Proposed Demolition of Farm/Fishpond Cottage – 51 Ilkeston Road, Bramcote

Michael Lyons writes: The Community Action Team Meeting on 7th September discussed the proposal for the demolition and re-development of the long-neglected council owned pre-Victorian era cottage near the pond on Ilkeston Road, Bramcote.

For neighbours and local residents who didn’t join the meeting, haven’t received a letter or an email about what is planned, here is the consultation document including a short questionnaire where you can make your views known:

51 Ilkeston Road Bramcote Consultation

The photos below give a view of what the cottage used to look like whilst it was being occupied and maintained, what it looks like today and what the site could look like in the future.

38 Comments

  1. I can’t object more strongly to such a ludicrous proposal. The artist impression shows ugly homes crammed into a tiny space far too close to the increasingly busy road (after time-distance cameras were installed on the A52 forcing young racers to find other routes). Give the home to someone who will care for it and nurture our local history.

    Like

  2. I object to this planning, making this particular road even more busy would not be beneficial for the area or its residents.

    Like

  3. Omg that’s disgusting to think that the council wants to demolish yet another beautiful period property to erect an eyesore. I know plenty of people have enquired about renting or buying this house so the fact it has fallen into disrepair was entirely purposeful in order to excuse this plan. Go build on Brown field sites like the eye saw that is Stanton ironworks and leave Britain’s heritage and beautiful old buildings alone.

    Like

  4. I am strongly against the proposals to demolish the old cottage next to the pond ,on Ilkeston Road.
    It must be the oldest property on the entire length of Ilkeston Road.
    With the huge development by Westerham homes not 800 yards down the road a further development of new houses will make the area feel very enclosed and characterless.
    Especially the area around the proposed site.
    It is important for properties of this age to be kept to avoid the area behind the Sheringham Arms being swallowed up Stapleford and it should remin unique and part of Bramcote.

    Like

  5. Yet another beautiful building neglected by the council in order to tear it down and put something unsightly in its place
    Ide happily buy it and renovate

    Like

  6. Please respect our local environment and community and do not build ugly new houses crammed into spaces on already busy roads. It is not good for the people who live in the existing surrounding properties and will certainly stretch local amenities.

    Like

  7. The cottage is beautiful and very much a part of this place. Instead of destroying everything ,
    do it up and turn it into a dwelling or dwellings What is proposed is an eyesore and s blight on the area. Take a look back at how beautiful Nottingham used to be before they massacred it.

    Like

  8. I think it is a disgrace that a small area near cookies pond is being looked at for redevelopment, when it gives the elderly that live in Westbourne court residential home somewhere to view, sit and relax and feed the ducks and wild birds that frequent the pond. I have been and have taken my children to this pond over the years which is a small wildlife sanctuary in the middle of a busy area. Please reconsider this action for the sake of the local wildlife, and the local residents!

    Like

  9. The propsed buildings are an eyesore this must be designed by someone with no taste and a greed for cheap tacky buildings. The cottage is so lovely it will be such a shame for the residents nearby. Ponds and wildlife are what people need with Mental Health on the rise.

    Like

  10. Let someone buy/ restore the cottage and garden to what it was. Or a lovely cafe for uses of the park. The new proposals are not preserving the history of the local area.

    Like

  11. Elaine
    To demolish this beautiful property would be a crime.
    I myself did not know it was owned by the council , I have always looked for it coming up for sale . It is beautiful and I thought it was listed .
    The older people who live near there need that pond it feels like a bit of countryside that they can see and walk to.
    So good for their mental health and well being .

    Like

  12. It’s another piece of history gone! IF we let this happen, it should be restored and keep as a community asset.
    I think, correct me if I am wrong, it had connections to the Hall that was over on the park.
    These buildings SHOULD be pressured, rather than just looking at what used to be, in pictures and documents.

    Like

  13. There appears to be a of of support to save this historical property but please ensure you complete the simple consultation form at https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/X3MRKTH. giving your reasons. Unfortunately, according to the report that we received at Monday’s CAT meeting, there appears to have been several unsympathetic renovations over the years so I believe it would need to be a labour of love and deep pockets for someone to buy and renovate.

    Like

  14. Bramcote is only Bramcote because of its Historic Built and Natural Environments. If you fail to protect and enhance them, Bramcote just ends up looking like everywhere else!

    This is the oldest property on Ilkeston Road by at least 100 years. It is a locally significant historic landmark building in its own setting adjacent to the (unofficial) green open space with its copse of oak trees and the pond.

    I agree the cottage may not be suitable for the needs of the Council in the 21st Century but it could become a home to someone who will appreciate and care for it.

