Burton Joyce Residents' Association

New footpath on the riverside

2010-08-30T16:32:00.001Z

A footpath has been reinstated on the riverside between Bulcote and Gunthorpe. The path starts at a dyke crossing on the riverside path at the junction of Bulcote and Gunthorpe parishes, goes north eastwards across a field to reach a newly installed bridge over a drainage dyke, alongside fencing around Lowdham Leisureworld, passing one of the fishing lakes and comes out on the A6097 road at a point where there is a pedestrian refuge to enable you to cross the road. You can then proceed through another part of this old footpath on the opposite side of the road into Gunthorpe.

This footpath disappeared during sand and gravel extraction in this area in the 1950s and was never reinstated after the work finished. Reinstatement has been made by Nottinghamshire County Council following a claim, based on historical evidence researched by Julie during BJRA’s Riverside Project, made in 2004.

This is a very useful alternative route into Gunthorpe especially when the other public footpath under Gunthorpe Bridge is inaccessible when the level of the River Trent is high.

Many thanks to Nottinghamshire County Council for their work in supporting this claim and reinstating the path.

Insurance for flooding - national survey

2010-06-25T09:03:00.000Z

Flood victims hit by escalating home insurance are being invited to take part in a national on-line survey.

People living in at risk properties, where premiums have also rocketed can also have their say.

The survey has been launched by the National Flood Forum, the charity that will represent flood victims in a special government led insurance summit later this summer.

With one in six properties in the UK now officially at risk of flooding, many home owners are caught in an insurance trap. If they can find insurance at all, they face hefty premiums and huge excesses even if they have never flooded.

The National Flood Forum says that there is growing evidence that people are caught in a postcode lottery where their insurance company is penalising them for no obvious reason.

To help get a true picture as to what is happening, everyone who has been flooded or is deemed at risk of flooding is asked to take part in the survey, irrespective of whether or not they have problems with their insurance.

The survey is at http://www.floodforum.org.uk/

Flood insurance survey

2010-05-27T09:19:00.001Z

Was your home flooded during floods in our village in 2000 or 2007?

If so, you might like to take part in a survey being undertaken by the National Flood Forum as part of its efforts to get a better deal for flood victims from insurers.

To take part, visit their website www.floodforum.org.uk.

Pumping station news

2010-04-24T10:56:00.002Z

A question arose at the recent AGM about the operational status of the new pumping station.

The pumping station is operational but relies on using a mobile generator at present. The Environment Agency is gradually resolving land-ownership issues which, when sorted out, will allow them to make the mains electricity connection to the pumping station.

The remaining metal screens around the substation area will be removed when the mains connection works at the substation are complete. When EON has finished installing the substation and mains electricity, shrubbery will be planted to screen the installation.

With many thanks to Innes Thomson, Area Flood Risk Manager at the Environment Agency for this information

Annual Report 2009

2010-04-09T08:54:00.001Z

The past year has been exceptionally quiet but throughout we have continued to keep a watchful eye on potential developments on our riverside area.

Nottinghamshire County Council - Minerals and Waste Development Framework.

The timetable for the development of this framework, which will replace the current Minerals Plan, has slipped even further and there have been no developments this year. The consultation had been planned for the second half of 2009 but our latest information is that this will begin in May 2010. This stage may include designation of specific sites but even this is uncertain at this stage. We are aware that a mining company has been holding consultations regarding possible future extraction of sand and gravel in Shelford but there has been no equivalent activity on this side of the Trent.

Flood protection.

Slipping timetables seem to have been the order of the day in 2009. Early in the year I met officers from the Environment Agency to discuss issues concerning the proposed flood embankment. It had emerged that the Environment Agency’s project to construct the embankment had met unexpected problems, further work on the design of the project was necessary and costs would be much higher than originally anticipated. During the year the funding that had been agreed for the embankment in Burton Joyce planned to start in 2009 was withdrawn and spent elsewhere. This resulted in us embarking on a flurry of inquiry and activity and eventually the EA advised that funding totalling £490,000 had been agreed for the embankment and it was hoped that work would commence in the spring of 2010.

Restoration of the old gravel workings.

Severn Trent Water’s failure to restore the old gravel workings at Gunthorpe and Bulcote, and the County Council’s failure to enforce Modification Orders has been a continuing issue of concern this year. There have been a number of meetings on this issue with, as yet, no outcome. The indefatigable Roger Fell has been leading on this issue in which the effect of non-restoration on flood storage capacity and potential for future flooding is particularly relevant. Many thanks are due to Roger for his extensive and ongoing work in this area.

Surveys.

This year with the help of Carol Wright, I undertook a survey of the flora on the Burton Meadows loop with a view to establishing if there was sufficient variety of flora to enable this area to be re-instated as a Sites of Interest to Nature Conservation (SINC, now renamed as Local Nature Areas). We submitted the outcome to the Biological Records Office at Wollaton Hall but were later advised that the flora we had recorded did not enable the area to be redesignated. We shall continue this survey this year with the hope of identifying other flora we may have missed. Many thanks to Carol for her invaluable help with this work.

I also undertook a survey of the condition of footpaths and bridleways on the riverside, extending this to all footpaths in Burton Joyce and Bulcote in order to contribute to the work of Nottinghamshire Ramblers in recording footpath condition. Generally the footpaths are well kept. Thanks are due to the various landowners for this. A report and requests for the renewal of signage and improvement to one bridleway in poor condition were made to Nottinghamshire County Council. The County Council responded with the hope that they would be able to put the requests on the programme for the current financial year but to date no action has been observed.

Consultations.

As usual, we have read a number of consultation documents and made responses to the following:

· Gunthorpe Gravel Pits restoration proposals

· Greater Nottingham Core Strategy: Issues and Options

Information.

We have continued to display news updates on our website (www.bjra.org.uk) to enable everyone to have access to up-to-date news.

Contacts with other organisations.

We have continued to be in active contact with many other individuals and organisations – most notably this year with The Undefended Village Partnership, Roger Fell and our MP Vernon Coaker. Our thanks to all for the support and encouragement that is engendered though this ongoing co-operation and exchange of information.

As always, at our AGM, we shall be electing Officers and Committee members. Last year I reluctantly took on the post of Chairman again in view of ongoing health problems and advised that I would not be standing for re-election to this post again. After five years as Chairman, it is time for someone else to take the lead. I would urge all members to consider if you can contribute to the active work of the Association by offering yourself as one of the Officers or Committee members.

Julie O’Neill

Annual General Meeting 8 April 2010

2010-03-04T11:10:00.000Z

Our Annual General Meeting will be held on Thursday 8^th April at 7.30 p.m. at the Village Hall.

We look forward to seeing all our members there.

Village Event on Saturday 27th February

2010-02-14T17:09:00.001Z

Burton Joyce Preservation Society is holding a Fair at which village organisations have been invited to promote their own work or activities.

We shall be there.

Do drop in and see us. You can join the organisation or renew your membership while you’re there.

Burton Joyce Village Hall

Saturday 27 February 10 - 4.

Consultations on Minerals and Waste sites delayed

2009-10-21T16:55:00.001Z

We reported earlier this year that the next stage of public consultation in the Minerals and Waste Framework would take place in October for Waste and November for Minerals.

We now learn that the schedule has slipped yet again and the next stage will not now take place until sometime in the new year. It is not now clear at what stage specific sites will be allocated. It may, or may not be, at the next consultation stage – so watch this space for further developments.

Flood embankment to be started in Spring 2010

2009-10-21T16:42:00.000Z

We recently reported that the funding for Burton Joyce Flood Embankment had been allocated elsewhere and that we were seeking assurances that our flood embankment will still go ahead. We are very pleased to be able to report that the Regional Flood Defence Committee has now allocated £490,000 for the Burton Joyce Flood Embankment and the Environment Agency aims to commence construction in Spring 2010.

Many thanks are due to Vernon Coaker, our M.P., for obtaining this information from the EA when a direct request for information from us received no response. Also to the indefatigable Roger Fell for beavering away to get an assurance that all the promised flood mitigation measures downstream of Nottingham will be carried out before work is completed on the Nottingham Flood Alleviation Scheme.

Flood embankment news

2009-09-07T19:39:00.002Z

We were very disappointed to learn last week that the money allocated by the Environment Agency last year for the construction of a new flood embankment for Burton Joyce has now been allocated elsewhere.

As reported on this web-site last May, the Environment Agency had met unexpected problems with the provision of this flood embankment and that the project was likely to be far more expensive than originally anticipated. At that time, however, we were assured that the flood embankment would go ahead nevertheless.

We are now making inquiries about this matter and seeking confirmation that funding will be made available to provide flood defences for the village in the future.

Footpaths and bridleways in Burton Joyce and Bulcote

2009-09-07T18:56:00.003Z

Earlier this year we undertook a survey of the 12 footpaths and 9 bridleways in Burton Joyce and Bulcote, subsequently sending a list of suggested repairs and signing improvements to Notts County Council. We have now had a response from the Rights of Way officer saying that she hopes to be able to address the signposting and waymarking issues when she compiles a signposting contract later on during this financial year. She will also look at the one footpath we reported as in poor condition in due course.

Our claim for the reinstatement of an old footpath, which had not been shown on the definitive rights of way map, made as a result of a previous footpath study in 2004 has been accepted by the County Council and agreed by the Inspector at a public inquiry. It will be reinstated as soon as funds are available. This will provide a route from the Trent at the point where the Cocker Beck enters the river at the junction of Bulcote and Gunthorpe parishes to the A 6097 at Lowdham Leisure World, passing the fishing lakes. This will be an alternative and hopefully attractive route into Gunthorpe by public footpath and will be particularly useful when high water makes it impossible to use the other public footpath which passes under Gunthorpe bridge.

Our thanks to Nottinghamshire County Council and local landowners who generally keep the footpaths and bridleways in a good condition and to the County Council for taking our reports on board.

Revision of Parish Council Accounts 2008-9

2009-07-19T12:09:00.001Z

A simplified version of the Parish Council’s income and expenditure for 2008-9 was posted in the Other Village News section last month. This was extracted from April 2008-March 2009 Income and Expenditure Accounts as presented to the Council in May. On examining the accounts made available for public inspection recently, it was found that a new version of the accounts had been prepared. This is now posted in the Other Village News section replacing the earlier posting.

Anyone who is interested in examining the accounts and any associated documentation still has until 24 July to do this. See Parish Council notice-board for details of access.

New consultations

2009-07-05T10:45:00.003Z

We are currently studying two new consultation documents.

There is a new consultation on restoring the Gunthorpe Lakes area following minerals extraction that ceased several decades ago. There have been a number of previous consultation documents and this one says little new. Julie has a copy of this consultation if you would like to see it. Comments must be submitted by 23 July.

