Post your comments here on the proposals published in the Nidderdale Herald on Friday September 17th 2010
Give yourself a user name or use your own name if you prefer.
A valid email address is required for verification but will not be disclosed or used for any other purpose.
Details, including a plan, may be viewed by opening this link to this Harrogate Borough Council web page. Pages 86 to 90 cover the area affected.
3 
11
Disclaimer
Participants are personally responsible for the content they publish on-line. The comments posted do not necessarily represent Bewerley Parish Council’s positions, strategies or opinions.
The information contained within this website is of general nature and intended purely as background reading for the participants taking part in open forum discussions and projects.
Bewerley Parish Council cannot be held responsible for any content posted or held on external websites and does not accept responsibility for any loss, expense or liability that you may incur from using or relying on the information sourced from this website,
This site is subject to moderation. Off Topic comments may be moved to the appropriate category or may not be published.
Comments
Well i agree wholeheartedly in principal with Mr Rayner’s appraisal of the situation but would like to add my own thoughts. Once you build on a greenfield site, thats it, its lost for ever, and where will it end, Harrogate to Middlesmoor could eventually become just one long winding conurbation, a nightmare scenario surely ???
Airedale was developed in the nineteenth century. It has never recovered. Standing in the bottom of the valley in Keighley, it is possible to imagine how Airedale once looked before industrialisation shattered its peace. That is because we have unspoiled dales with which to compare it. For now.
I suggest that housing estates crawling the hills of Nidderdale would have much the same damaging effect as factory buildings in Airedale.
The trouble with Pateley is that it is too near Leeds and Bradford for its own good. Abandon all hope ye who enter here.
Coverdale here I come.
Are there public meetings scheduled to discuss this; either solely for the Bewerly council, or in conjunction with Harrogate council?
I totally agree with Bewerley Parish Council and Pateley Bridge Town Council.
They have got it right.
Moved to Off Topic
I think that what I have to say below is a view held by very many people, especially the “offcumduns”, but they are too polite or too kind or too timid to say it publicly. Fortunately, I am none of those things. And this really does need saying publicly.
I disagree very much with Bewerley Parish Council and Pateley Bridge Town Council in their support for affordable housing for local people. I say this at some risk to myself and I have no doubt I will get a good telling off. My partner is Chair of Bewerley Parish Council and he fervently supports affordable housing for local people, whereas I don’t think that there should be any affordable housing at all. But like I said above, this really does need to be said. If you don’t hear it here, you won’t hear it anywhere. It’s not politically correct you see.
People should not expect others to build them a house, pay for it to be built and then subsidise their rent. That is what affordable housing means. You get a roof over your head at someone else’s expense.
People who move in from outside an area do so because they have earned the money and so they can. They buy houses on the open market. That is a legal right. If they buy a lovely old farmhouse, who do they buy it from? A local person who is willing to sell, that’s who. If you are local, please don’t bleat about your “right” to stay in the dale where you were born, if you are prepared to sell the house you were born in.
No-one has a God given right to live in this dale or anywhere else for that matter. My Father was born in Wensleydale. My Mother was born in Bishopdale. I have my Mother’s family tree; it goes back to 1645 in the same village. And yet they left their ancestral home in the mid-1950s and moved to Harrogate for work. It never occurred to them that they had a “right” to demand a house that their neighbours would have to pay for. Most “offcumduns” who buy a house here can tell a similar story. Whatever their personal history, you can be sure that they did it for themselves.
I left Harrogate and Lived in Sheffield and London. Yes, it was a wrench and yes it sometimes made me sad. But I moved to get a better job with more money than I could get by staying in Harrogate. I worked, I saved, and I lived in market rate rented accommodation and then bought a house as soon as I could. I paid for the roof over my head. Twenty-two years later, I decided to move back north. I bought a house In Pateley Bridge. My parents still live in Harrogate. Like my parents, I did it myself and like them I realised I had to move away to do it. Like others who are prepared to move, we did not hold out our hands and say, “we don’t want to move away, please buy us a house so we don’t have to”.
I think that Pateley and Bewerley councils are being generous in the extreme in even contemplating providing free housing to able bodied people who would rather rely on the rest of us to pay their way in life.
speechless!!! I agree that free loaders and there are plenty of those around should not just expect local housing to be built , but not all of us can go to uni and move away and no doubt be paid huge amounts of money and save for a home. What a completely selfish attitude, lets not forget council properties are for rent not free and families on a low income cannot afford to buy however much we save.
