Earswick villagers protest at scheme for 1,300 homes

York Press: Earswick residents who are protesting about new homes planned in the area Earswick residents who are protesting about new homes planned in the area

PEOPLE in Earswick have had their first chance to find out more about plans which could see their village grow by as many as 1,300 homes.

Yesterday developers the Thirteen Group help a public exhibition at at Earswick village hall to show residents what their scheme for land east of the village looks like.

The land is part of an 88 hectare plot included in the Local Plan Further Sites consultation document, and the plans already attracted heavy opposition in the village.

Earswick resident Jacky Ridley is part of an action group already formed to fight the proposals. She said many in the village were angry with what they saw as a failure to address major infrastructure problems like impact a new settlement would have on the already congested York ring road.

The village currently only has 360 homes and would be swamped by a development of this size, she said, and many are concerned at the high proportion - 50 percent - of affordable homes that are included in the proposals.

Geoff Mortimer, who lives nearby on Earswick Chase, said the village was "up in arms" at the scheme, while another Earswick resident Jenny Gumbold said many had been shocked at the speed of the development. Residents village learnt about only days after the Local Plan document first proposing the land be taken out of the greenbelt was published, and felt they were being presented with a "fait accompli", she said.

"A couple of days after it was first mooted to take the land out of greenbelt, this plan came through the door and their seemed to be nothing we could do about it."

But another resident, who did not want to be named, said she supported the scheme to bring more affordable housing to the area.

"I think we need more houses, and this is one of the better schemes included in the council's plans."

At the public exhibition was development manager Louise Nicholson from Thirteen, as well as John England from Strata Homes and Steve Howard from construction contractors Southdale.

They said the meeting was arranged to give people chance to learn more about the plans.

Mr England added: "There's been a good turn out and people have had a lot of constructive opinions."

With the plans at very early stages, he said the earliest work could start - if the proposals get the go ahead - would be 2016/17.

Comments (13)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:57am Tue 8 Jul 14

SimonHall says...

Ironic that a vast majority of Earswick residents now live on what was Piggy Thompson's farmland about 20 years ago.
Ironic that a vast majority of Earswick residents now live on what was Piggy Thompson's farmland about 20 years ago. SimonHall
  • Score: 26

11:08am Tue 8 Jul 14

The Great Buda says...

SimonHall wrote:
Ironic that a vast majority of Earswick residents now live on what was Piggy Thompson's farmland about 20 years ago.
Yep, its a sad sign of the "I'm alright jack" attitude that infects society.

The children in the picture attached to the story will never be able to afford a home in their own village because of the actions of their parents.
[quote][p][bold]SimonHall[/bold] wrote: Ironic that a vast majority of Earswick residents now live on what was Piggy Thompson's farmland about 20 years ago.[/p][/quote]Yep, its a sad sign of the "I'm alright jack" attitude that infects society. The children in the picture attached to the story will never be able to afford a home in their own village because of the actions of their parents. The Great Buda
  • Score: 12

11:11am Tue 8 Jul 14

Micklegate says...

The Great Buda wrote:
SimonHall wrote:
Ironic that a vast majority of Earswick residents now live on what was Piggy Thompson's farmland about 20 years ago.
Yep, its a sad sign of the "I'm alright jack" attitude that infects society.

The children in the picture attached to the story will never be able to afford a home in their own village because of the actions of their parents.
Given every house is what was once greenfield should we then just allow houses to be built anywhere? Or should we perhaps have some balance and say that if a village will increase 10 fold then there is maybe another way?
[quote][p][bold]The Great Buda[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SimonHall[/bold] wrote: Ironic that a vast majority of Earswick residents now live on what was Piggy Thompson's farmland about 20 years ago.[/p][/quote]Yep, its a sad sign of the "I'm alright jack" attitude that infects society. The children in the picture attached to the story will never be able to afford a home in their own village because of the actions of their parents.[/p][/quote]Given every house is what was once greenfield should we then just allow houses to be built anywhere? Or should we perhaps have some balance and say that if a village will increase 10 fold then there is maybe another way? Micklegate
  • Score: -3

11:12am Tue 8 Jul 14

Justmythoughts... says...

We need more housing, more housing is far more important in the long term than a piece of pretty land!
We need more housing, more housing is far more important in the long term than a piece of pretty land! Justmythoughts...
  • Score: 2

11:22am Tue 8 Jul 14

AGuyFromStrensall says...

The Great Buda wrote:
SimonHall wrote:
Ironic that a vast majority of Earswick residents now live on what was Piggy Thompson's farmland about 20 years ago.
Yep, its a sad sign of the "I'm alright jack" attitude that infects society.

