Crematorium protest gets under way

OPPONENTS of the proposal to build a crematorium and cemetery at Catfoot Lane, Lambley, have mobilised resources in a bid to prevent the scheme winning planning permission. The Catfoot Crematorium Opposition Group has launched its own website at and an online petition, and will host a public meeting on Wednesday 27 June at 7pm to rally opposition to the plan.

The proposal for the crematorium and cemetery was made by the Bristol-based Westerleigh group in April, when the company revealed its designs at a public meeting held at Mellish rugby club. The company attracted criticism for developing its plans to an advanced stage without consulting Lambley Parish Council, and for publicising its meeting only to homes in the immediate vicinity of the site.

Coverage of the proposal on can be seen here.

The group’s  website includes links through to the Gedling Borough Council Planning Portal, enabling residents to make comments on the application for planning permission, as well as to its own online anti-crematorium petition. It also includes information about the nature of the group’s objections to the plan, being inappropriate development on Green Belt, generating substantial new traffic in the village, and damaging a very special part of the county’s unique ‘dumbles’ landscape.

Information on how to lodge a protest with Gedling planning department is included, mirroring information posted though letterboxes throughout Lambley in the last few days.

Advanced designs were presented by Westerleigh at the meeting in April

8 comments for “Crematorium protest gets under way

  1. JMLBellamy
    Saturday 23 June 2012 at 4:43 pm

    With a prevailing westerly wind, fumes from the crematorium site will move directly over our property. There must be other sites that are more suited to a crematorium. Please don’t do it to our village. We are becoming an ‘annexe’ and being eroded already, in many ways, we need to keep our heritage. A very strong NO to the crematorium. Please protect our village.

  2. joan leckie
    Sunday 24 June 2012 at 1:25 pm

    we do not want or NEED this crematoriun in lambley , how come you consider build this on GREEN BELT , when ususally no one can build on it . sounds dodgy to me. catfoot lane is a very rural area and the road is to narrow to be used by large cars etc .the junction with plains road is bad at the best of times ,with out the increased traffic that would be using this facilty. BUILD IT ON THE GEDLING COLLIERY SITE ,IT WOULD BLEND IN BETTER THERE AND THE ROADS WOULD BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THE EXTRA TRAFFIC . THIS WOULD BE A MUCH BETTER PLAN , THAT IS IF WE NEED TO BUILD IT AT ALL , THE NOTTINGHAM AREA CEREMATORIUMS ARE ONLY WORKING AT 50PERCENT SO WHY BOTHER BUILDING ANOTHER ONE . OUR VILIAGE DOES NOT WANT THIS , IT WOULD SPOIL OUR COUNTRYSIDE,AND ITS NOT ESSENTIAL /////////

  3. joan leckie
    Sunday 24 June 2012 at 1:27 pm


  4. Dr Carole Ulanowsky-Rose
    Sunday 24 June 2012 at 1:52 pm

    Objections to this scheme may be thought to be in the manner of Nimbyism – ‘Not in my backyard’. But this is not so. Lambley has a unique place in the area by being a distinctive rural community which greatly values and welcomes others from outside its boundaries to engage in its activities. However, its narrow and winding main street has already become a busy through route at either end of the working day. The extra traffic caused by attendance at cremations can only increase this traffic problem – not least because Catfoot Lane has no bus service.

  5. Barbara Pugh
    Monday 25 June 2012 at 7:30 am

    Emotions are understandably running high. Now is the time to get together and find a tangible reason to stop development – risk of habitat of a rare plant species; animal species – particularly rare newts; or ancient monument/right of way or whatever.

    Garner the active support of local naturalists, archeologists, arborialists, historians et al and build up a portfolio of constructive reasons to keep the status quo.

    At the same time, why not follow up the suggestion of Gedling Colliery site as preferable, and draw up a comparison table or something?

    The story lines of ‘Yes Minister’ and ‘Yes, Prime Minister’ are still relevant and give a good insight into the beaurocratic mindset. The appropriate episodes would be well worth watching.

    May God bless all your efforts.

  6. Daryl smiley
    Monday 25 June 2012 at 7:12 pm

    Is there anymore meetings planned? Am interested in this but can’t attend the Wednesday night meeting?



  7. anon
    Sunday 1 July 2012 at 4:39 pm

    Hi Daryl – The Catfoot Crematorium Opposition Group meet regularly and are continuing to do so. Perhaps if you let the editor of this site have your email address/phone number, he would pass it on to one of the members and they can give you further information. The most important thing you can do is to write an objection letter to Gedling Borough Council Planning listing relevant objections (these can be taken from the bullet list that was circulated around the village). Thank you for your support.

  8. Gordon Tyers
    Wednesday 10 October 2012 at 2:24 pm

    re the revised plans for the above.
    Objections have not been adequately addressed, in my opinion, by the revised plans.
    It is obvious that Catfoot Lane poses safety problems even now with current traffic levels which will only increase with increased levels caused by the above proposal. (i.e. no pedestrian side walk, lighting and narrow width).

    Any increased traffic flow through Lambley will increase safety risk through the village and along Catfoot Lane.
    The top of Catfoot Lane will see huge increases in traffic flow. This is a very narrow lane and no consideration seems to be given to this.

    Risks of affecting water course ways and potential flooding still remain unaddressed with no mitigation. i.e. effects on the source of the Dumbles water and run-off water.

    The revised plans do nothing to improve the original plans which lack the addressing of increased traffic flows, environmental impact, risks to water flow and flooding, preservation of the Green Belt and the removal of land from food production.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *