From Charles Gate

Tuesday, 22 March 2011

The development lies on the flood plain. If it is built on it will merely divert water to other areas of Hebden at risk from flooding. The Pitt review of 2008, on the floods of 2007, said the presumption should be to not build on flood plains. I have objected to the scheme.

From Andrew Hall

Wednesday, 23 March 2011

Thanks Charles. I'd forgotten about the Pitt report. Looking at both that, and the environmental agency flood map, surely means that this scheme needs to be reconsidered.

I know there's a shortage of housing in the area, but I don't think little bijou 2.4 kids 'housettes' or 5 storey luxury apartments towering over the main road and the houses opposite in the Stubbing area is going to solve the genuine need for affordable housing.

Additionaly the site is riddled with underground culverts and tunnels. It's not a simple site to develop. Perhaps that's why the original developers have taken the money and run!

From Claire M

Wednesday, 30 March 2011

Also this land has a stream of natural spring water running down into it, what of this if the development goes ahead? There are also a number of local roe deer that use the area for drinking and feeding.

Will contact council asap

From Joel B

Thursday, 31 March 2011

People are opposed to the land being developed for housing, people are opposed to it being developed as a supermarket, tell you what, lets just leave it looking like a dump and a great advert for Hebden as you approach the town. A large, empty, unused overgrown piece of land. Brilliant !!

From Zilla Brown

Thursday, 31 March 2011

What is wrong with simply letting an area be? Is any change always progress or for the better?nature has its own way of repairing the ugly sites that we have created. There is too much of "tidying up" going on. See the Copley Valley scheme for similar overdevelopment. Why does Hebden always have to be promoting itself; cant it just be also?

From Martin F

Thursday, 31 March 2011

I agree with Zilla

When I drive from Tod to Hebden I don't think "What an eyesore, someone should build on that". I just see it as an open space.

Calling it a dump is, for me, reminiscent of a certain person calling the Garden Street carpark (as I remember) an eyesore. Utter rubbish!

From Jenny B

Thursday, 31 March 2011

As I recall, the site was pretty ugly when it had a factory on it and no one could realistically enjoy the view of overgrown weeds could they? There are hundreds of people desperate for affordable housing in Hebden Bridge but that doesn't worry the nimbys who already have their homes does it!

This Waste Land is not a pleasant patch of greenery, it is an overgrown and unused/wasted area. Too many people want Hebden Bridge to be a twee little village without new housing, without wind farms, without decent shops etc. Oh but then they drive to Todmorden every day don't they? " A town of development and progress, yes even with its 2 supermarkets and 2 on the way, Todmorden will remain lively and vibrant.
Whilst in Hebden the residents prefer to stagnate. Now that is rubbish!!!

David R

Thursday, 31 March 2011

Surely this would be an ideal site for some well drained outdoor sports facilities???

From Andrew Hall

Thursday, 31 March 2011

Jenny B, I take it you have studied the plans. Yes, there is an element of 'social housing' in them, but as with so many developments, it's a token nod to the council, and will do precious little to address the real problem of affordable housing in the valley.

And surely, isn't it more 'twee' to have rows of little houses with their pseudo stone facing and manicured gardens, than an area left to revert to nature, with the resulting benefits for wildlife? Obviously you don't think so.

And yes, Joel B, as you say, it's about the best advert for Hebden Bridge we could have. It's a positive statement that we're not obsessed with building on every available space. It shows that we're not afraid to let land revert to nature and to be colonised by flora and fauna. And for those who drive through and think it's a bad advertisement for the town - perhaps they're not the sort of people we want or need here anyway.

Since the original application, a lot has changed, and there is a presumption against building on flood plains (as this land is) unless absolutely necessary. And can anyone honestly say that the development, in its present form, is absolutely necessary?

From Myra James

Thursday, 31 March 2011

I live in the Mytholm area and have yet to see a proposal for this site that I have been able to support, although must admit these have improved since we were offered a drive-thru restaurant some years back.

