A dispute over maintenance work in a woodland area has divided a Rushcliffe community and led to the resignation of councillors and volunteers.
Four residents whose properties back onto the land raised concerns about the work, including the removal of brambles, which they said reduced privacy and increased public access close to their homes.
The issue became more widely known when the parish council closed the land and two access paths in February. The council said the closure was temporary while it sought legal and insurance advice, including the need for a risk assessment.
The work followed a £10,000 grant awarded in early 2025 by Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust to maintain communal land behind homes on Serpentine Close and Queen Mary’s Close. Volunteers began clearing vegetation and improving paths in September.
Concerns were formally raised at a parish council meeting in February. A document submitted on behalf of affected residents cited overlooking, increased footfall near homes, and a lack of prior consultation. Questions were also raised about whether the council had acted within its powers.
The council maintains it was not required to consult on works to land it owns and said it acted on advice from insurers, a monitoring officer at Rushcliffe Borough Council and the National Association of Local Councils.
The closure proved controversial, with some residents continuing to use the paths. It later emerged that one of the households raising concerns included a parish councillor, who said they were not personally involved.
Two volunteers involved in the original work resigned in protest at the council’s handling of the situation, along with one councillor.
At a subsequent meeting on 23 March, attended by more than 60 residents, councillors considered proposals from both the complainants and the council. Both options included changes to planting and path layouts to reduce impact on nearby homes.
Councillors rejected the residents’ proposal, citing concerns over the use of public funds, and approved the council’s alternative, which includes additional planting, signage encouraging people to stay on paths, and a new route around the meadow perimeter.
The paths were reopened following the decision.
A spokesperson for affected residents said their concerns related to process and governance, including a lack of consultation and unanswered questions about how the work was carried out.
The parish council said it acknowledged residents’ concerns but rejected claims it had acted improperly, stating that decisions were taken in good faith and in line with its responsibilities.
