The Shape of Bramcote – A Matter of Great Concern.

Bramcote Conservation SocietyGeorge Read, Bramcote Conservation Society writes: I very much enjoy reading what is going on in Broxtowe each Monday morning when I read the Broxtowe e-news edited by Councillor David Watts. It is very informative. However, this Monday 3rd November I was very concerned to read about the situation re Toton and the need to include this in the Core Strategy. On further reading I then read about Mr Watts having ‘spent the last few weeks vetoing proposals by some Labour councillors to permit building all the way alongside the A52 from Bardills to Bramcote.’

While I am greatful for David for Vetoing the proposals, it is of great concern to many and there is a need to find out what is being proposed and which councillors are proposing it. My reason for this is so that they can be reminded in no uncertain terms that they are proposing to develop on Green Belt in an area already very heavily developed, with saturated transport nodes, in an area that is a local land mark, Bluebell Hill, and an area which provides a vital wildlife corridor.

I would also like to remind the councillors promoting this that there is a considerable amount of Brown Field to be developed before the development of irreplaceable Green Belt is brought forward especially after we have just had to lose Field Farm.

The rush to give planning permission on Greenbelt land to developers should be halted until we have used all the Brown Field up and by that, the dwellings have been built. This should hopefully allow us to enjoy the Greenbelt for a considerable time.

These spaces are, after all, our lungs and our areas for relaxation and should not be given up easily.

This entry was posted in Bramcote Conservation Society, Bramcote's Future. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to The Shape of Bramcote – A Matter of Great Concern.

  1. stevebarber says:

    My name was mentioned in the post later removed from this site (I first copied it). I certainly was not one of those Labour Councillors who Cllr Watts alleges is proposing to build between Bramcote Island and Toton and I have asked Cllr Watts to elaborate further. As yet I have not had a reply.

    Perhaps he could take this opportunity to explain…..

  2. Martin Plackett says:

    Thank you George for raising again the ‘Labour proposals’ that David Watts claims to have vetoed. As you righly point out the exchange of e-mails between David and Toton resident Dean Fazey were first published by David to all Broxtowe e-news e-mail recipients and re quoted on Toton’s Save our Green Belt Web Site Facebook Page. So certainly not private, but in the public domain! So again, along with yourself and Richard Jackson may I ask David for further information regarding these serious allegations.
    It would also be good to know Steve Barber’s and his Labour Collegues reaction to David’s allegation of Gerrymandering by Labour on the Borough Council

  3. David Watts says:

    As I have posted previously a very senior Labour councillor who has a position of strong influence in terms of planning (not Steve Barber who has now been removed as chair of Development Control and replaced with Liberal Democrat David Grindell) was advocating that a scheme being promoted by Bloors (a developer) which many people will have seen should be supported. The Bloors scheme involved developing up the side of the A52 as far as Southfields Farm. I have told said councillor that this is completely unacceptable and will not be supported. Any comment that may have been taken as support for this was deleted from the papers that went to the Toton/HS2 Advisory committee (incidentally Steve Barber lost the opportunity to be deputy chair of this by not turning up for the meeting) was deleted from the papers. As far as I am concerned his is a complete success for myself and my colleagues. It should not have been in the public domain and I have apologised to Dean that I didn’t check when replying to his email who it might go to.

    In terms of gerrymandering Steve Barber will confirm that Labour wanted to replace me as the committee chair with him, which is something else I blocked, and at the full council before last Labour tried to push through a resolution placing control of all advisory committees in the hands of the cabinet portfolio holders, which would effectively have meant the leader of the council. This was stopped by a combination of Lib Dems and Conservatives leading to Labour having to withdraw their proposal. This was all in public and is exactly what I meant by gerrymandering.

  4. stevebarber says:

    Just to finally clarify the matter would Cllr Watts like to confirm whether or not this “very senior Labour Councillor” is a member of either Broxtowe Borough Council of Nottinghamshire County Council or is he a member of another authority outside the area.

    I find the remarks about me “not turning up” rather offensive. Cllr Watts has “not turned up” to meetings in the past in the past when they’ve clashed with family commitments. I have a granddaughter in Berlin and this visit was planned long before notice was given of the HS2 meeting.

  5. David Watts says:

    It was a member of Broxtowe. I’m sorry that Steve finds my comments offensive but if I have had to miss a meeting for family (or any other) reasons then I always seek to send apologies and don’t just fail to turn up (along with another Labour member).