There is also a consultation from Gedling Borough Council “Greater Nottingham Core Strategies: Issues and Options” This deals with planning issues for the Greater Nottingham area over the next 20+ years including issues such as housing, economic growth, employment, transport, green infrastructure and the Green Belt and climate change. There is a separate section for Gedling issues. There is a copy of this consultation in the village library and on the Gedling Borough Council website. Comments must be submitted by 31 July.

We shall be responding to these consultations as usual in respect of issues that relate to the role of our Association. Anyone can respond individually to these consultations but members can also send their comments for inclusion in the BJRA representation. Please send any comments to our contact address at least a week before the final submission date stated above.

Seventh Annual General Meeting

2009-06-25T13:12:00.000Z

The A.G.M. took place on 12 May with reports and accounts presented for the past year and officers and the committee was duly elected for the forthcoming year. Julie O’Neill was elected as Chairman, John Byron as Vice-Chairman, David Prime as Secretary and Tony Simpson as Treasurer.

The Chairman reported on events of the past year and future developments to be carefully monitored. Vigilance is the key, for although Tarmac has withdrawn its application for minerals extraction at Bulocte Farm, Nottinghamshire County Council has carried over the Gunthorpe allocation in the Minerals Plan for the future after its expiry date in December 2008.

As things stand, the whole consultation and site consideration process begins again in August for Waste Issues and in October for Minerals Issues. We shall be studying any proposals in both these areas, especially to see if any attempt is made to re-allocate the Gunthorpe site for minerals extraction. In March 2010, more specific studies for Waste Issues will begin and in May 2010 a similar process for Minerals extraction will begin. The Association will need to be fully prepared and informed to examine any proposals at this time and to raise objections to any aspects considered unacceptable.

We feel that Burton Joyce residents may have been lulled into a false sense of security over the Gunthorpe allocation in the Minerals Plan. The threat has not gone away. Many factors may change during the present period of allocation which does not end until September 2012. The Association will remain vigilant and alert as proposals and information unfold and will keep residents informed of all future developments. Residents would be wise to remain informed and involved with the process; it’s the best defence against threats that the village still faces.

We had more positive outcomes to our work on flooding issues in co-operation with other groups concerned about flooding in the Trent Valley. The Environment Agency has committed to providing a new flood embankment for Burton Joyce that will run from the level crossing on Station Road to the new pumping station. This will offer flood protection to part of the village. As is often the case, there have been unforeseen technical problems and increased costs but we have received assurances from the Environment Agency that the work will definitely go ahead.

Our Chairman attended the Annual Parish Meeting on May 19^thand reported on the current situation and our activities over the past year.

David Prime, Secretary.

Flood embankment update

2009-05-16T11:50:00.001Z

A team from the Environment Agency came to the village and discussed the proposed flood embankment earlier this year with Julie O’Neill, as representative of the Parish Council and Chair of BJRA.

There is a delay in progressing with the flood embankment because of unexpected problems which will increase considerably the cost of the project. There are issues around the presence of a rising main which will have to be moved, the impossibility of having a steep embankment on the road leading to the level crossing and the consequent need to consider raising the height of a considerable section of Station Road, and the presence of poplar trees – some of which would have to be removed to enable the embankment to be installed.

The team were shown round the flooding sites in the village related to possible flooding from the river and a number of possible flood control solutions were considered.

The flooding manager said that although initially the project seemed straight forward it has now become one of the most complex problems he has seen. He did, however, give an assurance that there is no question that the project would be abandoned because of its complexity.

Annual Parish Meeting

2009-05-16T11:48:00.000Z

The Parish Council’s annual parish meeting takes place on Tuesday 19 May at 7.30 p.m.

For further information see Other Village News section of this website.

Annual Report 2008

2009-05-13T14:22:00.000Z

Our work has continued throughout the year as we keep a watchful eye on activities and potential developments on our riverside area.

The Nottinghamshire Replacement Minerals Plan.

This plan came to an end in December 2008 but as Nottinghamshire County Council has not yet developed a new plan to take its place, it applied to the Secretary of State to “save” - i.e. to retain - some aspects of the expired plan including policy M6.6, the Gunthorpe allocation that extends from Burton Joyce to Gunthorpe. Much time has been taken up this year with leading objections to the proposal to retain this allocation but in December the Secretary of State gave the County Council permission to “save” all the policies they requested, including the Gunthorpeallocation.

NottinghamshireCounty Council - Minerals and Waste Development Framework.

We had expected the next stage of consultation to take place sometime in 2008 but yet again the timetable has slipped for the development of this framework, which will replace the now defunct Minerals Plan, and there have been no developments this year. Laterthis year we expect to be busy as the next stage of public consultations for the Waste Framework is now scheduled to begin in August and for the Minerals Framework in October. The timetable for future stages of the framework drags on until adoption of the new framework in 2012, which will then replace the currentWaste and Minerals Plans.

Flood protection.

Our efforts, in conjunction with the Undefended Villages Partnership, to get mitigation for the additional flooding risks posed to villages downstream of Nottingham that will result from the Nottingham Flood Alleviation Scheme have been successful. Aswell as installing a pump near St Helens Crescent, which was agreed earlier in response to the village flooding experience in 2000, we are pleased that the Environment Agency has now agreed to install a flood embankment alongside the existing railway embankment to provide further protection for houses in thevillage that are most vulnerable to additional flooding from the river Trent that will result from the Nottingham FAS. Some properties in villages further downstream are also getting some flood protection measures. Persistence and working together with other organisations has been important to success here.

In January, I was invited to give oral evidence to the Government’s Select Committee on Flooding and found myself flying the flag for flood protection for rural areas generally throughout the country in the wake of the previous year’s summer floods and thethreat that all available flood protection funding was going to be diverted to urban areas where larger populations were at risk.

Local Government Ombudsman complaint.

In October 2006, we made a complaint on behalf of members to the Local Government Ombudsman alleging maladministration by Nottinghamshire County Council in respect of the Minerals Plan. In December 2008 we received an initial letter of response from an investigator in the Ombudsman’s office and were disappointed to find thatour complaint has received very little attention. We raised 5 issues; of these, one had been addressed and rejected, two had been partially addressed but two had not been addressed at all. Having taken more than two years to do so little, the investigator asked for our response within a little over two weeks. In January 2009, we submitted our response and in March received afurther response in which the LGO’s investigator made it clear that she does not intend to look into most of the issues we raised.

Trent Valley RiverPark.

We are concerned that an unrepresentative quango, led by the East Midlands Development Agency, has plans to develop the whole of the riverside between Nottingham and Gunthorpe. Such plans are drawn up without any consultation with local residents or their representatives often in the guise of “improving the environment and leisure opportunities”. We shall continue to keep a watchful eye out for any developments that might be proposed that could impact on our lovely and currently peaceful riverside area.

Last year we learned that the Nottingham Centre for Biological Records had de-listed one of the Sites of Interest to Nature Conservation (SINC, now renamed as Local Nature Areas) on our riverside. On inquiring about this de-listing, it emerged that this was done on the basis of a quick survey of riverside flora and the sitecould be re-instated on the listings if a more detailed survey showed that relevant flora still existed in the area. So this year we are undertaking a botanical survey of the former SINC area on the Burton Meadows loop.

Consultations.

We have continued to read many consultation documents and have submitted comments where appropriate. We have commented on:

Further consultations on the proposals for restoration of the old gravel works at Gunthorpe and Bulcote by Severn Trent Water.

Two consultations on the Environmental Impact Statement on the Burton Joyce flood embankment proposals by the Environment Agency.

East Midlands Regional Plan, specifically on proposals to delete much of the Green Belt around Nottingham

Information.

We have continued to display news updates on our website (www.bjra.org.uk) to enable everyone in the village to have access to up-to-date news.

Contacts with other organisations.

We have continued to be in active contact with many other individuals and organisations – most notably with Burton Joyce Preservation Society, Gunthorpe Environment and Flood Alleviation Group, Undefended Village Partnership, Burton Joyce Parish Council, our County Councillors James O’Riordan and John Clarke and our MP Vernon Coaker.

Annual General Meeting

2009-05-05T09:38:00.000Z

Members are reminded that our AGM will take place on Tuesday 12 May at the Village Hall(Small Hall) at 7.30 p.m.

Invitations have been delivered to all paid-up members. If you have not received papers,this means that you have not paid your subscription for the year yet. But you can still come to the meeting and pay your subscription there.

We look forward to seeing you there.

Sloppy work by the Local Government Ombudsman

2009-01-11T12:30:00.000Z

In October 2006, we made a complaint about maladministration by Nottinghamshire County Council in respect of the Replacement Nottinghamshire Minerals Plan to the Local Government Ombudsman.

In early December we received a response from the Ombudsman’s office, but were very disappointed to find that most of the issues we raised have not been investigated at all. Having taken more than two years to reply, the investigator asked for our response to her “investigations” within two weeks.

Our detailed response follows:

We raised five issues in our complaint made on 10 October 2006.

Issue 1: Officers failed to follow significant government guidelines in preparing the Plan in respect of the Gunthorpe allocation.

You have investigated in great detail one of the issues – the impact on the Bulcote Conservation Area and its listed buildings – but have given no attention to the more significant issues of the potential damage to the wider area, notably issues relating to flooding in this flood-prone area and the impact of dewatering on ground stability in this geologically fragile area.

Various government policy guidelines require issues of flooding and ground stability to be considered at the Plan stage as well as the Planning Application stage. These were not followed by the Council who took the view that all such matters could be left until the Planning Application stage. This, however, is contrary to the policy guidelines and the overarching requirement in MPG 1 that sites should be identified on the proposals map and in the Plan as specific sites for mineral if any planning applications which come forward for those sites are likely to be acceptable in planning terms. MPG1 states that the purpose of this requirement is to provide a good degree of certainty to applicants, landowners and the general public that mineral development will take place. It is under these circumstances that the MPA has a responsibility to ensure that major issues relating to the allocated sites are addressed at the Plan stage. In this instance, they were not. Furthermore, the MPA went to some lengths, by selective reporting, omission and untrue statements to conceal the fact that there was considerable reason to believe that the sites were never likely to be acceptable in planning terms.

You have referred in your letter to the Public Inquiry and the Inspector’s work and your inability to question the decisions made by the Inspector. But we have not asked you to do this. Nor have we submitted a complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman about the actions of the Inspector as you state on page 8.

Our complaint referred solely to the actions of the Mineral Planning Authority in respect of the Minerals Plan. You have not addressed the issue of why the MPA did not follow its obligations to assess ground stability and flooding issues at the Plan stage. You refer letter to the Ombudsman’s view (Anne Seex’s letter of 30 April 2007) that the extent and depth of consideration and the weight to be place on a particular issue is a matter of judgement and “merits”. We do not accept that such judgement exercised by a MPA can extend to ignoring major issues of importance such as flooding and ground stability to which specific government guidances apply.

