Stunned Mansfield Woodhouse could be swamped by 565 new homes on farmland

The town is still reeling from a scheme, announced in the summer, for a new estate of up to 235 houses on countryside land, spanning 28 acres (11.3 hectares), to the SOUTH of Peafield Lane.

Mansfield District Council received no fewer than 481 objections, with only one person in favour, and a planning application for outline permission is still in the pipeline, with officers yet to make a decision or recommendation.

Now the council has received a fresh outline application for up to 330 homes on another parcel of agricultural land, this time close to Crimea Farm to the NORTH of Peafield Lane and measuring 33 acres (13.4 hectares).

Objections have already been raised by Woodhouse residents, who fear that the infrastructure and local services in the town, such as schools, doctors’ surgeries and supermarkets, could not cope with the extra properties, which would also increase traffic congestion.

The applicant is Crimea Land, a partnership made up of Hallam Land Management Ltd and Harworth Estates Investments Ltd, both based in Yorkshire.

Hallam Land works with landowners to bring forward development schemes, while Harworth is one of the leading land and property regeneration companies in the UK, with an established track-record of transforming sites into new communities.

The partnership’s agent for the scheme is the award-winning Nineteen47, a Sheffield-based company of town planners and urban designers.

A planning statement, compiled by Nineteen47, says the new homes would be a mix of sizes, with ten per cent classed as affordable.

It describes Crimea Farm as “a complex of agricultural buildings which date back to the latter half of the 19th century”. It had been “altered significantly over time” and was “of limited, local historic interest”. The site was not open to the public.

The council, which is under pressure from the government to oversee the building of new homes, has already indicated that the site could have potential for housing and might be included in its Local Plan Review, set to be published next spring.

It says financial contributions would be required from the developers to boost local services and improve local infrastructure.

Nineteen47 stresses “there is a critical need for housing at a local level” and insists this scheme would “deliver a range of social, economic and environmental benefits”. It would also include public open space, trees and hedges and would have “no adverse impact” on Mansfield Woodhouse.

A total of 140 jobs would be created during the construction, which would last about five-and-a-half years. And the project was expected to give a £2.6 million boost to the local economy each year, as well as rake in £991,000 per year in new council-tax.

Crimea Land hosted a public consultation during September and October to ascertain the views of nearby residents and businesses.

A total of 3,295 leaflets were distributed, to accompany an online exhibition, but only 27 responses were received. All bar one were firmly against the plan.

The objections focused mainly on the potential increase in traffic, particularly on the nearby A60, which could lead to gridlocked roads elsewhere.

Other worries concerned the stress on services, the impact on wildlife, such as bats, foxes, deer, newts, sand lizards, buzzards and red kites, and the loss of open space, which would change the character of the area.

Residents were also bothered about the risk of flooding in the area, a loss of countryside and a loss of privacy.

In response, Crimea Land promised that all concerns would “be considered and addressed” and added: “We are committed to continuing discussions to ensure the proposed development is acceptable”.

The previous plan, for land south of Peafield Lane, was submitted in June by Gladman Developments Ltd, a firm based in Cheshire that helps landowners secure planning permission and has links to the Barratt housebuilding group.

It was for “high-quality” housing, with ten per cent affordable for first-time buyers, plus open space, a children’s play area, footpaths, cycle and pedestrian links and a community orchard.

Gladman promised to make financial contributions to improve local services and insisted the scheme would “contribute to building a strong and competitive local economy, supporting growth and job opportunities in Mansfield Woodhouse”.

It also promised to take into account all the objections and views expressed during a ‘community involvement’ period that saw 465 leaflets posted to households and businesses, and letters sent to local politicians.

Those objections, contained in 47 responses, were similar to those received for the latest second scheme, with many saying a housing estate would “ruin the natural beauty of the site”.

The countryside would be damaged and wildlife habitats would be destroyed. The infrastructure wouldn’t be able to cope and Peafield Lane was “already a dangerous road” thanks to excessive traffic.

Those who complained included the Forest Town Nature Conservation Group, a charity that owns and manages the nearby Spa Ponds Nature Reserve.

It said it was crucial to protect from harm the “beloved” nature reserve, which attracted thousands of visitors each year who “valued the peace and quiet”.

Those visitors included ramblers, joggers, cyclists, horse-riders, dog-walkers, families, bird-watchers, photographers and conservationists.

The council’s verdict on both plans is expected to be announced during the first half of 2026.

THE details of many planning applications can be found in public notices advertised by local and regional newspapers. To catch up on all the latest public notices, go to https://publicnoticeportal.uk/