1. Much of the land in the video, is already publicly owned. Other areas are in private ownership, such as the former golf course.
    Let’s look at it from another angle. Buy a large piece of land at a knock down price, as it doesn’t have planning permission.
    Obtain permission for limited construction, in exchange for giving the rest of the plot to public ownership.
    The “Park” idea in nonsense, as the developers do not own most of the proposed acreage.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. We attended the event on Friday and it was perfectly clear, what you state in your comment Mr Shakespeare is utter nonsense. Myself, other neighbours and users of the plantations are delighted at this proposition as I wouldn’t want it fencing off which is what will have to happen. I think perhaps you are missing the point? I didn’t see anybody at martins reach giving land away this is a forward thinking generous offer. I’m grateful that there are people who think in this way!


    1. The public currently have access.
      As this has been so for countless decades, to prevent future access would open a legal minefield.
      The land was sold at a knockdown price because of its restricted use. That is, it can’t be built upon.
      There is also the matter of wildlife protection, as there are badger setts, which are legally protected.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. If someone buys non-building land at a low price per acre in an area where building land costs up to £1,000,000 per acre (ish), then try to build on part of it, you don’t have to be a genius to work out that it’s a good deal.


  3. It’s quite clear from reviewing the Nottingham City Council website that there are no public rights of way across this land at present. There are declarations under the Highways Act Sect 31/6 registered concurrently confirming this legal position. Therefore, if the proposals presented and inspected on Friday[ and now available to view via the ‘www.bramcoteunitypark.co.uk’ website and Nottingham City/Broxtowe planning websites are not agreed the landowner is quite within his rights and duties to land title to prevent further public access. The creation of the ‘Park’ in linking up existing public and other potential ‘private’ land and it’s enhancement together with the removal cost of approaching £400k for the area of Japanese Knotweed has to be paid from somewhere, and the modest profit from a small amount of development does this. Overall, the considered design promotes positive benefits and enhancements in the public interest.


    1. We don’t need a park though. We’ve got an ancient woodland and that’s fine. The local badger population has been hemmed in by housing developments over the last 70 years and they must be getting pretty fed up of it. The badgers won’t mind if the 11.5 acres of private land is closed to people. Of course, it’s going to be very difficult, if at all possible, to develop land here without disturbing the myriad of protected badger setts. If someone has gone to at an auction and speculatively purchased a piece of land only to find that there is a knotweed problem., that is their own fault. I’ve always found that you have to pay for your own mistakes in this world.


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