We are not satisfied, therefore, that you have explored our complaint about this issue.

Issue 2. Officers showed bias in favour of, and possibly collusion with a particular mining company in respect of the Gunthorpe allocation
(a) during the preparation of the Plan, they failed to make consistent or transparent decisions in terms of inclusion or exclusion of particular allocations to the advantage of a particular company
(b) during the Public Inquiry into the Minerals Plan there was liaison between Officers and the particular mining company over evidence which had the effect of (a) promoting the interests of the mining company over its competitors and (b) misleading the Inspector over progress and prospects of a related planning application.

You have not investigated this issue.

In your letter, you refer to the withdrawal of Tarmac’s planning application and conclude that we have not suffered an injustice as a result, and gave this as a reason for not investigating this matter.

This is a complete misunderstanding of the situation. The planning application was not the subject of our complaint. Our complaint referred solely to the allocation of a site in the Minerals Plan. The allocation of the site per se creates harm and injustice to the community for the reasons given in our complaint.

You state that I have provided information about an investigation into the relationship between the County Council Severn Trent Water and Tarmac being undertaken by the Audit Commission. I have provided no such information and can see no relevance to the issue I have raised.

We are not satisfied, therefore, with the reasons you have given for deciding not to investigate this issue.

Issue 3. We complained that Officers presented inaccurate, biased and non-comprehensive reports to Councillors to inform their voting decisions about the Gunthorpe allocation at Council meetings.

We can see no reference in your letter to this issue.

Issue 4: We complained that the Monitoring Officer gave advice to two County Councillors representing one of the areas affected by the allocation who had indicated their predisposition to vote against their party line that they should not participate in debates or vote on the issue, while simultaneously taking no action in respect of other Councillors who had predetermined their vote in favour of the party line.

We accept that you have investigated part of this matter in detail and have criticised the directive advice given by the Monitoring Officer to two Councillors. We also understand that the Officer who was responsible for giving advice in this way has now left the Council’s service.

But you have not considered our complaint about predetermined voting by other Members of the dominant party and the bias shown by the Monitoring Officer by giving directive advice to two Members who were known to be predisposed to voting against the inclusion of the Gunthorpe allocation in the Plan but not taking similar action in respect of other Members who had predetermined their vote in favour of including the Gunthorpe allocation. The fact that the responsible Officer has now left the Council’s service does not negate this act of maladministration.

We are not satisfied, therefore, that you have investigated our complaint fully.

Issue 5: We complained that the Council Leader offered to investigate our complaints about the biased, inaccurate and misleading reports made to Councillors. He stated that if he found our complaints to be justified to the extent that the Councillors had been misled in their decision-making, he would recommend deletion of the Gunthorpe allocation from the Minerals Plan. But after we presented our evidence, he failed to honour this undertaking, and instead gave instructions that Members or Officers were not to respond to contact from us thus infringing our democratic rights of access to Officers and Members at a crucial time in the Plan processes.

A previous letter from the Ombudsman, Anne Seex, (30 April 2007) set out reasons for not being able to pursue this issue on the grounds that improper actions by one Member (albeit the Leader of the Council) could not be construed as maladministration by the Council.

You have not referred to this issue in your letter but we are prepared to accept this argument for the inability of the LGO to pursue this issue.

Secretary of State refused to delete the Gunthorpe allocation from the Minerals Plan

2008-12-12T20:48:00.001Z

Earlier this year we reported on Nottinghamshire County Council’s request to the Secretary of State that it be permitted to “save” (i.e. carry over) the Gunthorpe allocation after the official ending of the current Minerals Plan in December.
We led the objections to this request on the grounds of its proven unsuitability as a site for mineral extraction since Tarmac failed to solve the problems associated with mining on this site in spite of having its planning application on the table for over four years.
There were objections from local parish councils and our Members of Parliament – Vernon Coaker and Paddy Tipping – amongst others.
Our MP – Vernon Coaker – asked for a meeting with the Government Office for the East Midlands (which acts for the Secretary of State in these matters) to discuss the matter but his request was refused.
GOEM / The Secretary of State ignored the overwhelming evidence against “saving” the site and has just announced that the site will be carried over until a new Minerals Plan is in place at some time in the distant future.
So the site will continue to blight all the communities around the site, as it has for the past six years.

Other Village News

2008-07-07T23:19:00.008Z

Anyone who is interested in examining the accounts and any associated documentation still has until 24 July to do this. See Parish Council notice-board for details of access.

Revised version of Parish Council accounts for 2008/9

Income:

Parish precept 59,361

Grant - Gedling BC 28,673

Cemetery 10,129

Allotments 1,693

Sports ground 8,880

Playscheme 662

Bonfire 1,323

Gala 828

Donations, other 1,912

Interest 586

Capital aid 22,731

Total 136,778

Expenditure:

Wages 55,757

Administration 12,270

Parish Office 2,306

Cemetery 622

Allotments 1,553

Sports ground 22,695

General maintenance 8,396

Playscheme 725

Bonfire 1,199

Training 330

Donations 275

Chairman-allowance 50

Councillors-expenses 67

Capital expenditure 15,217

Total 121,462

Parish Council news

2008-06-22T14:51:00.000Z

There are two vacancies on the Parish Council. These will be filled by election. If you would like to stand, you can get a nomination form from the Parish Office (in the Cemetery) or from the Returning Officer at Gedling Borough Council. Completed forms must be deposited with the Returning Officer at Arnot Hill Civic Centre by mid-day on Friday 27 June.

The Parish Council Accounts for 2007-8 are now available for public inspection. Anyone on the BJ electoral roll can inspect the accounts between 9.30 am and 12.30 until 27 June at the parish office. Make an appointment with the Parish Clerk on 931 4084. See Parish Council notice-board in the village centre for full details.

For the benefit of those who can’t get to the parish office, a simplified summary of the accounts is given below:

Income
Parish precept                     52,600
Revenue Grant                     29,700
Capital aid                            2,500
Agency services                   900
Cemetery fees                     2,800
Allotment rent                       1,500
Sports ground fees             10,600
Playscheme grant/fees      500
Gala                                       5,200
Other income                       2,200
TOTAL                                    £108,500

Expenditure
Salaries                                 47,000
Administration                      12,200
Equipment and Maintn       4,400
Gala                                       5,400
Cemetery and other areas                2,300
Allotments                             1,700
Sports ground                      31,800
Christmas lights                  5,500
Playscheme                         1,000
Donations                             700
TOTAL                                    £112,000

Good news - Flood embankment for BJ on the way

2008-04-12T10:21:00.001Z

We are delighted to learn that Nottinghamshire County Council is going to contribute £150,000 towards flood protection schemes planned by the Environment Agency for Burton Joyce, Gunthorpe and Lowdham.

The funding will be used to help support work at Burton Joyce (new flood embankment which will protect 307 properties), Gunthorpe (embankment at Cottage Pasture Lane and 40 individual houses elsewhere) and Lowdham (flood wall to protect 40 properties).

This is a really important step forward and the result of many years of work by our own organisation, Gunthorpe Environmental and Flood Alleviation Group, our County Councillors and Members of Parliament in association with the Environment Agency. Work is promised for 2008-9.

Many thanks to everyone who has worked so hard to achieve this result.

Annual General Meeting 2008

2008-03-27T15:36:00.000Z

Our Sixth Annual General Meeting will be held on Tuesday 15^th April 2008 at 7.30 p.m. in Burton Joyce Village Hall (Small Hall)

We look forward to seeing members there.

Latest Flood News

2008-03-16T15:23:00.000Z

Committees of Inquiry in Flooding. Following last summer’s floods, two national committees of inquiry were established – an independent review under Sir Michael Pitt and a parliamentary (DEFRA) committee.

We submitted evidence to the parliamentary committee and were invited to give further oral evidence when the committee held a hearing in Lincoln in January. Amazingly we were the only Nottinghamshire organisation to have submitted evidence and were the county’s only representative to be asked to given evidence to this important committee. None of our elected representatives or local authorities had responded to the national call for evidence.

This lethargy on the part of the Councils could have important implications for the allocation of any funding that might be made available for flood defences in the future, so we contacted our elected representatives urging them to put the experience of Gedling and the County on the national radar.

Crock Dumble Pumping Station. We are pleased to report that work has started at last on building this pumping station. Commencement was originally planned in December but was delayed for a variety of reasons beyond the control of the Environment Agency.

Burton Joyce flood embankment. The Environment Agency is now looking further into other ways of protecting the village from flooding from the River Trent. The possibility of an embankment parallel to the existing railway embankment is currently being explored. Proposals recently received suggest an embankment from Station Road to St Helen’s Crescent. We have responded to this proposal suggesting an embankment from Station Road to Trent Lane in order to protect homes in the Chestnut Grove/Winifred Crescent area which would receive no protection from the current proposals.

Flooding and flood alleviation news

2007-11-20T09:51:00.000Z

Nottingham Left Bank Flood Alleviation Scheme. The Environment Agency has withdrawn its planning application in respect of the part of this scheme in Broxtowe. This is because they have new flood modelling data that suggests that the flood defence wall at Attenborough will need to be half a metre higher than originally planned. We, and other organisations in villages downstream of Nottingham, had made an objection to this application on the basis of its failure to provide mitigation for the additional flooding risk that will be caused to villages between Stoke Bardolph and Bleasby. We are now concerned that a much higher wall at Attenborough could increase the additional flood risk to our villages even further. We have joined with the Undefended Villages Partnership (villages at flood risk in Newark and Sherwood) to call on the Environment Agency to explain the new modelling and its implications at a meeting early in the new year.

Crock Dumble Pumping Station. We have inquired about the plans for building this pumping station and the Environment Agency tells us that site preparation will begin next month and work will start on the pumping station in the new year and will last about 32 weeks.

Burton Joyce Flood Report. In October, the Parish Council eventually got round to submitting the report on this summer’s flooding compiled by Cllr O’Neill in July and August to our County Councillors who undertook to place the report in the hands of one of the Council Officer for co-ordinative action. At a meeting organised by Cllr O’Riordan at County Hall this month, the County’s Highways Drainage Officer undertook to arrange site visits by Notts County Council, Gedling Borough Council, Severn Trent Water and Environment Agency staff. It is hoped that these visits will take place in the next two weeks. Residents might like to know that in Lowdham, site visits were organised in July, much remedial work has been undertaken and a follow up meeting to review progress was held earlier this month.

Tarmac planning application is dead

2007-11-02T10:22:00.000Z

Tarmac’s planning application to extract sand and gravel from the riverside between Burton Joyce and Gunthorpe is now officially dead. The company had one year from the date it withdrew its application to re-submit the same application. They did not do so.

But this is not necessarily the end of the affair. It means that if Tarmac, or any other company, wants to mine this site, they must submit a completely new application. And, before doing this, they must consult with the local community about any proposals.