    It is unfortunate that the property has been allowed to fall into its current state. The right thing to do is to put it on the market with an appropriate restrictive covenant to prevent any purchaser coming back with a similar proposal in the future or just retain the freehold? I believe the Council is the freeholder for all the surrounding land and properties on Ashbourne Close, Oakland Court, Westbourne Court, Ewe Lamb Close and Trenton Close, even where they are owned rather than rented.

    This area is best left, with its ‘relative’ peace and tranquillity, to its elderly and vulnerable residents.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. I’d happily work on this house to ensure another piece of history is not destroyed to make way for shoeboxes . So sad 😞

    Like

  16. i live on this lovely area its so nice with beautiful trees wildlife and open space.We have lovely outlook from our home and we dont need it spoiling with awful new houses which are not in keeping with the rest of the area. Also an access road being built at the back of the properties so they can park there cars there.The cottage was beautiful the council should never have left it to deteriate.Please help us to stop these plans being passed and spoiling where we live.

    Like

  17. I live on Ilkeston road and have objected to these plans. The design of the houses is not in keeping with others here. To squeeze the intended amount into such a small space with elderly people very close in the flats at the back, it’s not fair on them to have all that building work going on and then the noise this amount of properties will generate with families in them. There is a huge development on field farm Ilkeston road already happening, so we do not need more housing here

    Like

  18. I hadn’t realised this lovely house was owned by the Council. Why have they let it get into this state? The proposed redevelopment is not in keeping with the area, it would be an eye sore. The house should be restored to its former glory by a loving owner/family not sold to developers.

    Like

  19. What is the problem with our council! They seem bent on obliterating every tiny bit of cultural heritage we have left! This is an old, attractive property with an established hedge , a small oasis of ” rural” and green tranqulity in our increasingly urbanized environment. ” Desirable” places ( think Ruddongtpn, Southwell., the Peak District…and the South Downs where I come from originally) understand the value of ” cultural capital ” and retain their old buildings. This cottage is an asset to the streetscape ( especially being opposite our flagship park) , an asset to those living in the complex at Cookies Pond, and a link to where I community has come from. I had always assumed it was a desirable private residence….it is shameful of the council to allow it to deteriorate. Money is of course the issue…a developer will pay much more for the land than the sale of the property would raise. As for the a dual proposed development-where also you start: visually appalling, not in keeling with any local style, totally out of scale, too high a density, traffic, destruction of a ” green” site. I protest against this.

    Like

  20. Firstly, were any local residents informed about the CAT meeting that went ahead on 7th September? Does anyone have minutes of this please? Also please does anyone have any advice as to where the residents could seek legal advice regarding this shocking proposal?
    Secondly, the local community of mainly elderly and vulnerable residents MUST be taken into consideration and be a priority. The proposed development is in the wrong area – please build this elsewhere in a suitable location. I have returned the survey with strong objections.

    Like

    1. Hi Sally – We advised of the meeting back in July. Please see https://bramcotetoday.org.uk/2020/07/09/bramcote-cat-meeting-by-zoom-on-7-september-at-7-00pm/ and again, the day before. The councillors have accepted they would usually have sent a reminder sooner than this and will do so next time, also to investigate why the meeting wasn’t added to the BBC website CAT page. Cllr Hannah Land will be producing minutes and we have added posts around some of the issues. Nineteen people participated including four councillors. Regarding your comments about the proposed demolition, please add these to the consultation for them to matter. The link is within https://www.broxtowe.gov.uk/51ilkestonroad.

      Like

      1. Thanks for your reply Sue. Do you know how I would get hold of the minutes from the meeting when they are produced? Do they get posted on this site? Also do you know how I get in touch with any of the participants who attended the meeting who are against this building proposal? I have also emailed David Watts. Many thanks.

        Like

      2. Hi Sally – Hannah said that she would share the minutes with us and we will then post. Usually, as you are likely aware, a paid BBC officer takes the minutes but Hannah is doing this voluntarily. I took notes myself if you have any specific concerns? (The agenda is already o our website). I should contact Michael Lyons (you can email us and we can pass on) as he has been very concerned with conservation matters relating to this property.

        Like

  21. I am strongly against the proposals to demolish the old cottage next to the pond ,on Ilkeston Road.
    It must be the oldest property on the entire length of Ilkeston Road.
    With the huge development by Westerham homes not 800 yards down the road a further development of new houses will make the area feel very enclosed and characterless.
    Especially the area around the proposed site.
    It is important for properties of this age to be kept to avoid the area behind the Sheringham Arms being swallowed up Stapleford and it should remin unique and part of Bramcote.

    Like

  22. May I please encourage everyone who has commented here to make sure they also complete the councils survey. This is a genuine consultation (we spent a long time ensuring that the questions were clear and unambiguous) and it is by no means a done deal. Your views do matter, so please have your say.

    Like

    1. David –

      Can you point us to the cost of refurbishment, the cost of redevelopment and some indication of where the funding to rebuild will come from?

