CAMPAIGNERS fighting proposals for an eco-town in North Yorkshire are organising two major public meetings next week, where residents can vent their fury.
But Selby MP John Grogan has revealed he will be turning down an invitation to attend to explain his support for the development, which is likely to be located at one of four potential sites in the Selby district.
He told The Press he had prior Parliamentary commitments at Westminster at the time of both meetings, which are being held at Kellington Village Hall at 7pm on Tuesday, and at Whitley and Eggborough at 7pm on Thursday.
When asked whether he would be willing to face his critics if a public meeting was held at a time to suit him, he said he would - once the Leeds City region has recommended which proposal should go ahead, probably next month.
News of the meetings comes after it was confirmed that the four potential sites for Yorkshire's eco-town - featuring between 5,000 and 20,000 homes - are at Eggborough and Kellington, Gascoigne Wood near Sherburn-in-Elmet, Burn Airfield and Church Fenton.
The Press revealed earlier this month that the four sites were being suggested by consultants GVA Grimley.
advertisement
Next week's meetings are being organised by Selby district councillors for Eggborough, John and Mary McCartney, who are leading the battle against GMI's proposals for a 15,000-home eco-town near Eggborough, Kellington and Beal, dubbed Willow Green.
John McCartney said the meetings would explain the current position and allow residents to ask questions.
Mary McCartney said they had invited Mr Grogan to attend both meetings, because they wanted to ensure that both sides of the issue were given to residents.
Mr Grogan said he backed the eco-town proposal in principle because of the strong need in the area for new, affordable housing for young people and families.
cowardism great attribute to be a polititiom isnt it. Guess who I won't be voting for??
Its bad enough we are all having to deal with this but to have nobody even try and justify these ludicrous proposals just proves how wrong it is.
He should get his priorities right.
cowardism great attribute to be a polititiom isnt it. Guess who I won't be voting for??
Its bad enough we are all having to deal with this but to have nobody even try and justify these ludicrous proposals just proves how wrong it is.
cowardism great attribute to be a polititiom isnt it. Guess who I won't be voting for??
Its bad enough we are all having to deal with this but to have nobody even try and justify these ludicrous proposals just proves how wrong it is.
He should get his priorities right.
cowardism great attribute to be a polititiom isnt it. Guess who I won't be voting for??
Its bad enough we are all having to deal with this but to have nobody even try and justify these ludicrous proposals just proves how wrong it is.
Posted by: The Underdog, In Transit on 10:36pm Sun 11 May 08
I can see why John Grogan may feel reluctant to stand before a group of NYMBY’s as this would be a very unproductive meeting from his point of view.
The fact is that we do need more homes and they will be built somewhere; it would appear that all of these proposed sites are reasonable and well considered places for additional homes.
Of course there will be people no matter where you build who will oppose such proposals based on pure self interest and flimsy excuses.
However the time when people who could afford a house and expect their home to serve as additional income at the expense of the people who couldn’t afford their own homes are hopefully now over and the much needed corrections in the housing market can now be corrected thanks to the world economic situation largely caused by the recent trends of irresponsible self interest of the very same kind as NIMBYism.
Hopefully we can get back to a nation of fair play where jobs are worth doing as opposed to the rip off Britain where scumbags are rewarded for simply being dishonest and irresponsible.
Sorry NYMBY’s but you can’t have your cake and eat it; no sympathy from me I hope they build right up to your boundaries with massive walls.
I can see why John Grogan may feel reluctant to stand before a group of NYMBY’s as this would be a very unproductive meeting from his point of view.
The fact is that we do need more homes and they will be built somewhere; it would appear that all of these proposed sites are reasonable and well considered places for additional homes.
Of course there will be people no matter where you build who will oppose such proposals based on pure self interest and flimsy excuses.
However the time when people who could afford a house and expect their home to serve as additional income at the expense of the people who couldn’t afford their own homes are hopefully now over and the much needed corrections in the housing market can now be corrected thanks to the world economic situation largely caused by the recent trends of irresponsible self interest of the very same kind as NIMBYism.
Hopefully we can get back to a nation of fair play where jobs are worth doing as opposed to the rip off Britain where scumbags are rewarded for simply being dishonest and irresponsible.
Sorry NYMBY’s but you can’t have your cake and eat it; no sympathy from me I hope they build right up to your boundaries with massive walls.
MPs can usually get permission to leave London on Thursdays, but not Tuesdays - so he ought to be able to get to one of next week's meetings. Not that he will be able to win over the audience, of course - they will be there because they've already made up their minds!
MPs can usually get permission to leave London on Thursdays, but not Tuesdays - so he ought to be able to get to one of next week's meetings. Not that he will be able to win over the audience, of course - they will be there because they've already made up their minds!
[quote][bold]David H[/bold] wrote:
MPs can usually get permission to leave London on Thursdays, but not Tuesdays - so he ought to be able to get to one of next week's meetings. Not that he will be able to win over the audience, of course - they will be there because they've already made up their minds![/quote] Correct. Why make the effort to go somewhere just to be shouted out? He's already made his views plain.
