Upload a photo Upload a video Upload an mp3 Upload an event

News


Planning Permission Granted For 163-Home Development

Friday July 25 2014




PLANNING permission has been granted for a major housing estate on a former school site in Barnsley.

A mixture of 163 two, three, and four-bedroom houses will go on the site of Kingstone School at Broadway. 

The school closed in 2012 and merged with Holgate to form Horizon Community College.

Councillors voted unanimously in favour of the plans - despite several objections from residents in Broomfield Close and Horsewood Close concerned about overlooking and loss of privacy.

Alistair Flatman, from developer Taylor Wimpey, said there was a minimum of 26 metres separating the existing and proposed properties, way above the standard 21 metres.

The developer will provide almost £294,000 towards the cost of providing green space off-site, and £150,000 towards the refurbishment or expansion of local primary schools, with the education department yet to determine which.

Access to and from the site once complete will be via a new traffic light-controlled junction onto Broadway.

Leave a comment
comments powered by Disqus
56 Showing 56 comments

Reply Posted by Lee on Friday July 25 2014 at 11:11
I went to that school and it was sad to see it go :( I some good memory there (Kingstone )

Reply Posted by Adele robinson on Friday July 25 2014 at 11:29
I also went to that school when it was charter! Hated every minute of it. Glad to see it pulled down and put to better use.

Reply Posted by sarah on Friday July 25 2014 at 14:00
I went to kingstone and loved it. Agree Lee sad day when it went. I also thought they were putting the fire station there instead.

Reply Posted by STEVEO on Friday July 25 2014 at 15:41
that's A SURPRISE INNIT?

BMBC will let anyone build anywhere as long as they can get the developer to pay a "bribe" in return for permission to build.

Loss of green space and loss of privacy obviously doesn't mean anything to BMBC.

Reply Posted by mr twixxy on Friday July 25 2014 at 16:35
steveo, there is a massive cheap housing crisis going on within the borough, if you are okay with people living on people's settees then fair enough, but we need these houses, they could have easily built them on a park, but instead they are using spare land. Stop moaning about privacy, put net curtains up, that's what most people would do. and previously it was a school so in the simplest term there is no loss of green land, they are re using scrubland that is just going to waste.

Reply Posted by guy fawkes on Friday July 25 2014 at 20:53
Twixxy blame the people who only thought of themselves and bought up the social housing crisis they thought of themselves and forgot about the next generation also the revenue the council lost through no rent coming in probably accounts for a lot of what we see today.

Reply Posted by STEVEO on Friday July 25 2014 at 17:33
"Massive cheap housing crisis" If English isn't your first language then you are forgiven.

The majority of my post wasn't actually aimed at the proposed development of the former Kingstone school but your beloved BMBC who will let anyone build anywhere on green belt land as long as they get their "bribe".

Judging by your post it is evidently clear you have no idea that your beloved BMBC plan to pave over vast swathes of green belt land.

Tell me will you be buying one of these houses?
Or will you be expecting one for free?

Just exactly why do "we need these houses" too?

Go on then maestro I'm intrigued!

As for your "people living on peoples settees comments" each to their own I suppose but I have never lived on anyone's settees I usually sit on mine for a few hours a day after work but haven't really lived or slept on it.

I wouldn't advocate living on someone's settee either not exactly a lifestyle choice is it?

As for cheap housing, you can pick one up in Grimethorpe for less than a brand new Vauxhall Astra these days.

"stop moaning about privacy" Hmm "an englishmans home is his castle" is it not?
I am fiercely protective of my privacy and will go to any lengths to ensure that any Tom, dick or Harry doesn't invade it.

Agin, if you had the intellectual capacity to read and digest the subject matter in my post then you would realise that "invasion of privacy" was yet another dig at the council and the fact that the residents of Broomfield Close and Horsewood Close also complained about said loss of privacy.

As for net curtains, thanks but no thanks they are outdated and horrible and usually adorned by council house tenants.

Reply Posted by guy fawkes on Friday July 25 2014 at 20:44
Steveo your post are staring to turn nastier,I live in social housing and can assure you I have no net curtains .please always put life and property into perspective its bricks and mortar you never really own anything your born with nothing you die with nothing all house owners are doing is ensuring they get a better quality nursing home .you can't own a piece of the earth the land belongs to no person.you rent a grave yard plot for 99 years after that its someone else's I suppose you could view it as a form of recycling.

