New Waltham Parish Council vice-chairman criticises plan for 400 homes on farmland

“Just a thought - wonder how much extra revenue Nelc will get from the building of new houses ?”

“It is true to say that some of the worst areas of Grimsby have been redeveloped as small "brownfield sites". The house we first lived in (Hildyard Street 1954) is long gone - and good riddance too - it was disgusting. The problem is that they remain surrounded by decay and some attract less responsible tenants (few people buy into them) and so the decay is still there. The only way forward is to clear large areas and build a whole infrastructure. Few developers are willing to take on such a task and after all. whilst the five to ten years of regeneration were taking place the thousands of displaced people would need somewhere to live.
Perhaps the redevelopment of the old Yarborough Road Estate will prove a suitable model.
I would imagine that there are plans (dreams) on record to build in excess of 2,000 new homes in this area. They will probably remain, financially, out of reach of the families living in the worst places and so are unlikely to do anything to regenerate the area.
Incidentally, Councillor Raper's calculations are flawed - 400 houses does not mean 400 cars since so many of them will have an 8 foot long "drive" and an "integral garage" that cannot accomodate an average family car (and is normally filled with possessions routinely targeted by thieves). Please recalculate David, factoring in the second car, caravan / trailer, motorhome, works van etc.
It should be noted that if we WERE to leave the crumbling EU and send home migrant workers there would probably be in excess of 250,000 empty homes available.”

“'para_handy' wrote, Saturday, September 08 2012, 8:17AM:

"...the centre of Birmingham... Little Venice... this was an area of utter decay and virtually abandoned canals etc. It is now a fantastic vibrant city centre, a meeting place or hub buzzing with modern life and very attractive amenities. Water frontage is a magnet for developers, but look at the sad areas around the Freshney and River Head, just begging for desirable waterfront housing and restaurants, etc."
--------------------------------------------
Ladies & Gentlemen, it should not go unmentioned in connexion with the referred-to lack of regeneration on waterfront from the West Haven and the River Head Basin, to Grimsby's historic main Haven, a.k.a. Alexandra Dock-South Arm, that the p.s. 'Lincoln Castle' Trust -- an association of professional international engineers, surveyors, architects and educators, with worldwide knowledge of waterside regeneration, development and future use -- were insultingly rebuffed by NE£incs Council in a bid to use the historic vessel of enormous heritage value internationally as a focus for regeneration. It should be added that the trust had access to CASH in excess of treble the asking price for the vessel and access to investment of many tens of thousands of pounds for this effort.

Well, that's water under the Scherzer bridge now, but indicative of the persistent arrogant ignorance that anybody is up against when attempting to deal with YOUR elected representatives and servants.

GOOD LUCK! There's moves afoot to attempt a similar venture in association with the currently implied loss of Barrett's Recreation Ground and the Scartho Baths. I believe the initial contact address is 'an_obsvr(at)aol.com', or you could ask advice of 'p.s.lincoln.castle(at)gmail.com' -- the address of the p.s. 'Lincoln Castle' Archive & Collection, holding all documents and references to the vessel, its functions and its highly professional foreseen future role in the regeneration of the centre of Grimsby.

Pass to you chaps... and GOOD LUCK, again. You'll need more than that, though."
--------------------------------------------
Copied to the Scartho Baths thread: "Scartho Baths set to close in two years"!”

“jack_knife: "Out of interest, where ARE the 'brown fields' near the town that has been mentioned?"

Look on Google Earth!

EnlightendOne: "....it is simply that the people of grimsby and its surrounds have aspirations to move away from the poor quality housing that exists across the bulk of the borough - cottages developed for a fishing industry nearly a hundred years ago. Just look at the poor quality housing that exists around East Marsh on the main road running through to Cleethorpes."

You have reinforced my point....those areas and housing you describe will decay even further unless redevelopment is forced by the NE£C! Developers are falling over themselves to "develop" and make money.....they offer sweeteners of affordable homes, leisure areas and amenities in return for building housing "for vast profit." An imaginative council could force developers to either renovate or demolish and rebuild large tracts of near derelict land. Can you imagine the jobs potential in refurbishing to high standards run down areas. I agree aspiration drives most people to move out of the decay of central Grimsby....BUT if really affordable housing was re-instated and "policed" with enforceable covenants of "decent occupation conditions" then maybe large numbers of young families could have starter homes at a fraction of the cost of new build "affordable housing" on greenfield sites! Decades ago local councils including the Grimsby Rural District Council actually carried out massive social engineering and carefully planned ghetto's that could only deteriorate because those who never had any intention of maintaining their houses/flats brought the general standards down. If only councils had have had zero tolerance from day one against anti-social behavior those areas would have flourished and become desirable areas to live!

