Protesters fight bid to build 475 new homes at Micklethwaite near Bingley (From Bradford Telegraph and Argus)
Get involved: send your pictures, video, news and views by texting TANEWS to 80360, or email
Protesters fight bid to build 475 new homes at Micklethwaite near Bingley
7:00am Tuesday 9th March 2010 in
Villagers have declared a ‘call to arms’ in their battle to stop hundreds of houses being built in the Bingley countryside.
An application by construction giants Bellway and Redrow to obtain outline planning permission for 475 homes off Sty Lane, Micklethwaite, has now been validated for consideration by Bradford Council.
Greenhill Action Group (GAG), which is leading the protest, says that means the clock is ticking for opponents to prepare their protests before the issue goes before a Council committee. In the application, Bellway and Redrow are also seeking permission to replace the swing bridge over the Leeds-Liverpool Canal and provide new access roads off Sty Lane and Micklethwaite Lane, along with emergency access off Fairfax Road and off-site road improvements.
GAG now intends to hold weekly meetings with villagers as it draw up its battle plans over the next few months.
But its chairman Terry Brown complained that the group’s progress had so far been hindered by difficulties in downloading important documents relating to the application from the Council’s planning website.
He said: “We have got no more than 16 weeks and we have spent the best part of a week trying to get this information.
“This week we are drawing together a plan of action. We are preparing a newsletter to go out, we are going to be doing various surveys and arranging for petitions to be available, either printed or online.
“Our consultants are preparing our objections for the development site so that we can provide a list of valid objections for those people who want to object.”
Mr Brown said the group had already attracted considerable support from the community.
He said: “Hopefully now there’s enough of a groundswell of opinion to persuade the planing people to do something about it.
“And hopefully the objections that we have will be meaningful objections, and not just be in the manner of ‘we don’t want this in our back yard’, because that’s not what we are about.
“We have great concerns about 475 houses, which will mean something like 1,000 cars and about 1,500 people, all of which will make an impact on the transport infrastructure.”
Mr Brown argues that roads in the area would struggle to deal with the extra people and cars, even with the proposed replacement to the swing bridge – an opinion echoed by Councillor David Heseltine (Con, Bingley).
Coun Heseltine said: “I whole-heartedly support all the campaigners. It is a rural backdrop to Crossflatts and Micklethwaite as well as other parts of the Bingley ward.
“The canal side, where the proposed development is due to take place, is open countryside and the water’s edge is a haven for all sorts of feathered and four-legged wildlife.
“It would be a tragedy to lose such an outstanding part of the local community.”
The developers submitted an application last year but Bradford Council ruled it was “invalid” and needed to include more information before it would be resubmitted, a process that has now been completed.
Comments(51)
David Crocket
says...
10:48am Tue 9 Mar 10
finemess wrote:Its only a select few that will be able to afford these homes, are you one of them?, can you afford to move from your comfortable home on Canterbury estate?, or perhaps you have a penthouse apartment on Thorpe edge?.
I fully support the application by the builders. Why should the select few have the privelige of living in the nicer areas? I also notice that they always use the wildlife arguement when trying to block these applications when in reality most people don't give the wildlife a second thought otherwise!
Get real mate, this is about money, back pockets being filled, nods and winks, arse licking, this council is rotten to the core, in the olden days these crooks would be hanged by the roadside, you say most people don't give a second thought for wildlife, you are so wrong, it seems to me you don't give a second thought for most people!!.
its johnny
says...
11:19am Tue 9 Mar 10
finemess
says...
11:39am Tue 9 Mar 10
David Crocket wrote:The implied derogatory references you make to Thorpe Edge and Canterbury makes what poor arguement you have all the weaker!
finemess wrote: I fully support the application by the builders. Why should the select few have the privelige of living in the nicer areas? I also notice that they always use the wildlife arguement when trying to block these applications when in reality most people don't give the wildlife a second thought otherwise!Its only a select few that will be able to afford these homes, are you one of them?, can you afford to move from your comfortable home on Canterbury estate?, or perhaps you have a penthouse apartment on Thorpe edge?. Get real mate, this is about money, back pockets being filled, nods and winks, arse licking, this council is rotten to the core, in the olden days these crooks would be hanged by the roadside, you say most people don't give a second thought for wildlife, you are so wrong, it seems to me you don't give a second thought for most people!!.
ratherhavesun
says...