Reply Posted by STEVEO on Saturday July 26 2014 at 10:27
Guy, you post regularly on this forum so should know that most of my posts are tongue in cheek.
Nothing wrong with living in social housing either, a large majority of my family live in SH (Most of them are lazy and workshy and have multiple children) NOT meant to "tar everyone in SH with the same brush" but this is definitely applicable as far as my family is concerned.

As for the net curtains comment, again tongue in cheek, however, I know of at least two family members that live in SH housing that have nets...

As for bricks and mortar, very well put I have just paid my mortgage off as it happens 6 years early to be precise, grafting every hour god sends to ensure this millstone isn't around my neck.

Have you seen the cost of nursing homes these days?

If I did have to sell my home to fund my nursing home then I reckon i'd only be able to manage a couple of years in there due to the exorbitant fees that they charge.

Here's hoping that when the grim reaper does come then he is swift and merciless.

Reply Posted by sharonbeeeee on Friday July 25 2014 at 21:19
Doesn't matter who builds what where, how expensive it is, how cheap it is, there will always be those who moan.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, this is a country of free speech. Healthy debate is good but let's not be nasty with each other

Reply Posted by STEVEO on Saturday July 26 2014 at 10:37
I CONCUR!

Reply Posted by Ray on Saturday July 26 2014 at 00:12
Barnsley will lose the only thing that bmbc has not managed to mess up thus far in a couple of years, it's identity. Green belt is open for development. Never mind all those people who moved into semi rural areas and paid a premium for it. With these new developments other people will lose out without a say. The planning department at the council is populated by jumped up little sh1ts who are neither from the area or know what they are doing. They care not for the feelings of the residents. Pave paradise and put up a parking lot.

Reply Posted by STEVEO on Saturday July 26 2014 at 10:36
The thing that really riles people Ray is, not only the losing of green belt land its the way that BMBC give little consultations to the residents of the areas where the vastly inflated lego houses are going to be built on.

The other thing is that Brnsley is just going to become another "commuter" town whereby people from outside the area move in to Barnsley to to take advantage of the lower house prices but then commute back t Leeds / Sheffield etc.

BMBC have to endure massive cuts on services by the Con Dem government and the only way that the council can recoup more money is by building on Green Belt land, again, they are actively encouraged by the Tories to do so.
That's why the Tories altered planning law to make it easier for councils up and down the country to do this.

In my area we have had nigh on a thousand houses built over the last twenty years or so and enough is enough, our schools, doctors and roads infrastructure simply cannot cope with anymore.
BMBC ARENT interested in the feelings of the residents whose villages and green belt are destroyed by these new developments, they are interested in one thing and one thing only:

MONEY.

Reply Posted by rosie and jim on Saturday July 26 2014 at 18:44
Can we get the canals back that would help regenerate Barnsley.

Reply Posted by Andy on Sunday July 27 2014 at 02:42
Got to agree with Steveo you have got it all bang to rights I say social housing runs community down devalues the area for those who believe Britain owes them the right for benifits and to move into so called affordable housing take a look at mavers houses sold for £199.000 plus year ago now 170.000 for sale coz of affordable housing . So your so right Steveo and and believe Everyman should put a penny in before you can take out

Reply Posted by Paul on Sunday July 27 2014 at 11:56
Stop bloody winging we need houses end of! You want green belt **** of down south

Reply Posted by Ray on Sunday July 27 2014 at 18:01
Where do you get your facts that we need houses? We're 23,000 short on jobs in the area, we have business developments that sit empty. As steveo rightly said the short sitedness of our inept council is the reason for the development and making it easy to get plans through on greenbelt as opposed to developing brownfield sites which are more expensive all to get more council tax through the books because they can't balance them with business rates, due to our poor offer to businesses despite the fact we live right in the middle of the country.

Barnsley has always been and should remain semi rural. It's part of the charm for those that actually buy their houses here and have to work elsewhere due to lack of jobs, we still fund the bungling idiots at the ivory towers of Barnsley who are supposed to act on our behalf, we pay our taxes and expect so little. But it seems we can't even keep our homes and villages as we found them because that's not what greedy out of town developers want. We're getting slowly eroded away. I wonder when Cawthorne and Swaine will get their first 300 house development? Not in my lifetime I reckon.

Reply Posted by 4ft11andshrinking on Sunday July 27 2014 at 12:28
There seems to be a problem with some people who want to live in a house, have children, and have a really good standard of living. All at the expense of the tax payer.......it's simply not fair! And yes, I am a tax payer!

