| |
|
|||
|
||||
|
|
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 Have Your Say !!!! | back to forum index | login
|
sign
up | help
| latest topics | search
Replies in this thread : 9
Author |
Topic : BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE |
|
| Peter |
Re Core Strategy Consultation Ref news.silsden.net/local-devopment-framework/public-can-have-their-say-on-long-term-development-plan-which-allocates-1200-new-houses-for-silsden Craven ward councillor, Adrian Naylor, said: “This will have a massive impact on the town. “If these new houses are built, Silsden will grow by a bigger percentage than any other place in the district outside the centre of Bradford. “I’d encourage everyone to comment on the revised plans put forward. But people are being asked to comment on the increased number of houses without knowing where those houses will go. “Also, what is missing from all of this is detailed analysis of where new infrastructure is needed, who will pay for it and when it will arrive. “The infrastructure implementation plan for Silsden shows there’s a minimum shortfall of some 20 odd million pounds, and this figure is likely to rise dramatically. “Northern Power Grid has said that if more than an additional 100 houses are built in Silsden, it will need to increase the size of its electricity substation, which will cost another £5 million. “Yorkshire Water says the Aire Valley trunk sewer is at capacity and would need to be upgraded to take additional housing. “Some of these infrastructure projects will only be delivered ten to 15 years from now, while new housing could be developed a lot sooner than that.” |
|
| old_miner |
The infrastructure arguments looks to me more like a NIMBY red herring. Why on earth would a council and developer deliberately overload the infrastructure? The re-percussions, financial and political would be huge. Either the infrastructure is up to it, or the infrastructure is not up to it. If the latter it suggests that the council wants to use the developement of housing to fulfil essential needs as a lever to get the infrastructure upgraded as well. |
|
| blob |
Most infrastructure providers work on 5-10 year plans so the budget may not be there to provide multi million pound projects right now. Unfortunately if Bradford Council don't bother to create a multi year strategy and stick to it houses could well get built with others suffering the consequences (flooding, pollution, power outages). |
|
| old_miner |
Pressure for house building is coming from central government. Controls on local government expenditure comes from central government. As central government now effectively controls mostly local expenditure that is where the responsibility actually lies. Locally the majority voted for a government to cut expenditure and taxes. So, locally you are getting what you voted for. |
|
| midway |
So what has Jeremy got to say? "Jeremy believes a secure and affordable home is a basic right. His housing manifesto proposes a radical rebooting of home construction permitting councils to be house builders and providers in order to meet the demand for affordable housing in their own areas Giving to councils the right to commission new homes is the most efficient way of achieving the minimum of 240,000 new homes our country now needs to build each year to meet demand and reverse the current housing crisis". So where does the money come from? |
|
| old_miner |
They borrow it. If the local authority already owns the land then the expenditure will all be on modern energy efficient houses. Rents will easily pay back the loan. A similar approach built our water supply systems, subsequently sold off. |
|
| Peter |
This is all very interesting but you are off topic. The topic is putting your views forward about the proposed Core Strategy (and preferably to Bradford Council). 1200 new houses in Silsden, and this is 200 more than previously suggested. We do not have the infrastructure and there isn't any plans in place to cope with this amount of extra housing. There are no local jobs for the occupants of these houses! There is no extra local employment proposed so these houses could be built in the middle of nowhere (and somewhere else), preferably close to a confluence of transport links... at least people might be able to find a job closer to their home. |
|
| old_miner |
Absence of local jobs is a silly argument in this era of commuting. Same for schooling where people seem to be happy to bus their kids around to whoever is flavour of the month. As for physical infrastructure, well there are plenty of shops and a decent health centre. Electricity and gas are unlikely to be problems which leaves water and waste. As I commented, if some parts,of the infrastructure fail the political repercussions would be as bad as the physical. So far no one has conclusively prooved that the current infrastructure cannot cope with an extra 1200 houses. What I read is NIMBY hot air. |
|
| gazzer |
quoteAbsence of local jobs is a silly argument in this era of commuting. Same for schooling where people seem to be happy to bus their kids around to whoever is flavour of the month. As for physical infrastructure, well there are plenty of shops and a decent health centre. Electricity and gas are unlikely to be problems which leaves water and waste. As I commented, if some parts,of the infrastructure fail the political repercussions would be as bad as the physical. So far no one has conclusively prooved that the current infrastructure cannot cope with an extra 1200 houses. What I read is NIMBY hot air. We need to move away from commuting as the road and rail networks are over capacity.Kids should only go to the nearest school.This is not a NIMBY view.You may have heard there is a climate change conference starting in Paris.Cutting down travel is very important and is(saving the planet) as far away from a NIMBY argument as you can get. A few years ago the football club couldnt get floodlights because of an unsuitable supply of electric meaning overland cables back to the sub station.Thank god for new low energy bulbs. Working in the gas industry I can remember a lack of supply pressure at the top of Skipton Road. Houses around Hawkcliffe View had water storage tanks in their lofts for cold water supply because of a lack of water pressure.Whilst these two issues were eventually resolved it shows the infrastructure approaching its limits. |
|
| old_miner |
On the commuting and schools I agree. There are not yet any real moves from any quarter to change that. Unfortunately we have to consider the world as it is, not how we would like it. Living near to one's place of work is nice in theory, and in practise as I managed it once. There are two major constraints. Firstly housing would need to easily passed between those employees. Renting copes with this. Our present model of house ownership does not. Secondly all in a household would have to work nearby. This one I cannot think of a solution too. As for the physical infrastructure. Deliberately overloading seems a strange strategy. Other than the obvious bottleneck in the road system all the rest is hearsay. |
|
| Replies in this thread : 9 |
|
events sale / wanted general have your say looking for.. skippy greengrass |
|
DON'T FORGET THE SUBJECT IS >>>>>>>> Forums Home > Have Your Say !!!! > BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE |
|||
|
<< HOME PAGE < RETURN ^ PAGE TOP ^ | ||
 |
|||
|
webenquiries to |
||
27/11/2015 : 10:39:13 
27/11/2015 : 19:24:17 
27/11/2015 : 23:02:07 
29/11/2015 : 08:44:14