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


Controversial Development Approved

Tuesday April 29 2014

CONTROVERSIAL plans to build up to 250 houses on greenbelt have now been approved - despite being refused two months ago.

Pipestone Limited resubmitted proposals for a site to the west of Wakefield Road at Staincross which borders Mapplewell.

The original application was refused because of concerns over access from Wakefield Road. An appeal was subsequently lodged by the developer and is still active.

However, at last Tuesday's planning meeting outline consent was given by officials, which decides on whether the scale and nature of the proposed development is acceptable in principle.

Before the decision was made, David Hilton, chairman of the Mapplewell and Staincross Greenspace Action Group, appealed to planning officials to reject the proposals.

He said: "The thing that has changed significantly in our area since the last application was refused is planning has been granted for a development of 200 houses at Lee Lane, Royston, 150 houses at Low Barugh and not to mention up to 400 houses at the former North Gawber pit site - that is 750 new homes and all the developments are within a radius of less than two miles of Mapplewell.

"This has a fundamental impact on the entire infrastructure of the area."

Leave a comment
comments powered by Disqus
19 Showing 19 comments

Reply Posted by john on Tuesday April 29 2014 at 14:21
The whole 'planning' system is a complete joke and abuse of power by unqualified individuals who take the view that since they are unaffected then what the hell. There is to be wholesale destruction of the green fields around Barnsley. I hope in years to come those moronic individuals responsible feel proud of themselves. Its time Barnsley stopped voting for people just because they wave a labour banner and started looking for elected representatives who truly represent and stand up for the interests of the community they are supposed to represent. The odd academic qualification might lend credibility. 750 new homes = over 1000 more cars the roads will have to cope with, 1500 more children to fit into schools, etc etc. I'm repeating what has already been said. Maybe its true.

Reply Posted by karen on Tuesday April 29 2014 at 15:53
John - planning is not about politics - conservative and independents are on planning. You can stand up for the community and speak against it and it won't make the slightest difference - if there is no legal reason to stop it - IT CAN'T BE STOPPED. Landowners can apply for whatever they want to build on their land and very little can be stopped. People don't understand planning at all but are always quick to complain. The Government took away more power from the council and it's almost impossible to stop anything at all.

Reply Posted by Ray on Tuesday April 29 2014 at 16:37
Karen, if it's not about politics then how can your elected councillors sit on the planning board. Roy Miller is a waste of snap. Despite the wishes of the people that live in mapplewell almost unanimously voicing disapproval of the Barnsley development plan which outlined this and the other area for "preferred development"
following this approval and knowingly sitting on the planning board Roy Miller did nothing. The people from BMBC who came up with the development plan do not live here, they have no history here and the probably never visited here but they make the judgements that affect the whole village by basically promising any developer that wishes planning rights on the land.

I notice that the areas of Cawthorne, Hoylandswaine and Silkstone have not had the same amount of land allocated to the proposed development plan, in fact there was uproar in cawthrone over the building of 30 houses. Now tell me planning isn't about politics.

Reply Posted by STEVEO on Tuesday April 29 2014 at 19:21
TOTALLY and utterly agree Ray, Worked with Miller and he is only interested in one thing... HIMSELF!

The Mapplewell / Darton / Barugh areas are already gridlocked most of the time we just don't have the road infrastructure to cope with a thousand houses!
Woolley Grange be a prime example, and that estate STILL isn't finished because the houses still HAVENT been sold!

Reply Posted by karen on Wednesday April 30 2014 at 11:10
I don't know where you get your information Ray - Roy Miller in not on Planning. BMBC do not come up with planning applications, the land owners do. Councillors sit on planning because they have a legal responsibility to do so, however politics do not come into it, because you have to follow all planning rules, and I'll say it again because you ain't listening - you have to have a legal reason to stop a planning application and hardly anything can be stopped.

Reply Posted by Ray on Wednesday April 30 2014 at 11:27
Karen I get it from the council themselves. Check the website. Roy Miller sits on the Cabinet and his responibilities include, Planning development management, housing policy, the local development framework, green corridor. If that's not involved in planning then I don't know what is.

The Local development plan highlighted a number of spaces which I quote "were preferential spaces for development" I.e. planning applications would be more likely to be accepted on these areas.

And with regards to what can be stopped, one of the prime arguments for this particular development is "highway safety" which can be refused and also
"Effect of the development on the character of the neighbourhood." Which I presume is the reason there are not many new developments in the Cawthorne, Hoylandswaine, sikstone and the like.

Reply Posted by sinjon on Tuesday April 29 2014 at 15:35
Makes you think some one is taking bribes, after all money talks, who cares what the people want do it anyway.

Reply Posted by cp on Wednesday April 30 2014 at 12:54
that was my first thought lol. wonder whos wallet is looking fuller from this decision.

