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


Housing Development Land Outlined In New Report

Friday October 25 2013

A HOUSING development for 1,362 homes has been proposed for farm land.

The site, in Bolton upon Dearne, is one of several identified for housing by consultants who have carried out a study on behalf of the council.

Many of the pinpointed sites are in the greenbelt and one particularly large area around Bolton has been proposed for 1,362 homes, running from Bolton train station to Goldthorpe and entirely surrounding the Lowfield Road estate.

Another suggested neighbouring site has deemed land suitable for 42 houses, with no 'bad neighbours' - despite bordering the sewage works.

The report suggests these would 'need screening' but have 'not deterred demand to date'.

Other large suggested sites include:

- Land south of the Broadwater estate and south of Carr Head in Bolton, which could accommodate 613 homes

- West of Deightonby Street in Thurnscoe suitable for 684 homes

- East of Clayton Lane, Thurnscoe, suitable for 367 homes

- The Reema estate and adjoining land off School Street in Thurnscoe suitable for 752 homes.

Other smaller sites include:

- Clayton Lane playing fields suitable for 127 homes

- West of Thurnscoe Bridge and south of Derry Grove suitable for 263 homes

- South of Coniston Drive in Bolton is suitable for 220 homes

- South of Barnburgh Lane is suitable for 206 homes

- North of East Street suitable for 137 homes

- Bolton House Farm suitable for 118 homes.

However, Cllr Roy Miller said the study was only a technical exercise and did not represent council policy. He added the council only intended to build about 20,000 homes across the entire borough between now and 2027, despite the potential for up 40,500 being identified.

Leave a comment
comments powered by Disqus
17 Showing 17 comments

Reply Posted by A Nonnie Mouse on Friday October 25 2013 at 14:58
Only a technical exercise..........
Does not represent Council policy.........
Identify possibility of up to 40,500 housing sites despite only 20,000 being needed....
Proposing to build on GREEN BELT LAND........

At a time of austerity, when the council is looking to save £9 million from next years budget, after putting all council workers on 90 days notice for the sack - Roy Miller and the council spend money on an unnecessary exercise which is a waste of resources and much needed funds. Once again Councillor Miller you have lost the plot and don't know what the residents of Barnsley need or want.

Let me make this perfectly clear to you Councillor Miller - RESIGN, RESIGN, RESIGN. This will save the council stacks of money and may also mean that work that is much needed gets completed in a timely fashion.

May I ask WAB to garner public opinion on the efficiencies of said Councillor and do a story on this - or are you in line with the Council? Every time Councillor Miller opens his mouth, constituents and Barnsley Residents get upset and comment all over your articles, yet you never act upon these.... perhaps today is the day?

Reply Posted by STEVEO on Friday October 25 2013 at 15:53
The figure is 27,000 new homes by 2030, the draft proposals were readily available to people who attended meetings a couple of years back.
Not only are the large majority of these proposed houses to be built on green belt land can BMBC tell us who is actually going to buy these houses that are built?
I cant see many people in Barnsley being able to afford said new houses can you?

Reply Posted by Tom on Friday October 25 2013 at 21:11
Councils were legally required to carry out the SHLAA.

Reply Posted by Peter H on Monday October 28 2013 at 09:10
Well said, come on WAB the gauntlet has been thrown

Reply Posted by A realist on Friday October 25 2013 at 15:18
While agree with what your saying it's not millers fault the government as slashed the budget for this area I doubt him resigning will make much of a difference in this 9 million shortfall do you? And not been racist but I think they should tell a lot of foreigners to do one back to there country and stop been a drain on our generous benefits. Cause there's enough of the English folk that drain it as it is.

Reply Posted by A Nonnie Mouse on Friday October 25 2013 at 19:41

Miller is to blame for the following reasons:
1. He claims one of the highest levels of expenses and is a massive drain on the council funds.
2. He sets plans in place without looking at the final outcome. an example - start roadworks on Wakefield Road without a right of way over Wickes land...said roadworks over-run by 1 year 9 months and still counting!!!
3. When approached over problems with local parking his answer was, 'Good luck - I hope you have a better time and can get it sorted out yourself as I can't get things done....' - simply beggars belief.

It is time there was young fresh blood with realistic opinions and new ideas instead of someone who has looked on this as a job with a salary instead of expenses.

Reply Posted by Phil on Wednesday October 30 2013 at 21:07
Well said "A realist" They will go to Polish, Latvian and scroungers.

Reply Posted by Dead Badger on Friday October 25 2013 at 17:00
Building on green belt goes against a large number of BMBC adopted planning policies - FACT! I looked into it myself! Green belt should not be touched unless all other avenues have been exhausted and there's no other option!!