Query for: Moderator On October 21, 2010 at 16:03
Why is it closed? …
Full comment and response moved to Off Topic category
I have lived in Glasshouses and Pateley all my life 41yrs and are currently having to rent a privately owned 3 bedroom property in Pateley Bridge, my partner works in low laithe and is employed full time,We are currently on the councils housing list but have very little chance of ever living in one as there are non available. I am outraged that people are opposing this plan for more local housing, my family live and work in the dale and yet cannot afford a property here as wealthy families from out of the area have moved here and raised the prices of local housing, I agree that the plans for so many houses are excessive but we need some for PROPER LOCAL FAMILIES who are been charged excessive prices to rent here. All these people that lets face it have taken over the dale one way or another live in lovely privately owned homes and dont want the dale spoiling, i guess thats ok as long as there sitting pretty,but the real dales folk cant afford to live here and its an outrage that this beautiful dale has been filled with outsiders who are driving real dales families away, i am all for sharing this beautiful dale with every one locals and others alike,but when these people are deciding what should happen with ;local housing plans i am afraid its a disgrace. Why dont the council see how many local families are on the council housing waiting list and calculate how many properties are required,seems the obvious thing, and please keep them for local working families only.
Bewerley Parish Council is not opposed to affordable housing for local people. In fact, we very much support it. But only for local people. Our record shows it.
In 2006, both Bewerley Parish Council and Pateley Bridge Town Council recommended that the brownfield sites, currently the Coal Yard and the North Yorkshire Highways Depot be used for affordable housing for local people.
Both councils also said that if more affordable housing for local people was needed after that, a green field site beside Low Wath Road between the Ashfields and the High School could be used, but only after the brownfield sites at the Coal Yard and the North Yorkshire Highways Depot had been built on first.
Harrogate Borough Council’s present proposal is for 50% market housing and 50% affordable housing on the Coal yard and Highways Depot along with buildings for businesses.
In Bewerley Parish Council’s opinion, it would be preferable to have the whole of this area devoted to affordable housing for local people.
No market housing.
No buildings for businesses.
In Summerbridge New York Mills, they cannot let out all the industrial units that exist there.
We cannot see any point in making more provision for business in the area when there is unlet space available.
We passed a resolution at last night’s Bewerley Parish Council meeting. It was divisible into three parts, which were:
“[Bewerley Parish Council] opposes development of the green field sites behind the Ashfield estate and opposite Nidderdale High School.”
“[Bewerley Parish Council] opposes expansion of the current Bewerley building line.”
“[Bewerley Parish Council] supports 100% affordable housing for local people on the two brown field sites in Pateley Bridge.”
Pateley Bridge Town Council has recently re-affirmed its 2006 opposition to building on green field sites in Bewerley and its support for affordable housing for local people only on the available brown field sites.
As a neighbouring council, it has worked with Bewerley Parish Council and together we have sought to protect the interests of all of the residents of the area whether they are old established families or newly established families.
Cllr. Geoffrey Linehan
Chair, Bewerley Parish Council
i live in bewerley and have lived here and glasshouses all my life, how do you think young people who are from this area are going ot afford a house when outsiders who are becoming the majority around here will pay any money for houses and then often rent them out for holiday homes. how many of you who are objecting to these plans are sitting in your comfortable homes that you have bought in this area and now dont want anything to spoil your area, how do you think we feel when you pay exhorbitant prices and push our young people into having to leave the area they were born in.it is not the people of this area who are selfish but those who have migrated here.
Faciendam unem Donum magnis, ergo omnes gentes possunt vivendum similiter.
If I translate Matthew’s comment correctly, what he is saying is that by constructing these two large estates more people will be able to live or reside in similar surroundings to those we enjoy at present.
However, my grasp of Latin did not progress far beyond the study of “A Latin Doggerel” by John Bretnall published in 1932 so if my interpretation of Matthew’s comment is incorrect he will have to post his own explanation. Future postings in English though please.
The AONB greenfield site, 2.85a, to the rear of the Ashfield estate became, in 1993, the subject of a Countryside Commission Stewardship Agreement.In the ensuing years, much laudable work has been carried out to enhance the area with large areas of trees planted. In addition, the grassland has been maintained only using natural products providing annual hay crops and valuable grazing land for local farmers. This is clearly in line with the stated intentions that each scheme will conserve and enhance the landscape, create new wildlife habitats and restore traditional farming practices. Any development, therefore, would mean years of effort and, no doubt, considerable expense, have been wasted.
