No adult jokes please... my Mother reads this website!

You are not logged in.


Barleycorn

Philpot

#1 03.Nov.16 20:11:20

LittleRach
Member

Sandpit at thornham [GMSF discussion topic]

Heard a rumour today that they're (whoever 'they' might be!) going to build houses on the sandpit?

Anyone know if there's any truth in this? (Love a bit of idle gossip!)

_____
Admin edited this post to include the following links

All of the latest accurate information about the GMSF proposal is stored here
http://iloveroyton.com/doku.php?id=gmsf

Signup for ILR email updates here
http://forms.aweber.com/form/18/743841718.htm

Answers to frequently asked questions will be stored here:
http://iloveroyton.com/doku.php?id=gmsf:faq

Save Royton's Greenbelt campaign page
https://www.facebook.com/groups/roytongreenbelt


Though we cannot make our sun stand still, yet we will make him run.

Offline

#2 03.Nov.16 20:36:43

China Girl
Member

Re: Sandpit at thornham [GMSF discussion topic]

Rach, there was an article in the chron about it :-

http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news- … -open-land

Offline

#3 03.Nov.16 20:48:04

Tony
Member

Re: Sandpit at thornham [GMSF discussion topic]

There has been a discussion on one of the threads about this Rach with James replying about it, sorry I can't remember which thread it was, just proposals at the moment it seems and of course the sandpit has village green status so some protection from building on it I hope.


War does not determine who is right - only who is left.

Offline

#4 03.Nov.16 22:05:20

Tabbycat
Member

Re: Sandpit at thornham [GMSF discussion topic]

It will be a sad day if that gets built over sad


Once you've read a dictionary everything else is just a remix

Offline

#5 04.Nov.16 11:07:14

Rebel
Member

Re: Sandpit at thornham [GMSF discussion topic]

Greenbelt ,village green , cemetery  ,parkland , buildings with covenants on them   If they want to build on that land they will find a way don't  worry about that , this is all part of Jim McMahans northern landgrab,,, sorry" powerhouse".   The Manchester super council  vision of Royton and Shaw in the not to distance future .   Just a bunch of greedy carpetbaggers in my eyes . The crazy thing is  we are paying the highest poll tax in Christendom to Oldham Council who helped to identify these green fields to Jims landgrabbing friends   for them to do this   landgrab .   It's the crime of the century ! .     Oh I and even if the land is given to the people of Royton in perpetuity for a park  it won't make any difference  see Jubilee Gardens    that's now flats .

Last edited by Rebel (04.Nov.16 11:07:49)


I was in the House when the house burned down !.

Offline

#6 04.Nov.16 11:25:25

Mags
Member

Re: Sandpit at thornham [GMSF discussion topic]

No point building anymore houses anywhere until they address the oversubscribed primary school problem. The secondary schools are getting as bad. Which schools will the children from the families attend if they build at Thornham?

Offline

#7 04.Nov.16 14:46:02

Erin
Member

Re: Sandpit at thornham [GMSF discussion topic]

Nothing changes Rebel, Jubilee Gardens was destroyed and flats built in its place around the middle of the 70's if I remember correctly.  I used to love walking through them when on my way to Royton the whole area was a meeting place for the old men to sit and catch up with their friends.  Church Street on one side with Mort's sweet shop and on the other the lane with the Blue Bell pub on and the old village school.

Offline

#8 04.Nov.16 16:02:53

Tabbycat
Member

Re: Sandpit at thornham [GMSF discussion topic]

Mags, you are right as regards schools. I would add the doctors to that too.

Rebel, you are also absolutely right.

Greedy fat cat developers who want our greenbelt so they can build big expensive houses so they get big profits.

I see them the same way as you do sad


Once you've read a dictionary everything else is just a remix

Offline

#9 05.Nov.16 22:06:05

nola
Member

Re: Sandpit at thornham [GMSF discussion topic]

Mags, I've often wondered about Royton primary schools regarding all the new houses.   There are still the same number of primary schools as there ever was and I've not heard that there are more than one class per year at any of them.