The children in the picture attached to the story will never be able to afford a home in their own village because of the actions of their parents.
Coming from the generation before them I can tell you that mostly for people my age that is already true (I'm one of the lucky ones)
It's the case if NIMBYism at it's worst.
You can put money on that the best part of 30% of people in this picture wouldn't be able to afford a house if they bought now, but it is exactly the I'm alright Jack attitude.
[quote][p][bold]The Great Buda[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SimonHall[/bold] wrote: Ironic that a vast majority of Earswick residents now live on what was Piggy Thompson's farmland about 20 years ago.[/p][/quote]Yep, its a sad sign of the "I'm alright jack" attitude that infects society. The children in the picture attached to the story will never be able to afford a home in their own village because of the actions of their parents.[/p][/quote]Coming from the generation before them I can tell you that mostly for people my age that is already true (I'm one of the lucky ones) It's the case if NIMBYism at it's worst. You can put money on that the best part of 30% of people in this picture wouldn't be able to afford a house if they bought now, but it is exactly the I'm alright Jack attitude. AGuyFromStrensall
  • Score: 4

1:30pm Tue 8 Jul 14

meme says...

WE HAVE TO HAVE MORE HOMES BUT WHERE?
No one wants them on their doorstep
No One wants another new town
Something has to give and it makes sense to fill in most of the space inside the ring road and then if we need more spill out into the countryside with appropriate development. it will have to happen eventually.......
either that or reduce the population by restricting immigration and family size...that's going to go down well!
OR accept people are going to have to live in apartments which are not land hungry like houses
In a popular City like York housing is always going to be an issue and particularly its cost so we have to get used to it
WE HAVE TO HAVE MORE HOMES BUT WHERE? No one wants them on their doorstep No One wants another new town Something has to give and it makes sense to fill in most of the space inside the ring road [public access land excepted] and then if we need more spill out into the countryside with appropriate development. it will have to happen eventually....... either that or reduce the population by restricting immigration and family size...that's going to go down well! OR accept people are going to have to live in apartments which are not land hungry like houses In a popular City like York housing is always going to be an issue and particularly its cost so we have to get used to it meme
  • Score: 7

5:53pm Tue 8 Jul 14

trailblazer says...

May the residents pray the bottom drops out of the housing market then the greedy fat cat developers won't build unless their is a huge profit margin to be had.
May the residents pray the bottom drops out of the housing market then the greedy fat cat developers won't build unless their is a huge profit margin to be had. trailblazer
  • Score: -2

7:38pm Tue 8 Jul 14

nottoooldtocare says...

As meme states
"In a popular City like York housing is always going to be an issue and particularly its cost so we have to get used to it".

"WE HAVE TO HAVE MORE HOMES BUT WHERE?"

Uncanny how the people that live in the most recent developments are often the most vociferous. New development is often unwelcome, as is change for most people as they are wary of it. Perhaps it is time to change the planning process. Rather than have a group of people in effect sticking a pin into a map, why nor go out and work with the communities, explain the need for additional housing, try to find out what the local community would be prepared to accept and try to built the housing allocation in a sympathetic way.
All too often (as is suggested in the article) it doesn't feel like consultation, it feels more that the decision has been made and this is what you are getting. Nobody likes that approach. Whether we like it or not, ring roads or bypasses tend to get built up to, and it makes sense in many cases. But if you have to do this, then do it sympathetically. Work with the developers so that there are paths and dog walks retained, not all trees and hedges are ripped out. Try to retain some of the character by reducing the density. If you consult and empathise you might find communities are more prepared to work with you rather than take you on.
As meme states "In a popular City like York housing is always going to be an issue and particularly its cost so we have to get used to it". "WE HAVE TO HAVE MORE HOMES BUT WHERE?" Uncanny how the people that live in the most recent developments are often the most vociferous. New development is often unwelcome, as is change for most people as they are wary of it. Perhaps it is time to change the planning process. Rather than have a group of people in effect sticking a pin into a map, why nor go out and work with the communities, explain the need for additional housing, try to find out what the local community would be prepared to accept and try to built the housing allocation in a sympathetic way. All too often (as is suggested in the article) it doesn't feel like consultation, it feels more that the decision has been made and this is what you are getting. Nobody likes that approach. Whether we like it or not, ring roads or bypasses tend to get built up to, and it makes sense in many cases. But if you have to do this, then do it sympathetically. Work with the developers so that there are paths and dog walks retained, not all trees and hedges are ripped out. Try to retain some of the character by reducing the density. If you consult and empathise you might find communities are more prepared to work with you rather than take you on. nottoooldtocare
  • Score: 7

8:16pm Tue 8 Jul 14

yorkyork says...

I don't think anyone in this village is against building new houses for York to grow as a city. What they want, however, is for a realistic growth to their village not to turn a village into a new town by increasing the number of houses from 350 to 2000. They have had recent developments with the garden village and proposals for further developments with the Fossbank farm.