Natural England, the government body which now embraces the old Countryside Commission, state that “We are here to secure a healthy natural environment for people to enjoy, where wildlife is protected and England’s traditional landscapes are safeguarded for future generations.” They have clearly met this aim on the Grassfields site via their efforts and expenditure over the last 17 years.
I am shocked by this proposal. I do not live in Bewerley or Pateley Bridge but I have enjoyed walking holidays in the area for many years. I often use the caravan park when I come to Pateley. These new houses would really spoil the area. I live in a large town and come to Pateley to get away from housing estates. They look terrible and would make Pateley less appealing to holiday makers who bring money to the area. If these houses are built near the caravan park I would really have to think about taking my holidays in another dale. I have spoken to friends who also feel the same as me. I have read the other comments and agree that there would be too many cars that would make the roads very busy. I hope the people of Bewerley and Pateley say no to the proposed houses.
Yes, we often forget that our visitors are what make Pateley special.
Thank you Joe for reminding us!
thats all very nice but you dont live here!! families like mine cannot holiday anywhere as we have no spare money as it all goes on rent! Having lived here all my life its terrible that i cant have a house i can afford here, maybe thats because too many people buy houses for holiday lets etc.
I lived in London and scrimped and saved for a deposit on a modest terraced house. It took three years of staying in every night. I ate cheap food (no takeaways, no restaurants, no ready meals). I bought few clothes (and they were from charity shops). Holidays? Don’t be silly. I paid the bills and saved the rest.
Try it.
Further responses to this link are now closed.
Earlier today I emailed the following district councillors about the proposals:
Councillor L T Ellington NIDD VALLEY Ward (Conservative Group)
Councillor S H Beer PATELEY BRIDGE Ward (Liberal Democrat Group)
Councillor Ellington advises
and Councillor Beer
Thanks to both District Councillors for their contribution.
Time to add my six penneth. OK, so we have a hundred and sixty odd extra houses. Which means about four hundred extra people with about two hundred extra cars. What are they going to do? There isn’t enough employment for the people who are here let alone all this extra. So this will mean an enormous commute. How? The roads won’t take it. We have no railways, and I’m told that the number 24 bus may be stopping next year. Also, moving the gritters away means that if we have a winter like the last two we will have chaos the minute it snows. Not a good idea.
Then there’s the infrastructure. The electricity supply can be intermittant as it is (it dropped out last night) so sub stations will need to be built. The drainage and sewage will need to be upgraded and lastly, where will the Tesco be built?
There are agreements in hand for enough housing for local people already. The brown field site in Pateley Bridge is perfect and,together with the small strip in Bewerley for affordable housing, this should satisfy the area’s need.
Housing should be built where it is needed. This plan was rejected in 2006 when it was last mooted (albeit a smaller version) and should be again.
I agree wholeheartedly with Steve’s comments – how would the infrastructure cope? I am sure anyone reading this blog would agree that we are not unreasonable people opposing such measures simply for the sake of it – we are however, very passionate about wanting the best for our area and we can see the bigger picture. It’s no use trying to make us believe there would be no impact to our way of life, it would have massive consequences that would be irreversible.
Whilst keeping out of the argument for the time being, I should point out that the only threat to the No 24 bus service from Pateley Bridge to Harrogate mentioned by Steve Boast, is to the Sunday winter service from November 2011.
“Sustainable Development” – a comforting phrase. The suggestion is we can have it both ways: plenty of growth but all done in a benign and environmentally friendly way. Locally that translates into, you can have two large new estates and you won’t feel a thing. Don’t be taken in.
The term ‘sustainable development’ originally meant ecological sustainability. It is now used to mean something else. Those who wish to build more housing and urbanise the countryside talk of ‘sustainable development’ when, in fact, such thinking undermines the very concept of ecological sustainability. By ‘sustainable development’, they mean economic development and the sustainability of human populations and their expansion across the landscape. They tell us that if we plan rural development properly, both the human population and the environment will benefit. It isn’t true.
There is only so much land space and some builders and some planners think of it simply as surface on which to build. Spreading out and expanding the margins of country towns and villages is a cheap option. There is no demolition required or land de-toxification necessary, which they must do on brownfield sites. The built up area grows and is covered in concrete and asphalt at the expense of grass, flowers, trees and other species.
Hopefully, you will agree with me and vigorously oppose the degradation of the countryside. Expect a struggle. The political pressure is on to spread out and expand the building line, everything is to be done to accommodate the human population and cost is paramount. Cheap buildings in the wrong styles are put up and made of wrong materials. They devour land and deface the environment. Long-term population growth has resulted in our countryside disappearing to large-scale housing expansion and the supporting infrastructure needs that go with it. Yet most politicians call for more housing supply to satisfy demand.
