Bramcote Unity Park Planning Application: Recommendations to Planning Committee Meetings on 22 July 2020

Planning Application 19/00465/FUL Broxtowe Borough Council


The agenda for the Planning Committee Meeting of Broxtowe Borough Council on the 22 July has been published. Click on this link to see the details.

Click on Recommendation to Planning Committee to see the details specific to Bramcote Unity Park.

The recommendation to Broxtowe Borough Council is that this application be refused.

Planning Application 19/01564/PFUL3 Nottingham City Council

Land To South Of 106 Thoresby Road To 82, Appledore Avenue

The Agenda for the Planning Committee of Nottingham City Council on 22 has also been published. Click on this link to see the details.

Click on Recommendation to Planning Committee of Nottingham City Council to see the details specific to Bramcote Unity Park.

The recommendation to Nottingham City Council is that this application be refused.


  1. I don’t understand the intricacies of planning decisions, and things appear to have a tenancy of being overturned, but the reasons for refusal appear to be quite “overwhelming”…


  2. Let’s be clear on this. The planning applications have not been voted on yet by the Planning Committee’s of both Councils. That will happen on 22 July, Until then the applications are still pending. However in view of the recommendations and the strong public comment my expectation is that the applications will be refused as recommended. Remember, though, what was said at the end of Morecambe and Wise shows (if you are that old!).


    1. Bring me sunshine, in your smile
      Bring me laughter, all the while
      In this world where we live
      There should be more happiness
      So much joy you can give
      To each brand new bright tomorrow…

      Is that the one? 😉


  3. Two points until as Steve says ‘the fat lady sings‘:-

    1. What will happens if the City Council says yes to the 9 houses and Broxtowe Borough Council as recommended says no to the 2 houses applications?

    2. The Japanese Knotweed has been a problem for many years is still expanding and needs removal. What powers does BBC have to force the owners of the land to have it removed as the the application comes before the Planning Committee ?


  4. ‘Under the Anti-social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014, local authorities can now issue land owners with a Community Protection Notice to formally require them to control the spread of Japanese Knotweed on their land.
    However, we would only consider issuing a Community Protection Notice where residents are taking no action and as a result this is causing knotweed to significantly spread onto neighbouring land.’


  5. Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014
    Local councils and the police have the power to issue Community Protection Notices against “individuals who are acting unreasonably and who persistently or continually act in a way that has a detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in the locality” including for invasive non-native species like Japanese Knotweed. A notice could require an individual or organisation to make reasonable effects to make good the problems arising as a result of Japanese Knotweed within a specific period of time and/or a requirement to take reasonable steps to prevent future occurrence of the problem. Breach of any requirement of a Community Protection Notice, without reasonable excuse, would be a criminal offence.


  6. Steve Carr now reporting that Nottingham City Council Planners are also recommending the application be refused.

    Thank you Pete, my hope as you suggest is BBC as the Knotweed continues to spread press the owners of the land to seek its removal

    You were also nearly right the M and W show was ended by a largish lady although not singing her name was Janet Webb.


  7. What is going on over the other side of Thoresby Road with the old golf course. I thought the unity park spread across this whole area but there has been no mention of that for a while. Are plans still going ahead to redevelop that area with sheltered housing?


  8. I have to say that my own view was that the Unity Park idea was not a bad one in that a good part of the land would have been given over to community use forever and the funding would have been there to look after it. Indeed, I would have been very happy to be one of the trustees of the land to ensure this, as I know others would too. It is right to ask what the consequences of turning down the application will be. The Knotweed is a very serious threat and I do hope the Council has thought through how it plans to protect a wide adjacent area from this. If the land is securely fenced off this will only be a short term solution and will also have the effect of denying the current access to this land currently enjoyed by many local people. Really, I am quite upset by the way things have gone.


  9. The unanimous decision from last evenings meeting is to be welcomed so saving our beloved Bramcote Ridge from development.

    Would be good to know if Broxtowe Borough Councils Planning Committee are to instruct/seek the removal of the invasive Japanese Knotweed on the site by the owners of the land?


  10. My understanding is that the owners do not have to remove the knotweed but only control it. They will fence off the land to do this therefore limiting access to the public. As someone who has lived in the area for almost fifty years and played in the woods when I was a kid, the park looked a good idea, so I am surprised that now potentially limiting public access is so welcomed.


    1. Steve K – Who has said that limiting public access is welcomed? Only that the new housing is not welcomed.
      The land is in private ownership so it is up to the owner whether the public are allowed to use it unhindered and if he/she wants to fence it off they can. Same applies to your own land/garden. Unless someone can prove the public has had unhindered access for the required number of years. Or someone could apply to register it as Common Land and see how that goes.
      Using potential ‘public access’ as a sweetener to gain planning consent for housing development where none would normally be allowed is so transparent, no different to someone who allows vacant/greenbelt land to become so derelict that they try and use it as a compelling argument for planning consent to be given for development.
      This is also what was tried with the Deddington Lane golf course land, with half the site being offered up as public access land, although that was consented in the end on appeal rather than by the council.
      Thank you to our councillors, and the City, for supporting their own planning policies and resisting this development.


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 )

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