East Midlands Liberal Democrats

Report on Field Farm Meeting - Broxtowe

This report is my personal review of the current situation regarding the Planning Application for a Housing development on Field Farm following the public meeting on 14th January.
Written by Brian Wombwell and dated 15th January.

STRAG are being helped by Anna to stir up public feeling and getting everyone huffing and puffing with the result that their minds are so clouded that they cannot see the bigger picture. Most of the residents at the meeting went away with the opinion that if it was up to the local councillors the whole of Broxtowe would be built on and become an urban sprawl with no parks, no open spaces and no green fields. This is ridiculous and inflammatory comments like this do not help the situation.

We all want our opinions to be heard and no one wants to see more building on the greenbelt but I am afraid this is inevitable. The issue of the core strategy goes way beyond the opinions of a few people who live close to Field Farm. The problem of housing future generations is a national issue which projects right down to Stapleford and we will have to take our share of the load. Having said that I do have sympathy with the people who bothered to turn up on Saturday and as I live on Stanley Drive I will share in some of the problems highlighted at the meeting.

I am one of the local councillors but I am the representative on Broxtowe Council and have to act in the interests of the Borough but can still ensure that the objections raised by local residents are heard. The considerations are government policy, legislation which we have to comply with and Planning Law which is not very flexible. Turning down planning applications on flimsy objections can have very serious consequences for the council and for residents who live close to the sites if the decision is overturned on appeal. I have no doubt that if this planning application is turned down the developer will appeal in strength i.e. they will employ top lawyers to defend their position. That is why I advised the objectors to examine the plans and robustly challenge the information within them. I am currently studying the documents myself.

My responses to issues raised by Anna and STRAG:

• The council has handed Westerman's the site on a plate. The site has been owned by Westerman's for a number of years and they could have put a Planning Application in at any time. They did not have to wait until the core strategy review takes place.

• Anna objects to all building on all greenbelt land. This is against government policy and Conservative Cabinet members have said freely that this will be necessary. All Councils have been instructed to produce a plan which will provide for the projected housing demand in their area. Each plan has to be submitted to the government for scrutiny and if the numbers are inadequate the plans will be revoked. The consequences of this will be that the developers will then choose the sites they want rather than the council and the Government have said that will have a presumption in favour should any applications be refused. Broxtowe Council have examined every inch of land, in the Borough, both greenbelt and brownfield and eliminated those which have great ecological value, poor access to roads and infrastructure, not for sale, flooding issues etc. etc. Field Farm was one of the sites that remained on the list. To suggest that the site was cherry picked because it was an easy target is nonsense. Anna has been asked several times where she would locate the houses but as yet she has always avoided the question.

• Anna disputes the numbers of houses being provided for by Broxtowe Councilbut despite being challenged many times to say how many she would consider acceptable she has never responded. The numbers have been calculated by several independent consultants including the past and present governments and the figures produced do not vary by very much. The figures allow for more people living alone, for people living longer and, therefore, occupying their houses longer, and for the natural growth in population. They do not include for additional growth due to Nottingham being designated a "growth point' area.

• Before any Green belt land is built on all brownfield sites should be used up.The fact is that all brownfield sites are not yet available and are privately owned. The council does not have the financial ability to start buying up expensive land on compulsory purchase orders.

• The localism bill says that local people should have a voice. It does and should but this is not a single deciding factor in a planning application.

• The only helpful advice she gave was to tell people to write and object and to give reasons.

• Greenbelt land is protected. This is correct and all planning applications which impinge on greenbelt have to be submitted to the Secretary of State for approval.

• The statement that 450 homes will increase road congestion and pollution is an obvious and fatuous conclusion. People have to live somewhere and this does not stop them owning a car and driving on our roads. Some people want to jealously protect their own neighbourhood from traffic but jump into their cars and then drive around in other people's areas causing traffic jams and pollution.

• The roads have no play areas?? It took me three minutes to walk from the site to Bramcote Park which is the flagship park in Broxtowe. It also has the most popular children's playground for miles around.

• There are no shops or work places?? There are ample shops and superstores within easy reach of the site. An estate of 450 homes would not sustain a convenience store. There are ample employment centres with good access within easy commuting distance.

I have not stated the foregoing to support the application but I am just asking people to be realistic and get down to brass tacks.

In essence Anna Soubry has done very little to help the objectors but by engaging in soap box politics has made a very difficult situation almost impossible for local councillors to make the public aware of the actual very complicated issues surrounding this Planning Application.

The Government have vowed to reduce 1500 pages of planning law to 150 pages. The existing legislation has been refined over many years to produce a heavy but manageable document that ensures good practice. In my view an updated slimmed down version would be good but minimising the legislation will leave it wide open to challenge so that the bad practices of yesteryear may re emerge. When the new legislation is finally approved by Parliament planning the process for approving applications may change.

Other comments

Water table - the documents contain an in depth analysis of the areas susceptible to flooding and recognise that a 1 in 100 year risk is apparent. They have therefore proposed mitigation measures so that the brook will be diverted into the ponds for slow release back into the brook when the level subsides. Severn Trent have already installed an underground tank near the brook which also alleviates this problem. The details have been passed to Severn Trent who will either approve them or object to the application. I am afraid that all these documents are of a highly technical nature prepared by experts and you may object on these grounds but if Severn Trent say they are OK the council cannot refuse the application on these grounds.

Traffic - A consultant was engaged to carry out a traffic study of the area using the County Council computer model and they recommend modifications to the two islands near the bottom of Coventry Lane/Hickings Lane, the island at the junction of Pasture Road/Ilkeston Road/Trowell Road, and road widening to make an extra lane for turning right into the two site entrances. The responsibility for approving these measures lies with the County Council Highways department and they will object to the proposed plans if the traffic projections will cause undue traffic problems.

Other items - It has to be understood that the 450 houses would be built over probably five to ten years depending on demand. No developer will build 450 houses over 2 years and sell them all in that time. The stress on the infrastructure will, therefore, be very slow. There is a report in the Application which says that there is adequate surplus places in local schools and I know this to be true. In any event it is the responsibility of the County Council to provide school places sufficient for local needs. There are several doctors and dentists in the area and are all accepting new patients. The Planning Department have to consider the plans before them, any future plans submitted are considered on current conditions existing at the time. I am sure you appreciate that it is impossible to take into account future applications that are pure conjecture which may or may not be submitted.

Finally, there are real advantages for supporting limited housing growth:

• Many local jobs in the building industry for the duration of the works

• New houses mean more contributions to the council tax which helps keep council tax down. Cuts in government funding have led to reductions in services and any extra funding is desperately needed.

• The council will benefit from the housing bonus for the next six years which will provided money for improvements in local infrastructure.

• Falling numbers mean that local schools need more pupils which bring more much needed finance.

• The local shops and businesses will hopefully experience more business and become more viable thus improving the economy of the area.

• Existing transport services may be improved.

I hope this report outlines the complexities of the dilemma faced by local councillors who have to make a decision. If anyone wants to contact me about any point raised then please do not hesitate to contact me by email at bwombwell43@yahoo.com