There is no indication that population growth is likely to diminish in the foreseeable future, in fact forecasts point decidedly the other way. Are we going to sacrifice a chunk of the countryside to satisfy current demand and then sacrifice another chunk in another 10 years to satisfy a further increase in demand? When will we decide to stop? Will we decide to stop?
This problem would go away if demand for housing reduced. It would seem logical therefore, to institute policies that encouraged that reduction in demand. It seems equally logical that the only way demand will be reduced is to reduce the population. Governments need to devise policies to limit population growth and to reduce it. A reduced population would reduce the demand for housing.
Consultation by government allows residents to decide how much expansion there should be, but there is no option to say no to the building of new homes, nor is there a vote on the option of population control making building targets redundant.
Government assumes that there is:
1. An inevitable and limitless demand for housing, and that
2. This must be satisfied, and that
3. The countryside must be sacrificed to this perceived need, and that
4. There is no alternative
Have you come across the concept of ‘planning gain’? It is a term used by planners and it assumes that all development can yield a ‘gain’ to the local population. In other words, politicians and other powerful interest groups assume that housing development is somehow a “good thing”.
Let’s tell the planners and the politicians that building expansion is deeply unpopular. Why would we welcome something that urbanises our environment, buries the land, blocks our views, increases the population and leads to the troubles associated with town living? The short answer is we wouldn’t and don’t. Political leaders and others will say that we should not be selfish, we should share the environment and that everyone has a responsibility to house those who don’t currently live in an area, but who might wish to. Arrogant or what?
I would suggest it is our job as residents to protect our own interests and not be bamboozled into accepting plans for housing expansion just because politicians, builders and the housing lobby combine in an unholy alliance against us. Do not be fooled into voting land away to ugly and unnecessary development. All small town and parish councillors should resist appeals to what these people call “reason”. Is it reasonable to keep satisfying a never ending demand for housing when a responsible government would institute population reduction measures instead?
There will be no solution to the housing problem in the UK unless politicians accept that the only way forward, that does not destroy our countryside, is a curb on population. Population has to stabilise sometime, better still reduce, and the best time is now.
Where anyone has the opportunity to comment or affect the outcome of planning policy, they should say no to the expansion of rural housing and refuse permission to change planning boundaries. We have a great responsibility to make the right decision now for future generations.
The decision we make in Bewerley and Pateley now will set a precedent. If we allow these estates to be built, the message is that it is acceptable for housing to spread up and down the dale. Eventually, the different settlements could all join up. I am not saying this would happen overnight, but in small chunks over a period of time. The best way to stop this ever happening is to retain our current building lines and resist all calls to change them.
Jobs for local people should be the priority and when it is established that people are commuting in to Pateley for work, then we should consider housing.
Isn’t site P5a part of the much needed flood plain?
Didn’t site P3a receive funding from the AONB to create meadowland and plant trees?
Assuming 100 homes on these two sites and 1.5 cars per home – is Low Wath Road capable of handling the additional traffic?
You are right about the flood plain, which is needed to allow the river to overflow harmlessly. Stopping water pouring on to a flood plain to build houses only forces the flooding to overflow the banks further down river and make a mess of other people’s lives. Not very neighbourly.
Your point about planting meadowland and receiving funding is well made. A case of competing interests – the interests of the ecologically minded with a deep concern for the natural environment and the opposing interests of the property developer who is quite content to sacrifice the landscape for a fast buck. The former to be applauded and the latter to be challenged and beaten whenever possible.
The roads and the rest of the infrastructure would need to increase to cope with all those extra people. Low Wath road already takes the traffic up and down dale and a couple more housing estates would really make that stretch too busy. It wouldn’t surprise me if some bright spark suggested more land be taken to widen it. Why mess about, we could build a dual carriageway like they have up to Ilkley in Wharfedale! And how would Pateley High Street fair, when it is already nose to tail traffic much of the time? And would the schools be able to cope with all those extra children?
There are all sorts of reasons to say no to this potty plan. I am very annoyed and I think most other people will be too.
