Survey claims mass opposition (From Bradford Telegraph and Argus)

These new homes sound lovely. Is there a waiting list that I can put my name on??

caribouk wrote:
These new homes sound lovely. Is there a waiting list that I can put my name on??

No - You can stay living where you are, some locals are concerned about ducks living on a man made canal.

Following a successfull planning application near my house, land on the side of the canal was dug up for development, fencing put around it, and nothing else. That was three years ago. Consequently we have lost the nesting site for a pair of swans (who mate for life not just a season) and the subsequent ducklings that were such a lovely sight and no doubt a tourist attraction in their own right. Bradford Council, and particularly the Chair of that Planning panel, Cllr Chris Greaves (who represents Ilkley and obviously has no interest in Keighley or any other part of the District) dismissed this point when hearing the planning application. Of course he does't have to live next to this bomb site where there hasn't been any attempt to develop or make the site tidy.

If we want to develop Bradford we have to retain the bits of the District that make it stand out and the canal side is one of those landmarks. And we have to force our elected members to understand that the District is a whole (not a hole) and, for Cllr Greaves, what damages any part of Bradford also damages its outer villages, one of which you are supposed to represent.

As for caribouk - if you have nothing sensible to say try to get elected as a councillor and leave us sensible folk alone.

"As for caribouk - if you have nothing sensible to say try to get elected as a councillor and leave us sensible folk alone."

Caribouk is merely voting with their wallet.

If Bellway want to build homes & caribouk wants to buy one - why should some nimby's stand in the way?

I was pondering what kind of buildings these would be, remebering a new build a friend bought that was so small it would hardly fit a double bed in the main bedroom and all the other rooms were too small and there was no storage space at all. Fine when he was on his own but grim when his partner and child moved in.

So I thought to have a look on the web.

http : / / www. grumbletext. co. uk/ vt. php? t= 489

Interesting reading. In escence, dont go near them.

There are plenty places to build without covering whats left of the counrtyside and I gather that the plain fact is there isnt the infrastructure to cater for that many people in that area.

Thought this country was in need of more houses.

Big Kiffer wrote:
Following a successfull planning application near my house, land on the side of the canal was dug up for development, fencing put around it, and nothing else. That was three years ago. Consequently we have lost the nesting site for a pair of swans (who mate for life not just a season) and the subsequent ducklings that were such a lovely sight and no doubt a tourist attraction in their own right. Bradford Council, and particularly the Chair of that Planning panel, Cllr Chris Greaves (who represents Ilkley and obviously has no interest in Keighley or any other part of the District) dismissed this point when hearing the planning application. Of course he does't have to live next to this bomb site where there hasn't been any attempt to develop or make the site tidy.

If we want to develop Bradford we have to retain the bits of the District that make it stand out and the canal side is one of those landmarks. And we have to force our elected members to understand that the District is a whole (not a hole) and, for Cllr Greaves, what damages any part of Bradford also damages its outer villages, one of which you are supposed to represent.

As for caribouk - if you have nothing sensible to say try to get elected as a councillor and leave us sensible folk alone.

I consider the opportunity to move to a new build house in a semi-rural location extremely sensible as would many increasingly affluent sections of Bradford society.. Infinitely more sensible than carping on about a couple of swans ! If you have such a lowly view of your councillors, I suggest it should be you standing for election. Stand up and be counted man !

Big Kiffer wrote:
Following a successfull planning application near my house, land on the side of the canal was dug up for development, fencing put around it, and nothing else. That was three years ago. Consequently we have lost the nesting site for a pair of swans (who mate for life not just a season) and the subsequent ducklings that were such a lovely sight and no doubt a tourist attraction in their own right. Bradford Council, and particularly the Chair of that Planning panel, Cllr Chris Greaves (who represents Ilkley and obviously has no interest in Keighley or any other part of the District) dismissed this point when hearing the planning application. Of course he does't have to live next to this bomb site where there hasn't been any attempt to develop or make the site tidy.

If we want to develop Bradford we have to retain the bits of the District that make it stand out and the canal side is one of those landmarks. And we have to force our elected members to understand that the District is a whole (not a hole) and, for Cllr Greaves, what damages any part of Bradford also damages its outer villages, one of which you are supposed to represent.

As for caribouk - if you have nothing sensible to say try to get elected as a councillor and leave us sensible folk alone.

"subsequent ducklings"?

So the question remains "will Dr Nevis get his way?"

albion wrote:

Big Kiffer wrote:
Following a successfull planning application near my house, land on the side of the canal was dug up for development, fencing put around it, and nothing else. That was three years ago. Consequently we have lost the nesting site for a pair of swans (who mate for life not just a season) and the subsequent ducklings that were such a lovely sight and no doubt a tourist attraction in their own right. Bradford Council, and particularly the Chair of that Planning panel, Cllr Chris Greaves (who represents Ilkley and obviously has no interest in Keighley or any other part of the District) dismissed this point when hearing the planning application. Of course he does't have to live next to this bomb site where there hasn't been any attempt to develop or make the site tidy.

