Builder hits back over criticism of Grimsby homes plan
ONE of the landowners who wants to build 150 homes on a five-hectare plot in Grimsby has hit back at residents who have criticised the development.
Builder John Tucker, of Squarefalcon Ltd, has branded some of the neighbouring residents against the potential development on land in Humberston Road – which backs onto their houses in Vaughan Avenue – as "hypocritical".
The early stages of a planning application have been submitted to North East Lincolnshire Council for land on Humberston Road, Grimsby, close to Love Lane Corner roundabout, as reported.
At this stage, the application, led by Kirton Consulting Ltd, is for a "screening opinion" to determine whether an environmental impact assessment is needed on the land.
MAYFAIR ESTATE AGENTS
If we cannot find you a tenant within one month, we will find you one for FREE, yes FREE, you will pay no fees
Contact 01472 355553
Terms: Terms and Conditions Apply
Contact: 01472 355 553
Valid until: Thursday, May 23 2013
It is one of many housing developments currently proposed for North East Lincolnshire.
Mr Tucker – who has owned the land for 27 years with four other builders – has replied to comments made in the Grimsby Telegraph.
He said: "The first is to applaud Marjorie Mackalam and Tony Bell for not hiding behind the cloak of anonymity in making their comments. As yes, to paraphrase Mrs Mackalam, 'I am one of those builders'.
"To the resident who did not want to be named, who complains that building on this land will ruin their view of the greenery and open space, I would proffer the question, that in building the property they live in, did it not remove someone else's view of the greenery and open space?
"I feel it is a somewhat hypocritical stance to take, if it is so.
"With regards to the maintenance of the field – or lack of it – several years ago we tried to clear the field to keep it looking tidy.
"This resulted in a flurry of residents up in arms about removing what was growing on the land.
"They cannot have it both ways – either we clean the field up and remove what has self-seeded, or we allow it to grow.
"This field has been in the ownership of the said builders since October 1985, and 27 years is, I feel, a reasonable time to accept that it may be subject to a housing development.
"Finally, I would like to add the number and, to some extent, the type of houses that may be built, will be heavily influenced by Government policy and whatever the number set, it will be done so within the framework and guidelines of current planning policy and not at the whim of the developers."
Comments
by sunshine2000
Friday, November 02 2012, 10:55PM
“It's OK building more houses but why can't they build a play area or leave green areas alone for people and future generations to enjoy and play”
by Hedgewood
Thursday, November 01 2012, 10:58PM
“A lovely green open space
But as long as John Tucker & his mates makes a killing, who cares if our grandchildren's children have to travel miles to see any
Make the most of it, as when it's gone, it's gone forever”
by vikti
Thursday, November 01 2012, 10:29PM
“I guess Mr Tucker is one of those developers who think that it doesn't matter if the UK is turned into a concrete jungle with every inch of green field site built upon, as long as it makes him money. Most major developers retire as multi millionaires at the expense of our open spaces.”
by calypso
Thursday, November 01 2012, 6:10PM
“Excellence wrote: "but its not their view. They're just enjoying the view over someone elses land"
Oh, so we'll just let greedy devs build over the entire countryside shall we?
Let them carry on building little concrete boxes ad infinitum?
There HAS to come a time when people put their foot down and say "this far .. and no further".”
by Excellence
Thursday, November 01 2012, 1:10PM
“but its not their view. They're just enjoying the view over someone elses land.
If they wanted to enjoy the view for ever, they should have bought the land.
Its like me wanting to put up a fence round my garden and my neighbour complaining that it obstructs his view of my flowers”
by des22
Thursday, November 01 2012, 12:03PM
“Of course they are not nimbys. They are entitled to their view for which they paid. Mr Tucker is the hypocrite here. He is claiming to provide a public service and what will be his selling point for these new houses? It will be the location and the views of course. Then what will he or some other builder want to do in a few years? Build more of them to crowd the location and stop the views!
Mr Tucker must think we were all born yesterday. He isn't doing anything except wanted to make a fat profit on spec building on a greenfield site. Easy build - easy money.”
by MalcomsMate
Thursday, November 01 2012, 11:54AM
“Build and be damned.”
by BENDITLIKE
Thursday, November 01 2012, 11:17AM
“Perhaps one of the reasons why the current residents of the 'objectors houses' bought them was indeed for the unobstructed view that they currently have.
Furthermore the current owners perhaps are not the first original owners of the property they reside in so cannot be described as "hypocritical nimby's"”
by kev1ntaylor
Thursday, November 01 2012, 10:17AM
“Mr.Tucker is quite right to point out that when the objectors houses were built they have taken someone elses view.Hypocritical Nimby's.Good look Mr.Tucker.”