Bye bye countryside

[raveydavey]

Travelling along York Road, past the proposed only entrance to this development I see that someone has been busy. A substantial metal fence has been erected, complete with requisite "Keep Out" signs and there is evidence of vehicles accessing the site.Something is clearly happening there, planning permission or not...

[chameleon]

raveydavey wrote: Travelling along York Road, past the proposed only entrance to this development I see that someone has been busy. A substantial metal fence has been erected, complete with requisite "Keep Out" signs and there is evidence of vehicles accessing the site.Something is clearly happening there, planning permission or not... Been there for some time now I think. Interestingly and contrary to the tree surveyrecommendations, some were removed prior to the planning application which was very naughty. A large dip was infilled, possibly illicitly, with building waste some time ago which contained large quantities of asbestos - maybe work is in progree to clear this.

[BramleyFettler]

I wouldn't say it's a substantial fence, just the ordinary sort. It's only been there a few weeks, not more than a month I'd say. There was a bit of clearance work opposite the pub a few months ago. Don't know if that's related.Good luck to all those fighting this. The good news is that LCC are on the back foot in several areas, and people power does work!

[bigal]

I have just found this forum and perhaps add some information.The former owner of this site also owned the site to the north which is now the Birchfield estate. He kept back two houses with the intention of knocking them down and creating access to the Grimes Dyke site through the existing houses. The council stated a number of years ago that this access would never be allowed. A building application was put lodged with the council in about 1997 which is when our group, W.A.G.E was formed. We held a number of public meetings which drew huge attendance but Wimpy/Persimmon, the developers, tried to push the application through. The council rejected it and so it was handed over to the inspectors who had a hearing in the main council chambers and the developers realised they were going to be refused so withdrew the application before the decision was made.At this time there were plans to use the area on the opposite side of the A64 as a tram terminus with the entrance to both sites via a single set of traffic lights and access seemed to be the inspectors main concern. The developers realised that the proposed East Leeds Arterial Road would reduce the traffic flow and their chances would improve. The failure of the tram system make little difference as this site is still designated as a park and ride site and we estimate that the traffic flow now is the same as then except for less HGV's.At this point the councils Unitary Development Plan was created and this land was taken out of greenbelt and classified as being available for development [edited for content] part of Phase two of the plan.That is the past history but to bring you more up to date.The recent consultation meeting at the school allowed residents to view the plans. The only community facility that was on offer was a shop in the middle of the estate. I challenged the person in charge and asked what was in this for the residents. We have just lost the church hall which housed a youth club, Karate club and dance club and on the basis that with planning permission the site goes from £3,000 acre as agricultural land to £750,000 an acre and at 26 acres that shows a profit of £191,422,000 what are they going to give in return. The answer was simple. He said that the council would reject the application which they would alter and re-submit. The council would again reject it and it would then be sent on to the inspector. At this point the application would be agreed. He claimed that the reason is have failed to meet the governments building targets in the last 3 years. The council are disputing the target set which takes no account of the current financial situation but the developers were adamant that the application would go through so why should they spend money on the community. As part of the consultation we were also invited to leave our views on the proposal. I knew many of the people and the points they raised were as follows:1- The new estate should be assimilated into the existing and not just back gardens and high fences.2- Green passages should be left through the estate for the movement of wild life.3- The existing Hedges should be maintained.4- The existing wildlife should be protected where-ever possible. Within 48 hours of the meeting a fence was erected 15 feet in from the boundary with the existing estate. This apparently was to be the wild life passage. Which wild animals will run from the York Road to a housing estate I'm not quite sure. What I do know is that it creates a perfect barrier between the proposed houses and the old. The whole site was mown destroying the wildlife habitat for rabbits, pheasants and grey partridge ( I counted a group of 22 baby pheasants in a small grass area that had not be mown). A number of damaged trees were felled but also other good trees and hedges which just happen to line up with the proposed roads.So what can be done?I can see only one course of action. It can be declared a Village Green which is defined as follows..1- the land is mainly used by local residents (rather than, say, day-trippers)2- it is used for legal activities3- it has been used for at least 20 years4- people haven't forced their way onto the land or used it in secrecy5- it has been used without the permission of the landowner.So all we need to do is find people who walked their dogs on the site back in 1990?

[raveydavey]

I'm sure I'll have walked across there at some point around that time, as I had friends who lived on the Birchfields.I've received a letter today from ID Planning, inviting me to look at the revised plans, etc ahead of the public enquiry, which follows an official "public announcement" type advert in the YEP earlier this week.I still reckon that access, drainage and the bat colony are going to be the things that are best placed to get this stopped.

