Important decision as we finalise the Neighbourhood Plan


Paul Nathanail has written to members of the forum:

The Forum’s next meeting will be on 6 September 2018 at 8pm in the St Michael’s Church Centre, Church Street.  As I mentioned in yesterday’s email, below are some details of the main item we need to discuss next week.

Following the Council’s submission of the Local Plan Part 2, the time has come for the Forum to submit our own plan to Broxtowe to take the next step in the process.

However, we have one important detail to discuss and agree.

Last year we consulted Bramcote residents on 4 options for the land owned by the County Council and some of which is leased by the White Hills Park Federation.  The responses were split equally between either having no building on the Coventry Lane playing fields – currently green belt – and linking house building there with a replacement school AND a replacement leisure centre.

The options of supporting housing or supporting housing linked to raising funds for a replacement school received minimal support.

At the time of our consultation, we used a figure of up to 300 houses. However, Broxtowe BC has submitted a figure of 500 houses for that area and a small additional area that belongs to the Brethren Church and could take some 40 houses.  The wording of Broxtowe’s Planning Officers report to Jobs and Economy Committee suggests that the proceeds from 300 homes may not be sufficient to pay for a replacement school.

In the last few days, Stapleford Town Council has published their consultation draft neighbourhood plan – the stage we were at last October. In this document, the Town Council are proposing the land on the west of Coventry Lane, that Broxtowe has plans for 240 homes, have no homes at all.

At the Broxtowe Council meeting where the Local Plan Part 2 was approved for submission, the leader of the council, Councillor Richard Jackson, said that he had opposed the figure of 6150 new dwellings across Broxtowe as it was too high before going on to lament that his fellow councillors “found ourselves making the best of what we did not support in the first place”.  He went on to say that the council can only allocate where land is available so the 10% of the share that Bramcote is being given is just a function of where the land is available and that the larger the site the better as it gets better infra and transport improvements.  However, he also said that at the end of the day it is the inspector’s decision as to which land gets allocated.  We will have our chance to present our evidence to the Inspector.

So where does this leave Bramcote?

Bearing in mind the views of Stapleford Town Council and the proposals in Broxtowe’s Part 2 The choice we must now make as a community is whether to oppose any house building on Coventry Lane or to include a policy for 500 homes linked to raising funds for a replacement school AND replacement leisure centre.

Once again thank you for your ongoing engagement with the Forum as we seek to come to a shared understanding of what kind of place we would like Bramcote to be and how to become that place.

If you are not already a member but want to have input to the final proposed plan, you can join via


1 Comment

  1., worth a look; seems the government is fully in control of the Ombudsman for irritating protests about planning complaints.
    Brexit was 51 or 52% in favour , boy could they take lessons from the Ombudsman’s limp wristed , accommodation to the governments agenda.
    Wade through the links and see how our complaints are dealt with, accept 50% are no – hopers, then pause for thought.
    Localism, I know we have to find homes, I agree with that but not convenient buy outs of affordable housing.
    That said, 300 or 500 family homes on Coventry Lane will not deliver a new school or leisure centre.
    39 to 40 exceptional homes at £2million plus might: I know it sticks in the craw – but there are people who will pay that price. Won’t happen overnight, but look at Claremont Avenue; developers bided their time and reaped the benefit.
    Now that would require loan funding over , probably, 10 years for the school but the developers will see the opportunities and possibly be pliable as to the sop of affordable housing.
    It’s pretty poor but, I think , realistic.



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