| |
|
|||
|
||||
|
|
IMPORTANT PLEASE READ This website and forum has been living on borrowed web server time for years. At the end of this month silsden.net in it's present form will cease to exist, BUT there is a new silsden.net in the making, and a new forum, and lots of exciting new things coming to this space. Peter |
back
to General Forum | back to forum index | login
|
sign
up | help
| latest topics | search
Replies in this thread : 51
Page : 1 2
<< next page next page >>
Author |
Topic : more houses to be built in silsden |
|
| jackal |
Anyone read todays T + A..... It shows bradford councils plans to build more houses, silsden is earmarked for 1700 new houses by 2028..... |
|
| Peter |
Nothing new. This website; silsden.net came about in 2001 because of the proposal to build 2000 new houses in Silsden (as part of the Unitary Development Plan UDP), it allowed Silsdeners to see all the documents relevant to the proposals and to object to them – we were successful. If you want to see what happened in 2001 look at "Local UDP" on the sidebar menu. Not all the documents are still available because they were linked to the Bradford Met site, and they have moved/removed the documents. |
|
| grandad |
You are right peter we did prevent it. twice but it took a lot of people a long time and some expense to do it, sitting on backsides wont get anything done! it those days we had a full local council all of whom worked to stop the houses now we have 4 vacant seats! Don't just complain on here do something, and before anybody askes yes I did last time. |
|
| jackal |
Grandad by coming on here and telling people about the proposals years before they are submitted ...I am doing something about it. It creates awareness and thereby gets people ready to do something when the time comes..... I'm sick and tired of people always saying do something instead of moaning about it on here.... This is a community forum and a place to discuss issues which affect us... By posting on here people are not always moaning or finding the easy way out.... |
|
| dexter |
1700 new houses in Silsden in next 17 years = 100 new houses every year...can't think where they will go, and which private developers will build them. But maybe Bradford will reveal all? Or....maybe it's just fiction? Developments which already have planning permission ( Sykes Lane) have never started. Wishful thinking going on?  |
|
| grandad |
Jackal, don’t be so sensitive, where in my post did I mention your name? Or do you think you are the only person who lives in Silsden? |
|
| HB |
are we short of town councillors? if so how do you go about becoming one? |
|
| Peter |
quoteare we short of town councillors? if so how do you go about becoming one? An old poster but it gives all the details: www.silsden.net/town_council/docs_11/11_notice/WHY_NOT_BECOME_A_TOWN_COUNCILLOR.pdf |
|
| localman |
sorry every one but new houses are a part of life you are all going to have to get used to as you all seem to want (not me) a multi cultural society, you think its a crime to send asylum seekers home, thousands if not millions of illegals are in the country breeding like rabbits no one will touch the european bill of human rights well I am afraid all these people who should not be here need homes to live in and not on my front door does not wash any more there are old sayings like you reep what you sow and its time to pay the ferry man and the chickens are coming home to roost the government is relaxing planning laws so green belt land will be built on, so good old europeean union the best thing that ever happened to this great country I think not |
|
| jackal |
Localman if you want to talk about immigration open another post, stop trying to make this topic political... |
|
| dexter |
Leaving aside the immigration issue, localman is right, there is a national shortage of houses, and we must expect Silsden to grow in future...no good saying we don't want more houses here, it is inevitable. I expect local businesses would like more houses, they need more support amd local spending. |
|
| jackal |
Adding housing does not automatically mean a boom for business... Already you see that business in silsden are shutting down. Where has the increase on housing shown an expanse for business. The housing that has already been built has shown that silsden is fast becoming a dormitory town... People buy houses in silsden because of its excellent links to bradford Leeds and skipton. They work in these locations and don't partake in local issues, they shop in the big superstores and hence the local businesses suffer. So the point of more business is hollow |
|
| localman |
Jackel, if the government is relaxing house planning rules then house building is political  or who do people protest to when new houses are going to be built in there area just use a bit of common sense  |
|
| old_miner |
quoteWhere has the increase on housing shown an expanse for business. Take Aways, computer services, second hand shops - all services people prefer quick and local. The main reason for not building a lot of new houses is that it will reduce the price of all houses. So a lot of people will see their paper profit go down and others find themselves with something they have paid too much for. Bit of a cunundrum is it not. One answer is for a lot more rented property, ie social housing, ie council houses to be built!!! What goes around comes around. Next it will be no college fees followed by maintenance grants. |
|
| jackal |
If you actually asked the takeaways they would paint a different picture, ask crazy chef if business has give up or down over the past 5 years, you get a lot of move around trade, I.e one take away closes and another opens as was the case with pizza time and Chicago. What about the pubs the night club.... Etc etc... I could go on but u get the picture.... And localman I'm not even gona try to bite.... So fish elsewhere |