Really called Janet (and still confused)

Offline

#10 05.Nov.16 22:33:34

valsut
Member

Re: Sandpit at thornham [GMSF discussion topic]

At St. Aiden's there are 2 classes in my granddaughters year, year 3.

Offline

#11 06.Nov.16 09:12:53

Rebel
Member

Re: Sandpit at thornham [GMSF discussion topic]

Moving Byron st to high barn and rebranding it Royton Hall  wasn't very good    , They built a new school on the sports field  that was double over budget and everyone agrees is too small.  The pupils can't even eat together at lunchtime ,.  Mind you the car park is big enough for a small city .   It's the whole infrastructure in this area  Shaw Rd is uncrossable race track   , Turf Lane is a rat run race track  with tourists trying to find the quickest way to their semis .


I was in the House when the house burned down !.

Offline

#12 07.Nov.16 00:50:59

Mags
Member

Re: Sandpit at thornham [GMSF discussion topic]

All over Oldham there are children who are having to walk quite a way to school as they cannot get into a school close to home.If a family move in to a new area they are often very surprised and upset when they find out the school closest to where they live is full.I think most of the Royton primary schools will be full to capacity or nearly full especially in KS1.Gone are the days when schools had plenty of spare spaces..

Last edited by Mags (07.Nov.16 00:52:47)

Offline

#13 07.Nov.16 00:55:05

Tabbycat
Member

Re: Sandpit at thornham [GMSF discussion topic]

Mags wrote:

All over Oldham there are children who are having to walk quite a way to school as they cannot get into a school close to home.If a family move in to a new area they are often very surprised and upset when they find out the school closest to where they live is full.I think most of the Royton primary schools will be full to capacity are nearly full especially in KS1.

They are knocking one down in January. maybe it would have been better to renovate and maintain what we already have instead of presuming new is better.
Royton Hall could have been a new school alongside the old one.


Once you've read a dictionary everything else is just a remix

Offline

#14 07.Nov.16 09:11:44

ridge walker
Member

Re: Sandpit at thornham [GMSF discussion topic]

I dont remember ever hearing any comments about Byron Street school closing or about the new one being built on High Barn, and the traffic issues that brought, talking about what might have been years afterwards serves only to remind us what was done by those in charge at the time, only the Academy drew complaints and if thats the measure of how Royton and Crompton secondary school will be handled you can see this will be decided by the officials, governers, elected representatives and not by any of us, those in the know do not talk about such things and prefer to just get on with things to avoid problems like this getting in the way and distracting their attention away from why its being done, all we get told is its urgent and THEY have to act to increase provision and renew old buildings that are decrepit, even increases in traffic will be dealt with by highway engineers who will make light of the problem by introducing calming measures and appeasing residents with promises, like those on Broadway facing the Newman Collage in Chadderton who cannot access there driveways or turn right without having to make long diversions, you can name many cases like this at every school in the borough and its never anyones responsibility to address the problem other than introduce minor changes that allows the bigger project to proceed unhindered, just listen to the complaints pouring in about the Uppermill Schools relocation  on a site that's huge and still has no parents pick up or drop off provision and relies on roadside lane closures effecting every resident in Diggle.   Take this up with Amanda and see what response you get Rebel, she's your rep for your ward, or Steve he chairs the planning committee, their both on your doorstep but they cant talk about it.

Offline

#15 07.Nov.16 10:31:24

Rebel
Member

Re: Sandpit at thornham [GMSF discussion topic]

Ridge I can't be bothered looking back over my posts to find my rants about Byron St joining up with high barn   but  I know I was ballistic ,    Not only the inadequate of it all.  Most of it was centred on the loss of the football pitch and playing fields , there was downright lies spread by Oldham Council that the sports field was waterlogged  , this football pitch was superb and if it rained for a month it was still playable the drainage was  fantastic ,so much so that Sport England put an official complaint in  , obviously Oldham Council didn't listen , it was the proverbial done deal .


I was in the House when the house burned down !.

