Broxtowe Borough Council Has Granted Outline Planning Permission For Up To 450 Houses At Field Farm

STRAG write: Following the withdrawal of the Secretary of State’s call in direction (reported in our press release of 14 October) today Broxtowe Borough Council issued outline planning permission to Westerman Homes for up to 450 houses at Field Farm in Stapleford and Trowell. This was based on the decision of the Council’s Development Control Committee on 10th April 2013; the issue hasn’t been brought again in front of that Committee.

This is a sad day for the biodiversity of Nottinghamshire and its residents’ quality of living. The public will be invited to comment once a full planning application is submitted. STRAG will of course keep you informed on the process and possible means of action.

This entry was posted in Broxtowe Borough Council, Field Farm, Housing, Housing Developments, STRAG. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to Broxtowe Borough Council Has Granted Outline Planning Permission For Up To 450 Houses At Field Farm

  1. Donna M says:

    It is a sad day indeed. Sad because the people of Stapleford have been let down by the very people who are supposed to listen to them. The same people who will no doubt be out next year asking for people to vote for them and making promises to listen to there needs.

    It’s sad that you can’t rely on your local Councillors.

    • Ian Blakeley says:

      I think that you ought to stand for election Donna (seriously) but not nailed into the party machine. If I was a lot younger I would, as an Independent.

    • Cliff H says:

      Democracy Donna!
      If enough of us feel the same way then we have the power to vote them out and ensure they are not in office to cause any further harm to our still beautiful borough.
      Hopefully the betrayal of the people of Trowell and Sandiacre will still be fresh in the minds of the electorate when the votes are cast.

    • RichHartman says:

      To be correct, the “people of Stapleford” have not been let down by their councillors, only those who complained about the planning consent application feel they have been let down. Did the majority of Stapleford’s population complain about the housing proposal, or was the majority simply silent in the face of a vociferous campaign of opposition? The councillors will tell you their decision to approve the housing was in the best interests of the borough (not just the Stapleford area) so that our need for new houses is met and to prevent the loss of more greenbelt elsewhere. The arguments have all been rehearsed here before. Let’s not forget that Ms Soubry’s colleague minister Pickles endorsed the granting of consent here. We should remember that fact when we next go to the ballot box.

      • Donna M says:

        It doesn’t matter what excuses they come up with. The truth of the matter is they did not listen to us. It is this we will remember at the ballot box.

      • Cliff H says:

        Rich.
        Every time a discussion concerning housing or greenbelt development arises, up you pop to voice your wholehearted support for said developments and the councillors responsible for waving them through.
        You remind me of one of our other regular posters.
        So, may I ask.
        Are you Joan Wade in disguise??? 😆.

      • Ian Blakeley says:

        Donna, you say that they didn’t listen to us. I think that they did and decided that in the best interests of Stapleford the Field Farm development should go ahead. Who knows, maybe the Councillors were inundated with letters and emails in support of the application. In this case I have to agree with Rich Hartman.

  2. RichHartman says:

    Cliff,
    No, I am not Joan Wade, whoever she is.
    My post does not express support for development, more a tempered response to the claim that “Stapleford hasnt been listened to”. It’s only the objectors who, allegedly, haven’t been listened to. Objectors usually speak louder than supporters, so believe they are in the majority.
    I think there’s overwhelming evidence that our councillors have listened but it’s their decision, made after hearing what people have had to say, that you don’t agree with. I acknowledged they had a difficult decision to make but, in my view, the decisions on the Plan Strategy and on Field Farm were justifiable, even if unpopular with a significant number of fellow residents. I don’t stand to benefit from the houses being built in my neighbourhood but that’s not the point. We do need more houses, to deny this is to put our heads in the sand. In other posts I have not ‘wholeheartedly’ supported housing development, but I recognise the need to build houses for our children and grandchildren. I also say that where we live now used to be fields, so building on ‘greenbelt’ is nothing new and to deny others the chance of having a roof next to where we live ourselves is pretty selfish. I do not subscribe to the attitude that now I’ve got my house, no-one else should be allowed to build one.
    I wouldnt have wanted to be in a councillor’s shoes having to take such a difficult decision, but they are they are charged with that. I also made the point that it wasnt only our councillors’ decision – tory minister Pickles was asked to override the council decision on Field Farm but after dithering for months he agreed with the council. If this is so misguided I would expect someone to have challenged his decision.

