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

News


School plan revealed in housing proposal

Friday January 22 2016


building house bricks building house bricks


A DEVELOPER who wants to build a new housing estate in Cudworth has been told they must agree to pay almost £1 million to the council to offer extra primary school places.

Barratt Homes wants to build 278 homes on land off Summerdale Drive and Carrs Lane with a central area of public open space.

The proposal has promoted 38 letters of objection from residents and wil be considered by the council's planning board next week.
A report said: "The development raises issues with regards to the availability of primary school places.

"Therefore a commuted sum of £925,000 would be required to fund the potential expansion of either Birkwood, Churchfield and Cherry Dale Primary school."

Leave a comment
comments powered by Disqus
7 Showing 7 comments

Reply Posted by David Wood on Monday January 25 2016 at 20:14
Why 1 million, should ask for 2 milion

Reply Posted by Steven James on Thursday January 28 2016 at 08:28
Small price to pay - £925,000 when you factor in the cost per house at a basic price of £100,000 per "unit" x 278 = a MASSIVE PROFIT for the developer.

The figure of £925,000 V's Profit V's school extension V's new teacher salaries simply doesn't add up and is not sustainable as eventually the taxpayer will have to foot the bill for teacher salaries but yet the developer will walk away with £20 MILLION + in profit!

BMBC really LOVE developer "kickbacks" but on this occasion they have certainly got their sums WRONG (Surprise surprise), its a case of simple arithmetic but a we all know BMBC cant add up for toffee and that is why they have never been able to successfully manage the books for decades.

Reply Posted by annoyed on Monday January 25 2016 at 20:19
So basically the council wants to extend a school and sees an opportunity to avoid paying for it themselves. This article mentions nothing about WHY the 38 residents complained, they could have complained about the homes just being there and nothing to do with the amount of places at a school. How many times around Barnsley have housing estates been knocked up with no consideration to school places, huge housing estate at bottom of monk Bretton, massive estates built in Grimethorpe, kendray and Brierley to name a few. None of these ever needed a school extending.

Reply Posted by Dave on Monday January 25 2016 at 21:38
Annoyed do you not understand that if the council do not charge the developer for extra spaces to be added at a school in the area then it will be the council tax payer that foots extra spaces as for new house been built in the area good ...its call progress what would you rather happen everyone live in caves

Reply Posted by Steve32fdc on Monday January 25 2016 at 22:34
Point 1. The developer should be required to provide financial assistance from their profits to assist the local community.
Point 2. Buyer beware! HST 2 will run right past your doorstep!

Reply Posted by Oreytcock on Tuesday January 26 2016 at 09:00
it sounds like legalised corruption to me, it's just the councils way of grabbing some of the profit before it goes to the government in tax. They will no doubt already be obliged to build a certain amount of "affordable housing" on the development.

Reply Posted by Cudworth Unites on Wednesday January 27 2016 at 21:30
The development will mean local primary schools will have to provide places for 60 - 70 new pupils and they are already oversubscribed. Every large development has to 'give back to the community'.
The objections were because of concerns over road safety, given that Carrs Lane is expected to see an increase of over 400 vehicles a day alone. There are protected species on the land that they want to build on. Both Newland Avenue and Carrs Lane are susceptible to flooding and taking away the run off that the field provides will exacerbate this. Schools, dentists and GP services are already struggling in the area. Over 1000 people signed the petition against this when it was first proposed. The developer has been economical with the truth when providing reports and surveys with their application, for example referring to a post office being 600 metres away when it closed in 2013, saying the houses will be close to a bus route that stopped running last summer, not providing an accurate traffic survey, This is why the planning application was deferred for 6 months



ipso Regulated