|
| localman |
not fishing jackel you said keep politics out of the house building thread all I am saying is they are both linked weather its at a local level or national level you can not have one with out the other |
|
| Fred |
this post has been edited 1 time(s) quoteSunshine and rain all the way then  |
|
| jackal |
Still not biting. Try a different bait |
|
| localman |
ah well lets get building so there will be a few building jobs for local lads, more trade for our shops, and we might get a few more on here who really want to debate issues instead of pointing out spelling mistakes  get a life wally boy |
|
| bobber |
who knows? if we increase the population of silsden we might become eligible for a by-pass. |
|
| Golden Oldie |
At this moment in time, why do we need more houses? Take a walk around and see all the For Sale signs, not much movement on the selling front at present. Or is it for Social Housing? |
|
| Cobydaler |
So far nobody has mentoned the main reason the UDP plan was eventualy rejected , infrastucture or the lack of it . 1 / Transport. 1700 new houses means at least 2000 more cars every morning & the same at night all trying get in /out of Silsden via one road . 2 / Health . On national average 4000 + extra people all requireing health care .We have 1 health care centre & 1 Dentist . Both would struggle to cope with the extra demand made upon them . Education . At the very least where are 1000 extra children going to go to school ? . The 2 schools we have & South Craven coudn' cope last time with the proposed increase's . Sinse then their numbers have risen so the extra demand placed by this number of new children would be even more difficult to place . Service's . Gas , electricity & water supllies would all have to be increased to suply this ammount of new house's . In 2001 they were approching their limit , so what would be needed today with Silsden already having grown from the 2001 size . Sewage , At full stretch ( the water authorities words ) in 2001 now even more so . At time to local river would become an open sewer !!!. Local By-pass . Never going to be one , it was going to be a local access road for the new housing . As such under transport regulation could not be classified a by-pass . This was simply a ruse by Bra Met to get the people of Silsden on side with all the extra housing . All the above and more are still as pertinent today as in 2001 . The objections raised by S.T.A.G & others in 2001 were not just to stop the development of SIlsden but to insure the quality of life & services available to Silsdeners came first . Not the profit and greed of developers with all of us having to sufer the consequences of the lack of proving the above first . |
|
| jackal |
Cobbydaler you have just nailed the point.... |
|
| localman |
not on my doorstep, same thing being said at Steeton and Glusburn bet most of the people who are moaning moved here and are not true cobbydalers I have children born and bred here so where the hell will they live where will there children go to school wish you lot would just shut up, here are the true facts like it or lump it, as the Silsden community grows they need more houses to live in simple maths two married people with three kids live in one house one child moves to say london one child gets married and moves to Australia the last child want to stay and work from Silsden but the family now needs two houses and there are not enough houses in Silsden one of the main reasons is people are living longer so houses are not coming on the market one last point young people can not afford the prices in Silsden but why should they be forced to move away because certain people always want things to stay as they are as long as it suits them? GET EM BUILT I SAY |
|
| jackal |
So who is gonna foot the bill for the extra services that will be required, I doubt the developers will and secondly the extra revenue will not be channeled back into silsden, bfd council will make sure of that, Silsden us being used as a cash cow and when it all goes Pete tong we will foot the bill, and our kids so if you really want your kids paying twice the council tax then vote yes, else fight the build or atleast ask for extra services... But inevitably service costs will increase |
|
| Cobydaler |
Localman . 3rd generation Silsdener so lets nail your attempt at a slur straight away . Lets look at the size of Steeton now compared with pre hospital days . I don't see an increase in the number of : shops ,pubs , clubs & amenities that developers say follow an increase in the size of a community . A quick look arround Silsden shows there is no requiremnet for a massive increase in the houseing stock to meet local needs . Only to increase the coffers of Brad Met & Developers . A community has a natural growth rate , as it grows to meet local needs so do the services it requires . In the UDP plan the only thought was the number of house's they could cram in with no thought given to the increase in services required One last thought if the 3rd son cannot afford to buy a house in Silsden then the other one has no chance of affording one in London . |
|
| localman |
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm services which ones do we need pubs? people drink at home, clubs no, dentist there are more than has ever been in Silsden if fact Silsden never used to have a dentist? take aways plenty, both schools not full to capacity,doctors Silsden only had two back in he 60s we know have about seven or so Silsden has been house building since the 70s and it has caused no problems so what is the real issue here because I do not have one people have to live some where so please tell me where? |
|
| Cobydaler |
