Residents worried about losing well-used green space

First published in News

CAMPAIGNERS are protesting about proposals to build homes on a field they say is popular with dog walkers and children.

Great Places Housing Group has submitted plans to build the houses on the land between Waggon Road, Winchester Way and Mobberley Road in Breightmet.

The group says the twohectare field is “infrequently used” and socially rented homes are needed.

But campaigner and Winchester Way resident Beverley Roscoe said building on the land would destroy a well-utilised green space.

She also claims it would overcrowd the area and cause road congestion.

Ms Roscoe, aged 53, who has lived next to the field for 30 years, wants to make her neighbours aware of the plans.

Ms Roscoe attended a public consultation event in Red Lane Primary School, but thinks many residents did not know it was taking place.

She said: “I have lived here 30 years and I love that field. I take my dogs in that field every day. Building on it would be taking away one of the places where kids can go and play.”

She added: “There is a lot of wildlife there and every now and again you see deer from Seven Acres country park. Also, our street can’t take any more traffic.”

The plans include 70 car parking spaces and an access road to serve 20 twobedroom homes and 30 three-bedroom homes.

In the planning documents, Great Places says 50 per cent of the homes would be available for local people.

The company added: “It has been proven there is a tremendous shortfall of affordable housing within Bolton.

“The development site is currently underutilised and has the potential to continue to serve the local community beyond passive, infrequent recreation.”

Chief executive Stephen Porter said: “We have been working with Bolton Council for more than a year on these plans to help deliver much-needed homes to rent for local people.

“We have been in regular contact with council officials to make sure the proposals meet the necessary planning guidelines and we have also held a public consultation event for local people to give us their views as part of the planning process.”

Comments (14)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:55am Sun 6 Jan 13

Rocket_Scientist says...

Chief executive Stephen Porter said: “We have been working with Bolton Council for more than a year on these plans to help deliver much-needed homes to rent for local people. What he really means is individuals have been paid off to make sure these plans go through and are given the green light.
Chief executive Stephen Porter said: “We have been working with Bolton Council for more than a year on these plans to help deliver much-needed homes to rent for local people. What he really means is individuals have been paid off to make sure these plans go through and are given the green light. Rocket_Scientist
  • Score: 0

4:20pm Sun 6 Jan 13

Think About This! says...

Great Places says 50 per cent of the homes would be available for local people.

50% ???

Who will the other 50% go to?

Let me guess "overseas visitors"
Great Places says 50 per cent of the homes would be available for local people. 50% ??? Who will the other 50% go to? Let me guess "overseas visitors" Think About This!
  • Score: 0

5:12pm Sun 6 Jan 13

Beyond News Forum says...

Think About This! wrote:
Great Places says 50 per cent of the homes would be available for local people.

50% ???

Who will the other 50% go to?

Let me guess "overseas visitors"
Well, this is just a speculative thought but inviting new residents from out of town for employment purposes may be a good idea as long as they are bring jobs with them.

Now having said that, we do have a lot of green belt land that is just used as a dog toilet. Maybe those who are moaning about the issue could clean up after their pets, because right now my mindset is 'one less dog toilet!'

Now to all those who are avidly against building on green belt land I do hold a little sympathy with you just because we have so many areas and buildings with associated land that need demolishing and starting again with. But having said that, in a day and age were Bolton does have an increasing population with a need for housing, where do you suggest we start?

The 'not in my back yard' people have to allow for new investment into Bolton if Bolton is to thrive again. We need to use land to help fight the energy companies and their price increases, we need to stop the rot that is urban and suburban decay. So what do you suggest? You can't have it both ways.

Especially those who are supposedly on the side of environmental issues, why are you so against clean renewables such as wind farms? You can't have it both ways... oh please don't start with the old hat wind farms are unsightly, they are expensive blots on the landscape. They are expensive because the energy companies are creating the conditions for these things to be expensive because they have the current monopoly which includes price fixing and profit.

As for paying off people... I would be the first to condemn the actions of council policy for erroneous financial matters, but planning and development along with architecture does cost money. I would be of course against in-house money making via a council members own business venture. But in this case it is not.

No it is a fact that Bolton is going to HAVE to start developing in greener areas. If this includes more carbon neutral housing then I am all for it.
[quote][p][bold]Think About This![/bold] wrote: Great Places says 50 per cent of the homes would be available for local people. 50% ??? Who will the other 50% go to? Let me guess "overseas visitors"[/p][/quote]Well, this is just a speculative thought but inviting new residents from out of town for employment purposes may be a good idea as long as they are bring jobs with them. Now having said that, we do have a lot of green belt land that is just used as a dog toilet. Maybe those who are moaning about the issue could clean up after their pets, because right now my mindset is 'one less dog toilet!' Now to all those who are avidly against building on green belt land I do hold a little sympathy with you just because we have so many areas and buildings with associated land that need demolishing and starting again with. But having said that, in a day and age were Bolton does have an increasing population with a need for housing, where do you suggest we start? The 'not in my back yard' people have to allow for new investment into Bolton if Bolton is to thrive again. We need to use land to help fight the energy companies and their price increases, we need to stop the rot that is urban and suburban decay. So what do you suggest? You can't have it both ways. Especially those who are supposedly on the side of environmental issues, why are you so against clean renewables such as wind farms? You can't have it both ways... oh please don't start with the old hat wind farms are unsightly, they are expensive blots on the landscape. They are expensive because the energy companies are creating the conditions for these things to be expensive because they have the current monopoly which includes price fixing and profit. As for paying off people... I would be the first to condemn the actions of council policy for erroneous financial matters, but planning and development along with architecture does cost money. I would be of course against in-house money making via a council members own business venture. But in this case it is not. No it is a fact that Bolton is going to HAVE to start developing in greener areas. If this includes more carbon neutral housing then I am all for it. Beyond News Forum
  • Score: 0

