Proposed canalside housing, Bingley

[Pluto]

A local group at Bingley is asking people to sign their petition against 500 new homes being built close to the canal above Bingley 5-rise.

The petition is at http://www.greenhill-action-group.co.uk/petition and you can find more details on the same website.

[Graham Davis]

Why would I want to sign something that gives no details?

NIMBY's?

[Guest]

Why would I want to sign something that gives no details?

NIMBY's?

 

Are not the details in the link and along the various tabs?

 

 

 

Anyway shouldn't you be getting the wood for your brazier ready and making 'official picket armbands'

Edited March 31, 2010 by MJG

[zenataomm]

No I shall not sign any petitions from nimbys opposing new housing development.

 

It is a requirement in this country that when building new houses the developer makes so many available to those in need of social housing.

 

Having found myself in this very situation 5 years ago, I personally know the value of being helped to have a roof over my head as opposed to spoiling a boater's view for a few minutes.

Edited March 31, 2010 by zenataomm

[jez1954]

Are not the details in the link and along the various tabs?

 

 

 

Anyway shouldn't you be getting the wood for your brazier ready and making 'official picket armbands'

 

From what I quickly looked at on their web page the objections seem to be based on:

House prices reducing

Loss of views

Increased traffic

Undue pressure on local schools

Roads not big enough (due to approx 15 boat passages a day on the canal!!)

 

Can't see anything there that would affect me if I were boating in that neck of the (soon to be lost) woods.

[magpie patrick]

Can I just add my professional tuppence worth here

 

The swing bridge is claimed to be a problem. Is it the only access? If so, this will not be acceptable to the emergency services

 

550 homes is a heck of a lot off one access anyway, normally anything over 200 needs two accesses

[MikeV]

The swing bridge is claimed to be a problem. Is it the only access? If so, this will not be acceptable to the emergency services

That was my thought as well. Looking at the plans the housing does seem very dense compared to adjoining areas. I can remember boating on that section and about to open a bridge when I heard a siren on the nearby main road. We had already stopped the traffic but I waited until it had passed by before swinging the bridge. Traffic usually builds up quite quickly on the existing swing bridge when you open it. I would say that if they go ahead with that density of housing it should require the developer to replace the swing bridge with a fixed one.

 

I also think they should be made to dredge the canal for a mile either side - it's very shallow on that section!

 

It's clearly been a long term threat as the Greenhill Action Group was founded in 1992.

[Juan Saponatime]

It is very wrong for a few NIMBYS to object to a development where social housing may be part of the plan, as required by law.

 

I have signed the petition.....but in the negative, giving my support.

 

I also think it wrong to use forums such as this to promote such petitions.

 

John.

[Pluto]

It is very wrong for a few NIMBYS to object to a development where social housing may be part of the plan, as required by law.

 

I have signed the petition.....but in the negative, giving my support.

 

I also think it wrong to use forums such as this to promote such petitions.

 

John.

I started this topic to keep people informed about what was happening alongside the canal in Bingley, making no comment either way. I left the conclusion up to those reading the post. I always thought that what democracy was all about - being kept informed and having the ability to comment about things in which you are interested. Changes to the canal environment are certainly of interest to those on this forum.

[magpie patrick]

I started this topic to keep people informed about what was happening alongside the canal in Bingley, making no comment either way. I left the conclusion up to those reading the post. I always thought that what democracy was all about - being kept informed and having the ability to comment about things in which you are interested. Changes to the canal environment are certainly of interest to those on this forum.

 

seconded: I've given my professional opinion on one aspect, that is, if the sole access is via the swing bridge, then there will be far weightier objections than ours. In planning law anyone has the right to object to a planning proposal, you do not need a "casus belli" or a "locus standi" (Latin for justification for war and sufficient connection to, in legalese they amount to making a legitimate complaint). I have the right to object to this. The state has the right not to take my objection that seriously, but if I objected on the grounds of that swing bridge, it would be valid and would probably carry weight.

