Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Anger after new estate plan passed

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 10 March 2010
Controversial plans to build more than 100 new homes on a field near a busy Northampton roundabout have been given the go-ahead.
Developers Paddington Churches Housing Association were last night given permission to build 111 houses and flats on land at the end of Booth Rise, in Boothville, near Lumbertubs Way.

At an often heated meeting of the West Northamptonshire Develop
ment Corporation, residents packed into the Heroes Lounge at Franklin's Gardens where local borough councillors, county councillors and Northampton North MP, Sally Keeble, all voiced their opposition to the proposal.

Speaking on behalf of the residents' association, Vincent Owen said the local road network and infrastructure could not cope with the new estate.

He said: "The roads are inadequate, the schools are inadequate, the doctors services are inadequate, the buses are inadequate so why are we siting it here? There must be an easier option than this?"

Councillor David Garlick (Lib Dem, Headlands), from Northampton Borough Council, told the committee the local roads were already heavily congested, warning they could not cope with 111 new homes.

He said: "We already have chaos down there we don't need to add to it."

County Councillor Mike Hallam (Cons, Parklands) and Mrs Keeble also opposed the plan.

Speaking on behalf of the proposal, project manager Keith Colley, said the estate, which will include 50 per cent social housing and 50 per cent affordable housing, will ease the town's housing problems.

He told the committee the need for affordable housing was "simply overwhelming", saying there are now 7,100 families on the council's housing list.

He said a county council report on the local road network showed additional traffic would "not exacerbate" the current situation.

The decision was passed by a majority of four to one, with only Councillor Penny Flavell (Con, St Crispin) voting against the plan.

After the decision was made members of the packed public gallery cried "shame on you", while others attempted to remonstrate with members of the committee.





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 10 March 2010 7:50 AM
  • Source: Northampton Chron & Echo
  • Location: Northampton
 
Prev
1
2
Next
Last
1

Roger Mellie,

Abington 10/03/2010 08:27:31
How will 100 new homes place undue strain on roads and 'infrastructure' that already copes with many tens of thousands of vehicle movements a day?

2

Rob@Home,

Northampton 10/03/2010 08:53:26
Its another case of not in my back yard.

In an earlier story about the same development, some one said that they dont want that kind of person living near them.

What kind of person is eligable for council housing/social housing /affordable housing?
They may find the answer is people that will enrich the local community. They may find that given the additional 100 new homes will mean that the inadequate schools/transport/doctors services will be improved for the whole community.

May be it would be a different story if all these complainers had members of family that simply couldn't afford the hiked up house prices in the town, that would benefit from being able to purchase a 25% share of a house?
3

GHSL,

10/03/2010 09:45:01
Roger Mellie : - the point that is being made is that the road does not cope as it is let alone with added traffic. Vehicles from Kettering Road and Moulton Way converge at his bottleneck and trying to get out of Booth Lane has involved countless collisions. Ask any resident who tries to get out of their driveway on Booth Rise on a weekday morning what a problem that is!

This is another example of the council adding a notch to their affordable housing targets and developers not caring less about the infrastructure. Wherever there's a spare bit of land add some affordable housing, no doubt there's huge economic advantages for the developers also ?!

Is there any spare land around your house Roger that some affordable housing could be squeezed onto ?
4

Roger Mellie,

Abington 10/03/2010 10:40:53
Ah, so it really is a case of not wanting the hoi polloi nearby, eh GHSL?

If things are aleady heaving on the roads, then whether or not to roads are able to cope will make little difference to the 100 extra houses, will it.

And no - things are pretty tightly packed where I am as it is.

It is pure NIMBYism. I''m not against folk objecting to new developments if they choose, but some proper objections abcked up with fact is what's needed, rather than the same old hackneyed reasons in a half veiled attempt to try and avoid having some lower classes move in nearby.
5

St Lytham,

10/03/2010 10:45:20
The only "anger" is from the locals who feel they will be intrided upon and cheap headlines again from the Chron. As for the rest of the Town and County the Planners have made the right decision
6

Chrispy1,

10/03/2010 11:26:33
I can't see what's wrong with NIMBYism...if you've worked hard for 30 years to buy a house with some green fields near you, why wouldn't you object to that being concreted over? It's natural, and folk shouldn't critisise them for that.
The real problem is that central government want to build a huge number of houses here, and either we then concrete over the green spaces or we build around all the villages, losing them in the process. Neither option sounds very attractive to me.
7

Helen Padbury,

10/03/2010 11:55:20
There is always Abington Park Roger!
8

,

10/03/2010 12:10:43
Comment Reported Unsuitable By User
9

TheCountOfNowhere,

NH 10/03/2010 12:17:14
"I can't see what's wrong with NIMBYism...if you've worked hard for 30 years to buy a house with some green fields near you, why wouldn't you object to that being concreted over? It's natural, and folk shouldn't critisise them for that."

Not everyone is a selfish self center so and so.

The good of the many outweight the good of the one.
10

Hrolf.,

10/03/2010 12:26:54
And for others of you... they're not supposed to build more than 12 social housing units together. Thems the rules... that they ignore.

Everywhere is supposed to have social housing mixed in, but they keep building pockets like this instead.

There is a waiting list for families, but that would be more than covered if the housing they've given the go ahead for was likely to be built. The properties in this development will more likely be offered to families from outside the town. Daventry for instance, has a poor record of building social housing and so push families here.

You then have to ask why an area wasn't suitable for market property, but they think people who can't afford such can put up with the noise, pollution and traffic. Again ignoring the 'social housing should be built to as high a standard and unrecognisable' rules.

All of which is by-the-by, because whether something is social housing or not is supposed to have no relevance to the planning committee.

None of which is NIMBYism. It's wanting better planning in Northampton. Knee jerk opinions based on newspaper reports are pointless.
Prev
1
2
Next
Last

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.