Reply Posted by del boy. on Sunday July 27 2014 at 21:15
Pack it in only fools and horses work

Reply Posted by Igor on Monday July 28 2014 at 07:50
I got free house my family very happy we need more houses for people who can come and get house free

Reply Posted by Mr twixxy on Monday July 28 2014 at 13:22
Look steveo, we need houses or flats, but how many people want to live in a flat, no garden to do gardening in, no little safe haven for the little ones to play in. houses are needed, now most people on here work, but cannot afford the rents by these private landlords, I for one know of a landlord who is renting his house out, not much bigger than mine for 650 a months, now nobody working a minimum wage job, working from 9 till 5 can afford that. I for one would struggle to keep the house at that price, never mind any of the bills that comes with it. Yes I know that they are building a greenbelt land, but half of it is scrub land e.g. that land that use to hold old darton primary school on is being developed for housing. But if you want to keep the greenbelt land as is then we have one other alternative, build on parks. yes there two up windhill that can be built on.one down mapplewell. one in darton, one in kexborough. one in woolley. one in redbrook. all them can be used for housing, sod the children, because steveo doesn't want houses built on scrub land.

Reply Posted by STEVEO on Monday July 28 2014 at 19:33
Just as I expected, absolute crap!
Again, read my previous posts, thoroughly digest them and come back with a dazzling retort instead of your "build on parks" garbage!

Again, and just for your benefit, the "proposed" development on the former school site - I didn't actually object to that particular portion of the "proposals" , if you cared to read my posts thoroughly then you would have seen that the main thing(s) I object to are as follows:
Building on the former school field: (IS THIS NOT GREEN BELT THEN?)
Putting in a "link road" from the corner of Sackup running up to Bloomhouse:
Building on the land which stretches from the rear of Sackup / Bloomhouse all the way across to Woolley Colliery Road:

Yes I am more than happy if they build on the actual former school footprint, the field behind is and has ALWAYS been green belt for nearly 100 years and should remain just that.

There is another BROWNFIELD site LESS than HALF A MILE AWAY WHICH WOULD BE FAR BETTER SUITED TO DEVELOP.

You also sound like a sad individual, yes I agree it is difficult getting on the housing ladder but NOT IMPOSSIBLE.
If you aren't happy earning a pittance on the minimum wage then do something about it, get an education and better yourself and your prospects and most certainly DONT come on here talking rubbish about building on parks.

Dear oh dear oh dear

Reply Posted by Miss.N on Monday July 28 2014 at 14:43
Why is everyone so against this? Getting rid of green land? NOT IN THIS CASE. They are building on empty, derelict land! Houses ARE needed. And to those saying social housing brings the area down, crawl out of your arse. Let us hope you never get to the stage where you need help.

Reply Posted by STEVEO on Monday July 28 2014 at 19:36
There is a minute portion of scrub land on the footprint of the former school, the rest is green belt, do your homework before talking sh*te on here.

Reply Posted by Red Optimist on Monday July 28 2014 at 14:56
Social housing does bring the area down. There is no doubt about that.

Reply Posted by guy fawkes on Monday July 28 2014 at 17:12
Are you blind Barnsley was built on social housing.the problem now is the mindless attitude of those who thought buy me council house thanks Maggie .now we don't have enough social housing hence more needs to be built.work this sum out 6,000 council houses paying around 70.00 a week rent gone because selfish folk didn't think about the next generation housing wise or the now huge hole Barnsley has in its finances.

Reply Posted by STEVEO on Monday July 28 2014 at 19:52
Totally agree with you on that one guy....
The building of Social housing in Barnsley was accelerated after the second world war to ensure there were homes fit for heroes and we now have one of the largest estates in Europe (Athersley / New Lodge) ....

With regard to the Tory "right to buy!" scheme, good on paper and a fantastic opportunity for people that have raised families in social housing to buy "their" home, but yet another near sighted "ploy" by the Tories to artificially stimulate the economy, yet another failed Tory plan.

A THIRD of ex-council homes sold in the 1980s under Margaret Thatcher are now owned by private landlords.
Ian Gow, the multi-millionaire son of a Tory minister who presided over the controversial “right-to -buy” scheme is a buy-to-let landlord owning scores of former council flats.

Same old Tory Sh*te, let your rich chums become even richer!

I could go on bur really cant be arsed.




Reply Posted by guy fawkes on Monday July 28 2014 at 22:03
Steveo the southerners were the winners in this one council flat in Fulham or a council flat in Barnsley,let me thinketh we were blinded by a measley bit of profit don't forget if you had lived in your council house for quite some time you'd already bought it with the rent,then you went and bought it a second time.

