A resident who helped oppose a 120-home development at a field next to her home has praised news that councillors refused to give it the green light.
Claire Green, 34, helped lead calls objecting to the "completely unsuitable" plans on a field off Netherfield Lane, Meden Vale, which would have backed onto her Edgmanton Road home.
Ms Green, a pharmacy dispenser and lifelong Meden Vale resident, says she and her neighbours raised concerns about traffic on the busy Netherfield Lane, as well as worries about school places, GP provisions and issues around anti-social behaviour.
And on Monday, August 17, the Gleeson Homes development was rejected by Mansfield District Council's planning committee, after also being recommended refusal by planners.
Ms Green says it is "great news" for the neighbours but that they "won't hesitate to oppose again" if the developers seek to appeal the decision.
"The original application was right on the back of our houses, and if that went ahead it would have meant looking out into someone else's bedroom", she told Nottinghamshire Live.
"There are also massive issues around transport on Netherfield Lane already as it's a through-road from the village to the A1 and the A614.
"They proposed widening the A60 junction with Netherfield Lane but that didn't rectify the issues at all.
"Schools are already at bursting point and it's so hard to get a doctor's appointment here after the surgery closed. It was just completely unsuitable.
"I know there is the right to appeal but we won't hesitate to oppose again - even if that means setting up a committee and leafleting."
Developers Gleeson had proposed £10million of investment as part of the scheme, which would also have brought £600,000 in section 106 investment funds for local authorities.
The company also wished to sell homes at affordable prices, citing that a two-bed property could be purchased at £120,000 with a £90,000 mortgage under the new help-to-buy scheme rolling out next year.
However, it was rejected by councillors on the grounds that the land did not sit within the urban boundary in Mansfield and didn't meet the district's local plan for housing.
Planners also found that it would have an "adverse impact" concerning issues like transport when taking into account other housing developments within Warsop.
Phil Shields, independent councillor for Netherfield and member of the planning committee, voted against the plans but said the "principle" of the development was good.
"It was a 50-50 decision for me, I have spoken to people in my ward and there were as many people objecting it as those who thought it was good for the village", he told Nottinghamshire Live.
"Gleeson jumped through hoops to get here but it was refused because it wasn't in the local plan, and it was on that ground that I voted to refuse it on the night.
"But I do think we've missed a trick with this one, I honestly think it would have been a good thing for the area.
"They wanted to supply section 106 funds and to get involved in local sports clubs, but approving it would have made a mockery of the local plan."
Gleeson had proposed to roll-out its 'community matters' scheme as part of the development, pledging to provide apprenticeship schemes as well as investing in sports teams.
It also wanted to allocate homes for people with 'key-worker' status, with plots to be made available for those in this category.
Steve Gamble, planning director at Gleeson Homes, said: "There is a huge shortage of housing, particularly for young families in all parts of the UK.
"Ways must be found to address this shortage as well as boosting local economies and allowing the construction industry to bounce back from the pandemic.
"Delivery of the site in Meden Vale would do just that.
"[We would] roll out our 'community matters' programme on the site, covering a number of initiatives from apprenticeships to the sponsorship of a local junior sports team.
"The site is outside the development boundary but historically it was a proposed allocation, albeit eventually withdrawn.
"We genuinely felt the planning balance would lead to a recommendation to grant [permission]. We never saw the scheme as overly controversial."