“Consulting the local community” usually means informing the parish council. So make sure that you know what your parish council is receiving and how they are dealing with it.

Crock Dumble Pumping Station

2007-09-17T14:40:00.000Z

The Crock Dumble Pumping Station project will protect house in St Helens Crescent area from flooding caused by water backing up in Crock Dumble in times of high water flow. The work is being undertaken by the Environment Agency under Permitted Development rights, which means that there will be no planning application.

In September 2006, the Environment Agency told us that funding was available and that work would commence in the dry period of 2007. But matters have been dragged out not the least by two rounds of consultation on environmental issues. The latest round of consultation ends on 3 October. Provided there are no objections, work will start immediately after that date and last for 32 weeks. We very much welcome this project – and now we have to hope that it doesn’t rain between October and May.

Nottingham Flood Alleviation Scheme - Lies, damn lies and statistics

2007-07-07T11:33:00.000Z

While many residents were mopping up from the recent and ongoing flooding in Burton Joyce, BJRA was working to prevent future floods. Our Chair was one of four objectors who went to Long Eaton to present their cases when the application for the Nottingham Flood Alleviation Scheme was before the Planning Committee. We were objecting to the increased flood risk to village downstream of Nottingham as a result of the Flood Alleviation Scheme that will reduce flood risk to the Nottingham area. We were not asking that the FAS application be rejected - we just wanted a condition to be attached to planning permission that mitigation be guaranteed for the additional flood risk being caused.
No notice was taken of our concerns - after all the Council Officer's report to the Committee more-or-less said - "We'll get better protection from flooding as a result of this scheme - so just ignore that lot down the river." The bias in the report before the Council and the selection of convenient statistics was outrageous. You may be aware that Councillors never read the full documentation; they rely on their Officer's report and advice. So the content of the Officer's report is crucial.
But more outrageous is the fact that the developer who has proposed this scheme is the Environment Agency - the national guardian of flood risk - and the EA has been hiding the truth of the extent of additional flood risk to the downstream villages. The full facts about the impact on Burton Joyce only came to our attention this week.
The basic facts:
1. Development and flood risk. If any development will cause additional flood risk elsewhere, the developer is required to mitigate that risk. The Environment Agency is effectively the monitor of this and if it finds additional flood risk will be caused, it objects and recommends that mitigation be provided or that the application be refused. This is required by national planning policy.
2. Role of Environment Agency. In the case of the Nottingham FAS, the Environment Agency is the applicant - the developer. It has not applied the same rules to its own application for planning permission. In response to our request that it guarantee mitigation, it said that it would try to provide mitigation but could not give a guarantee. This was accepted by the Planning Authority - so the condition we requested was refused. If another developer had similarly refused or been unable to give a guarantee, the application would be refused on the basis of a recommendation from the EA.
3. Report to Erewash Council. In his report to the Planning Committee, Erewash's Officer stated that the scheme "will significantly improve the standard of flood protection to approximately 16,000 properties within the Nottingham flood cell" and that the increase in levels downstream of Nottingham will result in 39 additional properties downstream of Nottingham (of which 18 were in Burton Joyce) being at risk from flooding in 1:100 events.
4. Information withheld by the EA about additional flood risks to Burton Joyce. In its application, the EA included statistics of risk for BJ that referred only to part of the known flood risk area in the village. Since the application was submitted, we have been asking for the rest of the data. This was received eventually this week - only after the intervention of Vernon Coaker our MP - and it now emerges that the flood risk to the village is about three times that previously admitted by the EA. In their application the EA stated that 128 properties in BJ will be at additional flood risk. Their own statistics now show that the true figure is 398. The surveys to establish these facts were made early in 2006. So it is clear that the EA has withheld this information and misrepresented the risk in its applications for planning permission.
5. The selected statistics. Neither the EA’s application, nor the Erewash Officer's report to committee pointed out that the way in which the numbers of properties benefiting from the FAS was calculated was different from the way in which properties suffering from the effects of the FAS. If the same method had been applied, it should have been reported that between 1,500 - 2,000 properties downstream of Nottingham (of which 770 are in Burton Joyce) will pay the price of additional flood risk for the benefits of reduced flood risk to 16,000 properties in the Nottingham area.
Sorry about all the figures - but this is a case of "Lies, damn lies and statistics" - and the way in which the EA and Erewash have both presented evidence and arguments in ways to distort the facts about the positive and negative impacts of the Nottingham FAS.
And what is all this really about? Why is the EA pushing this scheme through and being permitted to do this against all the rules, not to mention the current reminders of the devastating impact of floods? Can it possibly be connected with the.provision of additional flood protection so that mega-buck developments planned for Nottingham can take place behind improved flood defences? And are villages literally being "sold down the river" to enable this? Surely not.

Are floods are more important than hanging baskets?

2007-07-07T11:28:00.000Z

The Chair’s phone was hot recently – all the media were desperate for BJRA’s views on the hanging basket saga.
Here is BJRA’s formal response which, bless their cotton socks, the Evening Post printed:
Burton Joyce’s sad plight of being deprived of its annual spate of hanging baskets has hit the Evening Post’s headlines today. Reporters have had nothing better to do over the past week than to ring just about everyone in the village trying to get expressions of despair from the locals.
I would like to put on record the view of Burton Joyce Residents’ Association. It’s a shame that we won’t have hanging baskets this year, but we have more important things to worry about.
WE ARE MORE CONCERNED about the impending threat to the village of increased flooding risk that we and all other downstream villages will suffer as a result of the proposals to build flood defences to protect the urban area around Nottingham. Planning applications for this defence scheme were recently sneaked into Broxtowe and Erewash Planning Authorities without the rural communities that would be adversely affected by the applications being notified.
… AND the increased flooding risk plus threats to the stability of homes in the villages that will result from Nottinghamshire County Council’s proposals to site the largest sand and gravel mine in the county between Burton Joyce and Gunthorpe.
… AND the threats to the health and safety of residents as a result of recent planning permission to site a chicken farm on an unsuitable location in the village to which the development of road access has destroyed a previously much loved and well used bridle path.
… AND the continuing approvals being given for yet more housing in the village, without any regard for the infrastructure which has been creaking for a long time and is now near to breaking point in many areas
… AND the poor state of roads and pavements in the village which are neglected year after year by the local authority, while other areas get repeated make-overs.
In this context, front page concern over hanging baskets shows a very strange sense of priorities.

Environment Agency proposals increase flooding risks to Trent Valley villages

2007-04-27T20:43:00.000Z

The Environment Agency has submitted planning applications for the Nottingham Trent Left Bank Flood Alleviation Scheme. This scheme is good news for residents from Sawley to Colwick because homes and businesses will be provided with additional flood protection. But it is very bad news for the downstream villages between Stoke Bardolph and Bleasby where flooding risks will be increased.

The extra flood risk will affect 580 properties of which 39 would be put at risk of flooding for the first time in 1:100 floods. A levy protection is being provided for the 97 homes at risk in Barton in Fabis but no protection is being provided for villages downstream of Colwick.

The following communities are at risk. The list shows first the number of houses at existing risk and secondly the number at risk after the scheme.

Stoke Bardolph 9/11: Burton Joyce and Bulcote 135/153; Gunthorpe 137/142; Hoveringham 104/111; Bleasby 53/60; Caythorpe 0/0 but houses would be cut off during flood; Holme Pierrepont 6/6.

Planning applications for the work have been submitted to Erewash and Broxtowe. Planning application references: Erewash - ERE/0407/0025: Broxtowe – 07/00287/FUL.

Nottingham and Gedling are not asking the EA to seek planning permission for work in their areas.

So, if the 483 residents who are going to be on the receiving end of increased flooding risks wish to object to the proposals, they must make their objections to Erewash and Broxtowe. We understand that public notices about the planning applications are imminent so residents will have to act quickly to make their objections as there will only be 21 days to make an objection to the planning application from the date of publication. It is very confusing that the Environmental Statement, which is part of the planning applications, is open for consultation until 6 July – whereas the closing date for objections to the planning applications could be as early as mid/late May.

More than a year ago Environment Agency officers attended a meeting in Burton Joyce where an undertaking was given that mitigation for additional flooding risk as a result of the FAS would be provided. But now the planning applications offer only future surveys and appraisals in various villages.

The EA has many questions to answer.

· Why are there no proposals for mitigating the flood risks to downstream communities in the planning application?

· Why did they not consult with or notify the downstream parish councils or community organisations that, as they know, have long been concerned about the impact of the FAS about the planning application?

· Why have they not notified the 493 individual householders whose houses will suffer additional flooding risk as a result of these proposals about the planning application?

There is such concern over these proposals and the potential impact on the downstream villages that a meeting has been arranged by Cllr O’Riordan, supported by Cllr Stewart, where the Environment Agency will have the opportunity to explain what progress has been made towards developing flood relief for the downstream villages. It is hoped that officials from Erewash, Broxtowe and Gedling will also be present to explain the planning application process and to learn about the local situation and our concerns.

Meeting date: Wednesday 16^th May at 7.30 p.m. Burton Joyce Village Hall

Expert Evidence to Flooding Select Committee

2007-04-27T20:35:00.000Z

Notts County Council appointed a select Committee on Flooding last September. What a pity they didn’t tell anyone about it! Surfing the Notts CC website we found that they had taken evidence from various departments and agencies but had not thought to take evidence from the real experts – people who had experienced at first hand flooding in their homes and who have studied local flooding issues.

So the indomitable Roger Fell catapulted into action and, drawing on experience in the Gunthorpe and Burton Joyce areas in the 2000 floods and his experience of studying flooding in the area since that time, (and with the support of funding from BJRA, BJ Parish Council and others), researched and prepared a submission on the local experience of flooding. His excellent presentation looked at policy and practice, different sources of flooding, the victim’s experience of flooding, the response of emergency agencies and the way in which planning permissions for built development and sand and gravel extraction in inappropriate places increases flooding risks.

We look forward to seeing the Select Committee’s final report to the Council, and what recommendations it makes to improve policy and practice.

Chairman's Annual Report 2006

2007-04-04T19:23:00.000Z

Throughout 2006 we have continued to be very active in working to protect the riverside area both in the immediate and the long term future.