An additional 58 dwellings, with their associated cars, will have a serious impact on traffic congestion on the A646, and the Air Quality Management Area in the centre of Hebden Bridge. It's true that it's not a particularly pretty spot as it is, but that doesn't matter. It is presumably home to large numnbers of creatures, and as someone else has mentioned is visited by deer.

Although I don't think the present proposal directly interferes with the watercourse on the site (as some previous proposals did), the development would surely have an effect on wildlife that depends on that water. That said, I don't necessarily oppose any development there but don't think 58 new dwellings is what is needed. I'd rather see something that provides public amenity as well as employment - how about a leisure centre and swimming pool? But nothing will happen there unless and until there is money to be made from it. Until that time comes, I'm happy with the rather scruffy, unused bit of land being left just as it is.

From H Gregg

Thursday, 31 March 2011

If our predecessors in this town had stuck to the current rules on development (and environmental concerns), we wouldn't have this glorious mish mash of buildings that we all delight in.

From Jenny B

April 1, 2011

Yes, I took care to look at the plans before I posted. I can't say I agree with the whole proposal, but I do think there is a dire need for housing. Also because the land was previously an industrial site, with a pretty grim facade, and plenty of traffic movement including lorries, I can't see how any 'lets just leave it as an open space proposal' has a chance.

A smaller housing development set back would in my opinion be better than the wasteland that is there and meet a clear need. I also agree with Myra that a sports centre or its like would be good but maybe not as profitable for the land owner.

Who ever owns the land is not going to let it stay as a wild garden area, and to propose that is unrealistic and simply causes the planners up in t'own hall to roll their eyes and label yet more Hebdeners as tree huggers (I work in local government, so I do know that this is the perception).

The plans will eventually pass in some form, so at least we could accept that and offer realistic proposals instead of the protect the wildlife, save our stream, and other ones which we know do not work.

From Andrew Hall

Saturday, 2 April 2011

The main point about this application is that it is merely an extension, as the 3 year time limit for the original development has passed. Don't expect bulldozers on the site in the near future. The developers are simply buying time and using the planning process to their own advantage. It's nothing to do with increasing the affordable housing stock. It's certainly not 'pro bono publicum' It's quite simply down to how much money the developers can make at the appropriate time. The o
nly people who can put finality on this development are the Council, who can force the developers to complete the project in a specified time limit. But I bet they won't.

From Matthew Davies

Thursday, 7 April 2011

It's a former factory site that can now only be described as an eyesore; as regards wildlife, much of the site is still covered with concrete, surely manicured gardens and a suitably implemented landscaping scheme would be more beneficial to all, perhaps this is where the council should be focusing its energies? Take the point on the height, but the backdrop and neighbouring houses are so elevated I can't really see it having that great an impact and lets be realistic, the developers arent going to put office space on there when there's no demand, ultimately it's going to be a housing site and given the monstrosity next door - a govt run nursing home - I don't really see that as an issue. Some of the alternative uses, drive through restaurant, b&q etc. don't bear thinking about!

From Em F

Friday, 8 April 2011

Funny, different perspectives. I don't see it as an eyesore at all. I like the way wilderness re-takes land previously claimed and made ugly by humans.

If they have to do something with it, making it into a park would be best; then probably either housing or a small leisure centre; definitely not a supermarket, b&q or drive-thru! Not sure about this, but what about half-park, half carpark? If it would keep cars out of town centre a bit more...?

Still, my hope is that the lack of money in general circulation at the moment might have some positive sides - like putting a halt to development of such sites and giving nature a chance...

From Myra James

Friday, 8 April 2011

I'm with Em on this and much prefer the site as it is to the prospect of "manicured gardens". I expect it will be developed one day - we just need to keep our eyes on it and make sure we end up with a "least worst" option. But I doubt we can expect anything to happen soon so might just as well enjoy watching nature take over.