Offline

#16 07.Nov.16 10:39:59

Rebel
Member

Re: Sandpit at thornham [GMSF discussion topic]

The silence is deafening from our local elected representatives  isn't it ? .  Now we know why the housing application for 126 houses was knocked back at Cowlishaw , Oldham Council had bigger plans to sow in collusion with  the "MAN".    My guess these three massive projects  Hanging Chadder ,Cowlishaw and Briadbent Moss will be played against each other   its a divide and conquer scenario   , These snake oil salesmen carpetbaggers who are running this scam  know how to get what they want (,land ) and its a done deal which land they will grab .


I was in the House when the house burned down !.

Offline

#17 07.Nov.16 13:32:58

James Larkin
Member

Re: Sandpit at thornham [GMSF discussion topic]

There is no 'done deal'. You can post it on here every day for a thousand days Rebel, and it isn't true.

As I stated in another thread, the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework (GMSF), is the strategic view for the next 20-25 years, and how we face the changes that will impact the region. We need more houses, and more employment opportunities, and these are being spread across the 10 boroughs that make up the Combined Authority. The document that has been published is a draft. We (us as councillors and the public) have the chance between now and December to put our thoughts across. There is a drop in on November 28th at Royton Town Hall. I'd encourage people to go and make their thoughts heard. However, harking back for bygone days won't stop this happening, so we have to look at making it the best possible deal for Royton.

One facet I have already raised is the need for infrastructure investment to match the population growth. We do need more doctors, schools, etc etc. But to do nothing would be to repeat the mistakes of the past 30 years which has lead to this shortage of housing and inequality between north and south regions of the area. As for greenbelt loss, if (and I cannot emphasis that IF enough) all of these proposals went through, we would lose about 3% of our greenbelt. That is obviously 3% more than we'd like, but it would hardly lead to a concrete jungle, would it?

But I reiterate again - there is no done deal.

Offline

#18 07.Nov.16 22:18:47

Rebel
Member

Re: Sandpit at thornham [GMSF discussion topic]

James Larkin wrote:

There is no 'done deal'. You can post it on here every day for a thousand days Rebel, and it isn't true.

As I stated in another thread, the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework (GMSF), is the strategic view for the next 20-25 years, and how we face the changes that will impact the region. We need more houses, and more employment opportunities, and these are being spread across the 10 boroughs that make up the Combined Authority. The document that has been published is a draft. We (us as councillors and the public) have the chance between now and December to put our thoughts across. There is a drop in on November 28th at Royton Town Hall. I'd encourage people to go and make their thoughts heard. However, harking back for bygone days won't stop this happening, so we have to look at making it the best possible deal for Royton.

One facet I have already raised is the need for infrastructure investment to match the population growth. We do need more doctors, schools, etc etc. But to do nothing would be to repeat the mistakes of the past 30 years which has lead to this shortage of housing and inequality between north and south regions of the area. As for greenbelt loss, if (and I cannot emphasis that IF enough) all of these proposals went through, we would lose about 3% of our greenbelt. That is obviously 3% more than we'd like, but it would hardly lead to a concrete jungle, would it?

But I reiterate again - there is no done deal.

James how come the 124 house estate for Cowlishaw was knocked back on traffic concerns when now Oldham Council has identified that very same green pasture land plus  other green fields around that area  in which to build over six hundred houses.   Six hundred houses James ,thats the size of a village .


I was in the House when the house burned down !.

Offline

#19 07.Nov.16 22:21:17

Rebel
Member

Re: Sandpit at thornham [GMSF discussion topic]

James the greenbelt land between Royton and Shaw will disappear  even Penn and Teller wouldnt make it reappear .


I was in the House when the house burned down !.

Offline

#20 07.Nov.16 22:53:32

Tabbycat
Member

Re: Sandpit at thornham [GMSF discussion topic]

Rebel wrote:

James how come the 124 house estate for Cowlishaw was knocked back on traffic concerns when now Oldham Council has identified that very same green pasture land plus  other green fields around that area  in which to build over six hundred houses.   Six hundred houses James ,thats the size of a village .

Six hundred houses? Is that how many are plannned, Rebel? yikes


Once you've read a dictionary everything else is just a remix

Offline

#21 07.Nov.16 22:59:00

LittleRach
Member

Re: Sandpit at thornham [GMSF discussion topic]

Sorry!  Didn't mean to cause drama!