12:06pm Tue 9 Mar 10
brownt53
says...
12:10pm Tue 9 Mar 10
n-group.co.uk and join our mailing lits which will keep you up to date and advise how to object.
Autolatry
says...
12:13pm Tue 9 Mar 10
David Crocket wrote:A proportion of the development will have to be affordable housing, so anyone that wants to sell up from Canterbury or Thorpe Edge then there is no reason they cant move to this development.
finemess wrote:Its only a select few that will be able to afford these homes, are you one of them?, can you afford to move from your comfortable home on Canterbury estate?, or perhaps you have a penthouse apartment on Thorpe edge?.
I fully support the application by the builders. Why should the select few have the privelige of living in the nicer areas? I also notice that they always use the wildlife arguement when trying to block these applications when in reality most people don't give the wildlife a second thought otherwise!
Get real mate, this is about money, back pockets being filled, nods and winks, arse licking, this council is rotten to the core, in the olden days these crooks would be hanged by the roadside, you say most people don't give a second thought for wildlife, you are so wrong, it seems to me you don't give a second thought for most people!!.
There will be a sec 106 attached to the approval, so the developer will have to throw a considerable amount of money to create / improve the local amenities.
It will create jobs, help the housing market and give people the opportunity to live in what is quite a nice area.
The application should be supported and the developer should be thanked for creating the jobs in what are still very hard times in construction. Oh and dont forget the half million odd quid the council will get each year in council tax.
ratherhavesun
says...
12:17pm Tue 9 Mar 10
brownt53 wrote:No thanks - I won't be signing up. Of course this development will have an impact on roads and services - just like the developments elsewhere in the area. In other words you are no different to anyone else you have to learn to live with the increasing population. You could always get together and go and buy yourselves your very own island to live on then you won't be bothered by anyone else and their extra traffic and pressure on services!!!!! One thing to bear in mind though is that there won't be any services on your little island as there won't be enough people to support them - oh dear - choices, choices!!!!!!
This potential developement is going to have a major impact on Bingley, its road and its servcies. If like our group you wish to object to the developement pleaes visit our website at www.greeenhill-actio n-group.co.uk and join our mailing lits which will keep you up to date and advise how to object.
fiverise
says...
12:54pm Tue 9 Mar 10
ratherhavesun wrote:Obviously, some of the people objecting do have kids - I'm one of them - but where are any new kids going to go to school with Bingley Grammar and local primaries already over-subscribed?
Brings to mind the old saying NIMBY!!!! Where else are we going to build houses for our ever growing population?????? Some people can be really short-sighted. I bet the folks objecting to these new houses have kids and they probably have kids and they will probably eventually have kids ad infinitum - so where exactly do they think they will end up living in the future?????? As I said NIMBY.
BD16
says...
1:02pm Tue 9 Mar 10
ratherhavesun wrote:Perhaps we would be better looking at stopping the growth of our population. England, not the UK, is now the most densley populated country in Europe. We do not have the infrastructure, hospitals, schools etcetera, to cope with this sort of expansion.
Brings to mind the old saying NIMBY!!!! Where else are we going to build houses for our ever growing population?????? Some people can be really short-sighted. I bet the folks objecting to these new houses have kids and they probably have kids and they will probably eventually have kids ad infinitum - so where exactly do they think they will end up living in the future?????? As I said NIMBY.
It's ok letting the population grow and grow but we are going to be standing on each others shoulders if this is allowed to carry on.
fiverise
says...
1:06pm Tue 9 Mar 10
finemess wrote:Get real - plenty people live in nice areas, not just the 'select few' but there won't be any nice areas left it they keep getting built on. There's plenty of brownfield sites available in the Bingley area without having to resort to snaffling up swathes more green field land. I wonder how many of the directors of Redrow and Bellway live on the 'pack 'em in tight lads' estates that they create?
I fully support the application by the builders. Why should the select few have the privelige of living in the nicer areas?
I also notice that they always use the wildlife arguement when trying to block these applications when in reality most people don't give the wildlife a second thought otherwise!
smile...
says...
1:14pm Tue 9 Mar 10
Divers_uk
says...
1:28pm Tue 9 Mar 10
We will run out of what little industry there is left if we build on it all
It is an allocated site, the time to object was when the local plan was being debated, not now
fiverise
says...