Reply Posted by guy fawkes on Monday July 28 2014 at 22:03
Steveo the southerners were the winners in this one council flat in Fulham or a council flat in Barnsley,let me thinketh we were blinded by a measley bit of profit don't forget if you had lived in your council house for quite some time you'd already bought it with the rent,then you went and bought it a second time.

Reply Posted by STEVEO on Tuesday July 29 2014 at 09:01
Correct guy.
They sold a lot of London Property to their Tory chums you see..
Article in the newspaper a month or so back about a former council estate in Hoxton whose owner was a Tory benefactor now wants to evict people on housing benefits and replace them with tenants from Eastern Europe as benefits have gone down and rents have gone up.
He also says that Eastern Europeans are less likely to default on their rents.

Dear oh Dear...

Reply Posted by Brian on Tuesday July 29 2014 at 19:17
Yep. Just what you would do if you were a landlord and I would not blame you.

Reply Posted by guy fawkes on Thursday July 31 2014 at 09:30
What a pathetic specimen you are Brian as proved by your comment,you will be slagging people of on benefits next the same people the government pays to keep the fat cat landlords fatter.

Reply Posted by Brian on Thursday July 31 2014 at 11:47
I have never 'slagged' people off who are on benefits, although I suspect that there is significant abuse of those benefits which we, the state, pay out.

I see nothing wrong with being a landlord. You save your money, invest it in property and rent it out. Nothing wrong with that.

Reply Posted by pissed of with Steveo comments on Monday July 28 2014 at 22:58
Who do u think u r steveo ???!!!! Making everyone who lives in social housing sum!!! And don't work!!!! I live in a council house i cannot afford to buy mine home and my husband works his butt of to keep a roof over our heads 60 hrs a wk he only gets to see our lil one a couple hrs on a night and no we don't have net curtains either. Let them build social housing for these what work hard but carnt afford to buy. And for the comment on social housing pulls the area down is ur bloody house a palace.

Reply Posted by len on Monday July 28 2014 at 23:06
should get a better job or better still education? your fault if you cant afford to live , only yourself to blame.. life is what you make of it, that's why I live in a big house and nice car, holidays and plenty of money, scum you are?

Reply Posted by Jim on Monday July 28 2014 at 23:12
Here here len - Social housing gets all the bottom end of the ladder in them, dirty scruffs who bring the area down.. FACT

Reply Posted by STEVEO on Tuesday July 29 2014 at 08:52
Where does it say on any of my posts that I refer to anyone in social housing scum?
Again, and I am sick of posting this but - Read my comments , digest them and come back with a valid reply.
Why is there a shortage of social housing?
Again I replied further up the page about near sighted Tory policy.
Why cant people afford houses?
I cant possible see how anyone on a low or minimum wage would ever be able to get on the housing ladder.
If you posted on here or read my comments on a regular basis then you would see that I am always ranting about the MW being far too low in its current form and needs to be £10 an hour.

As for the comment about my family , yes they are all scum, the large majority of which have never done a days work in their lives and think that popping out kids is an Olympic sport, more kids, more benefits you so.
Or as they call it bens....

You would have also seen my "not to tar anyone with the same brush" comment, but this is definitely applicable to my family.

Read it again before jumping to idiotic conclusions about me and my posts please.

Reply Posted by sarah on Tuesday July 29 2014 at 09:42
At the end of the day when they do build these houses it wont be folk from Barnsley who buy them. I live opposite an estate and the majority of people who bought are from Leeds a few Southeners and very few from the local area. There are plans going in for a new supermarket (not sainsburys) and up to 30 new builds on a tiny piece of land some of these will have to be handed over to social housing and the others over priced. The developers dont care who buys them they dont get the contracts on condition they sell to locals so us having a debate about Barnsleys housing shortage is irrelevant when it comes to new housing,In my humble opinion new estates should be built by the council in the area and not be allowed to sell them on for any cost.

Reply Posted by STEVEO on Tuesday July 29 2014 at 10:45
Spot on Sarah.
Just look at the Woolley Grange estate, I know of only two "local" people who live up there and one of them is a kid I went to school with and my cousin.
Before rosie pipes up, I spend a lot of time up at WG at my cousins and my mate who I went to school with, all their neighbours are either from Leeds or other cities who commute back to their places of work outside town.

Reply Posted by Red Optimist on Tuesday July 29 2014 at 19:20
If the council were to build houses you would not be able to afford to buy one as they are so inefficient in their working that they would cost a fortune to build and buy.