Barnsley "apparently" is short on employment land and is one of the reasons for opening up green belt land, so it would probably be a good idea not to build houses on existing employment sites??? say - slazengers, van leuwen tubes, Yorkshire traction sites, David brown pumps, hoyland fox umbrellas, snell trucks, polar ford..... I'm sure the list goes on. BMBC will do and say what they want, especially with big housing developers applying pressure to change land usage in their favour!

Reply Posted by Swifty on Friday October 25 2013 at 19:55
Councillor Miller is as popular As a F@rt in a space suit. Every time is name is attached to anything there is chaos connected.

Reply Posted by Tom on Friday October 25 2013 at 22:20
I attending the recent meeting they had. It was mostly council employees, landowners and builders who attended, I was one of the few who did not have an obvious vested interest - although I do have a vested interest when it comes to housing in Barnsley so I shall declare it;
I live in Barnsley in a tiny flat and want to continue to live in Barnsley, but I want to live in a house with a garden, and in due course start a family, work till my sixties/seventies then either die or retire.

Key points I think should be shared from the consultation meeting;

77% of Barnsley is greenbelt.

There are 459 proposed sites for housing. 464 were looked a, but 5 were non starters.

The 459 sites could accommodate 40000 dwellings. 16500 on brownfield land, 24000 on greenbelt.

The average size of a new build house is 88 Sqm in the UK, but just 83 Sqm in Yorkshire.

House sales in Barnsley from 2003-2008 averaged 500 a month.
House sales in Barnsley form 2008-2013 averaged 200 a month.
For Barnsley;
Avg. price = £90k
Avg price detatched = £162k
Avg price semi = £81k
Avg price flat = £73k
Avg price terrace = £52k

The West of Barnsley is the most desirable, wealthy and profitable for building houses.
It has 50% of the land, but just 10% of the population.
The East of Barnsley is poor and not very desirable or profitable for building houses.

Depending on the size of the site, only a proportion will be used for housing (this includes gardens), whilst the other will remain green space.
10 hectares or more = max 60% housing.
2hectares to 10 hectares = max 75% housing.
0.4hectares to 2 hectares = max 90% housing.
Under 0.4ha = 100% housing.

Housing plots will be of varying size depending upon the class of people the housing is to be built for. (The sites will be of varying housing density).

Upper class housing = 15 plots per hectare
Plot size = 666 Sqm = 1/6th of an acre
Middle class housing = 25 ploys per hectare
Plot size = 400 Sqm = 1/10th of an acre
Lower class (Working Class/Commoner) housing = 35 plots per hectare
Plot size = 285 Sqm = 1/14th of an acre

All build costs are estimated at £870 per metre squared.

The cost of the building land varies, and for the most part will determine the cost of the houses.

Some land is £115 000 per hectare.
Some land is £837 000 per hectare.

(Agricultural land after having risen 300% in a few years now sells for a whopping £19 000 per hectare - I am not taking the mick here, that is an expensive sum for agricultural land, the cost of building land is completely ridiculous and down to artificial scarcity).

Profit expected to be made per house after buying land and build at cost of £870 per metre squared is 20%.

I asked a few questions and they were answered.

The proposed plot sizes are proposed with the intention of making the housing in Barnsley bigger and better in order to attract a better class of people to the borough who earn and spend more, as well as retain successful people in the borough.

There will be NO space standards, developers will not be forced to build bigger and better housing, so we could easily end up with tiny houses with big gardens.

There is no provision for new allotments to go with these potential 40 000 dwellings.

New houses will not be subject to HMO bans, they could be quickly turned into flats and bedsits much like the grand properties on Sheffield Rd and in other parts of Barnsley (Which defeats the point of building better housing).

The following is not from the meeting and is my own personal observations;

As you can see, the people who own the land that is granted planning permission benefit the most (they are basically being given some serious chunks of 'free' money), banks granting mortgages next, then the builder who makes 20% profit.

(If us working class save money in the building society we are very lucky to make 1%, whilst inflation vastly exceeds the return on OUR investment capital. Ironically the building society does not build, it merely grants mortgages, gets our fellow people into debt and pushes house prices up to the detriment of us all, but to the benefit of a few large land and property holders.)

If a 3bed semi council house is 80 Sqm, it would cost some £70400 to build assuming £870 per Sqm build cost (can actually be built for much less currently).

Land cost with planning permission will vary from some £3000 to £20000+ per working class plot depending upon location.
Although agricultural land of this size is just £550.