 

I suspect however that the proposed development has another access

[MartinClark]

The swing bridge is claimed to be a problem. Is it the only access? If so, this will not be acceptable to the emergency services

 

The swing bridge is the only access from across the canal. There are roads from the site going in other directions. An emergency access to the estate is proposed from the existing estate to the south east.

 

I was reading about this the other week. Apparently the plans include replacing the swing bridge with an fixed overbridge.

 

Surely, anything that reduces the number of swing bridges along the Leeds and Liverpool can't be all bad, can it?

[RAP]

The swing bridge is the only access from across the canal. There are roads from the site going in other directions. An emergency access to the estate is proposed from the existing estate to the south east.

 

I was reading about this the other week. Apparently the plans include replacing the swing bridge with an fixed overbridge.

 

Surely, anything that reduces the number of swing bridges along the Leeds and Liverpool can't be all bad, can it?

 

 

The application docs refer to a two lane swing bridge, one main access road in and out of the new housing estate, with a gated alternative access for emergency vehicles, should they need it. The canal and lane could be closed for up to six months. This looks disastrous for the area.

[Pluto]

The application docs refer to a two lane swing bridge, one main access road in and out of the new housing estate, with a gated alternative access for emergency vehicles, should they need it. The canal and lane could be closed for up to six months. This looks disastrous for the area.

The access does seem to be just over the swing bridge as access from the existing estate close to the 5-rise is already pretty restricted as the roads are very narrow. There has been a suggestion that the new estate should include car parking for visitors to Bingley 5-rise as parking is a major problem for developing them as an attraction.

[Josher]

Village Green? Clicky

[Naughty Cal]

The access does seem to be just over the swing bridge as access from the existing estate close to the 5-rise is already pretty restricted as the roads are very narrow. There has been a suggestion that the new estate should include car parking for visitors to Bingley 5-rise as parking is a major problem for developing them as an attraction.

 

There is to be a new "fixed" highway access bridge provided in place of the swing bridge.

[magpie patrick]

There is to be a new "fixed" highway access bridge provided in place of the swing bridge.

 

This shows the hazard in signing these things. I would strongly recommend that anyone who is thinking of opposing or supporting a development checks what is actually proposed, not just what the activists say. The file is usually available over the internet these days although large plans can be a beggar to download and, if the original was A1 or even A0 may be unreadable on a small screen. That said, details like a fixed bridge will be in the supporting text.

[mayalld]

It is very wrong for a few NIMBYS to object to a development where social housing may be part of the plan, as required by law.

 

I have signed the petition.....but in the negative, giving my support.

 

I also think it wrong to use forums such as this to promote such petitions.

 

 

"Wrong" to promote a petition?

 

What utter rubbish.

 

They have publicised the development, outlined that they object to it, and you are free to form your own opinion.

 

I have to say that I find the suggestion that any objections to a plan that incorporates social housing are "wrong" to be fatuous in the extreme.

 

Do you seriously think that its OK for developers to be given an effective green light to build anywhere they want provided they throw in some social housing?

[Pluto]

There is to be a new "fixed" highway access bridge provided in place of the swing bridge.

If you read the correspondence with BW, there were two proposals. One was to keep the existing swing bridge, and the other was to enlarge it to two lanes. A bascule-type lift bridge was also considered, and a footbridge for pedestrians is also proposed. Building a road overbridge would involve considerable earthworks to provide sufficient headroom for boats and would impact on existing residents and business premises in the area.

 

Edited to say that an overbridge has also been considered as well, but the various plans are not clear to me as to which of the various options has been chosen. The overbridge was a late addition to the scheme and does not appear on the earlier drawings which indicate a swing bridge.

Edited April 1, 2010 by Pluto

[Naughty Cal]

If you read the correspondence with BW, there were two proposals. One was to keep the existing swing bridge, and the other was to enlarge it to two lanes. A bascule-type lift bridge was also considered, and a footbridge for pedestrians is also proposed. Building a road overbridge would involve considerable earthworks to provide sufficient headroom for boats and would impact on existing residents and business premises in the area.