Bulcote Farm planning application

Our most urgent work continued to be concerned with Tarmac’s planning application for sand and gravel extraction and a composting plant at Bulcote Farm. Members will know that the application was withdrawn in September 2006. An enormous amount of effort had gone into securing this result: Gunthorpe Environment and Flood Alleviation Group, Bulcote Conservation Trust, Bulcote Parish Council and our own Association had been continually active since the application was first made in July 2002.
It would seem invidious to single out people for special mention but I must pay tribute to Roger Fell of the GEFAG for his outstanding and persistent efforts in researching, understanding and challenging the Environment Agency, consultants working on the Trent Fluvial Strategy and Tarmac’s consultants over their interpretation of flooding data since 2000 – and convincing them that their data and interpretations were often flawed.
We are also greatly indebted to our two County Councillors - Cllrs James O’Riordan and John Clarke – for their work in keeping the issue before the County Council and its Committees, which eventually led to the Planning Committee setting a deadline for Tarmac for the submission of additional information for which it had waited since April 2003. We understand that this is the first time that a deadline has been given by Nottinghamshire County Council to a planning applicant – so we are very conscious of its significance.
However, this is only a very small step forward. Tarmac has withdrawn its application but we understand that the firm has engaged new consultants and has indicated that it will be resubmitting the application in the future. So we continue to be vigilant.

Flooding issues

Our other main preoccupation has been with Flood Alleviation schemes. In December 2005 we were alerted to two flood alleviation schemes proposed by the Environment Agency to protect the urban areas around West Bridgford and Nottingham. Although these would have increased flood risks for rural areas upstream and downstream of Nottingham, the Environment Agency had not consulted or informed councils or residents in areas likely to be negatively affected. The West Bridgford scheme had already been agreed before we or our Councillors knew about it.
Cllr O’Riordan arranged a meeting at the Village Hall in February at which Environment Agency officers explain the likely impact of the scheme on flood risks on downstream villages. At that meeting, the EA project leader said that provisions would be made within the scheme to mitigate additional flood risks created by the Nottingham scheme.
Later in the year, further consultations on the NFAS appeared to ignore the impacts on the villages downstream of Nottingham and we therefore made representations to the EA and worked with our Councillor, Cllr O’Riordan to ensure that BJ was not overlooked. We are greatly indebted to Cllr O’Riordan for the lead he has taken over the flooding issue with the result that the Environment Agency has agreed to fund pumps to alleviate problems at Crock Dumble and to explore the effectiveness of the railway embankment as a flood barrier. The EA has indicated that further funding will be sought to provide more effective embankment protection for the village as a whole if this is found to be necessary as a result of their explorations of the embankment.
In December the government published a new Planning Policy Statement (PPS25) on Development and Flood Risk. At the consultation stage it seemed that the government’s original intention was to ban all development in the functional flood plain, but changes in the final document made it clear that the government had responded to considerable lobbying by the minerals industry with the result that minerals extraction will be permitted in the functional flood plain – which includes our Burton Meadows area. We were concerned that at the consultation stage, Nottinghamshire County Council supported the minerals industry lobby by making a submission stating that almost all the sand and gravel in the County is located in the functional flood plain and unless extraction were permitted in this zone, virtually all the sand and gravel in the County would be sterilised. It is our understanding that this statement is not true, and that most of the sand and gravel in the county lies on the river terraces rather than in the functional flood plain.
We continue to be concerned that misleading information of this kind is still being placed before Councillors and we have taken the opportunity to raise queries whenever possible. Generally the new PPS tightens up procedures in some areas, but loosens them in others so the overall effect of the new statement in terms of minerals extraction is uncertain.

Consultations

We have continued to read many glossy expensively produced consultation documents and submitted comments on plain paper where appropriate. The most important of these was the Nottinghamshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework which is, effectively, the new Minerals Plan which will replace the Nottinghamshire Minerals Plan adopted in December 2005, which includes the so-called Gunthorpe allocation of which half is in Burton Joyce.
We made representations in respect of two stages of the consultation. We commented on the “Statement of Community Involvement” and subsequently argued the case for various improvements to the County’s proposals at the Examination in Public in October 2006. As a result some minor amendments were made to the Statement but our substantial arguments about requiring officers to consult and involve local people and organisations in Plans and planning applications and extend near-neighbour consultations to all those likely to be affected by a development were rejected by Officers and ignored in the Inspector’s report.
We have also made representations on the next stage of this Plan – “Nottinghamshire and Nottingham Waste Core Strategy and Development Control Policies – Issues and Options”. Our main concern in this document was that it proposed that facilities for disposal of waste and recycling facilities could be sited in the Green Belt in the future. At present this is prohibited. This proposal has important implications for the Green Belt in general and for our area in particular given Severn Trent's ownership of a considerable amount of land in this area, their commercial interests in disposal of sewage waste and recycling and the previous proposal by Tarmac for a sewage recycling plant at Severn Trent’s Bulcote Farm.

We also submitted comments on several other documents:
   Nottingham Trent left bank flood alleviation scheme
   Gedling Borough Council Local Development Framework - Core Strategy Issues and Options
   Draft East Midlands Regional Plan to 2026
I must record my concern about the Parish Council’s failure to draw these important consultations to the attention of residents or to study and respond to them. It is particularly disturbing that the Parish Council has shown no interest in the new Minerals and Waste Framework. Members will recall that it was the failure of the Parish Council to notice and inform residents that part of the parish was allocated in the previous Minerals Plan that led to the establishment of our Association. Having failed in its duties in 2002, one might have expected the Parish Council to be on the ball next time. Unfortunately this has not been so. The Parish Council was informed about the initial stage of the new Minerals and Waste Framework early in 2005 but did not bring this to the attention of residents or our Association. A chance observation brought the ongoing processes to our attention in October 2005.
At the Annual Parish Meeting in May, the Parish Council agreed to make information about public consultations available on the Parish notice board. But, in spite of this undertaking, they failed to do this until we made a complaint in September. We are pleased to see that since then notices have been posted. However, it is disappointing that the Parish Council itself continues to fail in its responsibility to study these documents, consider the implications for the Parish or to advise or consult other village organisations or residents who may have a particular interest or expertise in the issues under consideration.

Ombudsman complaints

(1) Local Government Ombudsman. As agreed at the last AGM, in November the Association made a complaint on behalf of 21 individual members to the Local Government Ombudsman alleging maladministration by Nottinghamshire County Council in respect of the Minerals Plan. At present the complaint is still awaiting allocation to a case-worker.
(2) Parliamentary Ombudsman. A complaint was also made in October to the Parliamentary Ombudsman via our MP Vernon Coaker alleging maladministration by the Government Office for the East Midlands in respect of its failure to call-in the Plan and investigate irregular actions or failures by Nottinghamshire County Council during the processes of the Minerals Plan. This complaint was rejected in the first instance by the case-worker but the matter is being pursued as it was clear that the case-worker had not read or understood the documents presented to him.

Information

We have continued to display news updates on the village notice-board at the Old School and in our Association’s folder in the library. We also launched our website (www.bjra.org.uk) during the summer: we are most grateful to Suzie O’Neill for designing the website and establishing this for us. All these media are updated on a regular basis to enable everyone in the village to have access to up-to-date news without the expense to us of publishing and distributing newsletters.

Contacts with other organisations

I was invited to contribute to a conference on the Green Belt being organised by the Nottinghamshire Branch of the Campaign to Protect Rural England in March on the theme of the residents’ experience of protecting the Green Belt view based on our village experience. I am most grateful for Dr Peter Toghill of BJ Preservation Society for presenting the paper I prepared on my behalf during my absence abroad.
We have continued to be in active contact with many other individuals and organisations. The co-operation between our Association, Bulcote Conservation Trust, Bulcote Parish Council and Gunthorpe Environment and Flood Alleviation Group has been central to our activities and we would have achieved little without such a good level of communication between us all.
We have also continued to keep Burton Joyce Parish Council informed about our activities. I am most grateful to Ron Wilkinson for attending parish council meetings regularly for this purpose.
I would like to thank our County Councillors James O’Riordan and John Clarke for their very active interest in the work of the Association and the problems of the village and our MP Vernon Coaker for his continuing interest in our concerns.
Finally, I would also like to thank the Officers and members of the Committee for their work and support during the year.

Julie O’Neill

Annual General Meeting

2007-03-26T19:12:00.000Z

Everyone is welcome to our Annual General Meeting on Thursday 29^th March at 7.30 p.m. in Burton Joyce Village Hall. We shall review our activities and present accounts for the year ending December 2006 and elect Officers and Committee members for the coming year.

Ade Williams from Global Action Plan will also be there to give a presentation on EcoTeams which provide an opportunity to learn how we, as individuals, can contribute to reducing our impact on man-made climate change and other environmental problems.

We look forward to seeing you there.

Gedling - New Consultation Document

2007-02-13T09:55:00.000Z

The latest stage of the Gedling Local Development Framework (effectively the next Plan for Gedling) is now open for consultation. This section is called “Local Development Framework Consultation on the Core Strategy Preferred Options” – yet another title dreamed up by the Ministry Devoted to Confusing the Public.

There is a copy of this consultation together with a Sustainability Assessment (see above for comment on MDCP) in BJ library. It can also be found on the Gedling website (www.gedling.gov.uk) by following the Planning links.

We have studied the document and will be making comments as appropriate to the purposes of our organisation. If members have comments to add, please send them to Julie. Alternatively you can send in your own comments on the forms available in the library.

Closing date for comments 21 March.

Parish Council acts - but only to muffle criticism

2007-02-07T11:26:00.000Z

There has been so much criticism of the parish council during recent “Public participation” sessions at the monthly parish council meetings that the Council has decided to act – by not recording discussions and issues raised by in this session in the Minutes in the future.

Matters were brought to a head at the February meeting when complaints made to the Council about the derogatory comments included in the published Minutes of the January meeting about one member of the community who had taken the trouble to attend that meeting to raise his concerns about the failure of the Parish Council to fulfil its responsibilities towards the village in respect of criminal and anti-social behaviour. The Council refused to delete the comments from the Minutes or issue an apology, thus laying the parish open to a potential case for defamation – which would have to be funded by the residents. At the same time the Council decided that, in future, the Public Participation section of the meeting would not be recorded in the Minutes.

A representative from BJRA attends the Parish Council meetings regularly to keep the Council informed of our activities, but this is not reciprocated by the Council. During recent months we have had to complain about the failure of the Parish Council to provide information to residents about important consultations that are likely to affect the future of the area in spite of an undertaking to do so made at the Annual Parish Meeting in May last year. (See entry on this site for 7 October 2006). We have also had to complain that in spite of continually alerting the Parish Council to the significance of these consultations, they have continued to make no effort to read or respond to these important documents on behalf of the village.

Most recently at the December meeting, the Chair of the Planning Committee, who had undertaken to study the most recent document on the new Minerals and Waste Framework Strategy (effectively the third stage of the new Minerals and Waste Plan) reported that he had not found time to read the document during the six-week consultation period available. Members might like to know that it took the Chair of BJRA no more than three hours to read the document and formulate a draft response. Members will recall that our Association was formed because of the Council’s failure to inform residents and take any action over the proposal to site a large allocation for sand and gravel extraction on our riverside in the Nottinghamshire Minerals Plan in 2002. The Association has continued to fight this issue over the past five years – a responsibility that should have been shouldered by the Parish Council. In the absence of any activity from the Parish Council, the Association is obliged to continue to represent village interests in respect of new Minerals and Waste Plan currently in progress.