1:29pm Tue 9 Mar 10
Divers_uk
says...
1:31pm Tue 9 Mar 10
You seem to forget that site minimum site density is government and planning driven.
ratherhavesun
says...
1:46pm Tue 9 Mar 10
BD16 wrote:OK then - lets try and stop our population growing. How do we do that?????? It's fair to say that immigrants are a large proportion but I doubt very much they will be the one's living in these new builds. One major reason for our growing population is that the old folk are simply getting older and living for longer. We all know that we will need the younger people to look after us when the time comes. Perhaps you would prefer a couple of high-rise blocks instead - they take up less land and you can keep all your wildlife!!!!!!
ratherhavesun wrote: Brings to mind the old saying NIMBY!!!! Where else are we going to build houses for our ever growing population?????? Some people can be really short-sighted. I bet the folks objecting to these new houses have kids and they probably have kids and they will probably eventually have kids ad infinitum - so where exactly do they think they will end up living in the future?????? As I said NIMBY.Perhaps we would be better looking at stopping the growth of our population. England, not the UK, is now the most densley populated country in Europe. We do not have the infrastructure, hospitals, schools etcetera, to cope with this sort of expansion. It's ok letting the population grow and grow but we are going to be standing on each others shoulders if this is allowed to carry on.
finemess
says...
1:53pm Tue 9 Mar 10
Welcome to the real world!
fiverise
says...
1:55pm Tue 9 Mar 10
Divers_uk wrote:And we all know how good central/local government is at estimating what we need in future housing stock. I assume that's why all those high-rise apartments in the centre of Leeds are fully occupied... not.
I know some of those directors and you are no doubt surprised but they live on their company's developments.
You seem to forget that site minimum site density is government and planning driven.
its johnny
says...
2:01pm Tue 9 Mar 10
fentiger
says...
2:16pm Tue 9 Mar 10
BD16
says...
3:09pm Tue 9 Mar 10
ratherhavesun wrote:I never mentioned immigrants and it's a cheap shot to bring racism into the debate. I said we have too many people for this country to support. We are running out of space and concreting over any spare bit of land and we have to somehow find a way of stopping this. What would you suggest we do when every bit of land is covered and the roads are even more congested that they are now?
BD16 wrote:OK then - lets try and stop our population growing. How do we do that?????? It's fair to say that immigrants are a large proportion but I doubt very much they will be the one's living in these new builds. One major reason for our growing population is that the old folk are simply getting older and living for longer. We all know that we will need the younger people to look after us when the time comes. Perhaps you would prefer a couple of high-rise blocks instead - they take up less land and you can keep all your wildlife!!!!!!ratherhavesun wrote: Brings to mind the old saying NIMBY!!!! Where else are we going to build houses for our ever growing population?????? Some people can be really short-sighted. I bet the folks objecting to these new houses have kids and they probably have kids and they will probably eventually have kids ad infinitum - so where exactly do they think they will end up living in the future?????? As I said NIMBY.Perhaps we would be better looking at stopping the growth of our population. England, not the UK, is now the most densley populated country in Europe. We do not have the infrastructure, hospitals, schools etcetera, to cope with this sort of expansion. It's ok letting the population grow and grow but we are going to be standing on each others shoulders if this is allowed to carry on.
fentiger
says...
3:27pm Tue 9 Mar 10
BD16 wrote:Well BD16 they've all gone a bit quiet haven't they, nothing positive to suggest. have you noticed how many empty properties there are about, why not fill them first and see if there is any way to reduce the amount of traffic. Trouble is people are so reliant on cars and society is set up to meet the car habit eg big supermarkets rather than local shops etc.
ratherhavesun wrote:I never mentioned immigrants and it's a cheap shot to bring racism into the debate. I said we have too many people for this country to support. We are running out of space and concreting over any spare bit of land and we have to somehow find a way of stopping this. What would you suggest we do when every bit of land is covered and the roads are even more congested that they are now?