 

Yes we know. But the current proposal is a fixed navigable height road bridge.

[floatingphil]

This is just another nail in the coffin for Bingley. The town has already been sliced in two with a motorway, the schools are bursting at the seems. Any sort of reasonable access will need major re develpment. One access for the proposed development is from Oakwood Drive, that will become a rat run through our estate. Ive no problem with building, Im in the building sector myself. But this project is not going to benifit the town

 

Phil

[RAP]

The application document numbered 974848, recommends option E. This is to replace the current single lane bridge with a two lane swing bridge. The road will be 4.8 metres wide and footpath 1.8 metres wide. This means the swing bridge will be 6.6 metres wide.

 

The fixed overbridge option was rejected by the developers for fear of objection from local residents and steep accessibilty to clear the required height over the canal.

 

However, BW and the local council originally favoured a fixed bridge. Please note that the application has been submitted for a new and much wider swing bridge.

 

I have heard a rumour that the developer will evict the local Airedale Boat Club moorers from their club moorings. The moorings form part of the canalside boundary.

 

The developer wants to close the lane and the canal for six months. I am off to sign the Greenhill Action Group's petition, and write to council to object. I urge you all to do so too. We cannot let developers evict boaters from their moorrings and close the canals for their fat profits, or eat into the green space beside the canals.

[Québec]

Can I just add my professional tuppence worth here

 

The swing bridge is claimed to be a problem. Is it the only access? If so, this will not be acceptable to the emergency services

 

550 homes is a heck of a lot off one access anyway, normally anything over 200 needs two accesses

 

For info:

 

There are 475 houses and three access points.

 

There are also 276 documents associated with the proposal!!

 

Here's the master plan 'overview' that seems to be the most useful.

 

http://www.planning4bradford.com/online-ap...ment-972043.pdf

 

And here's a Google street view of the site from the swing bridge over the canal

 

Greenhilll site

 

Have some interest as I used to live very close to there, and crossed that bridge almost every day.

[Naughty Cal]

The application document numbered 974848, recommends option E. This is to replace the current single lane bridge with a two lane swing bridge. The road will be 4.8 metres wide and footpath 1.8 metres wide. This means the swing bridge will be 6.6 metres wide.

 

The fixed overbridge option was rejected by the developers for fear of objection from local residents and steep accessibilty to clear the required height over the canal.

 

However, BW and the local council originally favoured a fixed bridge. Please note that the application has been submitted for a new and much wider swing bridge.

 

I have heard a rumour that the developer will evict the local Airedale Boat Club moorers from their club moorings. The moorings form part of the canalside boundary.

 

The developer wants to close the lane and the canal for six months. I am off to sign the Greenhill Action Group's petition, and write to council to object. I urge you all to do so too. We cannot let developers evict boaters from their moorrings and close the canals for their fat profits, or eat into the green space beside the canals.

 

I suggest you go back and read the documents more closely.

[Guest]

I have heard a rumour that the developer will evict the local Airedale Boat Club moorers from their club moorings. The moorings form part of the canalside boundary.

 

The developer wants to close the lane and the canal for six months.

 

If that is true it's a ridiculous notion and will hit the hire companies, boaters and other canal users hard if it's any part of the boating season (and I can't see how it can't be) , that is a very popular section as a lot head that direction just for the experience of seeing and doing the five and three rises.

 

Whilst I'm not against new developments as such surely they can't close the L&L for six months and evict boaters.

 

Bloody outrageous.

 

 

I suggest you go back and read the documents more closely.

 

Suggesting you have and have possibly spotted an error,

 

care to save us all the time and post what you've read??

[RAP]

Phylis, you've seen something that some of us haven't or have possibly overlooked, please enlighten.

 

Thanks.