      Can you point us to the heritage survey undertaken? And some idea of what “limited” heritage value means – given the County Council has recently registered the building as a, admittedly non-designated, heritage asset.

      We do not need more land for housing – Broxtowe has already deemed that Bramcote should take more than 10% of the entire Council target of 6150 homes. The issue is not enough provision of affordable homes.

      So why has the council fallen so far behind in its affordable housing provision? Are the major developments not being required to make their share of provision? And if not, why not?

      thanks,

      Paul

      Like

      1. Hi Paul

        The figures you asked for were in the report that went to the Housing Committee when this consultation was approved. If you Google Fishpond Cottage they should come up. I’m afraiud I don;t have the link to hand. That report should also detail the heritage information. The consultation was put together in cooperation with both the Conservation Society and the History Society. This doesn’t mean that they support the proposals but they were both involved in discussions to ensure that the correct information was provded to people and that the questions were fair..

        The reason why there are not enough affordable homes (in this case rented properties) is because in the period of the last administration between 2015 and 2019 not a single new affordable home was built in Broxtowe. We are having to now play catch up.

        David

        Like

      2. @David Watts: You said “The reason why there are not enough affordable homes (in this case rented properties) is because in the period of the last administration between 2015 and 2019 not a single new affordable home was built in Broxtowe. We are having to now play catch up. ”
        That may (or may not) me chronologically correct but the provision of any homes, affordable or not, depends on builders implementing their planning consents – something over which the council has no control. Whether so-called affordable homes are built is largely dependent on the financial viability to the builder of providing them on that particular site – arguably more difficult for them on brownfield sites where site clearance, decontamination, etc costs arise that don’t arise on greenfield sites.
        If a builder convinces a council that financially a site cannot provide sufficent reasonable profit to enable them to provide affordable homes as well, it won’t happen and the development will go ahead without any. The process of assessing financial viability of a building site is one characterised by ‘smoke and mirrors’ and councils are at a disadvantage if they try to challenge what a builder says in respect of viability. Therein lies the problem.
        If the (central) government simply required every site, in order to gain a planning consent, to provide a fixed % of the new houses/flats to be ‘affordable’ (whatever that is) or give a fixed % of the site’s area to a council or to a social housing provider, there would be no doomed arguments about viability. Although builders might not build anything as a result, and that would fly in the face of what central government policy requires!
        I think it’s a little unfair to give the impression that if there is a failure to provide affordable homes it is the fault of the council’s previous administration, even if that isn’t quite what you have said.

        Like

      3. David,

        I had already read the 3 June 2020 report to the Housing Committee (https://democracy.broxtowe.gov.uk/documents/s8297/Housing%20Comittee%20report%20-%20Fishpond%20Cottage%20Bramcote%20Appendix%202%20final%20version.pdf)

        It says “To give the property a 25-year life is likely to require substantial investment.” This is the phrase that is used in the consultation document. So sadly we are no further forward.

        Were you thinking of something else?

        Paul

        Like

  23. Affordable housing does not mean properties to rent, and despite the incentives provided in the help to buy schemes a great many younger people could not afford to buy as I did 63 years ago at the age of 21.

    Like

    1. Peter is quite right – affordable not only properties to rent.

      BTW David Watts is wrong. The council monitoring reports show 28 affordable homes were built in 2016-2018 (https://www.broxtowe.gov.uk/for-you/planning/planning-policy/authority-monitoring-report/)

      Paul

      PS
      The 2019 National Planning Policy Framework defines affordable housing
      Affordable housing: housing for sale or rent, for those whose needs are not met by the market; and which complies with one or more of the following definitions:
      a) Affordable housing for rent: rent is at least 20% below local market rents
      b) Starter homes
      c) Discounted market sales housing: is that sold at a discount of at least 20% below local market value.
      d) Other affordable routes to home ownership: is housing provided for sale that provides a route to ownership for those who could not achieve home ownership through the market.

      The above is a summary – the full text is in Schedule 2 (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/810197/NPPF_Feb_2019_revised.pdf)

      Like

  24. Michael Lyons has asked me to place this comment on his behalf: Failures to build affordable homes in the past is not sufficient reason to demolish a heritage asset and disrupt the lives of some of Bramcote’s most vulnerable residents. This is not progress!
    I understand the Council may have little influence over land owners and developers regarding what will be built once planning permission is granted. That should not be a problem with the Council owned land behind Bramcote Crematorium (see 2.4 on the Housing Committee Report). Does the Council only own sufficient land for 35 new rental homes (affordable or social housing?) or is there sufficient land to provide considerably more? With more public land becoming available east of Coventry Lane I assume there will be plenty of affordable housing being built in our area.
    Alternatives to Ilkeston Road development do indeed exist. Development costs are of course lower for larger sites!

    Like

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