BD16 wrote:OK then - lets try and stop our population growing. How do we do that?????? It's fair to say that immigrants are a large proportion but I doubt very much they will be the one's living in these new builds. One major reason for our growing population is that the old folk are simply getting older and living for longer. We all know that we will need the younger people to look after us when the time comes. Perhaps you would prefer a couple of high-rise blocks instead - they take up less land and you can keep all your wildlife!!!!!!ratherhavesun wrote: Brings to mind the old saying NIMBY!!!! Where else are we going to build houses for our ever growing population?????? Some people can be really short-sighted. I bet the folks objecting to these new houses have kids and they probably have kids and they will probably eventually have kids ad infinitum - so where exactly do they think they will end up living in the future?????? As I said NIMBY.Perhaps we would be better looking at stopping the growth of our population. England, not the UK, is now the most densley populated country in Europe. We do not have the infrastructure, hospitals, schools etcetera, to cope with this sort of expansion. It's ok letting the population grow and grow but we are going to be standing on each others shoulders if this is allowed to carry on.
finemess
says...
4:30pm Tue 9 Mar 10
fentiger wrote:If you villagers are so concerned about the village and the impact such housing brings then why don't you all sell up and move into one of the many empty properties you say exist. That way those that would be grateful for a chance to live in this village can buy up your properties and everyone should be happy including the wildlife and i'm sure the village would be a much nicer place without those selfish whinging NIMBY'S!
BD16 wrote:Well BD16 they've all gone a bit quiet haven't they, nothing positive to suggest. have you noticed how many empty properties there are about, why not fill them first and see if there is any way to reduce the amount of traffic. Trouble is people are so reliant on cars and society is set up to meet the car habit eg big supermarkets rather than local shops etc.ratherhavesun wrote:I never mentioned immigrants and it's a cheap shot to bring racism into the debate. I said we have too many people for this country to support. We are running out of space and concreting over any spare bit of land and we have to somehow find a way of stopping this. What would you suggest we do when every bit of land is covered and the roads are even more congested that they are now?BD16 wrote:OK then - lets try and stop our population growing. How do we do that?????? It's fair to say that immigrants are a large proportion but I doubt very much they will be the one's living in these new builds. One major reason for our growing population is that the old folk are simply getting older and living for longer. We all know that we will need the younger people to look after us when the time comes. Perhaps you would prefer a couple of high-rise blocks instead - they take up less land and you can keep all your wildlife!!!!!!ratherhavesun wrote: Brings to mind the old saying NIMBY!!!! Where else are we going to build houses for our ever growing population?????? Some people can be really short-sighted. I bet the folks objecting to these new houses have kids and they probably have kids and they will probably eventually have kids ad infinitum - so where exactly do they think they will end up living in the future?????? As I said NIMBY.Perhaps we would be better looking at stopping the growth of our population. England, not the UK, is now the most densley populated country in Europe. We do not have the infrastructure, hospitals, schools etcetera, to cope with this sort of expansion. It's ok letting the population grow and grow but we are going to be standing on each others shoulders if this is allowed to carry on.
fentiger
says...
4:38pm Tue 9 Mar 10
Joedavid
says...
4:53pm Tue 9 Mar 10
If the builders can sell them them that is good.
If you not like other people living near you I say sell up and move, do not be so selfish, I do hope in this day and age there is no snobishness in all this.
webess
says...
5:28pm Tue 9 Mar 10
brownt53 wrote:I fully support the planning application. In fact I've recently come into a £400k windfall and might well be buying on the development. But I figure you and the other NIMBY's would prefer if "my type of people" stayed in the inner city area.
This potential developement is going to have a major impact on Bingley, its road and its servcies. If like our group you wish to object to the developement pleaes visit our website at www.greeenhill-actio
n-group.co.uk and join our mailing lits which will keep you up to date and advise how to object.
.
Obviously your concern is a bunch of ducks and not keeping your little area to yourselves.
trevorwilkie
says...
5:29pm Tue 9 Mar 10
fiverise
says...
5:39pm Tue 9 Mar 10
fentiger wrote:The development will affect far more than the village of Micklethwaite.
Finemess - you make an assumption that anyone against this build is a 'villager'. Not sure what village you mean as it looks like this build could affect a number of communities. The thing is some of us care about issues that are beyond the bottom of our nostrils so you can hardly call us NIMBY's.
It will severely affect the people of Crossflatts (who will have to bear the brunt of much of the extra traffic coming down from the new development) and put greater pressure on the amenities of Bingley itself.
fiverise
says...