If we want to develop Bradford we have to retain the bits of the District that make it stand out and the canal side is one of those landmarks. And we have to force our elected members to understand that the District is a whole (not a hole) and, for Cllr Greaves, what damages any part of Bradford also damages its outer villages, one of which you are supposed to represent.

As for caribouk - if you have nothing sensible to say try to get elected as a councillor and leave us sensible folk alone.

"subsequent ducklings"?

****, you beat me to it.

MyleftPenguin wrote:

albion wrote:

Big Kiffer wrote:
Following a successfull planning application near my house, land on the side of the canal was dug up for development, fencing put around it, and nothing else. That was three years ago. Consequently we have lost the nesting site for a pair of swans (who mate for life not just a season) and the subsequent ducklings that were such a lovely sight and no doubt a tourist attraction in their own right. Bradford Council, and particularly the Chair of that Planning panel, Cllr Chris Greaves (who represents Ilkley and obviously has no interest in Keighley or any other part of the District) dismissed this point when hearing the planning application. Of course he does't have to live next to this bomb site where there hasn't been any attempt to develop or make the site tidy.

If we want to develop Bradford we have to retain the bits of the District that make it stand out and the canal side is one of those landmarks. And we have to force our elected members to understand that the District is a whole (not a hole) and, for Cllr Greaves, what damages any part of Bradford also damages its outer villages, one of which you are supposed to represent.

As for caribouk - if you have nothing sensible to say try to get elected as a councillor and leave us sensible folk alone.

"subsequent ducklings"?

****, you beat me to it.

Good grief. I can't believe the T&A fcuk filter censors the word D A M N.

NO to building all over our green and pleasant land ... or whats left of it!

MyleftPenguin wrote:

albion wrote:

Big Kiffer wrote: Following a successfull planning application near my house, land on the side of the canal was dug up for development, fencing put around it, and nothing else. That was three years ago. Consequently we have lost the nesting site for a pair of swans (who mate for life not just a season) and the subsequent ducklings that were such a lovely sight and no doubt a tourist attraction in their own right. Bradford Council, and particularly the Chair of that Planning panel, Cllr Chris Greaves (who represents Ilkley and obviously has no interest in Keighley or any other part of the District) dismissed this point when hearing the planning application. Of course he does't have to live next to this bomb site where there hasn't been any attempt to develop or make the site tidy. If we want to develop Bradford we have to retain the bits of the District that make it stand out and the canal side is one of those landmarks. And we have to force our elected members to understand that the District is a whole (not a hole) and, for Cllr Greaves, what damages any part of Bradford also damages its outer villages, one of which you are supposed to represent. As for caribouk - if you have nothing sensible to say try to get elected as a councillor and leave us sensible folk alone.

"subsequent ducklings"?

****, you beat me to it.

Thats a chinese dish,not as tasty as otter stew.

enviroMENTAL wrote:
NO to building all over our green and pleasant land ... or whats left of it!

No to NIMBYS that already have the luxury of owning a home.

There are some really ignorant people writing on this subject. Please do not move to Bingley if the development does go ahead - there are plenty of other "semi-rural" locations for "affluent sections of society" all over Lancashire. How can it be considered "semi rural" when they are all being built on green belt land?

rosesrwhite wrote:
There are some really ignorant people writing on this subject. Please do not move to Bingley if the development does go ahead - there are plenty of other "semi-rural" locations for "affluent sections of society" all over Lancashire. How can it be considered "semi rural" when they are all being built on green belt land?

This isnt green belt land, it was approved as potential building land by the council eight years ago.

Greenhill Action Group have never referred to this as green belt and all their comments only refer to the loss of our green fields.

The sensible discussion is not about Nimbys it is about the 1200 vehicles that are going to be added to Bingley's roads and the effect that will have on the town which has not seen the expected traffic easing of the bypass.

Also if anyone cares to visit the site and consider how they would like to live on this area which will be land-locked when the bridge is closed for repair and maintenance particularly when the only exit will then be up narrow tight country roads which were blocked in this years snow.

It might not be green belt land due to the changed designation but it is certainly green field and sandwiched between conservation areas. As for the comment NO to the opinions of people who have the luxury of being mortgaged to the hilt on their own homes - I've never heard of owt as daft as that comment. Do you think this is some sort of communist state? Get an education about the state of our enironment and then pass comment. As for all the nimby comments - if any of you looked at the detail of this development you might realise there are much bigger concerns than just spoiling than spoiling the view.