We won't submit Humberston plans if residents continue to object
DEVELOPERS who want to build 400 homes on fields in Humberston will not submit a planning application if objections continue to be made.
As reported, a major public consultation is under way with Keystone Development, who want to build 200 retirement homes and 200 family and affordable homes on four fields in Humberston Avenue.
-
SHARING THOUGHTS: Assistant director Nick Worboy, centre, with residents John and Mavis Askwith, at the public consultation meeting. Picture: Michelle Adamson
The second public meeting was held yesterday at the Humberston Country Club and drew crowds of residents to see the proposed plans.
But while some support developing on the land, which is owned by the Joseph Ogle's Trust, a petition dubbed Save Our Fields has been launched by Glebe Road residents whose houses will back on to the development.
At the meeting, assistant director of development Nick Worboy emphasised the plans were still subject to change. She said: "Since the first consultation event we are already looking at how we can take people's concerns into consideration.
"If we do get to the planning stage, all those comments will be taken on board, which can only improve the design, but it has to be a calculated decision.
"The last thing we will do if we have huge objection is submit an application. We cannot afford, as a not-for- profit company, to put it into planning. We don't want to go down that route."
One idea they are looking at is to widen the greenbelt around both sides of the site to increase the amount of green space between the existing houses – like those in Glebe Road.
However, she said objections must be made based on the laws of planning for them to be taken into account.
Humberston residents, Christina and Richard Ward, have mixed feelings. Christina said: "Four hundred houses seems a lot. It seems a shame we are losing more and more green space. Nothing is particularly done with the field, but I can appreciate how other people are feeling."
Pauline Bilbe, of Humberston Avenue, is "totally against it".
She said: "It has been old grassland since I can remember. I was expecting building work eventually, but didn't realise it would be at this scale. I am still shocked at the size and I am against it."
Jayne Horner, also of Humberston Avenue, said: "It is too large for the area and I am concerned about the amount of traffic it will bring, the noise and the impact on local schools who do not have the capacity for more children."
Norma Gardner, of North Cotes, is thinking of buying one of the retirement homes.
She said: "As we're getting older the time will come when we need to be close to a bus service so we can get into town. Being in Humberston would allow that."
83 Comments
View all
by telimark
Tuesday, October 18 2011, 7:37PM
“Plans are now on the move to build 100-150 houses on the now closed golf course down Scouts lane Humberston.”
by chavBasha
Tuesday, October 18 2011, 1:41PM
“Let them build! All the people moaning now will probably like it when it is finished.”
by ecca75
Monday, October 17 2011, 2:50PM
“@blue90blue,,,,, near the end of ours lives.... i should bloody hope not I'm 35......”
by Allun
Monday, October 17 2011, 12:22AM
“by a2011, I read your NELC article.
I'm not sure I agree with the projected population increase in the light of recent industrial contraction on the Humber bank and food processing. The Energy park may employ some locals but more likely will import already skilled workers from the EU. Those in our local population may indeed leave the area seeking work, and University graduates rarely return to home ground.
However in your report is does mention some interesting points Viz:
"In 2005, there were 2617 empty homes in North East Lincolnshire, or 3.7% of the total. Though this is slightly lower than the regional average, it indicates a potential for homes to be brought back into reuse. There were 391 households accepted as homeless in North East Lincolnshire in 2004-05, as the number of households on Local Authority waiting lists between 2001 and 2005 rose by 6.6%."
Which way to turn?, some advocate leaving town for new estates....(loss of agricultural land), other seek to redevelop the inner towns older housing stock and new builds on brown field sites.
Many families can still remember being brought up in draughty terrace houses without any of the modern comforts at all. Old housing stock has the benefit of services laid on, established roads etc. To refurbish an older house using modern insulation and heating techniques together with modern bathrooms/kitchens etc., only costs a fraction of green field builds.
You could argue that a modernised house already in town, is a far cheaper option for those struggling to purchase a new so called affordable house out of town.
Boarded up derelict houses usually decay into demolition fodder......that leaves an eyesore causing more dereliction. Inner town brown field sites should be used if only to take advantage of the housing services....water, gas, sewage, communication cabling and electricity.
If there are anywhere near the 2 600 empty homes mentioned, they could easily accommodate the projected population growth of 5 000........and return neglected parts of our town back to life at the same time as providing refurbishing jobs. To be brutally honest there is nothing wrong with our inner town housing, it is the people who drag the place down not bricks and mortar.