Reply Posted by Jumbo on Tuesday April 29 2014 at 16:15
John- it sounds like to me you are a NIMBY pal, this country desperately needs affordable housing not to mention all the jobs it will bring to the area. Get your head out off the sand and wake up and smell the coffee it's a win win situation for a town like Barnsley, I for one want this project and loads more if possible!!!

Reply Posted by sid on Tuesday April 29 2014 at 16:22
I agree with the latter part of johns post. With all the new builds, new schools,doctors and such like will be needed. This does seem to have been overlooked.

Reply Posted by Ray on Tuesday April 29 2014 at 16:27
Jumbo Mapplwell Darton and Staincross have had over 2500 houses built in the last 20 years. enough is enough. There are no plans for new schools, roads, doctors or other infrastructure to support any of these new developments.

I have lived in mapp all my life and chose to stay here when I bought a house. The area is becoming unrecogniseable. I don't have much more to worry about before I choose to move away as this is the last patch of greenbelt in mapplwell anyway so no where else left to build.

Jumbo none of these houses are affordable housing - none of the recent developments have been unlucky. Developers often offer affordable housing in the plans and then pull the plug halfway through. Unlucky.

Reply Posted by STEVEO on Tuesday April 29 2014 at 19:28
I take it you have heard about the 400 odd houses going on the old Darton J&I school, the old school field and the land stretching all the way to the old Woolley Welfare then Ray?

Went past the old school earlier and there were surveyors with their theodolites measuring up, they have also been measuring up in the field behind bloomhouse lane, its only a matter of time before this idiotic council give planning permission for the 400 odd homes on that site, homes that no one in the village let alone Barnsley can afford!

I live in the area and went to the "planning" meeting they had a few years back at the Village Hall (Town Croft) Miller was there but soon buggered off when I cornered him asking questions about the "proposed development!

Whatever next, Houses on the Longfields?

Reply Posted by Collet on Tuesday April 29 2014 at 17:27
It's in your hands to show your dissaproovel vote for anybody in the local elections except Labour,it's a shame but might as well let some new snouts get into the money there's only one voice on the labour, and if they don't do as he says there out how can that be a democracy ?.

Reply Posted by Karen on Wednesday April 30 2014 at 11:32
Collet - it's nothing to do with what party they are in - conservatives and independent are on planning too - there is no politics allowed - there is a legal responsibility to sit on planning if you are asked, and you can speak out on behalf of residents but you won't be able to stop an application unless there is a LEGAL PLANNING REASON to do so, people don't understand planning at all - but if another party was in charge it wouldn't make the slightest difference to planning. (Now it won't post - if it comes up more than once sorry)

Reply Posted by Gaynor on Wednesday April 30 2014 at 12:38
I live in Darton and cannot believe the scale of the proposed development in this area. The infrastructure is not in place to support these developments and never will be due to lack of funding from central government. Public services will fall in to further decline so if you think gridlock roads, long appointment waits to see the doctor and overcrowded schools are bad now then just contemplate what the future will hold. The UK is an overcrowded country; that's the bottom line and until those in power recognise it and take steps to address the long term effects of it (prevention) then we must all accept that the living conditions of this country will decline. Just look to other over populated towns, cities and countries for proof.
I'd just like to add a point about low Barugh - it floods, so who's going to be daft enough to buy one of those houses because it'll be a struggle to get insurance.

Reply Posted by Smee on Thursday May 1 2014 at 19:47
It doth appear that Karen may have some connection within the council, i.e. a Councillor for the Stairfoot ward maybe? She seems to keep banging on about legal reasons and the like, and know who's on what committee.

Reply Posted by karen on Saturday May 3 2014 at 16:07
Hi Smee
Both my parents have been councillors in another area - my Dad still is and he hates planning for just these reasons - you can object all you like but you can't stop anything. It's as simple as that.

Reply Posted by rumplestiltskin on Saturday May 3 2014 at 16:48
What has fired me into "putting pen to paper" is a recent event that has happened to myself.
I made an application to BMBC to build an independent, 2 bedroom single storey dwelling in the rear garden of my home and it was refused as the proposed dwelling was deemed to be "Backland Development" and not in keeping with the area. I subsequently appealed the decision and the appeal was refused.
Numerous of the LARGE homes on Staincross Common have had "Backland Development" applications for much larger homes than my modest 2 bedroomed, single storey APPROVED ................ and I know this for a fact because I worked on them !
Since my initial applications refusal I since submitted a second proposal to BMBC using a Householder Development Form. That has been approved and I am now at the final stages of the development .................... what is it with BMBC ?????

Reply Posted by Dan on Sunday May 4 2014 at 09:19
Well one bit of good news the humps are going and a few pot holes are being filled in is there an election coming