Green Belt
GE2017 Liberal Democrat manifesto
Sorry this is so short! (and late). ‘Changing Britain’s future’ it seems does not include saying anything about the green belt (or even ‘greenbelt’) nor about brownfields.
But there is talk of enforcing house building on unwanted public sector land. No details on who decides whether or not it is unwanted or if the proposal allows for different types of public land owner.
There is talk of a land tax, and mention of a potential Tory landslide.
There is also a lot of rubbish. Well, waste to be more precise. A 70% target for recycling and also extending the landfill tax to an incineration tax.
There is also talk of a Zero-Waste Act, including legally binding targets for reducing net consumption of key natural resources, and introducing incentives for businesses to improve resource efficiency – something very high on the EU agenda too.
Homes on the Bramcote School site?
“Enabling development” refers to development that would usually be considered harmful but is considered acceptable because the resulting benefits outweigh the harm. Our planning system has developed over the past 70 years into a sophisticated but complex system to help make decisions about land use. The concept of “enabling development” is one that will be central to the decisions about what to do with Bramcote’s green belt in the coming months.
White Hills Park (WHP) Federation’s advisors consider that building 300 homes on the Coventry Lane playing fields to be enabling development – this much is not news. However they also consider development for housing on the current site of the Bramcote School to be enabling development too. Yes, they talk about 40+ new homes on that site.
The harm is clear enough. Housing on the Bramcote School site. A figure of 40 homes or more has been mentioned in correspondence between WHP advisors and County Council officials. This would change the character of the area, reduce options on where to redevelop a leisure centre in Bramcote and fly in the face of the Broxtowe Councillors’ decision to allocate that land for educational or leisure uses. That is also the site that the Bramcote residents most want to see developed for a new leisure centre before or at the same time as any school building.
So what might the benefits of building 40 or more houses on the Bramcote School site be? Principally building those homes it seems would raise some £2million for the County Council so it can expand Bramcote Hills Primary School to accommodate extra children from all the new housing in the area.
So because WHP cannot afford to build its new buildings, it wants Notts County Council to gift it land to raise the £20 million for the new buildings. And, because of the extra children, Bramcote Hills Primary School will need to be expanded. And to pay for this, Notts County Council needs to sell the site of the Bramcote School for housing.
I wonder when the councils involved were planning to tell us?
Perhaps it is time not only for Public land in public hands but also for state schools in public hands!
Paul Nathanail
The Independent Candidate for bramcote & Beeston North.
Please consider voting for PAUL NATHANAIL on 4 May 2017 to help retain land and school buildings in public ownership.
SIGN UP TO MY EMAIL LIST: http://eepurl.com/cKuty1
Promoted by Peter Nathanail on behalf of Paul Nathanail, both of 86 Moor Lane, Bramcote, Nottingham, NG9 3FH
White Hills Park Federation consults on disposal of land and surrender of lease
There are only a few days left to respond to the White Hills Park Federation consultation on its intention to apply to the Secretary of State for Education for permission to sell the 10 hectares (approx 25 acres) of playing fields adjacent to Coventry lane. This land is owned by the Nottinghamshire County Council and leased by the Federation on a 125 year lease.
The Federation is also consulting on a proposed application to the Secretary of State for Education to surrender its lease with Nottinghamshire County Council of approximately 4.7 hectares (approx 2 acres) of land occupied by the school buildings of the Bramcote School (formerly the Park School). The Federation claims that “No decision has been taken at this time regarding the future use of this site.” In fact Broxtowe councillors have already decided to earmark this land for “Land for replacement School. Land for replacement Leisure Centre if required”
Details are at: http://www.whpfederation.org/index.php/buildings-and-improvements/consultation
The consultation is open until 9 April 2017: https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/FV9JZJN
SIGN UP TO MY EMAIL LIST: http://eepurl.com/cJf5x5
NOTICE: The author is the independent candidate for Bramcote and Beeston North in the County Council elections on 4 May 2017.
Please consider voting for PAUL NATHANAIL on 4 May 2017 to help retain land and school buildings in public ownership.
Promoted by Peter Nathanail on behalf of Paul Nathanail, both of 86 Moor Lane, Bramcote, Nottingham, NG9 3FH
Humpty Dumpty was wrong!
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
― Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass
Over the next few weeks and months many will talk about the green belt, brownfield sites, greenfield sites. Plans will be drawn up, committees will discuss and councillors will vote. In all of this it is important to use words consistently and accurately if we are to have a meaningful dialogue and an acceptable outcome to our collective deliberations.
The National Planning Policy Framework recognises that there are policies in place to ensure that development can be restricted in certain cases: “policies relating to sites protected under the Birds and Habitats Directives (see paragraph 119) and/or designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest; land designated as Green Belt, Local Green Space, an Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty, Heritage Coast or within a National Park (or the Broads Authority); designated heritage
assets; and locations at risk of flooding or coastal erosion.”
The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. Green Belt serves five purposes:
- to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
- to prevent neighbouring towns 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 of derelict and other urban land.
You can see a map of our local Green Belt by visiting http://tinyurl.com/q4smfrk. The website is hosted by the Daily Telegraph.
The NPPF defines the term Previously Developed Land (PDL) as follows:
Previously developed land: Land which is or was occupied by a permanent
structure, including the curtilage of the developed land (although it should not be
assumed that the whole of the curtilage should be developed) and any associated
fixed surface infrastructure.
The NPPF uses ‘brownfield’ virtually as a synonym for PDL. However most of us would not consider the house we live in as ‘brownfield’ even though it is PDL. Helpfully the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) in “NLUD Classification Version 4.4” identifies two types of PDL that are what most of us would think of when we use the word ‘brownfield’:
11.1 Vacant Previously developed land
+ Previously developed land which is now vacant and could be redeveloped without treatment, where treatment includes any of the following: demolition, clearing of fixed structures or foundations and levelling.
+ Vacant buildings that are structurally sound and in a reasonable state of repair (i.e. capable of being
occupied in their present state) where re-letting for their former use is not expected or that have
been declared redundant.
– Excludes land previously used for mineral extraction or waste disposal which has been or is being
restored for agriculture, forestry, woodland or other use.
11.2 Derelict Previously developed land
+ Land so damaged by previous industrial or other development that it is incapable of beneficial use without treatment, where treatment includes any of the following: demolition, clearing of fixed structures or foundations and levelling.
+ Abandoned and unoccupied buildings in an advanced state of disrepair i.e. with unsound roof(s).
– Excludes land damaged by development which has been or is being restored for agriculture, forestry, woodland or other open countryside use.
– Excludes land damaged by a previous development where the remains of any structure or activity have blended into the landscape in the process of time (to the extent that it can reasonably be considered as part of the natural surroundings), and where there is a clear reason that could outweigh the re-use of the site – such as its contribution to nature conservation – or it has subsequently been put to an amenity use and cannot be regarded as requiring redevelopment.
Interestingly ‘greenfield’ is not mentioned in either the NPPF or in the HCA NLUD document. A helpful way to think of greenfield is as land that has not been previously developed, mined or landfilled.
So as we enter the closing stages of finalising our local plan it would be good that we try and not copy Humpty Dumpty but to try and use words consistently and accurately.
Paul Nathanail 