    • Cliff H says:

      Rich.
      *sigh*
      Not that old chestnut again
      ‘Homes for our children and grandchildren’
      I tell you what, let’s leave this discussion for about 5 yrs, that should be long enough for Westermans to have completed a fairly sizeable portion of the Field farm development.
      Then we’ll have a walk through the 4 bed detached homes with double garages built for Audi driving middle managers and luxury bungalows built for wealthy retired pensioners and you can point out to me exactly which ones my kids are supposed to be able to afford?
      I live on Trowel park and work in the construction industry, so please don’t attempt to lecture me on building on greenbelt, I am perfectly aware that my house was built on an empty field, I’m also sure that the development was objected to locally at the time.
      My point is that good planning takes into account that green spaces and separation are vital for good neighbourhoods and the mental health of its residents, they are designed to combat urban sprawl and the loss of local identity, without them we risk turning into an inner city landscape.
      This is not about housing ‘our children and grandchildren’ as this development will blatantly not be designed for them.
      It is about maximising profit for Westermans, and the council have £ signs in their eyes because of the council tax revenue.
      Please don’t insult my intelligence by attempting to state that it is in fact ‘What’s best for Broxtowe’ !
      Regards.
      Cliff.

      • RichHartman says:

        Cliff,
        Westermans dont yet have a detailed planning consent so we cant be sure what they will build but they will only build what they can sell – that stands to reason. If you work in the construction industry you’ll know it’s not a charity, profit is what makes it (and any other business) tick.
        Even if Westermans do build only the sorts of houses you fear, that may release other cheaper houses onto the market for less wealthy, or younger, folk to move into as others trade up. Some of our kids may in fact be ‘audi-driving middle-managers’ in 5 years time when the houses are complete and many might say that they’d prefer that expensive, rather than small/cheap, houses are built here so their own property values are not damaged.
        I have never asserted that the decision to build houses at Field Farm is “what’s best for Broxtowe”, thats a matter for our councillors (and minister Pickles) to determine.

      • Cliff H says:

        Rich.
        I’ll concede that you put forward some good points.
        My main point though is this, Field farm was sacrificed to safeguard the other 98% of greenbelt.
        Why?
        What makes one bit of greenbelt more important than another?
        In my view Field farm should have been left as an open ‘break’ between Trowell and Stapleford and the 450 homes should have been built on greenbelt to the north of the borough, close to existing services and infrastructure. Then rather than all being crowded together we would retain the open feel of Trowell whilst starting a new community surrounded by its own green spaces.
        In 15 yrs when the core strategy expires more greenbelt will be lost but with creative design we can build neighbourhoods people can be proud of, the end result should be a mosaic of development and green spaces, rather than a densely populated area adrift in a sea of green.
        My family and I love living in Trowell and have no intention of going anywhere so the effects on my property’s value are immaterial, I just think that the whole thing has been pushed through by a council who refuse to think outside the box and instead prefer to be guided by the construction industries vested interests.
        Regards.
        Cliff

  3. Steve J Carr says:

    The Government have decided NOT to challenge this application. So it’s the Councils fault! Do any of you understand that it is the Government that have set the housing targets?

    • Paul Nathanail says:

      Do you understand that the extra traffic will add to the over capacity double mini roundabout at the former Jaguar pub and that this load cannot be mitigated – cf traffic impact assessment submitted on the planning portal – and that this is a grounds for refusal under the NPPF?

      “improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost
      effectively limit the significant impacts of the development. Development
      should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the
      residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.”

  4. john longdon says:

    There is no such thing as green field or green belt only agriculture (food)belt.

    • Rich Hartman says:

      Not so. Plenty of green belt is not in agricultural use. Plenty of ‘green field’ is not designated as green belt. Plenty of ‘green fields’ are not in productive agricultural use.

  5. M Bell says:

    Only the people listen to the people. When you join the establishment you cease being part of the people. Incidentely whoever you vote for next time you will still get the establishment.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s