The link James posted certainly says it's just one of the areas under consideration, but yes, it does indeed say 600 houses, which would probably mean 2000-2500 people.  You can't just bring that many people into such a small space, and expect the schools/doctors/dentists etc to be able to provide.

Surely a few houses here and there would be better than one ginormous development?


Though we cannot make our sun stand still, yet we will make him run.

Offline

#22 08.Nov.16 10:15:40

James Larkin
Member

Re: Sandpit at thornham [GMSF discussion topic]

As I have said, it is a draft strategic proposal. The first point we raised was that there needs to be significant parallel investment into services.

Offline

#23 08.Nov.16 11:12:47

Erin
Member

Re: Sandpit at thornham [GMSF discussion topic]

I for one do not want all our green spaces built on but when all the protesters start to get very vocal about the schemes I always want to ask them "where do you live?".........

Offline

#24 08.Nov.16 11:27:51

Tabbycat
Member

Re: Sandpit at thornham [GMSF discussion topic]

I just think houses should be built first on brown field sites. We, as a species, are using up all the earth's resources, including green fields. Slowly but surely we are creeping outwards and taking it all for ourselves.
It may be 3% now but it will be another 3 or 4 percent in a few years' time when another bit of greenbelt is under threat.

No wonder so many animals and birds are on the endangered list.


Once you've read a dictionary everything else is just a remix

Offline

#25 08.Nov.16 17:32:17

Rebel
Member

Re: Sandpit at thornham [GMSF discussion topic]

Erin wrote:

I for one do not want all our green spaces built on but when all the protesters start to get very vocal about the schemes I always want to ask them "where do you live?".........

Royton   in a hundred and eight year old house on a lane .


I was in the House when the house burned down !.

Offline

#26 08.Nov.16 17:34:18

Rebel
Member

Re: Sandpit at thornham [GMSF discussion topic]

Tabbycat wrote:

I just think houses should be built first on brown field sites. We, as a species, are using up all the earth's resources, including green fields. Slowly but surely we are creeping outwards and taking it all for ourselves.
It may be 3% now but it will be another 3 or 4 percent in a few years' time when another bit of greenbelt is under threat.

No wonder so many animals and birds are on the endangered list.

3% of where   its not 3% of Cowlishaw or Gravelhole where  over 1300 houses will be built .


I was in the House when the house burned down !.

Offline

#27 08.Nov.16 18:36:52

Tabbycat
Member

Re: Sandpit at thornham [GMSF discussion topic]

Rebel wrote:
Erin wrote:

I for one do not want all our green spaces built on but when all the protesters start to get very vocal about the schemes I always want to ask them "where do you live?".........

Royton   in a hundred and eight year old house on a lane .

My house is about that age, too, Rebel. At one time there were 7 of us living in it. It started off with 2 bedrooms, and with a lot of re jigging, and going up into the roof we ended up with 4 tiny bedrooms!
There are still 5 of us living in this same house!


Once you've read a dictionary everything else is just a remix

Offline

#28 13.Nov.16 22:06:27

nola
Member

Re: Sandpit at thornham [GMSF discussion topic]

I've just looked at the map, the proposals do look scary!   An enormous area of housing wrapping around Thornham Old Road and then right up to the A627 in Castleton.  All the green land around Grasmere.   sad


Really called Janet (and still confused)

Offline

#29 14.Nov.16 00:44:54

MarkyBoy
Member

Re: Sandpit at thornham [GMSF discussion topic]

I thought all this was Farm land if i'm looking at the same map .....confused sad


In Omnibus Princeps

Offline

#30 14.Nov.16 05:49:53

Rebel
Member

Re: Sandpit at thornham [GMSF discussion topic]

Confused . Marky  it's simple it's the  green fields that surround Royton that the MAN wants .  This northern powerhouse garbage combined with powers being transferred locally to Manchester in the great super council crime of the century  scam  which  the politicos are championing against their voters wishes is just a cover to urbanise and carpetbag land .


I was in the House when the house burned down !.