At the February meeting, complaint was also made that the Parish Council had recently held in secret a Finance Committee Meeting at which proposals for the Parish Precept for next year were discussed. During discussions over this matter, it was clear that the Council was aware of its responsibilities to publicise, publish an Agenda and make access to the public available to any council meeting, committee meeting or sub-committee meeting. It is therefore clear that the meeting held in secret deliberately flouted this legal requirement.

Residents might like to ask why. In pondering this question, residents should be aware that at the Annual Parish Meeting in May 2006, the issue of the cessation of the additional parish precept that we have been paying to meet the capital cost of the Sports Centre at the end of 2006/7 was raised and the Parish Council agreed to a suggestion that if there was any question of continuing with the additional precept residents should be consulted on the use to which such a precept should be put. (See entry on this site for 8 July 2006). So far there has been no such consultation.

Other issues raised at the February meeting were:

· Discrimination by the Parish Council in singling out one village shop for criticism over rubbish in the village centre.
Failure of the Parish Council to adopt proper recording procedures in correcting, or refusing to correct, Minutes.
Lack of comprehensiveness, clarity and accuracy in Parish Council Minutes.
On the last two issues, the Council agreed to adopt proper procedures in future and to improve the Minutes.

Inspector's Report - Statement of Community Involvement

2006-12-12T12:30:00.000Z

The Inspector’s report on the Nottinghamshire County Council’s Minerals and Waste Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement has been published and is available on the County Council’s website - environment/planningmatters/sci.htm.

The Statement of Community Involvement sets out the ways in which the County Council will consult over Development Plans and planning applications in the future. Very few organisations submitted comments on this document during its consultation process over the past two years and only three attended the Examination in Public in October to make oral representations.

BJRA was not informed about the first stage of consultation in February 2005 so made no comment at this point. At the second stage of consultation in November 2005, we made 18 comments, 9 supporting particular issues and 9 setting out objections. This resulted in some changes to the document prepared by the County Council in the form of additional paragraphs setting out the role of local community and residents’ organisations and changes to the list of consultees. At the third stage of consultation in May 2006 we submitted four representations, and we were one of the three organisations that attended the public examination in October to make oral representations on two of these points.

In our four remaining representations we aimed to
(1) Get impacts on residents included on the list of key issues to be considered when evaluating policy options and sites being considered for development. The list proposed by the Council included “future demand for minerals, level of protection given to wildlife, cultural heritage and landscape…” but did not mention residents.
The Inspector’s report accepts the minor amendment proposed by the Council after our representation which now reads “how noise, dust and other pollution issues affect local residents and how they are addressed” but ignores the more significant issues we raised about the potential impact of developments such as mineral workings on health (dust from mineral workings, odour and dust from waste disposal) and on homes (dewatering and flooding). Our suggestion that a more holistic approach be taken to the impact on local residents was not mentioned in the Inspector’s report.
(2) Get a greater requirement for the Officers to consult local communities directly at various stages of plan and planning in the interests of benefiting from local and up-to-date knowledge. This was not mentioned in the Inspector’s report.
(3) Get the Council’s proposals for near neighbour consultation on plan and planning proposals increased from their suggestions of 100 metres for urban areas and 250 metres for rural areas. BJRA and the community groups from Ashfield area who were present at the Examination in Public argued the case for a considerably increased distance. We pointed to the Government’s evidence that dust can have significant impacts on health more than 1 km from a site and that dewatering can impact for several kilometres from major gravel mining sites. Under these circumstances, residents who are likely to be individually affected by such developments should have a right to be informed and consulted about them. However the Inspector’s report makes no mention of this issue that was discussed at length at the Examination and no changes are proposed.

Waste disposal and recycling plants in the Green Belt?

2006-11-29T21:43:00.000Z

The next stage of the County’s proposals for a new Waste Plan is in progress. A document entitled “Nottinghamshire and Nottingham Waste Core Strategy and Development Control Policies – Issues and Options” is now on the County website. (www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/wastecorestrategy) and in the library. It seeks everyone’s views on a range of proposals relating to waste disposal and recycling.

One suggestion is that facilities for disposal of waste and recycling facilities could be sited in the Green Belt in the future. (Issue 14) At present this is prohibited. This was one of the reasons that the planning application for Bulcote Farm, which included a composting plant to handle sewage sludge from the Stoke Bardolph works, was effectively rejected. If disposal of waste and recycling plants were permitted in the Green Belt we could see such facilities appearing on our riverside area to meet the commercial interests of Severn Trent Water’s local operations.

BJRA will be submitting comments on the document. If you would like to make your views known on this and other issues discussed in the Issues and Options document known to the Minerals and Waste Policy Team, Communities Department, Nottinghamshire County Council, you must do this by 8 December.

New public consultations

2006-10-22T12:17:00.000Z

We are pleased to see that the Parish Council has at last responded to requests we have been making over the past four years to inform and consult residents about consultations over issues relevant to village life.

There is information about four consultations currently on the Parish Notice Board. Two are from Nottinghamshire County Council relating to the County Structure Plan, one from the East Midlands Regional Assembly being the Draft Regional Plan which sets out plans for the region until 2026, and one from Gedling Borough Council concerning a planning application for 25 houses off Lambley Lane.

We have studied all these documents, and shall be making comments as appropriate to the purposes of our organisation. Anyone can comment on these consultations. Members who prefer to make their comments through the Association are invited to send their comments to the Chair at least a week before the cut-off date for comments.

Good news about flood protection for BJ

2006-10-11T20:57:00.000Z

There is good news about flood protection for the village. Many thanks to Cllr James O’Riordan for his work in pursuing this matter and for this information from the Environment Agency.

The Regional Flood Defence Committee has approved funding for work to deal with the flood risk posed by the Crock Dumble in the village. The EA aims to construct a pumping station during the drier months of 2007.

A further bid for £1,000,000 will be made for works to improve or replace embankment works to improve protection from the River Trent next year.

The next Minerals Plan and the Gunthorpe allocation

2006-10-11T20:16:00.000Z

Clarification has been received about the status of the current Minerals Plan and the Gunthorpe allocation in this Plan (which includes the Bulcote Farm site). Many thanks for the information to Paddy Tipping MP who obtained the information from the Environment Department, Notts County Council.

The current Minerals Local Plan, which was adopted by the County Council in December 2005, will remain in force until at least December 2008 or until it is replaced by new minerals development plan documents. Part or all of the Minerals Local Plan may be extended beyond December 2008 subject to approval by Government. Notts CC has decided to extend site specific policies, including the Gunthorpe allocation, until May 2009.

The timetable for the preparation of the new set of documents under the County Council’s Minerals and Waste Development Scheme is:
1. Statement of Community Involvement – commenced February 2005, estimated adoption January 2007
2. Minerals Core Strategy – timetabled to commence January 2006 but has not yet started, estimated adoption May 2008
3. Minerals Development Control Policies – timetabled to commence January 2006 but has not yet started, estimated adoption May 2008
4. Minerals Site Specific Policies – timetabled to commence November 2007, but likely to be delayed long after this date in view of delays in commencement of the Core Strategy and Development Control documents, estimated adoption November 2009.

What are the implications for the Gunthorpe allocation in the current Minerals Plan?

The preparation of the new Site Specific Policy Document will be the time to reassess any existing allocations that have not been taken up along with all available alternatives that could help meet demand for the next plan period. If the Gunthorpe allocation has not been taken up, it could be excluded from the new plan if it compared unfavourably against other options and/or it was evident that it was no longer a viable proposition. This is the only time when existing adopted policies can be changed.

Under the new planning system it is ultimately up to the planning inspector to decide what goes into the plan. His decisions are now mandatory.

You can see full details of the County Council’s new Minerals and Waste Development Scheme on their website – www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk. Follow the links for Environment, then Planning.

Government Office for the East Midlands: Secrets and Lies about the Nottinghamshire Minerals Plan

2006-10-07T10:32:00.000Z

The Government Office for the East Midlands (GOEM) acts locally on behalf of central government. Last November, BJRA, Bulcote Conservation Trust, Gunthorpe Environmental and Flood Alleviation Group, BJ and Bulcote Parish Councils, our local Borough Councillors and our local MPs Paddy Tipping and Vernon Coaker all asked the Secretary of State (via GOEM) to call in the Minerals Plan, or delete policy M6.6, the Gunthorpe Allocation. (See Notts Minerals Plan section on thissite)

The requestwas rejected.

As we were not satisfied that GOEM had treated our request seriously, in July we asked for copies of all correspondence and communications between GOEM and the Secretary of State under a Freedom of Information request. In August we received a reply from the Head of Infrastructure, stating that there had been no communication of any sort between GOEM and the Secretary of State. Having reason to question this response, we wrote again repeating the request and eventually received a reply in September from the Director of Children and Learning, admitting that there had been communication but stating that it had been decided that it was not in the public interest to permit access to it.

We have now written to the Director of GOEM drawing her attention to the discrepancies in these responses, asking what the Director of Children and Learning has got to do with it, and repeating our request for the information originally requested in July.

Parish Council continues to fail in its responsibilities to village

2006-10-07T09:46:00.000Z

The Parish Council receives information on all sorts of proposals and plans that could affect the village on a regular basis. It is the responsibility of the Parish Council to then inform and consult parishioners and respond appropriately. In 2002 the Parish Council failed to notice that the Nottinghamshire Minerals Plan included a proposal to allocate a large chunk of the Burton Joyce riverside as a minerals extraction site. We have the vigilance of a local resident who went to the trouble of putting up notices alerting villagers to this proposal to thank for the fact that the Plan was brought to the village’s attention. As a result of this inaction by the Parish Council and action by the individual resident, the Residents’ Association came into existence in 2002 and has been concerning itself with issues relating to the riverside area ever since.

With this experience, one would have thought that the Parish Council had learned its lesson and would take notice of future consultation documents but this has not been happening. We were particularly concerned to learn that Minerals and Waste Framework Consultation Documents (effectively, a new Minerals Plan which will eventually supersede the Minerals Plan that has just been adopted) began arriving at the Parish Council in February 2005 but none of these have been drawn to the attention of residents. At the Annual Parish Meeting in May, we raised concerns about this matter and asked that information about public consultations be brought to the attention of residents by notices on the Parish Notice Board near the Co-op, and the Council agreed to do this.

Over the summer, three significant documents affecting the village were open to consultation – one concerning Gedling as a whole, one concerning flood alleviation for our area and one concerning the new minerals and waste framework for the whole County – but none were brought to the attention of residents or local organisations by the Parish Council. We have asked the Parish Council for an explanation for their failure to honour the undertaking given at the Annual Parish Meeting and to ask what responses they gave to these important consultations.