5:43pm Tue 9 Mar 10
webess wrote:There's no shortage of choice for houses in the £400K bracket all over this region - why do we need brand new ones on this site?
brownt53 wrote:I fully support the planning application. In fact I've recently come into a £400k windfall and might well be buying on the development. But I figure you and the other NIMBY's would prefer if "my type of people" stayed in the inner city area.
This potential developement is going to have a major impact on Bingley, its road and its servcies. If like our group you wish to object to the developement pleaes visit our website at www.greeenhill-actio
n-group.co.uk and join our mailing lits which will keep you up to date and advise how to object.
.
Obviously your concern is a bunch of ducks and not keeping your little area to yourselves.
fiverise
says...
5:51pm Tue 9 Mar 10
Joedavid wrote:Don't know where you live Joedavid but if you had beautiful open countryside on your doorstep would you be happy to have it concreted over without putting up a fight?
To me these people allready living there and do not want us to live there.
If the builders can sell them them that is good.
If you not like other people living near you I say sell up and move, do not be so selfish, I do hope in this day and age there is no snobishness in all this.
webess
says...
6:10pm Tue 9 Mar 10
fiverise wrote:You're answer confirms that you are indeed no more than a NIMBY!
webess wrote:There's no shortage of choice for houses in the £400K bracket all over this region - why do we need brand new ones on this site?
brownt53 wrote:I fully support the planning application. In fact I've recently come into a £400k windfall and might well be buying on the development. But I figure you and the other NIMBY's would prefer if "my type of people" stayed in the inner city area.
This potential developement is going to have a major impact on Bingley, its road and its servcies. If like our group you wish to object to the developement pleaes visit our website at www.greeenhill-actio
n-group.co.uk and join our mailing lits which will keep you up to date and advise how to object.
.
Obviously your concern is a bunch of ducks and not keeping your little area to yourselves.
.
Ever thought that you're own house was once countryside. If care for the environment is your real concern then you could demolish it and return it to nature - as you point out there no shortage of nice all over the region..
BCFC86
says...
6:20pm Tue 9 Mar 10
That is why we have parks, the open space was once regarded as important.
Is there an alternative, yes, there are huge acresof brownfield sites in Bradford, even 1 less than a mile from this proposed site, the auction mart.
Look to the future dont destroy our heritage, we are its custodians
fiverise
says...
6:25pm Tue 9 Mar 10
webess wrote:Nice idea webess but it wouldn't work in reality - it would just make another brownfield site which would lie unused, like plenty of others in this area.
fiverise wrote:You're answer confirms that you are indeed no more than a NIMBY!
webess wrote:There's no shortage of choice for houses in the £400K bracket all over this region - why do we need brand new ones on this site?
brownt53 wrote:I fully support the planning application. In fact I've recently come into a £400k windfall and might well be buying on the development. But I figure you and the other NIMBY's would prefer if "my type of people" stayed in the inner city area.
This potential developement is going to have a major impact on Bingley, its road and its servcies. If like our group you wish to object to the developement pleaes visit our website at www.greeenhill-actio
n-group.co.uk and join our mailing lits which will keep you up to date and advise how to object.
.
Obviously your concern is a bunch of ducks and not keeping your little area to yourselves.
.
Ever thought that you're own house was once countryside. If care for the environment is your real concern then you could demolish it and return it to nature - as you point out there no shortage of nice all over the region..
Joedavid
says...
7:18pm Tue 9 Mar 10
fiverise wrote:Well if that argument used when the present houses built and agreed then they would not be there now either.
Joedavid wrote: To me these people allready living there and do not want us to live there. If the builders can sell them them that is good. If you not like other people living near you I say sell up and move, do not be so selfish, I do hope in this day and age there is no snobishness in all this.Don't know where you live Joedavid but if you had beautiful open countryside on your doorstep would you be happy to have it concreted over without putting up a fight?
BD16
says...
7:32pm Tue 9 Mar 10
webess wrote:Sorry Webess but I have to take issue with you on this. It's not about nimbyism, it's about not building in anybodys backyard. We are a small overcrowded island and simply cannot go on concreting over the countryside.
brownt53 wrote: This potential developement is going to have a major impact on Bingley, its road and its servcies. If like our group you wish to object to the developement pleaes visit our website at www.greeenhill-actio n-group.co.uk and join our mailing lits which will keep you up to date and advise how to object.I fully support the planning application. In fact I've recently come into a £400k windfall and might well be buying on the development. But I figure you and the other NIMBY's would prefer if "my type of people" stayed in the inner city area. . Obviously your concern is a bunch of ducks and not keeping your little area to yourselves.
