THE PROPOSED crematorium and cemetery at Catfoot Lane Lambley has run into trouble with the announcement by Gedling Borough Council that it will not ratify last week’s planning committee decision.
Opponents turned out in force to lobby the planning committee, but attention has now turned to alleged procedural errors
This latest twist is in response to a move by opposition group CCOG to seek intervention from the National Planning Control Unit (NCPU) over alleged procedural errors in the planning process. CCOG has encouraged opponents of the plan to lobby NCPU, and has produced pro-forma letters which can be used to outline the issues.
Copies of those letters were distributed to some homes in the area [I never got one –Ed] and made available in various forms here on dumbles.co.uk.
CCOG now says that personalised letters would be more effective than pro-formas, and is inviting residents to make their own intervention.
Nevertheless the volume of letters already received appears to have had the desired effect. The case officer at NPCU has spoken to Gedling Borough Council, which has agreed to not ratify the planning committee decision until the unit has looked into the matter. The NPCU has the power to ‘call in’ a decision if it believes there are sufficient grounds, which would effectively take the decision on the crematorium and cemetery out of the hands of Gedling Borough Council.
NCPU has set a target date of 30 May 2013 for its decision.
CCOG is now asking residents to write to the NPCU by post (National Planning Control Unit, 5 St Philips Place, Colmore Row, Birmingham B3 2PW) or email (npcu@communities.gsi.gov.uk) making whichever points they feel are relevant. It says these may include:
- That the impact and harm to the green belt was not fully considered, or given due attention, before the council decided that it was justified to approve an application in the green belt.
- That the ‘very special circumstances’ cited by both applicants, and accepted by the planning committee, is not proven from the statistics produced.
- That the alternative sites search was flawed in that only areas of a similar large size to the schemes was considered, yet the Westerleigh application was considerably reduced in size during the course of the application process. The site search should therefore have been re-visited.
- That the highways department at Nottinghamshire County Council was negligent in expressing no concerns when consulted over traffic issues and road layout. CCOG says Local residents and both Lambley Parish Council and Woodborough Parish Council have expressed serious concerns over traffic in the area for a number of years. The junction of Catfoot Lane and Mapperley Plains is busy and dangerous, with a blind spot, and this cannot be addressed by either application. The extra vehicle and pedestrian traffic generated will make the situation worse and lead to accidents, CCOG says. The highways department’s report is therefore not reflective of the real situation which exists.
- That Gedling Borough Council provided a forum for both applicants to address planning committee members, which they called a ‘technical briefing’. This meeting was initially closed, and made public only at the last minute after being leaked. Members of the public who did attend were not permitted to speak. Westerleigh was stopped twice, and Lymn once, during proceedings as they were reverting to a sales pitch and presenting non-technical information, which is against Gedling Borough Council’s own protocols.
In a further, unrelated, development, underground groups Anonymous and Occupy have stated that they plan a protest against development on Catfoot Lane. Few details have yet been released, but will be reported here when available.
We are hoping this development goes ahead, It is needed in this part of the county, It will not interfere with the countryside and will be very well kept and an asset to where we personally reside., approx 500 yards from proposed site.
Andrew Ford, despite living ‘500 yards’ from the proposed crematorium site, obviously has no regard for the destruction of one of the most beautiful and historic areas in Gedling Borough, unlike the 1500 residents of Lambley who sent in letters of protest to the council. Those councillors who voted for this application, did so for their own selfish and uninformed reasons. Their aspirations do not constitute a need. This ‘need’ has not been proven. Conversely irrefutable statistics proving there isn’t a need were in the hands of the planning committee and 9 of those members, it appears, decided to ignore the verified statistics. This decision is totally unfathomable and beyond belief. I and many others will continue to fight this injustice. To anyone else who ‘thinks’ there is a need, please see the verified statistics on the lambleyprotest.co.uk site, before posting an uninformed comment.
Andrew Ford; please stop spouting of rubbish, comments like yours really do infuriate me! I was hopping mad when I read your silly comment and felt compelled to reply. We do not need a crematorium here, we already have crematoriums at wilford, bulwell & one at Mansfield.
The junction where catfoot lane meets Mapperley plains is a nightmare to get out of at the best of times, imagine being stuck behind a flotilla of hearses and associated cars, it would simply be bedlam.
This is why we are loosing are beautiful countryside.
I personally feel sorry for the people living nearby in what I personally think is one of the most beautiful and iconic parts of Nottingham only to have these big corporate fat cats come in and trample and rip up the countryside.
I can only assume from that mindless comment that you will be profiting from the development Mr Ford. Are you a member of the Planning Committee by any chance?
Am horrified at the conduct of Gedling Borough Council staff in using local authority computer systems and email to express their ‘personal’ opinions.
Under the Freedom of Information Act, there should be a request to have sight of Gedling Borough Council’s computer usage policy & use of email usage policy for potential staff misconduct.
The Freedom of Information Act should be utilised fully in the campaign to protect the Dumbles.
As an ex senior Local Government Officer I would like to echo the sentiments of the previous respondent. By their actions these Gedling BC staff must surely have called into the question the trust and confidence we should all demand and expect of our public servants. I’d also like to know if any of them are “politically restricted” by virtue of the Local Government and Housing Act. If they had worked for me I would have instigated disciplinary action against all of them. I just wonder what GBC might be brave enough to do??