If you buy with a mortgage over 25 years, you effectively pay double.

So were looking at houses for the working class costing 90k to 110k+.
That you will pay £180k to £220k+ for with a mortgage.

Assuming you have a salary of some £30k, and job security for 25 years, then it would be somewhat rational to buy a £90k 3bed working class new build. Providing you do not want children and live long term with a partner, it might make sense if the both of you have a joint income of £30k and you plan on living in Barnsley for a long time, however, if you don't plan on having children, I fail to see the point in settling down. You might as well rent a bedsit, save hard, retire early and travel.

When it comes to the greenbelt;

In 1979 there was 721,500 hectares of greenbelt in the UK.
Today there is 1,639,410 hectares. The damn thing is taking over.

If we got rid of 50% of the greenbelt, there would still be 819,710 hectares of greenbelt. In other words, if we got rid of half of it, there would still be nearly 100,000 extra hectares of greenbelt than there was in '79.

I'd personally like to see much more land freed up for housing to force the cost of land with planning permission down, I would like to see this land made available to people living in the borough so they can build their own housing, instead of large companies building 'slave boxes'.

Taking into account borough demographics (top heavy population with ore old than young and a sub replacement birth rate), the most sensible thing to do, might be to just bide your time and wait for the death rate to exceed the birth rate (with a 25 year lag), so that property supply exceeds demand, which should lead to falling prices for a 25 year plus period taking into account the sub replacement birth rate.

However this assumes 0 NET migration, and what with government pursuing a policy of immigration, and in areas where immigration cannot be encouraged, the government pursues a policy of compulsory purchase and demolition to force house prices up and keep them unaffordable (if house prices fall, the banks go bust).

So taking that into account, it might be best to prepare to emigrate to pastures new, with better prospects for you and your family, somewhere where housing is affordable, jobs plentiful and where banking is heavily regulated. Or somewhere with the potential for jobs and housing, that does not restrict house building and allows for alternate currency or regulates it's banking sector.

Reply Posted by Purple Haze on Saturday October 26 2013 at 13:06
Tom I have read through your comments very carefully. Some are informative, most are biased towards your own personal views.
I agree that there is a lot of greenbelt. I am glad and would like to keep it that way.
Within the poor eastern part of Barnsley, which has the worst housing, most overcrowding and loads of social housing and council estates and is often called a dump, there are many empty properties and very cheap properties for sale. We do not need either more social housing here or cheap properties. Yet this is the part of Barnsley that looks like it is going to get swamped.
Meanwhile in the west property is bigger, more exclusive, more expensive, has better views and is more in demand. Yet very few properties will be built there. Why? Obvious - dump all the crappy new builds and social housing to the east and keep the west for the people with money or status. It stinks.
Immigration is not an issue here and whilst there are few jobs there are plenty of cheap housing and social housing. If HS2 does get build be prepared for that to change. However at the moment the demand is just not there and therefore the selling off of greenbelt is as usual bad planning from Barnsley council and no doubt an easy way to fill the coffers.

Reply Posted by Paul on Sunday October 27 2013 at 00:08
Building houses is great, but who for ,, are we getting an influx of workers , fetching there own jobs , schools ,doctors etc..
We can't build are way out of recession
We tried that , so did half of Europe it doesn't work...we are in the red , skint ,
Other things need building first...

Reply Posted by STEVEO on Monday October 28 2013 at 10:12
Yup correct, same goes for HS2 will stimulate the economy for the years whilst it is being built but we will still be left with an £80 billion pound bill and the workers constructing it will still end up on the dole after.

Same old Tories and their short term, hair brained schemes to stimulate the economy for a couple of years exactly the same as selling council houses off!

Reply Posted by mindlessly_disgruntled on Monday October 28 2013 at 15:46

Reply Posted by flash on Monday October 28 2013 at 20:08
so another good idea to cut binmens jobs by 9 and take 3 wagons off make them work with no room for error THEN build another 40000 houses what do you think they are magicians then theres the consultant behind it all whos years wage would take a binman 8 and a half years to earn

Reply Posted by sid on Monday October 28 2013 at 20:11
Hey flash, really good point.

Reply Posted by observer on Wednesday October 30 2013 at 21:16
a. realist. you hit the nail on the head. anonnie mouse. get a grip. the minute anyone has to say anything about the Europeans its racism. that's what these people say whenchallenged on anything.."is it bcos im polish" they say. and ppl tend to shy away from that. WHY???.. you know damn well most ofthese houses will be built for them bcos we know they are coming and theres no where for them to come??? it doesn't take much to weigh that one up.!!!

ipso Regulated