David H wrote:
MPs can usually get permission to leave London on Thursdays, but not Tuesdays - so he ought to be able to get to one of next week's meetings. Not that he will be able to win over the audience, of course - they will be there because they've already made up their minds!
Correct. Why make the effort to go somewhere just to be shouted out? He's already made his views plain.
[quote][bold]The Underdog[/bold] wrote:
I can see why John Grogan may feel reluctant to stand before a group of
NYMBY’s as this would be a very unproductive meeting from his point of
view.
The fact is that we do need more homes and they will be built
somewhere; it would appear that all of these proposed sites are
reasonable and well considered places for additional homes.
Of course there will be people no matter where you build who will
oppose such proposals based on pure self interest and flimsy excuses.
However the time when people who could afford a house and expect their
home to serve as additional income at the expense of the people who
couldn’t afford their own homes are hopefully now over and the much
needed corrections in the housing market can now be corrected thanks to
the world economic situation largely caused by the recent trends of
irresponsible self interest of the very same kind as NIMBYism.
Hopefully we can get back to a nation of fair play where jobs are worth
doing as opposed to the rip off Britain where scumbags are rewarded for
simply being dishonest and irresponsible.
Sorry NYMBY’s but you can’t have your cake and eat it; no sympathy from
me I hope they build right up to your boundaries with massive walls.
[/quote] I don't think it is a case of NIMBY's. I don't live in any of the areas where they are planning them, but my partner's family does. I thought one of the criteria for the eco-towns was that they were to be built on brown field sites. The information I have found out is that most of these are greenfield, so consequently don't even fit the so called required criteria.
Also, the areas that they are thinking of are small(ish) villages. The number of houses that they are planning on putting up is most likely to be more than there is currently in those villages already. Also, what about facilities. The village school can hardly (I believe) cope with what they have at the moment following from previous building in the area, so how are they expected to cope with the influx from all these extras?
What about Post Offices, I'm not sure whether each of these villages still has one or not, and if they do how likely are they going to stay with the rate of closures? The days of each village having its own shops is long gone, and I'm guessing in most cases, these shops have been converted into houses so I doubt that they'll be back. If these sort of things aren't available then how can a place be called an eco-town as people will ahve to travel to get to work and to do things such as shopping etc. And even if they don't go out themselves to the supermarket to do their shopping (so no carbon cost for them) all they do is move the carbon cost to a different problem, i.e. if they get the supermarket to deliver it to these out of the way areas.
Besides, what jobs are available in/around these villages that you can get to without having to travel?
In principle I agree with the idea of eco-towns, but feel that putting them miles away from suitable facilities is defeating the object.
Also, you say about houses are needed. If you look at most places, there are often houses that are empty in need of repair. Surely it would be better to bring the housing stock that is already built back to being available. Looking around several villages near us and there are lots of houses for sale which have been for sale for ages. No one is buying, and not just because of the prices but because you can't get the mortgages either.
The Underdog wrote:
I can see why John Grogan may feel reluctant to stand before a group of
NYMBY’s as this would be a very unproductive meeting from his point of
view.
The fact is that we do need more homes and they will be built
somewhere; it would appear that all of these proposed sites are
reasonable and well considered places for additional homes.
Of course there will be people no matter where you build who will
oppose such proposals based on pure self interest and flimsy excuses.
However the time when people who could afford a house and expect their
home to serve as additional income at the expense of the people who
couldn’t afford their own homes are hopefully now over and the much
needed corrections in the housing market can now be corrected thanks to
the world economic situation largely caused by the recent trends of
irresponsible self interest of the very same kind as NIMBYism.
Hopefully we can get back to a nation of fair play where jobs are worth
doing as opposed to the rip off Britain where scumbags are rewarded for
simply being dishonest and irresponsible.
Sorry NYMBY’s but you can’t have your cake and eat it; no sympathy from
me I hope they build right up to your boundaries with massive walls.
I don't think it is a case of NIMBY's. I don't live in any of the areas where they are planning them, but my partner's family does. I thought one of the criteria for the eco-towns was that they were to be built on brown field sites. The information I have found out is that most of these are greenfield, so consequently don't even fit the so called required criteria.
Also, the areas that they are thinking of are small(ish) villages. The number of houses that they are planning on putting up is most likely to be more than there is currently in those villages already. Also, what about facilities. The village school can hardly (I believe) cope with what they have at the moment following from previous building in the area, so how are they expected to cope with the influx from all these extras?
What about Post Offices, I'm not sure whether each of these villages still has one or not, and if they do how likely are they going to stay with the rate of closures? The days of each village having its own shops is long gone, and I'm guessing in most cases, these shops have been converted into houses so I doubt that they'll be back. If these sort of things aren't available then how can a place be called an eco-town as people will ahve to travel to get to work and to do things such as shopping etc. And even if they don't go out themselves to the supermarket to do their shopping (so no carbon cost for them) all they do is move the carbon cost to a different problem, i.e. if they get the supermarket to deliver it to these out of the way areas.
Besides, what jobs are available in/around these villages that you can get to without having to travel?
In principle I agree with the idea of eco-towns, but feel that putting them miles away from suitable facilities is defeating the object.
