Graham Allen MP letter of opposiion to developer's appeal

The following is the text of Graham Allen's letter regarding the developer's appeal:


Subject: APP/J3015/A/13/2198848 Opposing building 116 houses on Protected Open Space adjacent to Hempshill Hall


I am writing to oppose the developers appeal against refusal to grant revised outline planning application for 116 dwellings on the woods and green fields adjacent to the historic Hempshill Hall, Low Wood Rd.

My central objections 
to the applications have strengthened since I have heard nothing from the Developer to properly address any of the serious reservations that exist about developing this green site and which led Broxtowe Council to correctly refuse the applications. They are as follows:

1.THE PLANNING FRAMEWORK

Any decision to build on this site would be counter to the existing planning designation.

It would also pre-empt the decisions to be made on the core strategy.

I would like to object to any Appeal which overturned the planning protection in the local plans of site 220, which can be found at  
http://www.broxtowe.gov.uk/.ashx?id=23863&p=0CHttpHandler .This land is currently designated as "protected". The reference says "The site is part of a Protected Open Area and could not be developed without a major policy change, as well as the land being retained for use for the Tram route. Also adjacent to a listed building and to a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation, severe topographical constraints, a remote risk of flooding and possible contaminated land issue also affects the site. "

So to be clear:
*    The current "Protected Open Area "status should be retained or upgraded.
*    The tram route should be designated.
*    In order to end the constant and corrosive uncertainty for local residents it should 
also be made clear that no part of the site should be developed for housing at any time in the future.

2. THE "OPEN AND UNDEVELOPED NATURE OF THIS SITE "

Overthrowing the local decision would lead to
:

A) 
A tremendous loss of amenity not only for Broxtowe residents but for City of Nottingham residents who live around the site. This would not least affect those from the lower income areas of Bulwell and Broxtowe estate, who also use and enjoy the open space and walks.

B) We all now condemn the destruction of 
historic sites in the area[Nuthall Temple etc]by previous generations. The attrition of an area which is rich in history, and as Hempshill [Hamessel] Farm it appears in the 1086 Doomsday Bookmust stop. It would be wholly inappropriate to change designation or allow building which would box in and surround with modern buildings  the series of listed buildings, (especially the ancient and historic grade two listed Hall), which straddle the City/Broxtowe boundary. The setting and beautiful view to the Hall -which predates Henry VIII -should be uninterrupted. I would strongly recommend that the inspector visits this site to see its full glory.

C) The reduction  of ancient footpath and historic right of way through the fields used by dog walkers, strollers and school children which would at worst be lost and at best be walled in. Right of way legislation in respect of diversion of a footpath insists that account be taken of the effect the diversion will have on public enjoyment of the path as a whole. The much used and well-loved access to a local oasis of greenery and the Babbington country park beyond would be made unpleasant and  potentially unsafe for users. Incidentally, reducing access for people from Broxtowe, Hempshill Vale and Bulwell to Babbington  country park will diminish its usage and support and thus tee it up as the next domino to fall to speculative housing ,which I am sure is not intended by the Council.

D) Being designated Protected Open Space local people had naturally assumed this green space was protected from speculation. Rather than live with insecurity I hope that the Inspector will reject the Appeal and reaffirm in the clearest of terms that this land is protected and will reject similar applications or deals
, ("let's just put a few house on part of the site")to wear down the Council and residents in the area and erode and blight the site over time.

E) The City/Borough boundary runs adjacent to this plot and there are a considerable number of properties within the city right up to the proposed site. Those who abut the City/Broxtowe boundary may not be aware of the significance of this moment and its impact on their future. On the original planning proposal 
these people were not informed and were not invited to a meeting organised by the developer, nor informed of any other meetings relevant to the future of the site that they overlook. Broxtowe Borough leaflets were not delivered to City homes even though they are the most affected by this site. This was unreasonable and unfair and I hope the Inspector will help ensure that this has not happened again in the consultation on these planning changes. The developers consultation on the renewed application was little better, being given a mere 7 days to reply. Legalistic and obtuse process will always give an unfair advantage to a practised and well-funded Appellant.

F) I do not object to the NET tram coming through the site, this is not only a much needed and welcomed amenity but was always expected by those who have moved into the area in recent years. The Appellants plan refers to this but in their desire to maximise the number of potential sales, the track looks very close to the proposed dwellings.

G) I would ask that the Inspector considers encouraging residents, Council and the landowner
, ( who presumably bought the fields at agricultural not development value), to come up with an imaginative and long term scheme for the enhancement of this unique amenity, to work with Planning colleagues in the City of Nottingham to link it more effectively to the Babbington country park[formerly the pit spoil heap], exploring the creation of a Trust with local residents to purchase the fields at agricultural rather than development value, broaden the understanding of the rich 1,000 year local history of the site, involve local adults and schoolchildren and safeguard this gem for enjoyment and exploration by future generations.

H) As someone who overlooks the site I have growing concerns over the hydrology of the site. At best it is low lying and damp. At worst it floods. I have witnessed a mini-fountain erupting due to underground hydraulic pressures. If this is mitigated I would ask you to seek full assurances that this will not be to the detriment of any surrounding land or properties, or the control of runoff water from the M1 approach roads.
 Subsequent to the successful first objection the site has been badly flooded with a lake, (photographic evidence available), being formed up to and including areas where the property developer intended houses to be built. I now formally ask that the Inspector should explore this issue and make recommendations and a clear public statement on liability and insurance so that potential house buyers are made fully aware of the risks.

3 THE TREES.

A number of ancient trees 
in the way of the proposed development were chain sawed down prior to the submission of the original planning permission, (the full history of this is held by Broxtowe Borough Council). Local people have no faith whatsoever that the remaining mature trees will be properly looked after and cherished as they are now.

I would ask that the Inspector rejects the developers Appeal and supports the Borough 
Council decision to protect this rare and precious space and further, confirms its current protected planning status for the great benefit of the people on both sides of the boundary line.

I urge you to reject the Appeal.

Very many thanks for your consideration and best wishes,

Graham Allen MP for Nottingham North and local resident close to the site.

No comments:

Post a Comment