It's not about 400k houses and "not wanting your sort around here" whatever your sort is? After all some of the housing has to be affordable so "your sort" may be able to afford them anyway. It's about not choking the life out of any green spaces we have left that are there for all to enjoy.
Windyass
says...
7:50pm Tue 9 Mar 10
Most Bradfordians earn less than £20k per year, so they should be building £80k houses.
fiverise
says...
8:23pm Tue 9 Mar 10
Windyass wrote:Sadly, if they were going to be selling them for £80k apiece we'd probably be looking at nearer 1,000 houses on the site...
I'm completely against them building £400k houses.
Most Bradfordians earn less than £20k per year, so they should be building £80k houses.
webess
says...
8:29pm Tue 9 Mar 10
BD16 wrote:This line about "concreting over the countryside" etc is both emotive and wrong.
webess wrote:Sorry Webess but I have to take issue with you on this. It's not about nimbyism, it's about not building in anybodys backyard. We are a small overcrowded island and simply cannot go on concreting over the countryside.
brownt53 wrote: This potential developement is going to have a major impact on Bingley, its road and its servcies. If like our group you wish to object to the developement pleaes visit our website at www.greeenhill-actio n-group.co.uk and join our mailing lits which will keep you up to date and advise how to object.I fully support the planning application. In fact I've recently come into a £400k windfall and might well be buying on the development. But I figure you and the other NIMBY's would prefer if "my type of people" stayed in the inner city area. . Obviously your concern is a bunch of ducks and not keeping your little area to yourselves.
It's not about 400k houses and "not wanting your sort around here" whatever your sort is? After all some of the housing has to be affordable so "your sort" may be able to afford them anyway. It's about not choking the life out of any green spaces we have left that are there for all to enjoy.
.
The planning system in the UK is based around squeezing development into small pockets. If you don't believe me look out of the window next time you approach LBA - the area is overwhelmingly green & unbuilt on.
.
All the NIMBY stuff reminds me of Prince Charles. He preaches building on brownfield sites, from the comfort of one of his multi-acre mansions in the countryside!
fiverise
says...
8:46pm Tue 9 Mar 10
webess wrote:Not too many multi-acre mansions in Crossflatts methinks.
BD16 wrote:This line about "concreting over the countryside" etc is both emotive and wrong.
webess wrote:Sorry Webess but I have to take issue with you on this. It's not about nimbyism, it's about not building in anybodys backyard. We are a small overcrowded island and simply cannot go on concreting over the countryside.
brownt53 wrote: This potential developement is going to have a major impact on Bingley, its road and its servcies. If like our group you wish to object to the developement pleaes visit our website at www.greeenhill-actio n-group.co.uk and join our mailing lits which will keep you up to date and advise how to object.I fully support the planning application. In fact I've recently come into a £400k windfall and might well be buying on the development. But I figure you and the other NIMBY's would prefer if "my type of people" stayed in the inner city area. . Obviously your concern is a bunch of ducks and not keeping your little area to yourselves.
It's not about 400k houses and "not wanting your sort around here" whatever your sort is? After all some of the housing has to be affordable so "your sort" may be able to afford them anyway. It's about not choking the life out of any green spaces we have left that are there for all to enjoy.
.
The planning system in the UK is based around squeezing development into small pockets. If you don't believe me look out of the window next time you approach LBA - the area is overwhelmingly green & unbuilt on.
.
All the NIMBY stuff reminds me of Prince Charles. He preaches building on brownfield sites, from the comfort of one of his multi-acre mansions in the countryside!
BD16
says...
7:44am Wed 10 Mar 10
webess wrote:Your first paragraph is plain daft. It's neither emotive or wrong it's simply concreting over the countryside. Literally.