Offline

#31 14.Nov.16 12:27:35

ridge walker
Member

Re: Sandpit at thornham [GMSF discussion topic]

Yes all these green fields are privatly owned, i use the term if thats their choice for Green Belt when they wish to develop it from Farm Land, unfortunately farm land is only worth a few hundred pounds per acre, for housing development its hundreds of thousands, farmers would sell and be jumping for joy at this news just like those who saw the railroads coming through their terratory, up to now we have had two motorways coming through the borough and underground services for the utillity companies, but this is far different, this is living space for a growing population, and that provides wealth for small towns income, they will be encouraging it not reducing demand as Rebel prefers, it not knew he has been of this thinking for 20 years, he regrets seeing these very same green fields being lost as they are part of his heritage, where he grew up - the coming of the lawn mowers as been at the forefront of his mind and he fights it, others see it as progress, opportunities for growth, new employment and jobs and better facilities in the towns and increased trading, i know people who have lived in villages and close to the countryside who see these changes coming to them, its the end of the world to them and want to die, thats the impact this is having for those who live away from urban areas.

Consider the plan to build the third runway at Heathrow, building over the M25, demolishing thousands of houses and the talk is all about the 70,000 new jobs and making it fit for the countries biggest airport to compete with those across the world, hundreds of millions of passengers annually all requiring transport links through rural areas, the country lanes and hedgerows on their farmland gone for ever, and for Royton we are told people like to live here and we need to diversify more, the MAN will always plan for the future so listen for those words about what all the benifits it will bring and not the loss of anything too valuable and there will be plenty left in Scotland, after all they dont appreciate it as much as they should do, they don't own it or even go for walks in it, yet they will take it away from the rest of us, its their job and we elected them for this purpose nationally and local and they call it our duty to do so.

Offline

#32 14.Nov.16 12:29:55

MarkyBoy
Member

Re: Sandpit at thornham [GMSF discussion topic]

So all our local farmers are offering to sell up ? Days farm, Hanging Chadder, call it what you will  they have registered that land with the Greater Manchester Spacial Framework ? One presumes the same with all the fields around Tandle hills?


In Omnibus Princeps

Offline

#33 14.Nov.16 13:13:32

Tabbycat
Member

Re: Sandpit at thornham [GMSF discussion topic]

I am appalled by these plans. Absolutely appalled. 
Ridge, I didn't vote the leaders in so they could steal our countryside from us. Surely we should have a public consultation on something as massive as this? Surely it shouldn't be allowed to simply go through as there are so many people against it?

Like Marky says it's beyond belief that all these farmers want to sell their land. It makes you wonder how much money they have been offered? It would have to be a lot if they are all going to retire off it.

I've noticed that there aren't any plans to build in Saddleworth, it's just Shaw and Royton from what I can see.

What have our councillors to say about this? Have any of them brought this up and asked why we have to have it all here?

And another thing. All those houses that will border Tandle Hills aren't going to be cheap. They will be snapped up by executives and their ilk who will work out of Royton, won't contribute anything to Royton's economy, shops etc but who will still need schools and doctors.
They will have 2 cars per family and when they are all finished the traffic will be choc a block,

Oh dear I've really depressed myself now. I'm going to go and have a brew.


Once you've read a dictionary everything else is just a remix

Offline

#34 14.Nov.16 15:23:03

James Larkin
Member

Re: Sandpit at thornham [GMSF discussion topic]

Tabby, I've put the link for the consultation on to the other thread. This consultation isn't just about Royton, its right across the Greater Manchester region. And it isn't for the building of homes to start tomorrow, or next week, next year, possibly not for years and possibly ever.

As part of the consultation, we are putting our views across as well. Some of which have been covered on here. But please, let me stress, when the consultation period ends next month, it does not mean that building work will start the Monday after. We are still a long long way from planning permission even being sought to build anything in Royton. And rest assured that us Royton councillors will be striving to get the best deal possible and hold every single stage of this process to account.