Also, you say about houses are needed. If you look at most places, there are often houses that are empty in need of repair. Surely it would be better to bring the housing stock that is already built back to being available. Looking around several villages near us and there are lots of houses for sale which have been for sale for ages. No one is buying, and not just because of the prices but because you can't get the mortgages either.
Posted by: CF, Church Fenton on 3:20pm Mon 12 May 08
The Underdog.... I'm sorry to have to read your bitter comments, with you hoping they build massive walls up to our boundaries. You are deluded if you think for a moment there will be a return to a housing market where everyone will be able to buy what they want - market forces will prevent that.
And getting back to a nation of 'fair play' as you put it - what??!! Most people live their lives perfectly reasonably and work hard for their living, however you have some twisted view and life appears to be getting you down.
Getting back to the points, if you would be interested in listening...
1. We choose to live in a village, not a town, paying a premium on our houses for the privilege, increased commuting etc.. hence the NIMBY title being apt, and justifiable! I am happy to say not in my back yard.
2. There are plenty of houses being left to rot throughout the country that the government could look at repairing, but they choose not to.
3. There is no need to disrupt existing villages where there are plenty of large open spaces scattered throughout the country already.
4. The term 'eco' is misleading and being used to jazz-up the housing development plan. If people think for one minute all the houses are going to be little eco-friendly pods where we are using solar power to watch tv then they should realise the reality will be nothing like that at all. The housing will be low quality, cheap rubbish, built cheaply to keep the prices low enough to 'encourage' low income groups to get on the housing ladder. It does not take a scientist to work out that you are not going to build a high-end state-of-the-art house and then sell if for pennies.
Its a stupid idea from the Government, and even if my village escapes, I feel very sorry for all the people affected by these so called 'eco-towns'.
I'd better get back to my job of ripping people off and being a scumbag...
The Underdog.... I'm sorry to have to read your bitter comments, with you hoping they build massive walls up to our boundaries. You are deluded if you think for a moment there will be a return to a housing market where everyone will be able to buy what they want - market forces will prevent that.
And getting back to a nation of 'fair play' as you put it - what??!! Most people live their lives perfectly reasonably and work hard for their living, however you have some twisted view and life appears to be getting you down.
Getting back to the points, if you would be interested in listening...
1. We choose to live in a village, not a town, paying a premium on our houses for the privilege, increased commuting etc.. hence the NIMBY title being apt, and justifiable! I am happy to say not in my back yard.
2. There are plenty of houses being left to rot throughout the country that the government could look at repairing, but they choose not to.
3. There is no need to disrupt existing villages where there are plenty of large open spaces scattered throughout the country already.
4. The term 'eco' is misleading and being used to jazz-up the housing development plan. If people think for one minute all the houses are going to be little eco-friendly pods where we are using solar power to watch tv then they should realise the reality will be nothing like that at all. The housing will be low quality, cheap rubbish, built cheaply to keep the prices low enough to 'encourage' low income groups to get on the housing ladder. It does not take a scientist to work out that you are not going to build a high-end state-of-the-art house and then sell if for pennies.
Its a stupid idea from the Government, and even if my village escapes, I feel very sorry for all the people affected by these so called 'eco-towns'.
I'd better get back to my job of ripping people off and being a scumbag...
[quote]"Sorry NYMBY’s but you can’t have your cake and eat it; no sympathy from me I hope they build right up to your boundaries with massive walls." [/quote]
Underdog Sorry but what cake are we having and eating? We already have flood plains (most of which are proposed sites well kellington and burn airfield are, and power stations this comment makes no sense! Also I suspect we also have some of the cheapest housing arround and err hello nobody is buying it.
It just sounds like somebody who is jealous of the locations in which we currently live, and is sadistic enough to see the lives of hard working people destroyed for thier own pleasure.
I believe is the most accessible communist country for them to go live in is China.
The day Gordon Brown or Caroline whoever has an eco-town in their back yard then I will have one in mine.
I too will get back to being a scumbag.
"Sorry NYMBY’s but you can’t have your cake and eat it; no sympathy from me I hope they build right up to your boundaries with massive walls."
Underdog Sorry but what cake are we having and eating? We already have flood plains (most of which are proposed sites well kellington and burn airfield are, and power stations this comment makes no sense! Also I suspect we also have some of the cheapest housing arround and err hello nobody is buying it.
It just sounds like somebody who is jealous of the locations in which we currently live, and is sadistic enough to see the lives of hard working people destroyed for thier own pleasure.
I believe is the most accessible communist country for them to go live in is China.
The day Gordon Brown or Caroline whoever has an eco-town in their back yard then I will have one in mine.
If you liked this article and would like to share it with others on the web who might be searching for good content we've made it easy for you to do it.
At the bottom of all articles, you'll see links to six sites. These sites - commonly called 'social bookmark' or 'social news' sites - have large communities of web users who share and rate interesting, useful and fun things on the web.
Clicking the links will automatically add the address of the story you are reading to one of these sites, letting you share it with others. Each site will ask you to register to share stories. Registration is free and once a member, you can store, recommend and search for stories that interest you.
Print
Email this
Comment