Reply Posted by sarah on Tuesday July 29 2014 at 11:24
Im up near the aldi depot Steveo so you can imagine the new houses werent exactly built for the local population. The few locals that do live there have good jobs mostly out of the area so its basically just a commuter estate like this one will be.

Reply Posted by Hoyland Red on Tuesday July 29 2014 at 12:38
So what you're saying Sarah is that you'd like to restrict freedom of choice and freedom of movement? Live and work in the town you were born. Welcome to the 1970's.

Reply Posted by STEVEO on Tuesday July 29 2014 at 15:50
Lets be brutally honest here a very large percentage of "new" homes built in our borough go to "commuters" who commute back to their place of work in the surrounding towns and cities.
Again, Barnsley will eventually become a "commuter" town and people outside the area will take advantage of the cheaper house prices.
Do "these kind of people" actually bring anything to the economy of Barnsley?
Apart from Council Tax naturally.

Reply Posted by hoyland red on Tuesday July 29 2014 at 16:07
What is this 'very large %' exactly? Or are we just guessing? Do these people go back to their place of birth for their weekly shopping, petrol, banking etc etc. Aspirations, some people don't appear to have any.

Reply Posted by Red Optimist on Tuesday July 29 2014 at 19:22
They only work in Leeds and other places because there are not enough decent jobs in Barnsley.

Reply Posted by STEVEO on Wednesday July 30 2014 at 06:34
All boils down to money HR dunnit?
My partner works in Huddersfield and commutes every day an equivalent job here in town is £5k a year less.
JFTR she fills her car up en route and does the weekly shop on her way back.

See my comments about WG for percentages.

Reply Posted by hoyland red on Wednesday July 30 2014 at 10:53
Ultimately yes, I will only buy something that I know i can afford. I too worked in Huddersfield for a long time but filled up at the weekend locally, when there wasn't the work rush on but each to their own. My pay was exactly the same in Barnsley as it was in Huddersfield, but it was all about using posts elsewhere to gain experience and progress. Ultimately the cost of commuting both in terms of money and my travel time influenced my choice of where to work.
JFTR isn't WG in Wakefield making those 2 you know 'incomers'? I wonder if Wakefield residents are comfortable with that?

Reply Posted by STEVEO on Wednesday July 30 2014 at 13:20
Incomers - Yes and no, cousin lived In Woolley (top row) which at one time was in Wakefield and now she has moved onto WG which is in WF.
Hahahahha

Reply Posted by Roy miller on Tuesday July 29 2014 at 15:46
Whats the fuss all about? There was two schools built on this land before they knocked them down.

So whats the difference having houses on there? They should rip the houses down on woodland drive, etc, etc, they are a real eyesore.

Reply Posted by sarah on Tuesday July 29 2014 at 16:32
I dont remember me saying anything about restricting anything.

Reply Posted by Hilary on Tuesday July 29 2014 at 20:01
What a lot of people are forgetting. Loads of Barnsley folk born and bred work away from Barnsley, me for one work in Leeds, sadly no money jobs in Barnsley,

Reply Posted by sarah on Tuesday July 29 2014 at 16:37
I have also said on numerous occasions I would not want my children to stay in this area so how am I restricting anything. As for shopping in the local area would you like to shop in good old Goldthorpe everyday when you can stop off on your way home from work elsewhere.

Reply Posted by sarah on Tuesday July 29 2014 at 16:39
stop off elsewhere on your way home from work thats supposed to translate as.

Reply Posted by hoyland red on Tuesday July 29 2014 at 19:04
What you appear to be suggesting is that you disapprove of people from Leeds, the south etc from buying new houses in Goldthorpe and that new houses should be built by the council and only given over to those living in the borough. Private enterprise is not high on your agenda then? If there are no new houses built offered to the general public we become exactly what we are known for outside this borough - insular. Think of it as mixing the gene pool.

Reply Posted by sarah on Tuesday July 29 2014 at 21:49
I give in with some of you everyone is entitled to their own opinions even if the whole world of barnsley doesnt agree. I have no problem with anyone living anywhere if my children want to live in barnsley which i hope they wont, i want then to be able to afford their own house that is all.

Reply Posted by dedatodd on Wednesday July 30 2014 at 08:00
I had a good job in Barnsley, then the government (2005) decided to move our entire office to Leeds (15+ people), these where highly skilled jobs. I now live in Barnsley but work all over the country, not what I want to do but what I have to do.
I see no issue with 'outsiders' (please note quotes) buying properties in the Barnsley area, what I find unpalatable is that many of these new homes are un affordable to the majority, there are fewer (if any) social houses being built.