BD16 wrote:This line about "concreting over the countryside" etc is both emotive and wrong. . The planning system in the UK is based around squeezing development into small pockets. If you don't believe me look out of the window next time you approach LBA - the area is overwhelmingly green & unbuilt on. . All the NIMBY stuff reminds me of Prince Charles. He preaches building on brownfield sites, from the comfort of one of his multi-acre mansions in the countryside!webess wrote:Sorry Webess but I have to take issue with you on this. It's not about nimbyism, it's about not building in anybodys backyard. We are a small overcrowded island and simply cannot go on concreting over the countryside. It's not about 400k houses and "not wanting your sort around here" whatever your sort is? After all some of the housing has to be affordable so "your sort" may be able to afford them anyway. It's about not choking the life out of any green spaces we have left that are there for all to enjoy.brownt53 wrote: This potential developement is going to have a major impact on Bingley, its road and its servcies. If like our group you wish to object to the developement pleaes visit our website at www.greeenhill-actio n-group.co.uk and join our mailing lits which will keep you up to date and advise how to object.I fully support the planning application. In fact I've recently come into a £400k windfall and might well be buying on the development. But I figure you and the other NIMBY's would prefer if "my type of people" stayed in the inner city area. . Obviously your concern is a bunch of ducks and not keeping your little area to yourselves.
Next time you drive around the aire valley look and see how many former pockets of countryside are now built on. This particular development is off a small tight road not designed for current levels of traffic let alone approximately 800 extra cars.
I don't live in a multi acre estate and i'm not a nimby. As I said before it should be in no ones back yard.
richardk9
says...
8:32am Wed 10 Mar 10
Bazzabails
says...
11:11am Wed 10 Mar 10
webess
says...
12:23pm Wed 10 Mar 10
richardk9 wrote:Obvious question for the NIMBY's - how come you're not living on brownfield sites yourself?
Regardless of who can afford to by them, how many extra cars will be on the road, whether it is in someone's back yard etc. isn't it just common sense to use brownfield sites rather than build in the countryside?
.
Another obvious question. Why do you think brownfield sites haven't been built on already? The builders have thought of that one and realise people would rather live in Bingley than on the site of a disused factory situated on contaminated land.
fiverise
says...
5:41pm Wed 10 Mar 10
webess wrote:Obvious question for you webess - how do you know that some of us objectors aren't living on brownfield sites? Bingley has seen quite a bit of brownfield development in recent years and nice houses have been built on it - it doesn't follow that the land is contaminated - sometimes its been undeveloped land that has had development all around it and therefore isn't classed as 'green belt' any more. Finally, you seem really hung up on the quality of life that you perceive Bingley offers - why don't you just go and live there!
richardk9 wrote:Obvious question for the NIMBY's - how come you're not living on brownfield sites yourself?
Regardless of who can afford to by them, how many extra cars will be on the road, whether it is in someone's back yard etc. isn't it just common sense to use brownfield sites rather than build in the countryside?
.
Another obvious question. Why do you think brownfield sites haven't been built on already? The builders have thought of that one and realise people would rather live in Bingley than on the site of a disused factory situated on contaminated land.
webess
says...
6:00pm Wed 10 Mar 10
Bazzabails
says...
10:28pm Wed 10 Mar 10
webess
says...
10:43am Thu 11 Mar 10
Bazzabails wrote:It's my business what I do with my money and I don't respond to personal insults.
Webess,two things: Firstly, you don't want to answer my question I posted earlier with regard to you donating some of your £400k windfall? dear dear. Secondly, you've got a real hang up with the majority of people who have commented on this issue and it is obvious that most of the comments also appear to have come from people with a high degree of intelligence. Obviously you don't fall into this catagory.
.
Clear?
BD16
says...
2:51pm Fri 12 Mar 10
TirNaNog
says...
12:37pm Sat 13 Mar 10
fiverise
says...
7:31pm Sat 13 Mar 10
enviroMENTAL
says...
12:04pm Thu 18 Mar 10
More News stories
- 24 years in jail for 'monster' who murdered woman, 94
- New campaign to stop arson attacks in Bradford
- ‘Selfless’ officer wins award for fire bravery
- ‘Phone wrangle is driving me crazy’
- Action group’s joy as pool sale sinks
- Switch-on boosts ‘feelgood factor’
- Bradford district is braced for forecast snow
- 170 jobs at risk as firm slumps
- Manningham driver who killed East Bowling man jailed for 5 years
- Bradford's Pakistan Consulate flooded by burst pipe
Buy this photo »Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
finemess says...
10:27am Tue 9 Mar 10
I also notice that they always use the wildlife arguement when trying to block these applications when in reality most people don't give the wildlife a second thought otherwise!