Bramcote Conservation Society George Read Thank you for coming - - PDF document

Bramcote Conservation Society George Read Thank you for coming along today. We are asking you to object to the development of the Greenbelt for the following reasons. The total number of houses Broxtowe Council believe are required to meet their projected needs in the borough of Broxtowe in the next 15 years is

• 6150. Of this figure 3850 has planning permission

and can currently be achieved by developing

• utside of the green belt. The balance of 2300

homes they want to find from the Green Belt which will mean upto 118 hectares of land being developed, depending on the density of building. This is the equivalent of an area of 118 football pitches disappearing from the green belt in the next 15 years. These local potential areas of development are outlined on the map displayed at the back. We already know of local land owners trying to arrange access points to these areas so the threat is real and forthcoming. The potential irreversible loss to our fauna, flora and wildlife corridors cannot be justified or allowed. Does this have to be so? Are there alternatives? Well, the figures that these projected demands are base on are four years old and have been found to contain inaccuracies. A lot has happened since the

recession has taken hold. Builders are not able to sell houses that they have planning permission for and so are not building them. On speaking to a local builder regarding the possibility building more houses he said. ‘We can’ t sell the houses that we have already built.’ On mentioning this quote to a council official in the planning department I was told that we ‘still need to plan for the future regardless of the current financial climate’. The population according to the 2011 census has only increased in Broxtowe by 1.9% or 2000 people in the last 10 years and has a predicted growth of 3175 in the next 10. With a population density per house of 2.4 people per dwelling (the national average) this would require 1,333 houses to be built to house them. This is just under a fifth of what the council is asking for. This point has been raised by Greasley Opposes Greenbelt Development in a letter entitled a Realstic Assessment of Population vs Housing dated 20 August addressed to Steffan Saunders in the Planning department. There letter still has not been

• answered. Two and a half months on.

Are their alternatives to the Greenbelt? I believe that there are, looking at the Council’s figures. Based on there proposed demand of 2300 houses this can be achieved by building on the Brown belt. How, well, 400 can be built on the Boots site and 150 at the back of Lilac Grove both are near to

Beeston and its amenities. 150 on the Barton’s site

• nce again near to amenities and adjacent to the

tram and 1,578 at Chetwynd Barracks near to amenities and access to the A52/M1. Now not all

• f these areas have been released yet. But, this plan

is for the next 15 years and so there is plenty of time to liase with Boots, Bartons the MOD and Severn Trent and incorporate other smaller areas to achieve the target. To show that this can happen, since we have been putting pressure on to the council re this proposed planning, Steve Barber has announced that they are looking at building 1000 homes to the East of the Boots site which is

• n Brown belt nearer to the city. Hopefully this

means 1000 less houses on the Greenbelt but this has yet to be clarified. In the meantime there are 3850 dwellings with planning permission to be built, which, if this were achieved would mean the council would meet its target of 340 new houses being built each year for the next 11 years. This is in excess of what is currently being achieved or needed. So, why do we have a Greenbelt? Well according to the Government in its Planning and Policy Guidance notes no 2, the purpose is to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas, prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another, to assist in safeguarding the countryside

from encroachment, to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns and to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling

• f derelict and other urban land. The uses of green

belt of course are numerous including

• pportunities for rest, relaxation, sport, retention of

attractive landscapes and the retention of land in agricultural, forestry and related uses. However according to a local Broxtowe council

• fficial with responsibility for planing these

purposes are being misused and that Green Belt should only be for separating large conurbations such as Nottingham and Derby and not the towns/villages in the local vicinity of a city. Is this being wrongly interpreted for their own means so that we can take up other areas demands e.g Nottingham City who want our space when we physically do not have it to give in this area Saving our Green Belt will provided an essential buffer between Chilwell and Toton, Bramcote and Stapleford and Bilborough and Stapleford. This is to prevent the area becoming an even bigger conurbation running between Nottingham and Long Eaton a distance of over six miles before a

• break. The Green belt as mentioned was put in

place to prevent Urban Sprawl and to provide areas for rest, relaxation and maintain the wildlife

• corridors. The councils view that we will only be

losing just over two percent of our Greenbelt does not stand up when we are losing it in the areas where it is needed the most. Please do not let them take ‘the easy option’ of developing the Green Belt and to quote Steve Barber in Nottingham Evening Post Wed Nov 7th ‘the matter is both serious and complex and is worthy of deep research to get it right’. Do urge your local councillors to do just that. There are alternatives.