[chameleon]

Hi Alan and welcome aboard - nice to see someone else close to this matter. Amazing how many ways winmoor has been spelt - on the same OS map I have Winmoor, Winnmoor, Whinmoor and Whinmore!A few bits to add to your informative post, most probably already included earlier:I think the former occupants may have been tenant farmers, the Earl of Mexborough being the majority owner in the area towards Bramham, though Grimes Dyke Farm may have been an exception from talking to a former resident of there.Interestingly, the original proposal for Supertram put the terminus on the farm site, adjacent to the Red Lion but subsequently the field over the road behind the old Winmoor Lodge became the choice, (Winmoor Lodge - another listed building allowed to fall into such disrepair, the only option was demolition - about the time the Supertram project was born).Access was always going to be an issue and like a few of us, living nearby, you will know how fraught and dangerous this would be in the suggested location, however it is arranged. There is no doubt that the inevitable arrival of the A6120 bypass could help but then, the proposed route for this could see its intersection with the A64 coinciding with the proposed site access.The Developers were required to undertake extensive environmental studies for their application. Thee included detailed recommendations for both the existing flora, trees in particular, and the incumbant wild life. The action they have taken to date could already land them in trouble.As for the exhibition, humourously referred to as a public consultation, well....yes. I tried repeatedly to obtain further information from the Consultants and received not even an acknowledgement.You will remember I'm sure, the outcome of the Inspectors report on the UDP which essentially stated that this corridor of development should be held back to the end of the current UDP provision and until Brown Field sites had been exhausted and even then, the start date must not be earlier than 2011. In the present climate of stalled evelopment, I suspect much scope still remains in Brown field sites which should postpone this development even longer though be sure - it will happen eventually.

[raveydavey]

The revised plans and statement of conformity can be viewed at http://www.randallthorp.co.uk/UserFiles ... S.pdfThese clearly show no interaction with surrounding already developed areas - it looks as if they will simply meet up, garden fence to garden fence. There is also a lot of use of the words "potential", "proposed" and "prospective", all of which indicate to me that things indicated probably won't happen.And the access is still only via York Road, at a point deemed so dangerous that it is currently enforced by two speed cameras. The plans seem to indicate that we will have a repeat of the development at the former Killingbeck Hospital, where one car wanting to leave the site brings both directions on York Road to a halt for around 2 minutes.If you feel that you should object to these plans, then you have until 30th March to put your written concerns to:Nadia HussainThe Planning InspectorateRoom 4/04 Temple Quay House2 The SquareTemple QuayBristolBS1 6PNQuoting reference APP/N4720/A/09/2117920/NWF    

[chameleon]

raveydavey wrote: The revised plans and statement of conformity can be viewed at http://www.randallthorp.co.uk/UserFiles ... S.pdfThese clearly show no interaction with surrounding already developed areas - it looks as if they will simply meet up, garden fence to garden fence. There is also a lot of use of the words "potential", "proposed" and "prospective", all of which indicate to me that things indicated probably won't happen.And the access is still only via York Road, at a point deemed so dangerous that it is currently enforced by two speed cameras. The plans seem to indicate that we will have a repeat of the development at the former Killingbeck Hospital, where one car wanting to leave the site brings both directions on York Road to a halt for around 2 minutes.If you feel that you should object to these plans, then you have until 30th March to put your written concerns to:Nadia HussainThe Planning InspectorateRoom 4/04 Temple Quay House2 The SquareTemple QuayBristolBS1 6PNQuoting reference APP/N4720/A/09/2117920?NWF Nice one Davey, thanks, will pass this to the neighbours too!

[chameleon]

Much reading there, and a much better document than the first deposition.One section relating to the present development along Sherburn Road made me laugh'and cars relegated to relatively few streets terminated by garage courts whichsometimes abut the site.'I npractice that means that individual's desire for convenience, not being segregated from their vehicles and the lack of parking space results in the footways being used to access the 'pedestrian' areas which re then extensively used as carparks - and never challenged despite the dangers and impropperness.It strikes me that the new development rigidly follows the environmental and green drems imposed on developers, with a minimal provision for motor vehicles. Whatever the policies may be, in the real world involving Jo Public, that strikes me as a receipe for problems. We'll see when it's built - and in time it will be and then the A6120 bypass followed by the remainder of the UDP East Leeds Extension. It is already decided but we must be allowed to shout of course until we come to terms with that

[Chrism]

And more to go... ... http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/n ... 6145858.jp