Nimby's......maybe but, a building site spanning a few years upwind from established housing will cause disruption, dust and change forever a nice bit of fallow land. England has a reducing production capacity......and one thing England cannot make is land. It is all needed for food production. These fields could still provide "views" even if brought back into grazing land status.”
by a2011
Sunday, October 16 2011, 3:01PM
“The population of North East Lincolnshire was 158,900 in mid-2006, of which about 1.4% is from minority ethnic communities. By 2029, the population is predicted to increase to 163,900 - by about 5000 people. It is the first projected increase for many years.
Source
http://tinyurl.com/3u2qny2
5000 people cannot be housed down Ladysmith Road or other brownfield sites, as the urbanites need a bit more open space. So you Humberston NIMBYs, prepare to hang out the buntings to welcome your new neighbours, the occupants of the NEW AFFORDABLE HOMES to be built.”
by blue90blue
Sunday, October 16 2011, 1:18PM
“these silly protesters want to relise that there old and near end of there life these developments are for the young up an ***ming youngpeople so just dont be so silly you will never reduce population and as for scenery what are parks and woods for get off your lazy bottoms and visit these nice places and dont expect it to be on your door step forever”
by kev1ntaylor
Sunday, October 16 2011, 10:40AM
“T he NIMBY's have woken up again trying to save their beautiful field view,Re concerns about increased traffic,how many of the families objecting have more than one vehicle?A report from 2008 is not relevant in 2011.The loss of land will not have a sever effect,in fact it will have the opposite effect and bring these communities together.I suppose the term was meant to be "severe" a completely different word.I agree with Mr.Clee1,I'll sign his petition.”
by lincs1965
Saturday, October 15 2011, 4:29PM
“I see those greedy developers have submitted an application for screening to NELC.....basically its to test the waters. Its kind of like squeezing your wifes **** to see if she's up for full on sex....
Anyway, I've objected to it and a few others have too.
If you want to object you can do here bu clicking on the link below....
http://tinyurl.com/3apwcod
As a suggestion this is what I wrote...so feel free to cut and paste. The deadline for objection is 27th October, which isnt that far away.....
1. This proposal is not within the local development boundary and there are better alternative sites around town. 2. There is no demand for this type of housing. A report in 2008 by the Humber and Wolds Rural Community Council found a requirement of only 14 affordable homes in Humberston and NOT 100, as in this proposal. The link to the report can be found here:
http://tinyurl.com/3tleryo
3. There will be increased traffic on the roads adding to noise and pollution. More importantly, the proposal is directly sited opposite THREE local schools, where children regularly cross the already busy Humberston Avenue. The development will endanger the safety of our children even further. 4. There are existing problems with drainage and electricity power supply. Any further increase in demand will have a detrimental effect on the existing residents through increased flooding and lack of power supplies. 5. The proposed site is home to rare species of birds, bats, animals, and natural wildlife. 6. The proposed site is of archaeological importance. It displays evidence of ridge and furrow farming, and should be preserved. 7. The proposed site is also the last remaining open land separating the villages of both Humberston and New Waltham. The loss will have a sever effect on the community at large.
http://tinyurl.com/3r2znjr
planning.nelincs.gov.uk”
by lincs1965
Saturday, October 15 2011, 4:28PM
“I see those greedy developers have submitted an application for screening to NELC.....basically its to test the waters. Its kind of like squeezing your wifes **** to see if she's up for full on sex....
Anyway, I've objected to it and a few others have too.
If you want to object you can do here bu clicking on the link below....
http://tinyurl.com/3apwcod
As a suggestion this is what I wrote...so feel free to cut and paste. The deadline for objection is 27th October, which isnt that far away.....
1. This proposal is not within the local development boundary and there are better alternative sites around town. 2. There is no demand for this type of housing. A report in 2008 by the Humber and Wolds Rural Community Council found a requirement of only 14 affordable homes in Humberston and NOT 100, as in this proposal. The link to the report can be found here:
http://tinyurl.com/3tleryo
3. There will be increased traffic on the roads adding to noise and pollution. More importantly, the proposal is directly sited opposite THREE local schools, where children regularly cross the already busy Humberston Avenue. The development will endanger the safety of our children even further. 4. There are existing problems with drainage and electricity power supply. Any further increase in demand will have a detrimental effect on the existing residents through increased flooding and lack of power supplies. 5. The proposed site is home to rare species of birds, bats, animals, and natural wildlife. 6. The proposed site is of archaeological importance. It displays evidence of ridge and furrow farming, and should be preserved. 7. The proposed site is also the last remaining open land separating the villages of both Humberston and New Waltham. The loss will have a sever effect on the community at large.
http://tinyurl.com/3r2znjr
planning.nelincs.gov.uk”
by Scaggs1
Wednesday, August 10 2011, 4:15PM
“I think we should have a pertition against bad spelling.”