Haydn1971 Posted April 11, 2008 Share Posted April 11, 2008 More to the point, the houses they propose are the same style as the ones they have built for the last 10 years - perhaps ok back then, but come on, hasn't the game moved forward since then... Laughably, the traffic assessment proposes no change to the junction of Pit Lane/Wood Lane/Rother Crescent and a dodgy priority working system on the access road into the estate.... if you live on Rother Crescent be aware, your parking is affected, if you live on Wood Lane, be aware, the planning application may condition extra double yellow lines... Just a warning :¬) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_rudeboy Posted April 11, 2008 Share Posted April 11, 2008 Most Treeton residents have sheffield phone codes and post areas (S60 ect?) although under Rotherham council !So do Barnsley and Chesterfield. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mancom Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 I don't know why we need to object to every house-building proposal. When will people get real and realise that the population's increasing and that these extra people need a roof over their head? UNLESS we're going to give the death penalty to criminals, deport all immigrants and introduce voluntary wuthanasia for our elderly, then we have to accept that the population is going up and these people need to be housed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fizzydrink Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 Any one in Treeton seen the new planning application for Jones homes to build 92 new houses on land at the back of Rother Crescent? Haven't they done enough to destroy the village already? what do you mean destroy the village, if it gets any quieter it will be like a morgue, 1 run down club, the main pub turned into a nursery, a take away that has 1 sausage just on the off chance someone alive walks past who's hungry, or maybe you just fell for the con of the overpriced property on beaumont park lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paddy Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 I don't know why we need to object to every house-building proposal. When will people get real and realise that the population's increasing and that these extra people need a roof over their head? UNLESS we're going to give the death penalty to criminals, deport all immigrants and introduce voluntary wuthanasia for our elderly, then we have to accept that the population is going up and these people need to be housed. I like your thinking! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 what do you mean destroy the village, if it gets any quieter it will be like a morgue, 1 run down club, the main pub turned into a nursery, a take away that has 1 sausage just on the off chance someone alive walks past who's hungry, or maybe you just fell for the con of the overpriced property on beaumont park lol. check the date, the thread was started three years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 The word "NIMBY" springs to mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fizzydrink Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 check the date, the thread was started three years ago. yes and nothings changed in 3 years its just the same, a mining village that died after the pit closed, except a few more houses built, this place is not a country village it was a working community thats now lost, its not even got its own post office. it needs new life breathing into the place to put old ghosts from the days of the mine to rest, not stop development. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 I don't know why we need to object to every house-building proposal. When will people get real and realise that the population's increasing and that these extra people need a roof over their head? UNLESS we're going to give the death penalty to criminals, deport all immigrants and introduce voluntary wuthanasia for our elderly, then we have to accept that the population is going up and these people need to be housed. What people object to is development on land which is currently open fields. There are over 1 million houses standing empty nationally which could be delivered up for immediate occupation with the correct legislation. There's also hundreds of acres of inner city brown field sites which should be made available for house building. However, developers are in it for the money and houses on the edge of the countryside attract a premium so there is little appetite from them to look at alternatives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muddycoffee Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 People should not object to new houses being built on fields. The country needs thousands of new houses building quickly, because there is nothing like the amount required and housebuilding is at the lowest rate it has been for something like 80 years. Of course we should be also be building on brownfield sites, however that is more complicated and expensive, it takes much longer than building on greenfield sites. If you look at how the sheffield has expanded over the last 200 years there have been several times when rural areas have turned into housing. It is part of the ebb and flow. If we don't get houses built, then the prices will get so expensive on the few available to purchase, that it would take 90 years to pay a mortgage for an average earner (meaning generational house purchase where a grandchild finishes the mortgate of a grandparent). This would put progress back to the 19th century. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.