Fortunately, BJRA became aware of these consultations through other sources and has made responses on behalf of its members. Yet again, BJRA has had to take up matters that are really the responsibility of the Parish Council. We shall be appearing at the Examination in Public in respect of the new Minerals and Waste Framework Documents later this month – just as we did at the Public Inquiry in respect of the previous Minerals Plan in 2004. For more information on this issue see July 11 entry on this site

Residents might like to ask why the Parish Council does not inform and consult residents about significant local issues and why it neglects important activities that it has a responsibility to undertake in behalf of the village, leaving the Preservation Society and the Residents’ Association to pick up the pieces.

Environment Agency Floodline Letters

2006-09-29T10:36:00.000Z

Last February many households in Burton Joyce received a letter from the Environment Agency Floodline saying that their property was at risk of flooding and advising people to register with the EA Floodline. This letter mystified many of us whose houses were not at flood risk according to the EA’s own flooding map. Umbrage was taken in some households that the letter was addressed to the woman of the house, rather than the male!
At last a response, explanation and apology has arrived. The essence is that the EA’s flood-plain map defines which houses are at flood risk – see this map in the library entrance – but the warning letter was confusingly sent to a wider range of people
Extract from the response:
“… your property is located in an area that is close to a natural floodplain for the River Trent but not actually located within the floodplain…. This is reflected on the Flood Map on our website and in the information we provide to insurers.
In previous years we have only contacted people at high risk of flooding but with our current mailshot we have contacted people who live close by to the floodplain… I would like to apologise for any confusion our mailing may have caused with respect to the flood risk to your property. … We will ensure that any future mailings to property located close to the floodplain get a different mailing explaining why they are being contacted rather than the generic mailing which you received... I would like to reassure you that our mailing will not affect your insurance…”
It has taken a very large number of phone calls, internet searches, letters and e-mails over seven months to get this response from the EA. Persistence is something BJRA is good at but why should we have to do this in order to get a response to a simple inquiry?
Residents who have tried to take up this issue must have been as infuriated as we were to notice that the Floodline letters were sent without any address or contact telephone number apart from the Floodline Registration Number which took us to a Belfast call-centre, where staff were unable to answer queries. You may therefore find the following contact details helpful:
Contact: Katie Slater, Campaigns Officer
Address: Rio House, Waterside Drive, Aztec West, Almondsbury, Bristol BS32 4UD
Customer services line: 08708 506 506

Tarmac withdraws Bulcote Farm planning application

2006-09-08T20:10:00.000Z

Today Tarmac withdrew its planning application for Bulcote Farm.

In a letter to Nottinghamshire County Council, Tarmac said:
”I … hereby withdraw the above planning application. The Company wishes to review the proposed development with a view to resubmitting an application in the future.”

At last!

Notts County Council and Tarmac - A Special Relationship

2006-09-05T08:04:00.000Z

Tarmac has not submitted the information required about their Bulcote Farm planning application by Nottinghamshire County Council by the deadline of 31 August. Is this the end of Tarmac’s plans to turn our lovely riverside into a quarry? Unfortunately not. While the “Gunthorpe allocation” remains in the County Minerals Plan, Tarmac or anyone else can apply to mine this site.

We have argued repeatedly that the site is not suitable for quarrying – there are too many risk factors here quite apart from the destruction of the lovely riverside area. So we are committed to getting the “Gunthorpe allocation” removed from the Plan.

During the past four years, a lot of nasty things have crawled out of the woodwork while we have been researching the practical problems of the site and investigating the legality of the procedures undertaken by the County Council as they steam-rolled the “Gunthorpe allocation” into the Plan, against all the evidence of its unsuitability.

We believe that there should be a full investigation into the whole affair. There are many questions that need answering.

There is a special relationship between Tarmac and the County Council; Tarmac is the Council’s chosen partner in the Highways Partnership that maintains the County’s roads.

We know that the County Council has regular meetings with Tarmac to discuss their current mining activities and proposals for new ones in the County. We know that the County Council has undertaken at public expense technical investigations to help Tarmac with its application for the Bulcote Farm site – investigations that should be the financial responsibility of the applicant. We know that the Council has agreed to Tarmac’s request to keep secret certain proposals in connection with the ongoing Bulcote Farm planning application – contrary to rules about public access to all information on live applications. We know that reports made by the Council’s Environment Department to the Minerals Plan public inquiry and to Council Committees about Tarmac’s application have been “economical with the truth”. We know … well, lots of other things – all of which require detailed investigation.

That is the trouble with special relationships. You never know what fine messes they will get you into.

Bulcote Farm Planning Application - Latest news

2006-09-01T09:47:00.000Z

Tarmac have failed to meet the deadline of 31 August 2006 set by the County Council’s Planning Committee for the resubmission of their planning application for an open-cast sand and gravel mine at Bulcote Farm. They have not withdrawn their application either. This means that the application will now be decided on the application submitted in July 2002.

A report will be prepared by the County’s Environment Department and will inevitably recommend that the Planning Committee refuse the application because, amongst other things, Tarmac has failed to:
   * provide evidence that their proposals will not increase flooding risks or provide mitigation of additional flood risk
   * include a method of mitigating the dewatering risks posed by an open cast mine so close to a substantial number of houses
   * provide an assessment of the impact of the proposal on Bulcote Conservation Area
   *   remove a proposal for a sewage composting plan on the site, which is in the Green Belt where such activities are prohibited

On 30 August, the Evening Post reported a spokesperson for Tarmac saying that the company would be unable to meet the deadline. Our inquiries have shown that Tarmac have not been able to come up with any proposals to satisfy the Environment Agency on the major problems of flooding and dewatering that were researched, highlighted and pressed forward since 2002 by the three village residents groups – Gunthorpe Environmental and Flood Alleviation Group (GEFAG), Bulcote Conservation Trust (BCT) and BJRA. We also learned that Tarmac had asked for more time and officers were prepared to accede to their request – in spite of the Planning Committee’s decision to set a deadline. So we were particularly pleased to see the Evening Post reporting Neil Hunt, the council's minerals planning team leader, saying that if Tarmac missed the deadline he expected to proceed now according to the Planning Committee’s decision.

We expect to see Nottinghamshire County Council’s Planning Committee that meets on 8 September confirm this process and ask for a report on the application to be presented to the Committee at the meeting on 3 October.

Parish Council Accounts

2006-08-05T19:51:00.000Z

Parish Council Accounts

BJ’s Parish Council Accounts for 2005-6 are now available for public inspection. Anyone on the BJ electoral roll can inspect the accounts between 9.30 am and 11.30 am from 2 - 30 August at the parish office. You must make an appointment with the Parish Clerk on 931 4084. See Parish Council notice-board in the village centre for full details.

For the benefit of those who can’t get to the parish office, an outline of the accounts is given below:

Income
Parish precept                     61,516
Revenue Grant                     28,621
Capital aid                            6,093
Agency services                     900
Cemetery fees                     1,405
Allotment rent                       1,268
Sports ground fees             8,386
Playscheme grant                 310
Playscheme fees                  256
Bank interest                          735
TOTAL                               £109,481

Expenditure
Salaries                                 42,592
Administration                      11,064
Capital aid
      Rotary mower                374
      Trailer                              950
      Hedge trimmer              370
      Bins for sports gnd       393
      Xmas lights                    4,006
New office extension          6,108
Cemetery                              1,751*
Allotments                             787*
Sports ground                      26,966*
Sports gnd loan repay.       9,962
Recreation                            2,445*
Donation Village Hall          200
Donation British Legion     60
Election                                 1349
TOTAL                              £109,377

* excluding salaries and administration

Flood alleviation

2006-07-11T14:42:00.000Z

Residents will be aware that the flood alleviation schemes to protect the urban areas around Nottingham and West Bridgford areas being undertaken by the Environment Agency will result in an increased flood risk for upstream and downstream villages, including BJ. The Environment Agency has undertaken to mitigate any additional risk caused by their work. They are currently still undertaking measurements of individual houses in the village and we hear they are seeking funding for the alleviation work. There is a list of measurements of individual houses undertaken already on our County Councillors’ website (www.carltoneastlabour.org). It’s not the most helpful information we’ve ever seen. If you can make sense of it – award yourself a prize; if not, you could try contacting the Environment Agency to see what it means for your house. But don’t hold your breath for a reply. We are still waiting for a reply to inquiries made in March despite several reminders!

Bulcote Farm: Planning application

2006-07-11T14:40:00.000Z

Nottinghamshire County Council’s Planning and Licensing Committee has decided that Tarmac must resubmit its planning application by the end of August. If the application is resubmitted as requested, the public will be given only 4 weeks to examine the application and submit representations, so keep watching this site, BJRA’s folder in the library or the notice board at the Old School for information. For more information see the Bulcote Farm section on this site.

Another Minerals Plan

2006-07-11T14:34:00.000Z

Even before the latest Minerals Plan was adopted by Nottinghamshire County Council in December 2005, work had started on yet another Minerals Plan. This time it combines the County’s Waste and Minerals Plans. To confuse us, it is not called a Plan now. Instead it is called “Nottinghamshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework." The first stage of the Framework is the creation of a “Statement of Community Involvement”. This began in February 2005, apparently, although we knew nothing about it until a chance observation in October 2005. Neither did Bulcote Conservation Trust or Gunthorpe Environmental and Flood Alleviation Group. This lack of communication with three community groups that had been continually in contact with the Environment Department since 2002 did not give us much confidence in the County Council’s ability to “consult the community”. BJRA has now made sure that our name is on the list of community groups being consulted and has responded to the second consultation document that emerged in November 2005. The third public consultation document is entitled “Statement of Community Involvement – Submission Draft, May 2006”. This is an important document as it sets out the terms on which the public will be consulted on Minerals and Waste Plans and planning applications for minerals extraction, waste disposal, schools, roads and other matters in the hands of the County Council in the future. The consultation document is now in the library. Anyone can submit comments on the document and suggest changes. BJRA will be submitting comments and welcomes views of members on the document by 21 July. (To Julie, please) The closing date for comments is 28 July 2006.

Other Useful Websites

2006-07-08T23:20:00.000Z

www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk - Nottinghamshire County Council

www.gedling.gov.uk - Gedling Borough Council

www.carltoneastlabour.org - Our County Councillors - John Clarke and James O'Riordan

www.vernon-coaker-mp.co.uk - Our Member of Parliament - Vernon Coaker

Sand and Gravel Mining

2006-07-08T23:18:00.000Z

Sand and gravel has been extracted from the Trent Valley for a very long time but most of the extraction has taken place in the past fifty years. Gravel extraction areas used to be restored for agricultural use but as the extent of extraction has increased and the availability of suitable filling materials failed to keep pace, extraction areas in the Trent Valley are now “restored to water”. “Restored” is a euphemism for meaning left to fill up with water – a much cheaper option for the extraction company than importing filling material. This means that the Trent Valley is now like a gorgonzola cheese – full of holes, but filled with water.