So if the NE£C worked with or "forced" developers to exhaust brown field sites as a first option our town could only improve instead of continue it's ever increasing decay.
c

Have you been to "for example" the centre of Birmingham.....little Venice..... this was an area of utter decay and virtually abandoned canals etc. It is now a fantastic vibrant city centre, a meeting place or hub buzzing with modern life and very attractive amenities. Water frontage is a magnet for developers, but look at the sad areas around the Freshney and River Head, just begging for desirable waterfront housing and restaurants etc.

True, you can live in your green belt and travel to work via a "near bomb site" and watch the decay continue!

Some one, some body must be responsible for the increasing lawlessness and decay in Grimsby whilst thinking destroying green fields is the answer........who oversee's our town and fails to make it a nice place to live........look at a strangers expression when you say you live in Grimsby! That says it all about our Council. Force the developers to develop Grimsby rather than wreck the countryside and destroy or replace village identities with urban sprawl.”

“A nimby indeed - but come, come now! Whilst there might be plenty of criticism of our esteemed local council there is only one reason why development sites like this are considered ahead of brownfield development sites - it is simply that the people of grimsby and its surrounds have aspirations to move away from the poor quality housing that exists across the bulk of the borough - cottages developed for a fishing industry nearly a hundred years ago. Just look at the poor quality housing that exists around East Marsh on the main road running through to Cleethorpes. Where would you rather live - the old birds eye site bordering this sort of degradation or the green green grass of humberston avenue. These schemes only work because there are buyers who aspire and who are prepared to pay the price - the same house on the respective developments would probably have a £30k price difference for the sake of three miles but welcome to the world of market forces where demand drives supply!!!
If people didn't want to live in these areas then they would not be developed would they?”

“It is wrong to build on farmland. With an increasing population we are going to need to grow more food, not less.”

“Out of interest, where ARE the 'brown fields' near the town that has been mentioned?”

“Grimsby is the epitome of desolation. We get claptrap after claptrap from NE£incs in the guise of grossly expensive 'master plans'. The Freeman-st area is a war zone because appropriate development has never taken place under guidance of a gang that hasn't got one bulldozer's brain between 'em, despite their irresponsible use of such machines.

Instead of paying others to churn out 'Master Plans' at vast expense to no effect whatsoever, and then giving planning consent for developers to cover green-field sites with houses miles from the town centre, maybe they should try rubbing a couple of brain cells together -- or is it really the case that if brains woz gunpowder they couldn't jointly blow one of their bladdy heads off?”

“However you dress this up, the NE£C council has little interest in council tax payers, you know those who live in a decaying town and wince every time new housing developments rear their heads. These schemes are about money making for developers....public opinion is simply inconvenient to them, and now planning is loaded on their side not ours. We now have very very few councillors interested in our town, our people and our heritage of green belt. It seems more and more driven by snouts in the trough!

Brownfield:

Usually the roads exist, services including: electricity, telephone hard wired systems(internet), gas, water, sewage, street lighting, local schools, shops, parks, bus routes, the list goes on.

To redevelop brownfield has less impact on existing people service infrastructure! Developing brownfield results in less greenfield impact preserving our environment for the future.

Greenfield: as the name implies every service has to be installed from scratch. Nearly every greenfield project has a serious impact on existing services such as sewage, water, gas, etc., etc. Greenfield development removes the use of land (amenities or arable/livestock) forever. The UK simply isn't making any more land !!!

The NE£C policy is one of an ever expanding "circle" of greenfield destruction whilst allowing the desert of brownfield inner decay to grow. The heart of our town is ignored whilst our most precious asset.....open spaces, identity, communities are destroyed.

I simply refute the demographic argument of massive population growth in our area, even official statistic show a NE£C population growth of around 10 000 by 2031. There is ample brownfield sites to accommodate a "guessed" increase in population of that magnitude. Very few demographic projections take into account the global recession maybe going to last a decade!
The renewable energy growth is nowhere near as labour intensive as the now defunct fishing industry, hence brownfield housing potential in the extreme.....

Note: It is important to note that no population
projection provides definitive figures on the size and
make-up of future populations. They are essentially a
prediction or best guess based on a set of underlying
assumptions drawn from a range of current and
historical data sources.

http://tinyurl.com/cppm35t”

“I can understand the need for more social housing, and I know that a development like this will create jobs .. but when so much brownfield land is available closer to town, why are our villages and our Green belt being defaced like this?

There seems to be no coherent plan here.”