9:25pm Sun 6 Jan 13

Badwolf2006 says...

I have alot of sympathy for Mrs Roscoe and the other residents who wish to protect this valued green open space.

You can make this application very difficult to be accepted if you know how.

Firstly, you need the support of ALL your neighbours on the surrounding streets. Get them to sign a petition against the plans.

Secondly, contact your local councillors AND local MP and ask them to support your campaign.

Next, ask your local conucillor to request the Planning committee visit the site prior to committee meeting.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, send a letter to everyone on the planning committee with your concerns.

Ask them how does this developer propose to compensate for the loss of green open space? Mention UDP policy O2. They are not replacing the lost green space, only upgrading. Therefore, this application is a departure from planning policy.
I have alot of sympathy for Mrs Roscoe and the other residents who wish to protect this valued green open space. You can make this application very difficult to be accepted if you know how. Firstly, you need the support of ALL your neighbours on the surrounding streets. Get them to sign a petition against the plans. Secondly, contact your local councillors AND local MP and ask them to support your campaign. Next, ask your local conucillor to request the Planning committee visit the site prior to committee meeting. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, send a letter to everyone on the planning committee with your concerns. Ask them how does this developer propose to compensate for the loss of green open space? Mention UDP policy O2. They are not replacing the lost green space, only upgrading. Therefore, this application is a departure from planning policy. Badwolf2006
  • Score: 0

9:57pm Sun 6 Jan 13

irwell1 says...

Beyond News Forum wrote:
Think About This! wrote:
Great Places says 50 per cent of the homes would be available for local people.

50% ???

Who will the other 50% go to?

Let me guess "overseas visitors"
Well, this is just a speculative thought but inviting new residents from out of town for employment purposes may be a good idea as long as they are bring jobs with them.

Now having said that, we do have a lot of green belt land that is just used as a dog toilet. Maybe those who are moaning about the issue could clean up after their pets, because right now my mindset is 'one less dog toilet!'

Now to all those who are avidly against building on green belt land I do hold a little sympathy with you just because we have so many areas and buildings with associated land that need demolishing and starting again with. But having said that, in a day and age were Bolton does have an increasing population with a need for housing, where do you suggest we start?

The 'not in my back yard' people have to allow for new investment into Bolton if Bolton is to thrive again. We need to use land to help fight the energy companies and their price increases, we need to stop the rot that is urban and suburban decay. So what do you suggest? You can't have it both ways.

Especially those who are supposedly on the side of environmental issues, why are you so against clean renewables such as wind farms? You can't have it both ways... oh please don't start with the old hat wind farms are unsightly, they are expensive blots on the landscape. They are expensive because the energy companies are creating the conditions for these things to be expensive because they have the current monopoly which includes price fixing and profit.

As for paying off people... I would be the first to condemn the actions of council policy for erroneous financial matters, but planning and development along with architecture does cost money. I would be of course against in-house money making via a council members own business venture. But in this case it is not.

No it is a fact that Bolton is going to HAVE to start developing in greener areas. If this includes more carbon neutral housing then I am all for it.
To refer to greenbelt land as 'Dog Toilets' is perhaps the most blinkered and stupid comment ever posted, ever.
[quote][p][bold]Beyond News Forum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Think About This![/bold] wrote: Great Places says 50 per cent of the homes would be available for local people. 50% ??? Who will the other 50% go to? Let me guess "overseas visitors"[/p][/quote]Well, this is just a speculative thought but inviting new residents from out of town for employment purposes may be a good idea as long as they are bring jobs with them. Now having said that, we do have a lot of green belt land that is just used as a dog toilet. Maybe those who are moaning about the issue could clean up after their pets, because right now my mindset is 'one less dog toilet!' Now to all those who are avidly against building on green belt land I do hold a little sympathy with you just because we have so many areas and buildings with associated land that need demolishing and starting again with. But having said that, in a day and age were Bolton does have an increasing population with a need for housing, where do you suggest we start? The 'not in my back yard' people have to allow for new investment into Bolton if Bolton is to thrive again. We need to use land to help fight the energy companies and their price increases, we need to stop the rot that is urban and suburban decay. So what do you suggest? You can't have it both ways. Especially those who are supposedly on the side of environmental issues, why are you so against clean renewables such as wind farms? You can't have it both ways... oh please don't start with the old hat wind farms are unsightly, they are expensive blots on the landscape. They are expensive because the energy companies are creating the conditions for these things to be expensive because they have the current monopoly which includes price fixing and profit. As for paying off people... I would be the first to condemn the actions of council policy for erroneous financial matters, but planning and development along with architecture does cost money. I would be of course against in-house money making via a council members own business venture. But in this case it is not. No it is a fact that Bolton is going to HAVE to start developing in greener areas. If this includes more carbon neutral housing then I am all for it.[/p][/quote]To refer to greenbelt land as 'Dog Toilets' is perhaps the most blinkered and stupid comment ever posted, ever. irwell1
  • Score: 0

10:14am Mon 7 Jan 13

oftbewildered2 says...