Offline

#35 14.Nov.16 16:24:52

Erin
Member

Re: Sandpit at thornham [GMSF discussion topic]

Thinking back to the sixties before Thorpe Farm estate was created I don't remember any consultations with nearby residents it was just a foregone conclusion that it was going to happen.  From our back garden and windows in our previous house all we could see was the cricket club, the farmhouse and fields.  I don't think there were any plans or consultations for us to see and I certainly do not remember any protesters.  At least these days plans are in place to peruse if you so wish and things on the surface are much more open.  This is how it should be.

Offline

#36 14.Nov.16 16:32:43

Rebel
Member

Re: Sandpit at thornham [GMSF discussion topic]

About twenty years ago I was talking to a woman who lived on Shaw Rd Luzley Brook  she said she woke up on morning looked out of her back bedroom window which faced the fields and  there were diggers and bulldozers  rampagiing around  .  That was her lifelong view gone   .   Erin if we don't snipe and harrass about this  landgrab  that's what will happen .


I was in the House when the house burned down !.

Offline

#37 14.Nov.16 16:34:59

Rebel
Member

Re: Sandpit at thornham [GMSF discussion topic]

Erin wrote:

Thinking back to the sixties before Thorpe Farm estate was created I don't remember any consultations with nearby residents it was just a foregone conclusion that it was going to happen.  From our back garden and windows in our previous house all we could see was the cricket club, the farmhouse and fields.  I don't think there were any plans or consultations for us to see and I certainly do not remember any protesters.  At least these days plans are in place to peruse if you so wish and things on the surface are much more open.  This is how it should be.

Could be that Haugton and Kershaws estate got built because Alan just H appened to be big boss Councillor at the time.  Or was it just coincidence.?.


I was in the House when the house burned down !.

Offline

#38 14.Nov.16 16:42:35

Tabbycat
Member

Re: Sandpit at thornham [GMSF discussion topic]

My father was in the building trade, and he oversaw the huge housing estates over High Crompton across to Rushcroft in the 1960s.
You are right, Erin, I don't think any thought was given to saving green belt in those days. there was a housing boom, builders made loads of money (Not  my father, he was only the foreman) and it was a golden era for developers.

At least these days we get the chance to put our views forward even if they are completely ignored and over rode by government.

James, so are you saying that the plans are part of a long term plan, to be implemented within the next, what? 10 years or so?


Once you've read a dictionary everything else is just a remix

Offline

#39 14.Nov.16 16:43:07

Erin
Member

Re: Sandpit at thornham [GMSF discussion topic]

Who knows. but it wasn't just Thorpe what about Royley?

Offline

#40 14.Nov.16 16:52:48

James Larkin
Member

Re: Sandpit at thornham [GMSF discussion topic]

Tabbycat wrote:

My father was in the building trade, and he oversaw the huge housing estates over High Crompton across to Rushcroft in the 1960s.
You are right, Erin, I don't think any thought was given to saving green belt in those days. there was a housing boom, builders made loads of money (Not  my father, he was only the foreman) and it was a golden era for developers.

At least these days we get the chance to put our views forward even if they are completely ignored and over rode by government.

James, so are you saying that the plans are part of a long term plan, to be implemented within the next, what? 10 years or so?

The GMSF (I'm not typing the full name out every time  lol ) is a region wide strategic document to look at how we could (emphasis on could) meet the expected challenges and changes in population over the next 20-25 years (off the top of my head).

Yes, these are long term, speculative plans. We (as councillors in Royton) are still formulating our response.

As an aside, there is an event on at Royton Town Hall on Monday 28th November, at 4.30pm, where there will be officers from the council present to answer questions on these plans. I would encourage as many as possible to attend  smile

Offline

#41 14.Nov.16 17:30:57

Erin
Member

Re: Sandpit at thornham [GMSF discussion topic]

My post 39 is in reply to Rebel's post 37.