The point is Silsden has grown since the 70's not exploded . The infrastructure grew steadily to cope with the extra demand made upon it , it could not cope with a sudden huge rise in demand . The 2 schools are just about able to cope with the extra pupils each year but could they cope with a sudden & large increase ? . Doctors , yes we may now have 7 , but try and walk in and make an appointment to see one . Now add another 3500 or so people in Silsden and immagine what it would be like . Personaly I prefer to drink in a social atmosphere not in solitude but each to his own . Please read the inspectors report on the UDP ( on this site ) they were true then & still apply today , his opening reamark made in 2004 applies to a curent thread re-gaurding access to the station showing how little has been done in the passing years . The statements in my previous thread are just not mine but those made by the local supply authorities , transport Dept & others local authorities . BFD Met even contradicted their own guidlines !! . I have no problem with Silsdem growing at asteady rate. I do have a problem with a massive increase in its size fuelled only by greed & a desire for extra council revenue . They are not the ones who will have to live with the problems caused . |
|
| old_miner |
Unusually I am with Localman on this topic. Everyone cannot be a NIMBY so it seems to me that new housing should be fairly spread out rather than being concentrated in areas with the least NIMBY influence. Of course if a certain female pm had not insisted all the council houses be sold off we would not be in this housing predicament. Fiddle a market and you end up with real problems. |
|
| jackal |
Best solution would be that if we get new housing then we get the revenues that the new houses generate. Try floating that idea and you will be laughed at all the way to the cleaners. Simple fact silsden may have grown but its assets have been stripped, of the 8000 houses that exist how much revenue does silsden receive from bfd met..... Say for example on average each house pays £650 in council tax, that equates to on average £1.1million from the new development. |
|
| dexter |
Maybe if one council house is built for every one private house, we might end up with a solution that suits everybody? |
|
| localman |
good idea more council house estates full of no marks, scruffy people and gardens left to go wild best idea ever by Maggie people bought there concil houses then started to look after them and becan to care where they lived? |
|
| old_miner |
quotegood idea more council house estates full of no marks, scruffy people and gardens left to go wild best idea ever by Maggie people bought there concil houses then started to look after them and becan to care where they lived? Same old Tory propaganda again. Most council houses were cared for by their tenants. Of course the councils were far better landlords than the private racketeers, remember them, Torys to the core. There tenants did not have a chance to keep the house in good order as it was in a bad state when they moved in. Seems they are coming back judging by stories in the local papers. bet they all vote Tory. |
|
| localman |
most people do vote tory these days also check your facts you will find the most council houses built was by a tory government not a labour one so stick that in your pipe and smoke it. details below But building solid, decent-quality houses took time, and this was a nation wouldn’t wait. The Conservatives winning power in 1951 on a pledge to build 300,000 new houses a year. (The most Labour had managed was 227,000 in 1948.) So it was that “in the decade between 1955 and 1965, council housing went from being the crowning glory of the new welfare state to mass-produced barracks. They weren’t intended to be so: it was hoped that the high-rise blocks would confer pretige on a town as much as provide housing for its workers. It wasn’t only the thought of subsidies and concrete that excitedthose who were in charge of designing and implementing housing policy on the ground. Therewas a desire to create a more European, less Pooterish future for Britain.” |
|
| Fred |
Headline of The Daily Telegraph Brussels threatens to sue Britain to let in 'benefit tourists' The European Commission has threatened to take legal action against Britain if ministers do not water down rules limiting foreigners’ ability to claim benefits. Ministers fear the move could leave taxpayers handing out as much as £2.5? billion to EU nationals, including out-of-work “benefit tourists”, a new cost that could wreck Coalition plans for welfare reform. Full article www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/8798095/Brussels-threatens-to-sue-Britain-to-let-in-benefit-tourists.html ............... This is the real reason we need more houses and our health system is creaking and we need to pay even more taxes. |
|
| old_miner |
Wow - pretty good figures. Maybe my conspiracy theory that localman is in Tory HQ is true!!!!! It is true that at one time the Torys were not a money grabbing I'm alright jack rabble. It is true they did some good. They have also done some terrible things, like dismantling and flogging off our industry and wealth. Reducing the armed forces to a state where they probably could not defend us against the next big enemy - China. Argentina are already cosying up to them for help to get the Falklands back, unless of course this bunch sell it to them first. |
|
| Replies in this thread : 51
|
|
events sale / wanted general have your say looking for.. skippy greengrass |
|
DON'T FORGET THE SUBJECT IS >>>>>>>> Forums Home > General Forum > more houses to be built in silsden |
|||
|
<< HOME PAGE < RETURN ^ PAGE TOP ^ | ||
 |
|||
|
webenquiries to |
||
23/09/2011 : 10:52:14 
23/09/2011 : 12:23:45 
24/09/2011 : 15:59:58