    • stevebarber says:

      I also seek to send apologies and did. Apology accepted for the offensive remark. But I think you need to name the Councillor; David or withdraw that allegation.

  6. Martin Plackett says:

    Thank you David for making clearer the proposals that the unknown Labour Councillor was ‘advocating’ regarding building on the green belt between Bardills and Bramcote. Such ideas as you say must be ‘blocked’ at all costs in order to preserve that beautiful stretch of land so beloved by generations of Bramcote and Stapleford folk. I say again Dr Palmers pledge to resist any further building on green belt a complete nonsense,and makes one question if he in touch with Broxtowes Labour Leadership.
    Your comments also suggest that the Labour/Lib Dem Coalition on Broxtowe Council is fragmented to say the least.
    Thank you again, not least for apologing for embarrassing Dean Fazey.

    • David Watts says:

      Martin, any coalition will have it’s stresses and strains. Being in coalition does not mean that we agree with everything that the Labour Party does locally, but we believe that we can achieve more by working together than by standing apart. In exactly the same way in national Government by working with the Conservatives (your party) the Liberal Democrats have been able to deliver an £800 tax cut for most people (by raising the personal allowance – something that the Conservatives said was unaffordable), a triple lock pension guarantee that ensures pensions will never fall behind earnings (something that the Conservatives said was unaffordable), free school meals for all children under the age of seven (something that the Conservatives said was unaffordable), a commitment in law to fund overseas aid, improved mental health treatment with guarantees over access to appointments, a record number of jobs, 2 million new apprenticeships, a huge increase in renewable energy (that “green crap” as David Cameron called it), we’ve kept the NHS free at the point of delivery, £9 billion clawed back from tax dodgers, an extra £2.5 billion for education through the pupil premium, shared parental leave, 15 hours of free child care for pre-school children (something else that the Conservatives said was unaffordable), 200,000 green jobs … Need I go on?

  7. Paul Nathanail says:

    Perhaps if Broxtowe Council’s planning committee gave the reminders in the National Planning Policy Framework of when to REFUSE planning permission a bit more weight in their deliberations they would realise they don’t have to roll over to every planning application that comes before them:

    12. This National Planning Policy Framework does not change the statutory status
    of the development plan as the starting point for decision making. Proposed
    development that accords with an up-to-date Local Plan should be approved,
    and proposed development that conflicts should be refused unless other
    material considerations indicate otherwise.

    27. Where an application fails to satisfy the sequential test or is likely to have
    significant adverse impact on one or more of the above factors, it should be

    32. All developments that generate significant amounts of movement should be
    supported by a Transport Statement or Transport Assessment. Plans and
    decisions should take account of whether:…
    ● 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.

    64. Permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to
    take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an
    area and the way it functions.

    118. When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should
    aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying the following
    ● if significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided
    (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts),
    adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning
    permission should be refused;…
    ● planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the
    loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland
    and the loss of aged or veteran trees found outside ancient woodland,
    unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location
    clearly outweigh the loss;

    Oh and this one may be of use too:
    “● recognise that residential development can play an important role in ensuring the vitality of [town] centres and set out policies to encourage residential development on appropriate sites; and
    ● where town centres are in decline, local planning authorities should plan positively for their future to encourage economic activity.”

    I offer the above for information and illumination – interested readers will be able to see how the above extracts map on to recent and imminent land use decisions.

    The NPPF (from which the above extracts were taken) is available at:

  8. davidwatts12 says:

    To suggest that we roll over to every developer is ludicrous. We pay careful potential to the NPPF in every application. However you are taking small parts of the NPPF rather than looking at the document as a whole (the very thing that the NPPF itself says that you must not do). The first part of the NPPF requires the preparation of a development plan (which is what has been so controversial over the last few years) and this has to “plan positively” for development witha presumption in favour of sustainable development. In addition the plan must show how he total demand for housing has been catered for and further every council must have at least six years of development land available. If a council doesn’t have this then planning inspectors have shown time and again that they will grant planning permission for developments that would otherwise be refused.

    • RichHartman says:

      Which leads me back to my puzzlement over the post by Ms Soubry that conservative councillors have successfully persuaded a Toton area committee to vote in favour of reconsidering whether the Toton greenbelt site should be developed at all. If that site is now withdrawn from the core strategy plan, as I see it that means the strategy goes back to the drawing board, so the council is without a planning strategy, so all of our greenbelt is up for grabs by developers again. Unless I have got this wrong?

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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