Offline

#42 14.Nov.16 19:43:12

ridge walker
Member

Re: Sandpit at thornham [GMSF discussion topic]

Years ago i joined the windfarm project objectors in Saddleworth, attending several meetings with the developers and later the objectors in their new civic hall and sent in written reasons why, mainly on the cost of the energy produced and its subsidy by the government to build them and for the domestic user to afford to buy it, i was already writing peices regarding the Local Development Plan, again an 18 year project to decide where everything would go in deciding planning issues over that period, within a short time the government got involved concerned at the poor house building rate and the ever increasing demand for new homes, and this began this framework scheme to evaluate all available undeveloped land in our own and every other authority in the country that could be used, private or otherwise, inc land banks held in reserve but left vacant, this information was sent to me and as a contributer to these plans and the difficulty for myself was the one Rebel has mentioned, who decides which land is used and who decides if such land has better uses and would i wish to see houses built on them or any other use for that matter simply by identifying it to the powers that be.

After all the authority (OMBC) had already set its LDP, did they not know where vacant land lay unused and had no use within the plan, this plan decides on all planning issues from housing, employment, retail uses, parks, schools and every element of its needs, including its Green Belt that protected towns joining up with no seperation inbetween, the blight created by the motorways then questioned was land either side now lost for farming, as they mostly ran through open countryside, but not anymore, the motorways are now ribbon developments for distribution warehousing and every kind of building that required quick access to the rest of the nation, including wind farms and for the same reason, the adjoining land is debased so 'whats the harm', this spatial framework plans to build hundreds of thousands of houses across Greater Manchester by 2035, it will begin every year over that period  in ever increasing numbers so dont assume itwill take 10 years for a start to be made, as James replied a meeting on the 28th Nov will explain the process, this is the start and part of the consultations, dont allow it to pass you bye then in 5 years time you suddenly become aware houses are being built on Cowlishaw and Hanging Chadder  or further afield along the A627M.

I have no Knowledge what land owners/farmers will do only suggesting that's possible, but we know there not doing very well with milk prices and the cost of rearing their animals, we know Fearney Fields Farm agreed to sell its farmland for Latics Stadium, then it became a warehousing and housing development when that fell through, the last open land in Chadderton feeding on to Broadway, and forced through by this council and labour controlled, you have to be careful who your freinds are in their assurances how careful they are in protecting the landscape or the environment, they will never tell you the truth if it bites them on the bum, only your own scrutiny will tell you what is at risk here so wise up and be on top of your game if you care enough, if you dont its coming your way in big parcel's not the tiny plots we see today, thats just a symptem of shortage of available land on any odd corner they can build on, once Byron Street is gone where next and how soon ?

Offline

#43 14.Nov.16 20:12:11

nola
Member

Re: Sandpit at thornham [GMSF discussion topic]

I've emailed in my objections, using the very good template on ILR as a guide  smile


Really called Janet (and still confused)

Offline

#44 14.Nov.16 20:38:09

Tabbycat
Member

Re: Sandpit at thornham [GMSF discussion topic]

(

nola wrote:

I've emailed in my objections, using the very good template on ILR as a guide  smile

Me too, Nola. I hope people are still remembering to give their reasons for objecting otherwise they won't carry any weight.

Do you think sg could put a note on telling people this?  There are bound to be some who don't realise and just send it off with their names and addresses on.


Once you've read a dictionary everything else is just a remix

Offline

#45 15.Nov.16 09:18:37

iammrc
Member

Re: Sandpit at thornham [GMSF discussion topic]

Rebel wrote:

Ridge I can't be bothered looking back over my posts to find my rants about Byron St joining up with high barn   but  I know I was ballistic ,    Not only the inadequate of it all.  Most of it was centred on the loss of the football pitch and playing fields , there was downright lies spread by Oldham Council that the sports field was waterlogged  , this football pitch was superb and if it rained for a month it was still playable the drainage was  fantastic ,so much so that Sport England put an official complaint in  , obviously Oldham Council didn't listen , it was the proverbial done deal .

I'm with Rebel's thoughts on this one. It's a "Done deal". You only have to look at the way the McMahon's Communist Council behaved with other developments and "public consultations". Complete disregard for the electorate and decided to go ahead anyway. Foxdenton, Saddleworth School, Crompton Baths, Crompton House all weather pitch to name a few. Then throw in things like the refuse collection changes and you can see a theme developing.

Offline

#46 15.Nov.16 09:22:17

James Larkin
Member

Re: Sandpit at thornham [GMSF discussion topic]

It really, really, really isn't a done deal.

