impact on the local community will be minimal to non existent.
There can also be smell from the manure being spread on the land - we won't be doing this, as we will be storing and using the manure in the anaerobic digester, as we have been doing with turkey manure for some time. In the unlikely event that the farm did smell it should be reported, ideally directly to us to resolve, as we want to continue our good relationship with our neighbours. The farm will be operating under a permit issued by the Environment Agency, any problem can be reported to it, which would investigate and take action if necessary.
Is rearing chickens intensively really ethical?
Rearing chickens intensively can create strong opinions: up until the fifties chicken was a luxury item eaten infrequently as it was very expensive. It was the introduction of indoor rearing that allowed chicken to become an affordable part of our diet. These chickens will be reared in an enriched environment, with natural light, the opportunity to express normal behaviour and high welfare standards. We are proud of what we do, aim to operate to the highest standards, and we hope that our work in the past demonstrates this. We will continue with this philosophy and to this end we will be building a viewing gallery on one of the sheds to demonstrate that this is the case. Our operating standards will also be governed by the welfare and quality protocols of customers such as Tesco.
What level of bird losses would you expect?
Obviously, it is in our interest for the birds to do as well as possible. Inevitably we will loose some birds, but the proportion should be under 4%, similar to other livestock enterprises.
What traffic will be generated?
We have completed a Transport Statement, which says that traffic generation "will be modest and low key". The busiest periods will be when the birds are taken to the factory, which is generally overnight, and when manure is removed off site to the anaerobic digester. For the majority of the growing cycle there will be one feed lorry every other day, all the traffic movements will be along the old A46 on to the new A46 or to the anaerobic digester. There will not be any traffic movements through Cropwell Bishop or the surrounding villages.
What effect will the farm have on the local environment?
The independent environmental study we have commissioned shows the impacts as being: noise - low (not significant); odour- low (not significant); ecology- low (not significant); flood - low (not significant); landscape and visual effects- low/medium (not significant). The site will have a closed drainage system for dirty water (i.e. water that could contain material from washing out the sheds etc), which will be removed or used in the AD plant, and clean water will be passed through a balancing pond to attenuate the flow, then returned to the local drainage system. We will compete a landscaping scheme, including tree and shrub planting to screen the sheds.
Will you need a house?
We will be asking for permission under a separate application to build a house for the farm manager within the existing farm yard. This would enable us to have someone on site to provide night time cover for the chicken farm and the anaerobic digester whilst increasing the level of security on the farm yard site.
Why do you want to build it?
Arable farming is very uncertain, Brexit has made this more so, and the opportunity to diversify our business, enter a growing market and tie in with the anaerobic digester is attractive.
A planning application (Rushcliffe Borough Council, Ref. No. 17/01327/FUL) has been made on behalf of Mr. Russell Price to erect 4 large agricultural buildings adjacent to the existing Anaerobic Digester Plant in the land adjoining the old Fosse Road. These buildings will be used for the intensive rearing of chickens on a recurring 45 day cycle.
This is a significant development with potential consequences to the village as a whole. Aspects of the application to be considered include transport, aesthetics, noise and odour.
The application will be discussed at the Parish Council Meeting on Tuesday 4th July 2017 and a response is required by Wednesday 5th July 2017.
The plans are available to view online via the Rushcliffe Borough Council Planning Online Portal (using the reference above). Alternatively hard copies of the plans and associated reports are available to view at the Old School via appointment with the Clerk to the Parish Council – Janice Towndrow on 0115 9894656.
Any interested parties are invited to comment either direct to Rushcliffe Borough Council or to the Parish Council by the required date.
CBPC Parish Clerk
The Cheesemaker's Shop, Nottingham Road.
After years of inaction, Rushcliffe Borough Council finally makes a welcome decision about parking at Bingham. But why did it take a decade for the Council to recognise the obvious damage that long term parking was doing to trade from people living in nearby villages like Cropwell Bishop.
I gave up on Bingham for shopping 11 years ago and now only go as far as Aldi and Lidl car parks. I understand that the new restrictions only apply to 39 parking places: whether this will be enough to attract people back to Bingham's shops remains to be seen.
See the Press Release below.
PRESS RELEASE by Rushcliffe Borough Council:
Plans to improve short stay car parking in Bingham.
Rushcliffe Borough Council is announcing plans to introduce short-stay parking in Bingham, building on research undertaken by the Town Council, which highlighted long term issues with the availability of parking spaces in the town.
The changes, which will come into effect in early September, will see both Union Street and Needham Street car parks designated as short-stay car parks, meaning that shoppers and visitors to the town will get 2 hours free parking, with a ticket from the parking machine. However to discourage long-stay parking, which can clog up spaces and cause problems for visitors in finding a space, a charge of £20 will be introduced for anyone parking for longer than 2 hours in these two car parks.
Leader of Rushcliffe Borough Council, Councillor Simon Robinson said:
“We know how difficult it can be to find a parking space in Bingham and we don’t want visitors to be put off from visiting this vibrant town centre because of long-stay parkers taking up spaces all day.”
“We’ve listened to Bingham Town Council, along with the views of local businesses and visitors to Bingham. We are hopeful that the introduction of more short-stay parking, which will be free of charge, will encourage visitors and support the economic growth of the town centre, which is a key priority for the Council.”
Rushcliffe Borough Council will be working with Nottinghamshire County Council and Bingham Town Council, and will also be talking to local businesses, key stakeholders and the public, before the plans are implemented. This will include exploring joint opportunities for the creation of additional long stay car parking in the area. The parking arrangements for the larger Newgate Street car park will remain unchanged.
A planning application has been submitted to Rushcliffe Borough Council for 8 homes on Church Street—on the site of the former Post Office and Stockyard.
Here are some sketches of how it might look and a map of the proposed development.
You can download plans of each of the proposed houses from the Rushcliffe Planning website. (I suggest you use the "map" feature to locate and then click on the site.)
Yesterday afternoon and evening, Rushcliffe Borough Council used the Old School to display a range of ideas for additional housing in our village. This consultation will allow the views of residents to be recorded, even though this is still a very early stage in any possible plan for Cropwell Bishop.
These photos were taken at 4pm. It was crowded then so I suspect the Planning Staff who were in attendance were on their last legs, and voices, by the time the event closed at 8pm.