The main issue raised at this time is that this land is being listed as safeguarded land as in it is not part of the immediate developments raised as part of the local plan but being unnecessarily removed from greenbelt for future development. This is not needed at this time and government guidelines is to develop on brown field sites which York has in abundance. However residents have already had proposals by developers delivered to their door. This is a ridiculous position in that developers are putting forwards plans when there is no need to develop as part of the Local Plan.
I don't think anyone in this village is against building new houses for York to grow as a city. What they want, however, is for a realistic growth to their village not to turn a village into a new town by increasing the number of houses from 350 to 2000. They have had recent developments with the garden village and proposals for further developments with the Fossbank farm. The main issue raised at this time is that this land is being listed as safeguarded land as in it is not part of the immediate developments raised as part of the local plan but being unnecessarily removed from greenbelt for future development. This is not needed at this time and government guidelines is to develop on brown field sites which York has in abundance. However residents have already had proposals by developers delivered to their door. This is a ridiculous position in that developers are putting forwards plans when there is no need to develop as part of the Local Plan. yorkyork
  • Score: 0

9:08pm Tue 8 Jul 14

Back and Beyond says...

Ha Ha this is funny, it was the 'new' residents of Earswick that complained about the smells that Piggy Thompsons Farm created despite having just moved in and now they complain about 'urban sprawl' I dont think these residents that are pictured by their newish houses have really thought this through have they?
Ha Ha this is funny, it was the 'new' residents of Earswick that complained about the smells that Piggy Thompsons Farm created despite having just moved in and now they complain about 'urban sprawl' I dont think these residents that are pictured by their newish houses have really thought this through have they? Back and Beyond
  • Score: 6

10:49pm Tue 8 Jul 14

missfedup says...

There is no justification for these massive housing developments. York needs 850 houses per year to 2030, not 1250 proposed in the Draft Local Plan. If there was an urgent, desperate need to build these new towns right on the most congested part of the A1237 then residents would be more willing to accept it. BUT THERE IS NO NEED!! What we have here is the political ambition of a few Council leaders, a lot of personal greed of landowners and developers and a complete lack of common sense. The Earswick proposal together with 3500 houses at Clifton Gate, 1600 at Haxby, 1500 at Strensall amongst other proposals too numerous to mention, will have the cumulative impact of grinding the northern ring road to a complete standstill!!! It is complete idiocy, NOT nimby ism. I do not live in Earswick but fully support their concerns. These presumptuous developers are like a pack of wolves and need reminding that the final Local Plan is yet to be written.... Or is it?
There is no justification for these massive housing developments. York needs 850 houses per year to 2030, not 1250 proposed in the Draft Local Plan. If there was an urgent, desperate need to build these new towns right on the most congested part of the A1237 then residents would be more willing to accept it. BUT THERE IS NO NEED!! What we have here is the political ambition of a few Council leaders, a lot of personal greed of landowners and developers and a complete lack of common sense. The Earswick proposal together with 3500 houses at Clifton Gate, 1600 at Haxby, 1500 at Strensall amongst other proposals too numerous to mention, will have the cumulative impact of grinding the northern ring road to a complete standstill!!! It is complete idiocy, NOT nimby ism. I do not live in Earswick but fully support their concerns. These presumptuous developers are like a pack of wolves and need reminding that the final Local Plan is yet to be written.... Or is it? missfedup
  • Score: -6

10:00pm Wed 9 Jul 14

Govern10 says...

So sad that it's inevitable that children and adults will die as pedestrians walking over the bypass to get to and from Monks x. Low cost housing, no car and you need to buy groceries. All this can be avoided by building at monks x inside the bypass.
So sad that it's inevitable that children and adults will die as pedestrians walking over the bypass to get to and from Monks x. Low cost housing, no car and you need to buy groceries. All this can be avoided by building at monks x inside the bypass. Govern10
  • Score: 3

5:58pm Thu 17 Jul 14

SkylarkT says...

Govern10 wrote:
So sad that it's inevitable that children and adults will die as pedestrians walking over the bypass to get to and from Monks x. Low cost housing, no car and you need to buy groceries. All this can be avoided by building at monks x inside the bypass.
Have you actually seen the proposals for a scheme that actually addresses and removes the ridiculous existing Highways Authority congestion issues in this area?

Pedestrians are more likely to be killed crossing to MX at present than without the immense improvements the Earswick development road changes offer?.....

Get informed then engage brain.....
[quote][p][bold]Govern10[/bold] wrote: So sad that it's inevitable that children and adults will die as pedestrians walking over the bypass to get to and from Monks x. Low cost housing, no car and you need to buy groceries. All this can be avoided by building at monks x inside the bypass.[/p][/quote]Have you actually seen the proposals for a scheme that actually addresses and removes the ridiculous existing Highways Authority congestion issues in this area? Pedestrians are more likely to be killed crossing to MX at present than without the immense improvements the Earswick development road changes offer?..... Get informed then engage brain..... SkylarkT
  • Score: 1
Post a comment

Remember you are personally responsible for what you post on this site and must abide by our site terms. Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious. If you wish to complain, please use the ‘report this post’ link.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree