To
see what's happening in the Whitley area:
Whitley
Website
http://www.whitleycommunity.co.uk
Blog
page
http://whitleyblog.forumotion.com/
[If
you have difficulty with these links, copy and paste them into your
browser]
These
cartoons were created by Pauline Young, of Plough Garth
Received
10th February 2008
Having
just watched "our MP" Mr John Grogan on the Politics Show,
I find it very difficult to contain my anger regarding a remark
he made relating to people "not born and brought up in this village
ie; NEWCOMERS!!!!!!!!!!!
Is it coincidence or conspiracy that I was given EXACTLY the same
answer by the MD of GMI to a question I asked < at a presentation
given by GMI > relating to the impact the occupants of an extra
15000 houses would have on this community.
YES! I had to admit that I was a relative newcomer having only lived
here for 36 YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!
The relevance of NEWCOMERS or INCOMERS to either of these two remarks
escapes me !!!!!!!
Des Pointon
Received
10th February 2008
I certainly can't
support John Grogan over this issue - he's got it very wrong. However,
this issue apart, it is generally agreed by many people of all political
persuasions that John is an excellent constiuency MP, the best we've
had, often going against the party line if its in the interests of
his constituents. Why else would he have bucked the national trend
and retained his very marginal constituency?
The line he's
taking over Willowgreen is certainly not in our best interests, and
those of us living at this end of the constituency know only too well
that it would be a disaster for anyone living round here, or trying
to use already overcrowded transport links that pass through this
area, but it does appear as if he genuinely believes an ecotown would
be good for Selby District. Most people, of all political persuasions
actually support the idea of carbon neutral developements but not
exclusively on greenfield/greenbelt areas. Personal attacks aren't
the way forward - we have to convince him that he's wrong.
Even if we got
him out it wouldn't affect the outcome of the Willowgreen issue -
the timescale is too short, and personally I'm glad to have him behind
us on all the many other issues which the government deals with, which
do affect us greatly though maybe don't get our emotions involved
as much as this threat to our village way of life.
The survey, I
believe, was done in the Selby District by one of the newspapers.
Robbie Beechey
Received
10th February 2008
After watching
the Politics Show, I, too, felt like lynching the man. I totally agree
with Kath - the personal slur on John McCartney was disgraceful. Can
we not have a vote of no condifence and force his resignation? And
where did he get his figure of "two thirds are in favour"?
Did he do the survey in Westminster? We've got to get him out - seriously,
is this not possible? How do we go about it?
Ann Walker
Received
10th February 2008
ECO-TOWN
After watching the BBC Politics Show broadcast concerning the proposed
Willow Green Eco-Town development (Sunday 10th February) I feel compelled
to respond to some of the comments made by John Grogan.
How dare Mr Grogan presume to comment upon the number of residents
who are newcomers and I quote " lots of people living there didn't
grow up there " and what indeed was the relevance of this statement.
I was born and bred in this area and have lived here for 45 years
and feel elated that people who have lived here for a few years or
even months have the same depth of feeling regarding this issue as
I myself do.
Does Mr Grogan think that people have moved to the village of Kellington
in the hope that a town of 15,000 houses will be built around it.
I think not.
Mr Grogan also stated that "a lot of Yorkshire has subsidence".
This may well be the case but he failed to mention that the majority
of Yorkshire pits have now ceased production or that Kellingley is
one of the few remaining working coal mines and that mining will continue
under this area for at least another five years.
I was also quite astonished to hear Mr Grogan make what I believed
to be a personal slur on our District Councillor John McCartney, who
has worked tirelessly for this cause and other causes concerning our
area.
I would be only too happy to voice these concerns to Mr Grogan himself
but as he seems to be quite elusive at the moment I shall of course
send him a copy of this letter and await his reply.
Kathryn Newton.
Received
10th February 2008
Dear
Mr John Grogan,
Regarding
your Politics Show (or was it Billy Smarts’ Circus) performance
of 10th February 2008.
You
are the classic reason why people are so disenchanted and can’t
be bothered to vote these days – they see politicians avoiding
awkward questions and lying. You did that so well on the programme
today. Bravo.
You
couldn’t even address questions from ordinary villagers, from
people like me and my family – not seasoned, clever debaters,
not politicians, just locals who know the facts. Because they showed
exactly where your arguments collapsed!
You
blatantly lied saying the housing waiting list was 2000 when it’s
really 200 – whichever figure there are still more houses available
than needed in the Selby District currently.
Plus,
according to you, if you’ve not been born and raised here, well,
you’ve no apparent right to want to retain and preserve your
local village environment i.e. not be drowned by a concrete jungle…Who
the heck do you think you are to make this kind of statement?
The
fact you ‘got personal’ with District Councillor John McCartney
(who was not allowed to be present to argue against your accusations)
is just a banner to every relatively intelligent human being, proving
that you were floundering with the fiction you spout, big style. That’s
a last resort, getting personal. Backed by fiction again!
For
a few weeks now I’ve meant to write a well thought out letter
to you, outlining the facts that show this would-be ‘Eco-town’
in the Kellington / Eggborough area would be an environmental disaster.
Now I know from the recent interviews you’ve done, the actual
effect on the environment doesn’t count one jot to you!! Silly
me! It can’t count or you would not back this proposal but look
for a Brownfield alternative!
You
made a fool of yourself today Mr. Grogan. And once again, were a disgrace
to the people you are supposed to, but do not represent.
Jackie
Carlile
Received
9th February 2008
I
was told that there was an article in the Yorkshire Post today where
the Yorkshire Wildlife Trust were criticising the 'eco town' proposals
on greenfield sites, for obvious reasons.
I've emailed them to inform them of our campaign re the proposals.
Brian Blessed, the actor, is the President of the Yorkshire Wildlife
Trust. I invited him to join us on the 'Barking Mad' dog walk next
Sunday. I would think that he might have previous engagements but
isn't it worth a try? I know he's a dog lover and of course, champion
of wildlife and the countryside.
You never know!
Here's the email address if anyone else wants to put our case forward
to them.
info@ywt.org.uk
Victoria McLauchlan
Received
9th February 2008
Hi
all
The Yorkshire bit of the Politics Show on BBC1 this coming Sunday
is about eco-towns. A numbrer of local people have been interviewed
about the Kellington/Eggborough proposal. John Grogan will then be
interviewed live in the studio.
We spoke to the BBC about this show two weeks ago. At that stage the
plan was for John to appear live in the studio with John Grogan, although
Grogan was refusing to confirm that he would appear.
Funnily enough, a week later when the BBC told us that Grogan would
appear on the show John was not going to be live in the studio with
him. This means that Grogan will be able to say anthing he likes,
without being robustly challenged.
It is therefore vital that we flood the BBC with e-mails putting forward
our case, perhaps with suggestions for questions..
Keep them short and snappy.
Grogan is saying that the site only has a small bit of Greenbelt in
the west. He is simply spouting GMI's message. This is not true, half
of the site is within the greenbelt - (source) Terry Heselton, Senior
Planning Policy Manager, Selby District Council.
He is also claiming that this eco-town will be a boost for the entire
Selby District- this is simply rubbish. There is plenty of academic
evidence to show that new towns have an adverse impact on surrounding
communities, sucking in all the available investment.
There is no need or demand for this new town to be built in the Selby
District.
There are just over 200 hundred people on Selby District Council’s
waiting list, wanting housing in the southern end of the District
and that includes those people who simply put down ‘anywhere’
on the housing application form.
There are 3,000 outstanding planning permissions in the Selby District.
That is 3,000 houses, that have planning permission, but which the
developer has not yet started to build. And there are 2,400 properties
lying empty in the District.
The Willow Green proposal fails to meet the basic criteria for an
eco-town. It is a Greenfield/greenbelt site, blighted by flooding,
mining subsidence and future mining, electricity pylons, poorly sited
in relation to the major employment centres and with little opportunity
to develop a public transport system that would prevent it from becoming
a commuter, car based, town.
JOHN
MCCARTNEY
Received
9th February 2008
Here
is a copy of my letter to John Grogan.
Dear Mr Grogan
I have read with interest your personal views regarding the building
of the eco town within this area. I do appreciate that we all have
differing opinions regarding the way forward for a more environmentally
friendly future. I personally feel that a better way would be to build
on a smaller scale and gradually expand a number of already existing
areas of population, using legislation to demand that everything is
built to be environmentally sound, using the best modern technology
to ensure that. (solar heating, individual wind turbines for each
house, or group of houses, good insulation, etc. using brown field
sites where possible). You however, have chosen to support eco town
development. I have no criticism of you for that
You supported this current development in the beginning and before
you were aware of the opposition to it. You, by now, will be fully
aware of that opposition and hopefully you will have seen the diversity
of the objections against it.
I imagine that the vast majority of the people in this area are opposed
to it. You are well paid to represent the wishes of those people in
Parliament. It was for that reason (I hope) that you stood for election,
and it is for that purpose you were elected.
The reason I am writing to you now is to ask you to reconsider your
stance. I see no conflict in supporting the idea of eco towns whilst
objecting to this one in particular, for all the reasons put forward,
so eloquently, by the people of this constituency. Your constituents
have spoken loudly and with passion. They are not interested in the
Party Line and see your personal opinion as just that, a personal
opinion. Not what they elected you for.
I only have one vote at the next general election, but my wife makes
two. The outcome of this will almost cetainly decide where they go,
though I'm sure I speak for hundreds of others.
Yours
Bob Williams
Here is the reply
Dear Mr Williams,
Thank you very much for your email and the reasoned tone.
If Eggborough is short listed there will be an extensive planning
process and public consultation during which time many of the issues
raised by you and other constituents will be carefully examined and
scrutinised in detail.
Last year the Government asked local councils in West and North Yorkshire
to make proposals for eco-towns. None have done so. I understand that
two developers have responded. As you rightly say, I do not support
the Kellington/Eggborough site unconditionally and last week urged
Selby District Council to make a positive suggestion themselves. They
have yet to do so. I attach a press release I put out last week urging
Selby District Council to make a positive suggestion themselves.
We are still at a very early stage in what I’m sure will be a
lengthy process, during which I’m sure that all of the diverse
views both for and against will I’m sure, come to the fore.
Yours sincerely
John Grogan
I
have looked at the press release he refers to. My reading of it suggests
that if Selby council don't come up with an alternative proposal,
he will continue to support this one.
On
a further note. The government are now apparently suggesting that
we are going to have to apply for planning permission to concrete
our gardens because (quote from yesterdays Daily Mail), 'The Government
argues the loss of green spaces is putting too much strain on overloaded
sewers and drains and increasing the risk of flash floods'.??????
Bob
Williams
Received
9th February 2008
So
far for placards/chants for the dog walk the ideas we seem to have...which
anyone can use for their own placards..
"Put (or stick..?) your town somewhere brown"
"BUILD
ON
BROWNFIELD
NOT ON
OUR FIELDS"
Village
Green
Not
Brown's town
Greenbelt
and Braced
against a Town
Also a possible chant if that's what we want to do..?
Willow Green, We've seen
Exactly what you mean,
All commuters
You'd pollute us
Willow Willow Green.
More verses to come hopefully...
All the best,
Jackie Carlile.
Received
9th February 2008
The
other contribution from our six year old son apart from his letter
to the PM, was his suggestion for a slogan on the Barking Mad Dog
Walk, which he wants to carry.
Again, all his own work:
'IF YOU PUT YOUR HOUSES HERE OUR DOGS WILL BITE YOUR LEG OFF!'
Mmmm. Maybe.
Victoria McLauchlan
Received
9th February 2008
I
hope that the Badsworth Hunt will long continue draghunting over land
that GMI have earmarked for Willow Green!
Eric
Beechey
Received
8th February 2008
Do
you think GMI stands for *G*rogan *M*iss *I*nformed or Grogan Moronic
Idiot. On a more serious note thanks for maintaining this fantastic
website it really is a credit to you and an incredible asset to this
campaign.
Jon
Howard
Received
8th February 2008
Hi
All,
I've mailed the Yorkshire Post re the fiction quoted from GMI in the
Features article today - it reads more like Disney - just like their
prospectus of course. Then again, maybe GMI have written to Jim'll
Fix It and we just don't know and the Arbre power station will work....on
magic willow trees....(I'm sorry, I'm resorting to sarcasm..).
Also, for placards for the dog walk,
Another one could be:
BUILD ON
BROWNFIELD
NOT ON
OUR FIELDS
I know we don't (sadly) own these fields but they make up our immediate
environment which counts as the same for me.
Cheers,
Jackie Carlile
Received
8th February 2008
I
love Eric's suggested slogan. Mine was "Let's stay Green but
not Willow Green". Must admit I'm not too keen on "Good
Idea but not Here" as I think it indicates the only valid reason
we have is that we don't want one.
Ann Walker
Received
8th February 2008
It
has been mentioned that the parish council should adopt a slogan in
their campaign against Willow Green.
One
such suggestion is, "Put your town where its brown!"
Any
other (appropriate) offers?
--
Eric Beechey
Received
8th February 2008
Yipee!!
I'm finding all this quite depressing, so today I've bought some "butterfly
and bee seeds" to chuck in the hedgerows of what could be a condemned
field! How's that for feeling positive?
Ann the Walker
Received
8th February 2008
I
would like to respond to the recent letter from Mr Grogan.
His first point on public transport. When did you last try to get
on the 5pm train out of Leeds for Knottingley? The railways have become
a disjointed mess under the franchise schemes overseen by the current
government. Even if you were to build a brand new state of the art
station at Whitley, the extra trains you would need could not be accommodated
in Leeds or Wakefield. Selby can't accommodate the cars required for
people to go to Doncaster or York, and could the East Coast main line
cope with the extra required paths?
Regarding power. You appear to be relying here on promised improvements,
of which you don't go into detail, and unproven micro technology,
and you expect us to accept that. Forgive me for being cynical.
Of course house prices will suffer. People who buy houses in areas
like the ones currently in the area, do so for the area. Build a council
estate next door and they don't want to know.
Greenfield/greenbelt. The difference is a technical one. It is destroying
countryside for the sake of profit, pure and simple.
Are you surprised that no councils have put forward proposals for
these monstrosities, and I would be amazed if any did. Any coucilor
(or MP come to that) who values their seat, would be making a very
foolish move in doing so.
Mr Grogan, this proposal does not fit any of the criteria for the
proposed eco town principal. It does not have the infrastucture and
no likelihood of getting it. It does not have the transport links.
It does not have the drainage, or the power or the land to grow the
willow. It is not a brownfield site and most importantly in my view,
it does not have the backing of the local population or any of the
local councils.
Get real Mr Grogan. The only thing it has is a developer who wants
to make money and a landowner who will sell him the land. I hope you
have seen by now that it is not we who are the nieve ones.
Bob Williams
Received
8th February 2008
To
Mr. Guy Poskitt.
This is an obvious point but one which I hope you may give some consideration.
If the proposal for 'Willowgreen' goes through it would without doubt
ruin our village and alter our way of life beyond recognition.
We live here now because we want to live in a village location.
We want our children to feel happy and safe and to be able to appreciate
and enjoy the countryside, which at the moment they do.
I look at our children and walk our dog and I feel miserable. Miserable
and worried sick for the future and what GMI might be allowed to do.
Unlike yourself we would not be able to simply sell up and move elsewhere
for a number of reasons, not least being the devaluation of our own
houses if this scheme comes to fruition.
I look at our children and it makes me feel very angry that what they
have now could be taken away from them.
Victoria McLauchlan
Received
8th February 2008
PROPOSED
BID FOR DEVELOPMENT OF AN ECOTOWN ON LAND ADJACENT TO BEAL EGGBOROUGH
AND KELLINGTON, NORTH YORKSHIRE
Beal
Parish Council have looked at the bid details for a proposed Ecotown
locally and have concluded that they object to any proposal for such
development in the area.
·
Beal Parish Council consider that any proposed development such as
this would adversely affect the rural way of life in the area;
· Would have a negative impact on local rail and road transport
with already strained infrastructure problems;
· Would impact on future flooding of the area, put increased
pressure on sewage and drainage facilities;
· Would be likely to increase commuter travel;
· That the local rural villages would have their quality of
life severely affected;
· That any proposed development provides little or no solution
to the housing needs in the local area;
· That the proposed are would result in large areas of green
belt being built over;
· Any proposed development would adversely affect the health
provision locally and the provision of emergency services such as
Police, Ambulance and Fire.
Yours
faithfully
RK Fogden
Clerk to the Council
Received
8th February 2008
Never
a week goes past without at least one picture of Yvette Cooper in
this paper. She will appear with an annoyed look pledging action against
all manner of things. Wobbly paving slabs, litter, chewing gum, vandalised
bus stops the list goes on. Yet as soon as the issue of Darringfield
comes to the front where is Yvette? Is she afraid she might be confronted
by a resident of Darrington or Womersley?
Our own MP John Grogan has shown contempt of the people who elected
him by backing the plans for Willow Green when folk in the vicinity
are opposed to a plan that doesn't even meet the Government's criteria.
That is his view, it is his right to have it, and he has made it public.
Does any one know Ms. Cooper's view on the planned eco-towns that
are on her doorstep?
John Parker BSc MSc
Kellington
Received
8th February 2008
We
like to think of ourselves as our own country: I'm from a land
flowing with red ink and blockbuster government programs
Ah,
the NIMBY effect. Housing projects by special interest is usually
speculation. It is a chicken and egg dilemma. Without a functioning
local economy there are almost no workers, without workers where are
the temporary renters, or home owners? Without these there's no banking
mortgages or housing cash flow. Without new bank notes to buisnesses
the local market can not sustain itself through cyclical booms and
busts for local housing, schools, stores and shops. Land speculators
anchor their hopes of a cash sale windfall of their parcels to potential
developers.
Land developers usually try to hedge their bets on a close proximity
to going concerns like nearby farms, boom towns, decades long government
infrastructure projects--heck even mining or company towns would do,
anything smelling of a cash flow economy where workers are involved.
But if just housing is put up it is just as good as a ghost town after
the mining operation goes bust. Eventually you won't be able to buy
a Whisky shot as even the bar is closed with eco-friendly tumble weeds
blowing past, which reminds me of my favorite movie: The Good, The
Bad, and The Ugly.
Brian Wildasinn [California]
Received 8th February 2008
From:
ROGERSON, Matt
On
Behalf Of GROGAN, John
Sent: 07 February 2008 17:39
To: Roger Talbot
Subject: RE: Eco- Town
Dear
Mr Talbot
Thank
you very much for your email.
The
benefit of building an eco-town from scratch is that infrastructure
such as roads, public services and public transport would deliberately
be build into the town to enable local people to commute to work or
other centres of population without needing to use the car. I think
such infrastructure would actually be of benefit to residents both
old and new.
On
the Arbre plant, I think there could be some interesting developments
regarding the site in the next couple of months, but it is important
to bear in mind that it would not be the only way to produce electricity
in a sustainable way. For instance technologies such as micro generation
could be employed in a fresh development such as this.
I
think you are unduly pessimistic about the impact on house prices
of an eco-town. The greater accessibility to public services and shops
may well have a positive impact. I would be very interested to know
who has said that houses in the villages are ‘virtually unsellable’
and what evidence they have of that.
In
any development, landowners make money and I can see why who stands
to gain financially from development is of local and public interest.
It will not determine the decision of Government as to the most appropriate
sites for eco-towns. The private developers have never made any secret
of the fact that the cousin of the landowner works for the firm.
The
land at the site of the proposed eco-town is mainly Greenfield as
opposed to Greenbelt although I understand that there is some Greenbelt
land to the West. Greenfield land is land that has not yet been developed
such as farmland, whereas the presumption is that Greenbelt land will
not be developed unless there are exceptional circumstances. The development
of an eco-town might be considered to meet that criteria, but that
point would be debated during the planning process. Obviously the
Government would favour Brownfield sites which were viable, but it
is not clear that there are sufficient such sites available which
meet the other criteria for an eco-town.
Last
year the Government asked local councils in West and North Yorkshire
to make proposals for eco-towns. None have done so. I understand that
two developers have responded. I attach a press release I have put
out last week urging Selby District Council to make a positive suggestion
themselves.
Yours
sincerely
John
Grogan
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:
Roger Talbot
Sent: 24 January 2008 12:28
To: GROGAN, John
Subject: Eco- Town
Mr
Grogan, May I suggest that you propose the new Town be situated where
you live and not where I live. You do not live in Kellington or the
surrounding area to know how we will be affected by this proposal.
I moved here ten years ago, to get away from living in a town as I
wanted a better way of life for myself and my Wife, why should we
have our lives turned upside down by these proposals. We as a village
will lose far more than we gain i.e. the noise pollution from so many
people, cars, trains, buses, the fact that the energy will come from
the Willow Green power station in itself is a joke as it’s been
proved once before that we can’t grow enough willow to supply
it and all it is at the moment is a white elephant that’s going
to cost to much to get up and running again, who’s going to deliver
this willow, it will have to come in on H.G.V’s, once again creating
more pollution, Where is all the rubbish from this town going to be
dumped, as far as I know we don’t have enough rubbish tips now
(and it can’t all be recycled) what about roads? All the traffic
from this town is going to have to go on local roads which will make
our village and surrounding areas very busy and unsafe for the children
of our villages, the M62 will be more like a car park than it will
a motorway, it takes 2 hours to get to Leeds now and it’s no
good saying put them on the trains because the train companies will
not be able to supply enough of them. There will not be enough jobs
created in this “New Town” to employ everyone, shops will
need supplies brought into them so there will be H.G.V’s needed
for that (yet more pollution) Where’s the water supply coming
from and the sewerage going to. We have already been told that some
of the Houses in the village are now virtually unsellable and that
the rest have been devalued by £20,000 due to this proposal.
Where’s our Church going to feature in all this? At the moment
it’s sat on a slight hill with fields surrounding it, if this
proposal goes thru, it could be sat in the middle of the town, Also
I find it very interesting that the biggest land owner in this village
(and whose land is being used for this development) is related to
GMI’s Property Managing Director a Mr James Poskitt. This land
is classed as greenbelt land not brown and therefore should not even
be considered for building on, what about the wild life and plants
or is that not important anymore. So please don’t tell me that
it won’t change the character of our village or affect us in
any way because that is absolute rubbish.
Roger
Talbot.
Received
7th February 2008
I'd
just like to say that my son, aged 6, has written a letter to the
Prime Minister tonight.
It simply says,
Prime Minister, please do not build houses on the fields.
From Jamie.
Tomorrow I'm going to post it.
It was all his own work, apart from being dissuaded from writing his
original idea which was, 'don't build the houses or we'll come and
.....!!!!!'
Victoria
McLauchlan
Received
7th February 2008
This
letter has been sent to various Ministers of the Crown to inform them
of Kellington Parish Council's opposition to the proposed eco-town.
A copy has also been forwarded to the Politics Show in order that
they are fully aware of the council's stance when the issue will be
discussed on TV (Sunday 10th February @ 12-00pm).
KELLINGTON PARISH COUNCIL
"If I'd wanted to live in an urban area I would have moved to
Leeds."
When taking into consideration a short list of possible eco-towns
I would like you to take the following facts into account.
Since
the emergence of the Willow Green project came into the public domain
there has been nothing but disbelief and consternation in the village
and a certain amount of anger towards the local landowner who would
benefit financially because of his indirect connection with the firm,
G.M.I. Property Company Limited.
A
lively public meeting was held at Kellington Community Hall on 23rd
January attended by over two hundred people (evidence of this can
be seen on www.kellington.net ). The meeting was addressed by the
local district councillor and at the end only one person indicated
her support for this particular scheme. The following day a further
well attended meeting was held at Eggborough (the other village adversely
affected by these proposals). It was decided at both these meetings
that the proposal for an eco-town would be vigorously contested.
A
special meeting of Kellington Parish Council was held in the Community
Hall on 31st January and once again it was well attended by members
of the public. Specific points voiced by the attendees were noted
and the council voted unanimously to oppose the project known as Willow
Green. It also agreed to support a central fighting fund to help bring
this aim to fruition.
In
drawing up your shortlist of possible sites for new eco-towns I ask
you to consider the following bullet points.
·
The parish plan was drawn up in 2005 after an extensive and full consultation
with all residents. The general opinion of a large majority of respondees
was that no further building should take place in or around Kellington.
·
Page 7 of the G.M.I. prospectus gives an overview of the possible
development of Willow Green. You will note that Kellington is clearly
enveloped in proposed early development to the east, west and south
of the village thus bringing Willow Green structures adjacent to existing
building in the village. At least G.M.I. have realised that building
to the north of the village is impossible due to the fact that this
land is regularly flooded. This is caused by the inability of the
River Aire to cope with excess rain levels up stream. The envisaged
new building would greatly increase the run off of surface water into
the river which would definitely pose additional flooding problems
within the Ings Lane area. If this occurred would the developer be
liable for compensation? This phase of development also brings in
two further important aspects. It connects the villages of Kellington
and Eggborough with build on land that is presently used for agricultural
purposes and it will change the whole of village life from its present
rural ethos to one of an urban situation. Both of these aspects were
unanimously rejected at each public meeting (with the exception of
the single person at Kellington).
·
Further more, if the possible expansion of this plan goes ahead in
the future it will also encapsulate Kellingley into its urban sprawl.
·
All of the proposed building area is presently agricultural land which
is used to grow either cereals or a variety of vegetable crops. This
does not conform with the principle that, wherever possible, new towns
are to be built on brownfield sites. The new Housing Minister, Caroline
Flint, can be quoted as saying on "The Politics Show" on
27th January - "There is no way we want to concrete over green
belt land."
·
There are numerous brownfield sites within the Leeds, Wakefield and
Doncaster areas that would be ideal for such a development; these
would also be accessible to major centres of employment.
·
Kellingley Colliery is sited within a mile of Kellington and Eggborough
and UK Coal has already extracted coal in this vicinity which has
caused real problems with subsidence within the two villages. In fact
one stretch of land dropped several metres causing a large lake (Beal
Carrs) to be formed which is now a haven for many resident and migrant
birds. UK Coal intend to mine the Warren House Seam which lies beneath
this intended site. This, we feel, must be a crucial factor in determining
whether this site is chosen or not. UK Coal are on record stating
that no compensation would be payable if properties suffering damage
due to subsidence were built after actual mining had taken place.
·
The proposed site has four high voltage power lines crossing it. Due
to the perceived effects of high voltage magnetic fields on human
populations there would be a strong possibility that these lines would
have to be moved as living within a fifty yards proximity could be
detrimental to health. This cost would have to be met by the developers
which would mean a significant rise in cost of new properties.
·
There are two 36 inch mains that take water from Elvington treatment
works to the Rotherham conurbation running through the entire length
of the proposed new town site, this would effectively split the development
into two. It would be safe to assume that Yorkshire Water would not
allow any building to take place above these mains and would require
a possible 20 foot wayleave to give access for repairs should a pipe
burst due to subsidence
·
The developers would need to sink another borehole to supply water
to the new town, this would not go down well with the Environmental
Agency. The Sherwood Sandstone Aquifier that supplies businesses throughout
the area is currently over licensed / abstracted and the Agency are
already looking to reduce the number of licenses or reduce abstraction
limits to ease the burden of the aquifer.
· The Arbre Biomass Power Station forms an important part of
G.M.I.'s submission. This 10MW plant has never produced power and
it is admitted that this would have to be uprated to between 40 and
50 MW to be effective in producing the required energy for the new
town. It is a willow burning plant and according to G.M.I.'s figures
200,000 tonnes of biomass would be required to fire it per year. Using
their own figures this would mean that 50,000 acres of willow will
be consumed each year - one third the size of the whole of Selby District
Council area. This would mean that they would be in direct competition
with Drax Power Station which is already burning willow. Fuel would
have to be brought in by road from quite considerable distances in
large numbers of heavy goods vehicles causing congestion and pollution
on our already overcrowded road system. Road safety would be an additional
worry.
· The ultimate aim is to provide 15,000 varying types of houses.
It is debateable as to whether or not there is a need for such development
within Selby District itself. Families or single persons requiring
accommodation in south Selby number approximately 200. Plans have
already been passed by the council for 3,000 units which have not
at the time of writing been started. Obviously houses in the new town
will be occupied by people who at the present moment live elsewhere.
This in itself can bring its own problems - where will these people
come from?
·
It would be reasonable to suggest that many of these families' work-
people would rely on commuting to their place of work. The rail station
at Whitley Bridge would require major building to cope with the anticipated
increase in passengers travelling towards Leeds. Selby station has
no facilities to cope with additional car parking for those who wished
to travel along the East Coast Mainline.
·
The present road system would have to be greatly improved to cope
with the increased number of vehicles generated by the new incumbents.
Major works on the A645, A19 and M62 intersection to ensure a safe
flow of traffic would cause long term inconvenience not only to those
who presently use these systems but also to those who move into the
new development. All these improvements would have to be financed
by the developers thus increasing the price of houses in the proposed
new development.
·
Additional transport travelling westwards from Willow Green along
the A645 would cause havoc in both Knottingley and Pontefract. Both
these towns have a severe rush hour problem, additional vehicles would
only exacerbate an already on going problem
· The proposed development cuts across seven Kellington footpaths.
Sandy Lane would also be incorporated into the scheme. These footpaths
have been long established and are very popular with those who live
in the village.
·
Wildlife would be seriously affected.
To
sum up
1.
The parish plan states that there should be no more building in or
around Kellington.
2. Kellington would cease to be a rural village.
3. The whole village is against this proposal.
4. The eco-town would be built on agricultural land and not on a brownfield
site as envisaged by central government.
5. True brownfield sites can be found within the Leeds City Region.
6. Flooding problems in the village will be further exacerbated.
7. Mining has been undertaken under the proposed site and a possible
working of another seam is being considered.
8. The site has four main voltage lines crossing it.
9. Two main 36" water pipes cross the proposed site.
10. Another borehole to extract water would be required.
11. The Arbre Biomass Power Station is totally inadequate.
12. Doubts as to whether adequate fuel (willow) could be grown locally.
13. Possible competition for fuel with Drax Power Station.
14. There is no existing problem with housing accommodation in the
south Selby area.
15. Whitley Bridge station would be unable to cope with the anticipated
increase in passenger numbers.
16. The road system (A19, A645 and M62) would require major investment.
17. Traffic flow westwards along the A645 would increase rush hour
problems in Pontefract and Knottingley.
18. The Kellington footpath system would be decimated.
19. Wildlife would be seriously affected.
Received
7th February 2008
Hi
all
On Sunday 17 February we are holding a 'Dog Walkers against the New
Town' walk. Meeting at Kellington Village Hall/CommunityLand we will
set off at 11am to walk to Eggborough, on the public rights of way
that we be stolen from us if this insane proposal goes ahead. Because
we think that it is BARKING MAD!
We will arrive in Eggborough, Jolly Miller at about 11.45. Eggborough
residents can join us there or pop down to Kellington for the start
None dog owners are welcome to come along. Even if you do not want
to do the walk, come and show your opposition to the proposal.
Leaflets and posters advertising the event will go out during next
week. Volunteers welcome
We hope that this event will attract good media coverage.
LETTERS to the local papers - terrific coverage - if you have not
written, please do and if you have and it has not been published try
again.
One issue that we need to push is the impact thet the new town will
have on other towns especially Selby, Knottingley and Pontefract.
John Grogan claims that it will give a boost to the entire Selby District,
but all academic studies of new towns show that they suck the investment
from surrounding communities.
see you
John and Mary
Received
7th February 2008
With
regard to the filming done yesterday, I have learnt that in addition
to Sunday’s lunchtime show, the BBC will be using some of the
filming on their Look North news TODAY and should be on the 1330 and
1830 programmes (news agenda permitting, obviously). If it is, it'll
also be available online from tonight.
Nigel
Adams
Conservative
Party Parliamentary Candidate for Selby and Ainsty
Mob:
07774 017 100
www.selbyandainsty.com
Selby
and Ainsty Conservatives 43 Gowthorpe, Selby, North Yorkshire YO8
4HE
Received
7th February 2008
Mr
Grogan,
I will keep this short but not too sweet.
Please can you give me one good reason why you are supporting this
unjust and ridiculous plan for an (and I use the term loosely) "Eco
town" within Kellington.
We all understand how politics work, I would like to give you my
version of that but I don't want to leave myself open to a liable
case. The fact is you have obviously been instructed by your peers
(who reside at Westminster) to give your full personal backing for
this giant monstrosity that will blight the surrounding area of
Kellington, Beal and Eggborough.
I, on the other hand, can give you several excellent reasons for
this Eco town to not be even considered.
Firstly, you will be invading green belt, I was always lead to
believe that this was protected from building plans, never-mind plans
for a large town to obliterate it.
Secondly, how do you intend to supply "Eco" power to the
proposed
15,000 homes? The wood burning power plant half a mile away was a
white elephant - fact. It has never worked, another waste of time
and
money courtesy of our ever out of touch government.
Thirdly, what are your plans regarding the increased amount of extra
traffic jostling for position to access the M62. We would all have
to
leave our homes much earlier than normal just to get onto the
motorway. To get to the motorway from Kellington, you have to cross
a
level crossing too, so can you imagine the potential queues when the
barriers are down and you have to wait for the half mile long coal
train delivering it's hourly supply of fossil fuel for the Eggborough
Power Station to pass. This process usually takes around 10 minutes,
so by the time the barrier is raised an extra half mile of traffic
will have stacked up. Great.
Fourthly, I am shocked that your conscience hasn't been pricked and
am saddened by your support of this development. As our local MP you
should be looking out for the residents of your constituency, it is
after all, those residents that put you in office and you would do
well to remember that. Your support for the development, should it
go
ahead, will be responsible for directly inflicting upset on the local
residents. Perhaps you could explain your thinking behind your
endorsement of this development.
I, like most people who live in Kellington, moved here with the hope
of enjoying a better quality of life that comes from moving to a
village such as ours. We enjoy a nice location, it is quiet, there
is
no crime and the surrounding areas are ideal for walking and relaxing
with my wife and children.
I did not expect the government to burst my bubble, I pay my taxes
(oh so many taxes), I am a law abiding citizen and I run my own
business, ergo, I don't really relish the thought of a population
increase of around 60000. Population increase equals extra crime.
That
is a fact you cannot deny, even using your best politicians spin.
We
are all fully aware that there are plans for 5000 affordable social
homes, in other words, for low income, on benefit families. I can't
help but draw comparisons to other areas of similar residents - they
are called 'Council Estates', you may have heard of them - they are
riddled with crime, violence and general disrespect for property,
people or even themselves. And you want to potentially bring this
to
Kellington? I note you do not live within this planned 'demilitarised
zone'. I wonder if you would be taking an alternative stance if you
did.
Regards,
Neil
Chadwick
Received
7th February 2008
Sorry everyone,
I don't mean to hog the website but I just wanted to let everyone
know that filming was done for the Politics Show in and around the
village today and will be shown on Sunday 10th Feb at 12 o'clock,
BBC1.
Please write or email the programme before then if you can.
Thanks.
Victoria McLauchlan.
Also, please come on the dog walk/march from Kellington to Eggborough
as advertised on the website.
If you haven't got a dog, come anyway and bring an 'invisible dog
lead' if you know where to get one from!
Bring a placard as well!
Received
7th February 2008
I'd
like to share with you all an email I sent to the Shadow Housing Secretary,
Grant Shapps.
I think that there are a lot of questions the government should stand
up and answer regarding their 'invitation' for 'eco town' proposals.
And in reality, this man is the person who is able to and should stand
up and ask them on our behalf, (especially seeing as our own MP will
not!!)
Also, this is the second email to him in two days. I've also spoken
to his office on the phone. There is nothing like persistance.
Hello Grant, and thank you for responding to my original email.
There is, however, something important which I would like to add;
something which would probably go a long way to defending many of
the sites proposed for the development of 'eco towns' at the moment.
It came to me when I was considering our own proposal at Kellington/Eggborough
villages, the 'Willowgreen' proposal. Also after watching the protest
at Stratford on the BBC news on Sunday.
The basic and unquestionable argument against the government regarding
these proposals for sites for 'eco towns' is the way in which they
invited them to be put forward; by local councils (not in our case),
by property developers (yes, for us) or by land owners (double yes
for us, as the developer and major landowner are cousins!).
Therefore, the government has invited bodies to propose sites which
will be of benefit to them, and not necessarily in any way follow
the guidelines/criteria set out by government for such developments,
i.e. brownfield sites, close to employment centres, have a good public
transport network etc. etc.
So in theory all 60 of the proposals could be 'wrong'. In theory,
none of them may match the criteria the government originally put
forward for these developments.
What then? Say that the shortlist was announced and no sites were
suitable because as I have already suggested, the people putting forward
the sites for the towns were doing so entirely for their own benefit,
(the 'wrong' reasons).
What would the government do? Select the lesser of the evils and still
choose 10 from the original proposals?
This is a question that has got to be asked.
The government has clearly gone about this the wrong way/back to front!
I think I can say that in Kellington we feel slightly optimistic that
our area may not be shortlisted because it has so many issues which
would be contradictory to the supposed criteria and development of
any type on this land.
But this does not alter the fact that the government has and is showing
incredible incompetance regarding this matter. Or are they just trying
to pull the wool over everyone's eyes until they can quietly slip
these proposals through and then tick off their boxes re housing and
meet more of their own ridiculous targets?
Please, though, someone needs to face them with the truth. If you
offer the option to greedy developers and landowners to propose sites
for new 'eco towns' what kind of results do they expect?
These proposals should really all be scrapped and if 'eco towns' are
necessary, start again from the right place. At brownfield sites near
centres of employment.
That's common sense. Probably too much to expect from our government.
Victoria McLauchlan.
Received
6th February 2008
Which
newspaper was this in, is the article online?
Is
this a genuine factual report of something that has actually been
passed and is going to happen, or is it one of those reports of something
that might at sometime in the future be discussed?
You
have to be careful with what appears in the media - a lot is journalistic
comment on what might happen, not what is a definite fact.
Take
the Willowgreen Ecotown for example - some reports in the media have
implied that this is a government action - its not, its a proposal
by a private developer which will make a lot of money for the company
and the landowner if it is adopted. This has created a lot of confusion
in some people's minds. The
proposal has not yet made it onto the Government's shortlist for consideration
- we still have time for our arguments to have some impact.
If it gets into the last 15 - 20 out of, I believe, 57 proposals,
then our formal opposition can get underway. We have some excellent
arguments against this location - its a long way from being a fact.
Don't
believe everything you read or see in the media - its often only opinion
disguised as fact, designed to cause alarm, and better viewing figures
/ newspaper sales.
Robbie
Beechey
Received
6th February 2008
I, too, read the
article regarding removal of local people's rights to stop development.
I find it disturbing that it claimed that cash incentives have been
offered to local councils to speed up progress. If this is true, could
this be seen as a form of corporate corruption. Certainly I believe
it is worthy of further investigation into the facts and, if true,
the legality of it.
Is this another example of government sleeze?
Bob Williams
Received
6th February 2008
I
would like to thank Nigel Adams for his response to my question about
what he would consider acceptable. He is obviuosly of a similar mind
to the rest of us. His answers were much appreciated. It might be
of interest to readers of this site that a couple of points were raised
in Prime Minister's Questions this morning, regarding opposition to
other eco towns. Gordon Browns answer to one of these questions was,
''We had applications for over sixty Eco Towns, so there doesn't seem
to be much opposition.''
Has he no idea who these proposals come from?
Bob Williams
9 The Oval
Beal
Received
6th February 2008
Have just watched
Prime Minister's Question Time on TV. One Conservative MP brought
up the topic of Eco Towns, saying there were plans to build 2 of them
in his constituency and that no-one wanted them.
The PM answered that Labour was in favour of Eco towns, Conservatives
were against them, and that there were 60 planning applications which
proved that the public wants them .....
How did he make that leap? "The public" weren't asked to
put foward the planning applications - we weren't aware of them until
they were in their glossy folders - it is the organisations involved
who stand to make mega-money that want them!
Someone needs a reality check.
Pauline Young
Received
6th February 2008
Oh
dear! I've just read the most depressing article in my daily paper.
It tells me that voters could lose their rights to halt homes on green
belt land (under a Labour plan). It tells me that the right to approve
massive housing development would go, instead, to unelected boards
responsible only to ministers. It tells me that the planning rules
"slipped quietly before Parliament" yesterday. It tells
me that the Government wants to rip up the "treasured 50-year
old green belts" to find room for more than 3 million houses
and flats within 12 years. It tells me that Ministers have offered
cash incentives to councils to speed up development approvals (cash
incentives - councils - what hope do we have?). It tells me that under
this plan (John Healey is in charge of it) elected councillors would
lose planning powers. It also says what we already know - that the
homes are needed for a rapidly growing population due to high levels
of immigration. I am NOT in the least racist - some of the nicest
people I've known have been of a different skin colour to myself -
but my goodness, what a high price we're all going to have to pay
for opening up the borders for cheap labour.
14,000 acres of green belt have already been lost under Labour.
Will someone please tell me, am I thick or what? I thought we lived
in a democratic society.
Ann Walker
Received
6th February 2008
I
would like to respond to the previous post by Bob Williams, so that
he and
residents know exactly my position and that of the Conservative Party
regarding this proposal.
I
am pleased that Mr Williams welcomes my views but in addition, I would
like to clarify the following:
We
would only give our cross-party support to sustainable, eco-friendly
communities on BROWNFIELD SITES ONLY, provided the plans have LOCAL
SUPPORT
inc. local communities and councils & have sufficient INFRASTRUCTURE
including transport capacity, frontline public services, not on flood
plains
etc.
As
this proposed plan does not appear to pass even one of these tests,
I am
TOTALLY OPPOSED to it.
From
a more personal point of view, I was brought up in a village not far
from this site and when my parents moved into the area in the sixties,
they
did so because they wanted to raise their family, not in a town, but
in a
rural setting. From speaking to many residents recently, I know that
view is
widely shared and any proposed new town would destroy that choice
for people
locally and that should not be allowed to happen.
Just
one point with regard to the point on local support, I have
commissioned and had delivered a door to door survey asking the views
of
local residents and would encourage all residents to have their say
and
return the survey in the pre paid envelope, so an accurate view of
local
opinion is reached. As soon as the results of the survey are analysed
I will
ensure that the findings are made public.
I
hope this clarifies my position and that of my party and if anyone
would
like to discuss this further or any other issue, please do not hesitate
to
get in touch.
Nigel
Adams
Conservative Parliamentary Candidate for Selby & Ainsty
nigeladams@selbyandainsty.com
www.selbyandainsty.com
Received
5th February 2008
I am a new resident
in Beal and would like to join your campaign against the Eco Towns.
I would like to
add this to the Forum but couldn’t get on if you can paste this
letter on somehow
I moved into the
Village in December 07 excited and thrilled to finally be fortunate
enough to find the house I love.
I walk out for my house and feel safe, happy and comfortable as it
just seems to wrap its arms around you once you enter.
There seems to be a very good bond between the residents and everyone
has made me feel extremely welcome. I can walk my dog for miles and
see lovely countryside and wildlife and most importantly nice people.
Who too I imagine is happy to be such a wonderful area.
To my disbelief and horror I learnt about three weeks ago that all
this may be taken away by the announcement of an ECO Town.
Like many others this was the first I'd heard of this and didn’t
really know the full extent of the project until I've done a little
more research.
I cannot believe that the government can possibly believe that an
ECO town in our beautiful green -belt area will benefit anyone except
their pockets and all the companies involved in these schemes whose
lives would not be affected as they probably live in another rural
village. Let me ask these people how they would feel if this was going
to happen on their doorstep and totally remove the way of life they
now have and replace it with noise, pollution, over population and
who knows whatever else these towns will bring?? , Where will all
these people come from? Where are they now?
No I don’t think Yvette Cooper or Gordon Brown would be so keen
should one of these towns be proposed where they live. Instead innocent
people are suddenly “Warned “that something on such a large
scale could or will potentially happen.
We cannot let
it; EVERYONE who feels strongly against this MUST be heard. We all
get bogged down with our everyday life of work and home duties but
we MUST keep this at the forefront of our minds and not allow these
people to take away everything we've all worked for to afford to live
in a place where we have the little added luxuries of " Tranquility"
outside the hustle and bustle of town and City life.
I could go on,
but I think everyone must agree that we have to stop this if we can.
Maybe it’s already been signed and sealed? Who knows but we have
to try by whatever means we can.
A name for the
Campaign Could is Villagers Say No to ECO! Or maybe ECO we say NO.
I will wait to
hear from you as and when the next meeting will be.
Regards, Louise Russell
Received
5th February 2008
The
following was sent to the Politics Show email address today FYI:
FROM:
Dr Glyn Powell BA (Hons), 4 Bakersfield Drive, Kellington, North
Humberisde DN14 0NN
I am totally opposed to the proposed siting of a so-called 'eco-town'
at either Willow Geen or Darringfield.
Indeed such major housing developments should only be confined to
brown field sites and not swallow up huge swathes of greenfield/greenbelt
land.
I say this because there are plenty of suitable brown field sites
across the
country.
If such developments are necessary, to meet future population growth
resulting from east european immigration, it should be only on brown
field sites as envisaged by Hazel Blears MP and Prime Minister Gordon
Brown.
A development of 15-20,000 houses with a population of 60-80,000 people
on land at either Darrington or Eggborough/Kellington would be anything
but ecologically or environmentally friendly as thousands of acres
of green fields/greenbelt land would disappear.
Neither site is suitable for such a development as:
1. The procedure for allocating such developments is undemocratic
as it bypasses any local council involvement and fails to take account
of local people'sknowledge.
Planning processes/rules are ridden roughshod by foolish MP's and
civil servants.
2. concreting over land on such a scale would heighten the flood risk
already present in nearby villages
3. the land is prone to subsidence from years of mining beneath the
fields, and more mining is planned.
4. wildlife such as deer/birds would lose valuable habitat
5. employment opportunities locally are limited. Most of the inhabitants
of such a town would have to commute, further gridlocking local roads
and the M62.
6. the idea that the abandoned Abre willow burning power station would
provide energy for these houses is a pipedream as this station was
abandoned due to the failure of its technology before even 1 megawatt
of electricity had been produced. Also if willow was to be burned,
thousands of acres of land currently used to grow food crops would
have to be devoted to willow growing, causing food prices to increase.
Also the environment would suffer further from traffic polution as
the willow would be brought in by road.
7. the local drains would not cope with sewage generated by 60,000
people, possibly requiring massive investment in sewage works at a
cost to local people.
8. housing needs for local people are only 2-3,000 homes whihc could
easily be met from existing stock if Selby and Wakefield Councils
got their acts together.
No - such developments will have a massive adverse effect on local
people, ruining the environment, blighting the countryside and reducing
property prices.
Indeed, with the the expected increase in Council Tax/Water rates
to meet increased sewage and rubbish collection costs, local people
would suffer a double financial whammy.
Local MP's therefore should fight the proposals instead of supporting
the greed of a small number of landowners seeking to sell land at
our (taxpayers) expense.
Sincerely,
Dr Glyn Powell BA (HONS)
Received
5th February 2008
In
response to Bob Williams' letter re the ridiculous eco town proposal,
I'd just like to add that I emailed the RSPB last week to put the
same point forward. The 'sound of Kellington' to me from being a child
is that of skylarks. They nest in our fields, on the ground, and though
we are lucky to still have them in our area they are one of the species
that the RSPB have given 'red' status to because of their decline
in numbers.
The more people who write to / contact anyone who might be able to
help our cause the better.
Victoria McLauchlan.
Received
5th February 2008
Hi
We have lived in the area for 25 years now and originally moved here
precisely because we didn't want to live in a town.
I intend to write to Mr Grogan regarding his response, which to me,
demonstrates just how much the Westminster members are out of touch
with the people they claim to represent.
He speaks of the hypocricy in not supporting the proposal. He doesn't
appear to see the irony in that statement. He was elected to Westminster
to represent the people in this area. He is paid to do just that.
The people of this area have stated very loudly that they do not need
or want this development. They have given a considerable number of
practical and convincing reasons why it should not be continued with.
The only voices that I have heard raised in favour all appear to belong
to people called Poskitt. It seems Mr Grogan has forgetten why he
is an MP. Let me remind him once more. It is to represent the views
of the electorate in this constituency. It is not to back the Party
line regardless, nor is it to support the large landowners and developers.
To do so against the wishes of the vast majority of his constituents
is the real hypocricy. I would urge the people of this area to make
it abundantly clear to Mr Grogan, that if he continues with his current
stance that he will not be representing us after the next general
election.
My next point is the letter from Mr Nigel Adams, prospective Tory
candidate at the next election. Whilst his views are welcome, what
he actually says is that he is opposed to a development of this size.
Just what size of development he would deem acceptable, he doesn't
say. Once more, I intend to write and ask him.
Maybe we might get a Lib Dem or independent candidate who is totally
in tune with our feelings. They would certainly get our vote.
On a more practical note. As a member of the RSPB I have for years
taken an interest in the wildlife of the area, and photographed much
of it. To those unfamiliar with with the threats posed to wildlife,
the RSPB publishes what are known as red, amber and green lists of
birds under threat. The red list species are globally threatened and/or
have suffered a decline of more than 50% in numbers in the UK over
the last 25 years. Amber list species, whilst not under an immediate
threat are deemed to require close monitoring for a variety of reasons.
Within the proposed development area I have seen (and photographed)
twelve Red List species and a further nineteen Amber listed ones.
To build this development will mean their undoubted destruction. How
environmentally friendly is that?
Add to that Roe Deer, Stoat, Weasel, Fox, Rabbit, Hare and enough
smaller mammals to support healthy populations of, Barn, Tawny and
Long Eared Owl, Kestrel and the occasional Buzzard. I could go on
but don't want to bore anyone. I'm sure you have the idea.
I will contact the RSPB to see what assistance they can offer in this
context.
If anyone would like any copies of these photographs to assist our
cause, please ask.
Bob Williams
Received
4th February 2008
Well
done Alistair
This was my contribution to ASDA customer services web page
Dear sir
I
live in the Village of Kellington where a supplier of vegetables to
your company is located (MH Poskitt). You may or may not be aware
of this companies connection with the proposed development of an ECO
town that will decimate our village.
I am aware this is not your issue but the only way I can protest is
to withdraw my families support to your company. We regularly use
your store in Pontefract and Castleford and Carcroft for my families
grocery, It is with great sadness we will take our needs elsewhere
for something that is not your fault. But the thought of adding profit
to Poskitt through purchase of goods is something I can not do. The
contempt he has demonstrated for the residents of Kellington and Eggborough
is unbelievable. I would ask you to look at the views of residents
by going to WWW.kellington.net
Please accept my apologies for these actions but I feel we have no
alternative.
Jon Howard
Received
4th February 2008
What
a brilliant idea! Please, everyone, boycott ASDA and any other outlets
supplied by you-know-who. I promised myself I wouldn't write to the
'Postbag' again unless something new cropped up, because really I've
said all I've got to say and I get so frustrated and political. But
I'm still reeling from the shock of it all - as I expect many other
people are. I do admire the people who have written all the letters
explaining the various reasons an eco-town isn't a suitable thing
for this area - not simply because we don't want one (not a good enough
reason unfortunately) - but detailing the various problems relating
to mining, drainage, power cables, etc. etc. I'm just a humble, ordinary
woman of average intelligence who knows nothing about these things
but who doesn't want to lose the counttryside and village life - the
wild flowers (what few we've got left, again thanks to the farmers),
the views, the rabbits, the deer, all the wildlife, the unique site
of the Church etc. etc. I cannot believe it is morally right for 'them'
to come along and do such a thing - take our community, our village
away from us? How can certain individuals sleep at night, knowing
they'll be swanning off into the sunset, possibly as multi-millionaires,
and leaving such devastation behind them? Please, please, all you
'brainboxes' keep your letters pouring in to all the addresses we've
been given, and the contacts. You have a better argument than I have!
It's a pity not everyone has access to the Internet, so we've got
to get the campaign going aimed at all the villagers etc. (which costs
money printing leaflets and so on). I'm willing to help in any way
I can. We've got a fight on our hands.
Ann Walker
Received
4th February 2008
Hi,
As we all know by now, some of the farmers in this region appear intent
on destroying our lifestyle and community in pursuit of a big pay
day. Fair enough you might say- we live in a capitalist society and
there is nothing wrong with making money. However there is everything
wrong with making personal profit to the total detriment and misery
of your neighbours.
In particular I would draw everyone's attention to the claims that
many of these farmers were happy to associate themselves with, when
they were recently fighting against various Government proposals that
encroached on Rural living - namely that the farmers are the protectors
of the rural lifestyle and the countryside, which I don't mind admitting
I believed in and supported. Sadly, it seems, that in this area at
least this doesn't seem to be true and the smell of hypocrisy hangs
in the air. You cannot claim a principle when it suits you and then
abandon it when the money comes along, and I am genuinely saddened
by this seeming lack of principle.
This proposal may not succeed, however I for one will be looking to
ensure that I don't do business with any organisation that brings
profits back to the men that seek to destroy what we love.
I have Emailed ASDA, expressing my disgust at the proposals being
headed up in particular by Poskitts, who are involved in this proposal
and with whom ASDA do business, and have stated that as long as ASDA
associate with this company I and my family will not set foot in their
stores and will campaign for others to join us in this boycott. I
would encourage you all to do the same. If you know of any other shops
supplied by farmers involved in this proposal, let them know as well!
If you wish to contact ASDA, click on http://www.asda.co.uk/corp/customer_service/contact_us.html
Alistair McLauchlan
Received
4th February 2008
We
have heard that the subject of the proposed 'eco town' in our area
is going to be covered on the Politics Show next Sunday, 10th Feb,
on BBC1 at 12 o'clock.
There will be interviews with local councillors and politicians including
John Grogan.
Can I suggest that we all send emails or letters before then, stating
our opinion of this disgraceful proposal, so that there can be no
question of our opposition to it.
The contact details are below.
BBC Politics Show
BBC 2 St Peters Square
Leeds
LS9 8AH
Tel: 0113 2247130/1/2 (with voice mail)
politicsshow@bbc.co.uk
Victoria McLauchlan
Received
3rd February 2008
Another
Problem for GMI
If you walk along
Lunn Lane or Church Lane you will see some blue marker posts hidden
in the hedgerow. These posts show the path of the two 36" mains
that take water from Elvington treatment works to the Rotherham conurbation.
Yorkshire Water would not allow building to take place above these
mains and would want a minimum 20' wayleave to give access for repairs
should a pipe burst due to subsidence. These mains run the entire
length of the proposed new town and would effectively split it in
two.
John Parker
Received
3rd February 2008
This
posting has been amended at the request of Carol and Alan Longmire,
who would like to add
we
would like to sincerely apologise to Mr James Poskitt for the defamatory
remark.
Our
message to the local MP's :-
> I am writing to express our concern/worry/madness/disbelief at
the
> proposed eco-town between Eggborough and Kellington.
> This is just not morally right. How can the British government
take
> away from all the people in these villages one of the few things
that
> is still great about Britain – that being villages, village
life &
> communities.
> We have all worked hard all our lives to be able to live in these
> lovely country villages, many (including us) moving here from
towns, to
> provide a better place for our families to grow up in. How can
the
> government take our homes away from us, as that is what they
would be
> doing. What about our human rights? If the eco-town goes ahead
we
> would be forced to move away to village life elsewhere, but we
don’t
> want to do that. We have made our home here and are very happy,
family
> and schools for our young daughter are nearby. Anyhow it would
be
> unlikely we would be able to sell our house because no-one will
want to
> live here now, not only because of it becoming a very large town
but
> because it will be a building site for the next 20 years. I don’t
> expect the government will be compensating for reduction in house
> price/even non-sale of houses will they?
> It is the sheer scale of this site that is the problem –
had it been
> much smaller and not effectively joining up 3/4 villages (Kellingley,
> Kellington, Eggborough/Whitley Bridge), but been a new eco-village
> somewhere in the middle with houses in the hundreds, not thousands,
I
> would not be so bothered.
> No sensible person would suggest this site – put it on an
old airfield
> like first suggested, or in a big open space somewhere else down
the
> motorway – there is plenty of it in this country. Renovate
derelict
> factories within cities and towns.
> We just simply don’t need 15k houses in this area, there
have already
> been a lot of houses built in Selby, Eggborough, Pontefract (to
only
> name 3) over the past few years and even they can’t be sold.
Numbers
> waiting for social/council housing are nowhere near what is said
to be
> built in the eco-town, ie a matter of hundreds, rather than thousands.
Negatives include:-
> · The wood burning power station nearby said to power
the
> eco-town is not currently used and I believe never has been
> successfully, nor will it create nearly enough power as is claimed
in
> the report, nor can we provide enough local wood for it to burn.
> · The roads in this area are gridlocked at times at present
> without another 60k people trying to use them. The M62 J34 on
the A19
> could not cope alone, the A19 is a very busy, accident prone
road as it
> is. The road through Knottingley is always busy, no way could
it cope
> with the extra traffic. Local rail links are also inadequate
for
> current passengers let alone any more. The M62 to Leeds is gridlocked
> as far back as Castleford Xscape on a morning, with another 30k
cars
> trying to get down there, they won’t even be able to get
onto J34!
> · Our villages have low crime rates, everyone is friendly
and
> look out for each other. The town would bring people from cities
and
> far afield places who don’t care about us and crime, litter
etc will
> soon rise.
> · Electricity pylons would have to be moved, proving to
be way
> too costly, surely.
> · Drainage and mining is a major hazard in this area also.
> · Not to mention poor local wildlife including the deer
I have
> seen in these fields.
> I think you can take it that all people in these villages will
not be
> voting Labour again if they choose this site for an eco-town.
> Alan & Carol Longmire, aged 38 & 30, Eggborough residents
Received
2nd February 2008
Dr
Glyn Powell BA (Hons)
4 Bakersfield Drive
Kellington
Goole
N Humberside
DN14 0NN
Tel: 01977 661049
I
was appalled, but not surprised, to read recent press reports of John
Grogan MP urging Selby District Council to support so-called eco-towns
proposals.
Doesn’t
our MP realise that such schemes will only serve to destroy both
local environments and communities? Furthermore, the only economic
beneficiary will be the greedy land-owners selling their land at
extortionate cost to ourselves the tax-payer.
No,
Mr Grogan, there is no logical housing need for such schemes and if
you
cannot understand this and put local people first, then perhaps it
is time
you resigned. Also, it appears that such schemes are prompted by Gordon
Brown, in order to house thousands (if not millions) of eastern European
immigrants that are expected to swamp our nation in the coming years,
as a
consequence of European Union enlargement and employers taking advantage
of
this huge pool of cheap labour.
John
Grogan would therefore be better served, if he had our real interests
at heart, in campaigning for Britain to withdraw from the EU., before
our
country’s services are totally overwhelmed and we are all ruined.
Yours
sincerely
Dr Glyn Powell BA (Hons)
Received
2nd February 2008
I
at last dug out the Eco-towns prospectus document at
http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/housing/ecotownsprospectus.