Offline

#47 15.Nov.16 09:23:50

ridge walker
Member

Re: Sandpit at thornham [GMSF discussion topic]

One risk thats never mentioned is no one councillor or MP can guarantee a planning application for green fields not previously developed will be refused concent, even if all 6 royton councillors and both MP's vote against it they will be outvoted by their fellow collegues, theirfore it requires the universal support of everyone, even then the government can overturn a decision to refuse.

Who are these houses for, we hear about the growth in numbers and demand, social housing will go to those with the greatest need, many will arrive from outside the town and other districts even new entrants into the country, those with the income to buy will come from anywhere, this will not address local needs at all  and as James stated he thought executive detached houses were the most productive in terms of raising council tax, the method the government has decided will allow Gtr Manchester to raise its own revenues rather than rely on state aid, an idea which many totally disagree with due to lack of equality between the regions to grow.

Offline

#48 15.Nov.16 09:50:45

iammrc
Member

Re: Sandpit at thornham [GMSF discussion topic]

"Harking back for bygone days won't stop this happening, so we have to look at making it the best possible deal for Royton".

"Rest assured that us Royton councillors will be striving to get the best deal possible and hold every single stage of this process to account".

"The first point we raised was that there needs to be significant parallel investment into services".

Comments such as these do nothing to convince us that it's not a done deal. If it's not a done deal then surely the elected members should be fighting the issue with outright objections and not merely looking to get the "best deal for Royton".

Might I be so bold as to suggest the developers should fill the spaces created by the previous demolition of social housing, Derker being a prime example where whole streets have not been replaced.

Offline

#49 15.Nov.16 09:55:55

James Larkin
Member

Re: Sandpit at thornham [GMSF discussion topic]

Planning doesn't quite work like that Ridge. It goes to a committee, made up of councillors from across the borough (of all political persuasions), who have to grant or refuse permission based on a legal framework. Permission can not be refused just because a development isn't popular. As you say, a decision that is appealed can be overturned either way by the Planning Inspector, with all costs then being awarded against the council.

However, this document isn't a pitch for planning permission. Its still years off, if it ever does come to that stage. I've spent some time recently identifying alternative sites both in Royton and elsewhere in the borough that would be helpful.

But again, this isn't for planning permission. I cannot stress that enough. And I would urge anyone contributing to the consultation (and I urge as many people as possible to respond to it) to give reasons, and not just say they object.

Offline

#50 15.Nov.16 10:01:39

James Larkin
Member

Re: Sandpit at thornham [GMSF discussion topic]

iammrc wrote:

"Harking back for bygone days won't stop this happening, so we have to look at making it the best possible deal for Royton".

"Rest assured that us Royton councillors will be striving to get the best deal possible and hold every single stage of this process to account".

"The first point we raised was that there needs to be significant parallel investment into services".

Comments such as these do nothing to convince us that it's not a done deal. If it's not a done deal then surely the elected members should be fighting the issue with outright objections and not merely looking to get the "best deal for Royton".

Might I be so bold as to suggest the developers should fill the spaces created by the previous demolition of social housing, Derker being a prime example where whole streets have not been replaced.

It isn't a done deal, but similar to Rebel I get the impression that nothing I say would sway you on that.

The best deal possible is as little building Royton on green belt as possible, and questioning each and every step of any process. Part of that is saying that more houses has to mean more services and infrastructure. I want more infrastructure and investment in Royton even if we build no new houses.

As I say above, I am currently identifying sites around the borough (and within Royton) that could fulfil this need on brownfield sites. Derker is one of them that I wholeheartedly agree with and will be suggesting.

And I don't quite know how you can say "merely looking to get the best deal for Royton". That's the idea of everything, isn't it? There are a few comments on the Facebook page saying they have no issue with new estates, so long as it is done tastefully. However my reaction is that the areas identified will be over developed under the current ideas being put about.

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB 1.5.9

[ Generated in 0.077 seconds, 8 queries executed - Memory usage: 1.48 MiB (Peak: 1.78 MiB) ]