Village Web Site Forum

Brian Sanderson
Sunday, December 2, 2012 16:11
Barrett's Appeal re Thompson's Field Development
The appeal in December with Christmas and New Year combined holidays is not suffiecient time to put forward a constructive challenge and is therefore unacceptable. I have objected if all Sutton residents could do likewise we will get an extension.

My objections to the development are as follows:
Re: Barratt & David Wilson Homes Application 66/2011/12210 for Building on Thompson’s Field:

I am writing to express my concern and objection to the above development on the following grounds:
1. My wife and I bought our current property specifically because it was in a rural setting in order to enjoy a tranquil retirement. We definitely would not have moved only to be part of an urban, busy and overcrowded environment we had escaped from.

2. Sutton-in-Craven is not tied in with Glusburn and Crosshills we must keep these villages separate. Sutton has a long history going back to the Doomsday Book times.

3. This area has already had much development in recent years which should be obvious to anyone living here and using the local amenities. The roads are congested most of the time. Getting out of Holme lane is a dangerous manoeurve . If travelling to Keighley via Bridge Road, a 20mph stretch past the Sutton-in-Craven Primary School, then on to Sutton Lane which is also dangerously narrow with no pavement, then on to Main Road to Steeton past the Hospital which is continuously jammed at commuter times.

4. Re-focusing on point 2 above the proposed development on Thompson Field. This is slap in the centre of 3x road narrowing ‘pinch points’(see attached map) 1st at Holme Lane adjacent to the park entrance/exit obviously a danger to adults and particularly children coming out of the park, 2nd at the junction of King Edwards St. which is a 20mph zone past Sutton in Craven Primary School. Does the Council actually want to give planning permission to increase traffic on this road as proposed in the planning application!, and 3rd the road narrows going up Holme Lane just prior to Manse Way, this road leads on to first the South Craven Comprehensive School which has also been a concern to the Council because of high flow of traffic past the school and then on to the Health Centre where Mums with children and the elderly have to cross Holme Lane to gain access to the Surgery. Common sense tells one that this is not a suitable location for a housing development.

5. The Crosshills Medical Centre and local hospital are already over stretched with patients, being difficult to get an appointment. The proposed development will just make things worse “the last straw breaking the camel’s back”.

6. This area is a ‘flood plain’ and has been prone to flooding over recent years. Indeed on last Wednesday night I as flood warden was very concerned that Holme Beck would flood and came near to issuing ‘sand bags’ to the adjacent properties to the 1900 bridge. In fact I nearly got drenched when walking my dog Thursday morning immediately outside Thompson’s Field as standing water had spread over halfway across the road. Building more houses, drives and roads is just going to increase the risk of flood whatever precautions are taken.

7. The Council has cut back on drain clearing last year with Boundary Avenue not being done for years, so how are their resources going to cope with extra houses and road.


8. We as Council Tax payers wish to maintain green space around our neighborhood for our health, well being and for maintaining the natural biodiversity.

9. There must be ‘Brown field’ sites available, but not in this vicinity please.

10. My understanding is that School places are at a premium and any extra children coming from the additional 54 properties will not find places.

11. Does the proposed development fit with our local needs as set out in our July 2011 plan. The ‘affordable housing’ allocation in previous developments has not been suitable for our local needs and has gone to people from outside. Why is this?

12. The sewer overflow occurring is supposed to be sorted by Yorkshire Water. Pull the other one. They and of course the Council have a vested interest in more Council Tax payers!

13. We have already seen the huge ‘Mill Complex’ completed in Sutton, are we saying we really need more??

14. Barretts and David Wilson Homes are just interested in the money they can earn from this development. They are not concerned about the local residents whose lives are going to be
blighted for years and generations to come.

15. I feel very strongly that if the Council allows this development to go ahead it will open the flood gates (yes that as well) to many other schemes.

Brian Sanderson (Holme Beck Flood Action Group 07931 312579)

  Posting to the forum is de-activated due to lack of use.

  You are welcome to browse through posts but cannot add comments or start new topics.