Clearly nobody involved in this proposal has ever seriously studied town planning. The development of the two sites is ill conceived and naive. It will have a hugely negative impact on Bewerley and Pateley which will be irreversible. Is this proposal being rushed through to try and beat changes being proposed by Government? In July, Housing Minister Grant Shapps set out his vision for protecting the future of rural village life by giving local communities the power to build the homes they need – not homes that greedy land owners want. The new Community Right to Build will shift power from Government to communities to allow local people to deliver the homes and development that they really want. It is the residents of rural towns and villages who best understand the needs of their communities. We should not have to suffer because of the shortsighted lunacy of planners who have little, or no, understanding of local communities.
Having been a longstanding local of Pateley, I am absolutely outraged to read of these development plans. Can nobody see the writing on the wall? 170 new houses, flooding the area – parking problems wherever you go, (not just in the tourist season) 170 new houses and their occupants – surely, there would be some impact on property prices in the area. Not so sought after living in an area with two new estates instead of being surrounded by rural beauty. There are plenty places where additional housing can be built – don’t spoil our landscape and our reason for living in this area.
What is Bewerley council doing to stop it?
Dear John
Bewerley Parish Council is considering these planning proposals, and hopefully will have an open letter to residents of Bewerley in this Friday’s Nidderdale Herald.
With regard to Bewerley Parish Council’s policy regarding affordable homes for local people the council fully supports this. Where it does not see eye to eye with the planners is on the location and numbers of the proposed development.
A government survey in 2006 produced totally unrealistic figures. What Bewerley Parish council would like to see is an accurate local survey to ascertain the real need for local affordable homes for local people.
As Bewerley Parish Council stated in their Local Development Framework consultation reply to Harrogate Borough Council in 2006, greenfield sites should not be used when in the opinion of BPC there were enough brown field sites within the current building lines of Pateley Bridge and Bewerley, namely the NYCC highway depot and the adjoining coal yard. There is also Glasshouses Mill, which planners have been unable to come to a determination on for 3 years which is totally unacceptable.
Cllr Geoffrey Linehan
Chairman Bewerley Parish Council
In spite of HBC riding roughshod over BPCs original response it is quite clear that very little has changed since their original attempt to double the size of Bewerley and I strongly oppose any move to develop the sites in question apart from the existing brownfield areas. The report in the Nidderdale Herald was misleading and it is imperative that a balanced view is presented to ensure a fair debate.
Two big new estates in Bewerley! Where is the local need for that amount of new housing? I doesn’t exist. Enough attractive, affordable housing for local people can be built by clearing the coal yard and the county council yard near the millennium green. Both sites are near the town and houses built there would be an improvement on what is there now. There is no doubt at all in my mind that these houses should be built and soon.
Building more housing estates in fields is wrong. Our town is a country town and big enough already. It is obvious that there is a long-term plan to suburbanise Pateley and Bewerley by encouraging an influx of new people form Harrogate, Leeds and Bradford. They would come in droves and still there would not be enough housing to satisfy the demand. Government far away would connive with Harrogate, greedy landowners and the construction industry to satisfy the clamour for more. And they would all sit back as more of our dale disappeared under concrete, smug and self-satisfied patting their fat wallets. If they are allowed by us to take that line, by 2030 Bewerley will not exist as a separate village. By 2050 Wath and Ramsgill will be suburbs of Greater Pateley Bridge.
These crackpot plans follow an old pre-climate change model of “how the world should be” and “we know what’s best for you”. That model is as insulting as it is discredited and is based on an unwarranted assumption that never ending expansion and growth is a “good thing” and what the world wants and needs. Wrong. Blindly and stupidly wrong. Wake up Harrogate, the world needs to slow down; it needs a lower population, not a larger one, a huge chunk of which you seem intent on foisting on to us. Act responsibly, we are your voters, listen to what we want. It is our dale, not yours. Take warning, this is an “or else” moment for Harrogate Borough Council. Back of now!
My instinctive response to the development plans is that if they fulfil their aims to provide mixed housing, a good proportion of it ‘affordable’, then that’s no bad thing; I also instinctively feel that the local community, in all aspects of business and culture, could be enriched by population growth.
New estates are part of the development of all villages and small towns and Bewerley and Pateley Bridge is no exception. I think the area does have its natural limits I’m just not convinced they’ve been reached. This is a wonderful place to live, why not share it? It would be ideal to use the brown field sites first though.
Good grief!
If we allowed this amount of houses to be built, the local need for housing would not fill them. In effect, we would be building two new estates so that a flood of people from out of the area could come and live here. And we would be doing this by sacrificing greenfield sites. And when those houses were filled, what then? Are we to be expected to sacrifice a swathe of rural land every fifteen years because more people would like to come and live here? That would be ridiculous and completely unacceptable.