Yet more gravel extraction is sometimes promoted with the argument that afterwards, there will be enhanced opportunities for water activities, nature conservation areas and promises of public access. The reality is often very different. Very few of the water areas between Nottingham and Newark created as a result of gravel extraction in the past are available to the public. Just Colwick lakes and Netherfield ponds are accessible, all the rest are private. Some areas of water have been well restored and are well looked after as private fishing lakes, boating lakes or areas for nature conservation. Some have just been left to decay or recover on their own.

Today, after gravel extraction, the companies are supposed to restore the site as agreed as part of the planning permission granted. But can we rely on these companies to honour such agreements?

Gunthorpe Lakes is an example of a neglected site. Extraction was finished here in 1978, since then no restoration has taken place. The responsibility for restoration has now passed to the landowner, Severn Trent Water, and although the County Council had made orders requiring action to be taken to restore the area by certain dates, nothing has happened.

Some people like the lakes the way they are – nature taking over, doing its own thing. Others think it is a mess. There are, we understand, issues about the increased flood risk posed by the way the site has been left – which do need to be sorted out.

I must say that I like the lakes, except the biggest one at the bottom near the river. Wildlife people tell me that the steep sides prevent it from being useful for much wildlife, fisherman tell me that it has the biggest fish. Personally I find it very unattractive, it usually looks gloomy and I always call it the “big ugly pond at the bottom”. I hardly ever see any birds on it so I assume they feel the same about it as I do.

If more sand and gravel extraction is eventually permitted on the riverside, we shall not be left with delightful ponds like the existing smaller ones. Instead there will be two or three vast areas of water that will cover the whole area. Haven’t we got enough of those in the Trent Valley already?

Here’s some examples of past extraction area in the county to see what we could end up with.

Hoveringham Sixty years on?

Public access? A friendly welcome?

Rempstone

Bleasby Bleasby - open water

Cromwell Forty years on - restored or not – who can say?

Our Riverside

2006-07-07T21:06:00.000Z

We have a beautiful riverside area which the locals know well. The landowner, Severn Trent Water, estimates that 50,000 people visit their Stoke Estate each year. Anglers, bird watchers, nature lovers, walkers, joggers, horse-riders, cyclists, dog-walkers, wheel-chair users – on your own or with a group - there’s something for everyone.

Which do you like best?

The River Trent

Loved by anglers, swimming dogs, canal barges, motor boats, gulls, swans and a multitude of geese, ducks and other birds.

The lakes

Designated as a Site of Interest to Nature Conservation because of its wide variety of overwintering birds, surrounded by willows, loved by quiet anglers, and perfect for spotting a wide variety of dragonflies, damselflies and carpets of blue coenagrion.

The dykes

Providing homes for water-voles, moorhens, mallard – with occasional visits from kingfishers and herons when the fish are plentiful.

The trees and hedgerows

Dominated by hawthorn and ash but with dozens of varieties of trees and bushes. A delight in May when the hawthorn blossom is at its best, or in the autumn when crab apples, hops, blackberries, elderberries, hawthorn, sloes, guelder rose berries all vie for your attention.

The fields

Ever-changing through the seasons. The corn is a great favourite as it grows rapidly from a small shoot to become big, strong and “as high as an elephant’s eye”.

The footpaths

The delightful sheltered ancient track known to some as Trent Lane, to others as Green Lane, with its wide variety of trees and hedges. The cross-field track from the car park down to the lakes and the river with its exceptional hedgerows and creaking willows popular with the local hedge birds.

Open vistas round the Burton Meadows loop - braving the winds on some days, welcoming the relief from the heat on others, with a fine view of Shelford and its church and another Site of Interest to Nature Conservation on the unspoiled river edges and typical riverbank flowers. One of the many permissive paths. The full monty - the big hike from Stoke Bardolph Lock along the river edge all the way to Gunthorpe Lock, and beyond, if you want to go further. Others may describe this walk as from the Ferry Boat Inn (Stoke Bardolph) via the Lord Nelson (Burton Joyce) to the Anchor or Unicorn (Gunthorpe).

Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan

2006-07-06T23:16:00.000Z

In December 2005, Nottinghamshire County Council adopted the Replacement Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan. This Plan sets out the county's policy on extracting minerals to meet national and regional targets. It also identifies areas where different kinds of extraction will take place.

The "Gunthorpe" allocation shown on the map is mainly in Burton Joyce and Bulcote. This area has been allocated for the extraction of sand and gravel. The landowner - Severn Trent Water - proposed this site, which was supported and promoted throughout the Plan processes by Tarmac and Nottinghamshire County Council.

From July 2002 and December 2005, Burton Joyce Residents' Association fought a long, hard battle in co-operation with Bulcote Residents' Action Group (now Bulcote Conservation Trust) and Gunthorpe Environmental and Flood Alleviation Group to prevent this allocation being made. Our opposition was shared by more than eight hundred other objectors including:

Our local MPs Vernon Coaker and Paddy Tipping
Gedling Borough Council,
Gunthorpe, Lowdham, Bulcote and Burton Joyce Parish Councils
Burton Joyce Preservation Society
Burton Joyce Local History Society
Campaign to Protect Rural England
Ramblers Association
Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust

Plus over 800 individuals local residents who will be directly affected on a day-to-day basis and concerned visitors from other parts of the county or further afield.

We put forward our view that this site is not suitable for sand and gravel extraction because:

Risk of subsidence and ground slip as a result of extraction dewatering

There is already a history of subsidence and ground slip in the area which can only be made worse by open-cast mining if millions of gallons of water are drawn down from the adjacent steep banks and the surrounding area to the quarry to enable dry extraction of sand and gravel. This is likely to affect homes on the flood plain and on the adjoining clay bank in Bulcote, Burton Joyce and part of Lowdham.Dewatering is particularly likely to affect the Bulcote Conservation Area, where there are 27 listed buildings. The whole setting of the Conservation Area will be also harmed by an open-cast mine on two sides of the Area.

Flooding

There is a history of flooding in the area, most recently in 2000, which will be made worse. This primarily concerns Gunthorpe at present but could extend to Bulcote and Burton Joyce if Burton Meadows, near the river and in the active floodplain, is mined.

Water pollution

A major water pumping station, situated between Burton Joyce and Bulcote, serves the water needs of a large part of Nottinghamshire. There is a potential risk to these water supplies in view of the history of the site for sewage disposal for over a hundred years.
Loss of an extensively used leisure amenity area

An estimated 50,000 visitors a year come to walk, ride, fish, cycle, bird-watch and enjoy the tranquillity of the area. This amenity will be destroyed. The proposed site is also in the Green Belt and part of the Greenwood Community Forest, and as such should be protected from destruction.

Change in landscape

The current attractive and diverse landscape with its dykes, ponds, tree-lined lanes, and agricultural fields with wild-life encouraging edges would be destroyed and replaced by a flat landscape consisting of large masses of water.

Loss of wildlife

The wonderful variety of wildlife on the site would be obliterated. In particular, there is a thriving water vole population, described by a local water vole observer, as the best in the Trent Valley. Their habitat, which is protected by law, would be destroyed. In exchange, we would get an enormous increase in the numbers of Canada geese attracted by large new water masses, which will cause nuisance to nearby farmers. Other matters that concern us are:

There are many alternative sites

Many other sites were considered by Nottinghamshire County Council in preparing this Plan. None of the others has the potential to impact adversely on such a large population, their homes and their daily lives. There was, therefore, no need to allocate this particular site as plenty of alternatives were available.

Government planning policy guidances were ignored

The government issues a wide range of planning policy guidances which local authorities must follow but Nottinghamshire County Council chose to ignore many of these requirements including the need to explore fundamental issues such as ground stability, water pollution, flooding and impact on conservation areas before allocating a specific site in the Plan.

Misleading reports were made to Councillors

Reports prepared by the Environment Department to inform County Councillors at various times when they had to vote on the Plan were inaccurate and misleading. None of the reports advised the Councillors of the complexity of the issues relating to the site and the particular dangers posed to local residents and their homes.

Our County Councillors were banned from voting in crucial votes

The Council's Monitoring Officer advised Burton Joyce's two County Councillors that they should not be present at Council Meetings, take any part in discussions or vote on Minerals Plan issues because she judged them to have personal and prejudicial interests. Legal advisers we have consulted say that this advice was wrong. As a consequence of acting on the Monitoring Officer's advice, our two Councillors have not been able to participate in important Council meetings when the Minerals Plan was on the Agenda. Particular concern focused on the Council Meeting in June 2005 when a proposal to delete the Gunthorpe allocation from the Plan was lost by 2 votes.

Future action:

The Replacement Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan was adopted by Nottinghamshire County Council in December 2005 but this is not the end of the matter. We believe that Nottinghamshire County Council was wrong to include the Gunthorpe allocation in the Minerals Plan without adhering to proper procedures and government guidelines. In October 2006 we made a complaint about Nottinghamshire County Council's maladministration to the Local Government Ombudsman.

Bulcote Farm

2006-07-06T21:06:00.000Z

Above: Tarmac’s planning application site - click for large version

Left: The planning application – the public are given four weeks to make their comments or objections.

In July 2002, Tarmac Central Ltd submitted a planning application to extract sand and gravel and to establish a sewage composting plant on the site shown in orange on the map. Since that time, Burton Joyce Residents' Association has worked in co-operation with Bulcote Residents’ Action Group (now Bulcote Conservation Trust) and Gunthorpe Environmental and Flood Alleviation Group to oppose this application for all the reasons given in the page on the Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan on this site. Following hundreds of objections to the application and issues raised by local organisations and residents, Nottinghamshire County Council wrote to the applicant in April 2003 setting out a range of issues that they must resolve before pursuing their application further. The applicant was asked to resubmit the application when all the issues have been resolved. So far the re-submission has not been made.

Throughout this time, the Environment Department has made occasional reports to Nottinghamshire County Council’s Planning and Licensing Committee. Reports always suggested that the applicant was on the verge of completing his explorations and was about the resubmit the application. At no time was this true. The reports never revealed the complexity of the problems relating to the site to Committee Members.

At its meeting in June 2006, the Planning and Licensing Committee unanimously approved a proposal that the applicant be directed to resubmit the application by 31 August 2006 – or the application will be determined on the data submitted in July 2002.

On 7 September 2006, Tarmac withdrew this application stating that they wished to review the proposed development with a view to resubmitting an application in the future.

Contact Us

2006-07-02T23:20:00.005Z

For information about the Burton Joyce Residents’ Association contact:

Chair: David Prime Tel: 0115 911 8853

Secretary: Julie O'Neill Tel: 0115 931 2864

Or e-mail us at: info _@_ bjra_dot_org_dot_uk

Or please leave a comment below.