Beyond News Forum wrote:
Think About This! wrote:
Great Places says 50 per cent of the homes would be available for local people.

50% ???

Who will the other 50% go to?

Let me guess "overseas visitors"
Well, this is just a speculative thought but inviting new residents from out of town for employment purposes may be a good idea as long as they are bring jobs with them.

Now having said that, we do have a lot of green belt land that is just used as a dog toilet. Maybe those who are moaning about the issue could clean up after their pets, because right now my mindset is 'one less dog toilet!'

Now to all those who are avidly against building on green belt land I do hold a little sympathy with you just because we have so many areas and buildings with associated land that need demolishing and starting again with. But having said that, in a day and age were Bolton does have an increasing population with a need for housing, where do you suggest we start?

The 'not in my back yard' people have to allow for new investment into Bolton if Bolton is to thrive again. We need to use land to help fight the energy companies and their price increases, we need to stop the rot that is urban and suburban decay. So what do you suggest? You can't have it both ways.

Especially those who are supposedly on the side of environmental issues, why are you so against clean renewables such as wind farms? You can't have it both ways... oh please don't start with the old hat wind farms are unsightly, they are expensive blots on the landscape. They are expensive because the energy companies are creating the conditions for these things to be expensive because they have the current monopoly which includes price fixing and profit.

As for paying off people... I would be the first to condemn the actions of council policy for erroneous financial matters, but planning and development along with architecture does cost money. I would be of course against in-house money making via a council members own business venture. But in this case it is not.

No it is a fact that Bolton is going to HAVE to start developing in greener areas. If this includes more carbon neutral housing then I am all for it.
good point well presented (as they say)
[quote][p][bold]Beyond News Forum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Think About This![/bold] wrote: Great Places says 50 per cent of the homes would be available for local people. 50% ??? Who will the other 50% go to? Let me guess "overseas visitors"[/p][/quote]Well, this is just a speculative thought but inviting new residents from out of town for employment purposes may be a good idea as long as they are bring jobs with them. Now having said that, we do have a lot of green belt land that is just used as a dog toilet. Maybe those who are moaning about the issue could clean up after their pets, because right now my mindset is 'one less dog toilet!' Now to all those who are avidly against building on green belt land I do hold a little sympathy with you just because we have so many areas and buildings with associated land that need demolishing and starting again with. But having said that, in a day and age were Bolton does have an increasing population with a need for housing, where do you suggest we start? The 'not in my back yard' people have to allow for new investment into Bolton if Bolton is to thrive again. We need to use land to help fight the energy companies and their price increases, we need to stop the rot that is urban and suburban decay. So what do you suggest? You can't have it both ways. Especially those who are supposedly on the side of environmental issues, why are you so against clean renewables such as wind farms? You can't have it both ways... oh please don't start with the old hat wind farms are unsightly, they are expensive blots on the landscape. They are expensive because the energy companies are creating the conditions for these things to be expensive because they have the current monopoly which includes price fixing and profit. As for paying off people... I would be the first to condemn the actions of council policy for erroneous financial matters, but planning and development along with architecture does cost money. I would be of course against in-house money making via a council members own business venture. But in this case it is not. No it is a fact that Bolton is going to HAVE to start developing in greener areas. If this includes more carbon neutral housing then I am all for it.[/p][/quote]good point well presented (as they say) oftbewildered2
  • Score: 0

10:53am Mon 7 Jan 13

Beyond News Forum says...

irwell1 wrote:
Beyond News Forum wrote:
Think About This! wrote:
Great Places says 50 per cent of the homes would be available for local people.

50% ???

Who will the other 50% go to?

Let me guess "overseas visitors"
Well, this is just a speculative thought but inviting new residents from out of town for employment purposes may be a good idea as long as they are bring jobs with them.

Now having said that, we do have a lot of green belt land that is just used as a dog toilet. Maybe those who are moaning about the issue could clean up after their pets, because right now my mindset is 'one less dog toilet!'

Now to all those who are avidly against building on green belt land I do hold a little sympathy with you just because we have so many areas and buildings with associated land that need demolishing and starting again with. But having said that, in a day and age were Bolton does have an increasing population with a need for housing, where do you suggest we start?

The 'not in my back yard' people have to allow for new investment into Bolton if Bolton is to thrive again. We need to use land to help fight the energy companies and their price increases, we need to stop the rot that is urban and suburban decay. So what do you suggest? You can't have it both ways.

Especially those who are supposedly on the side of environmental issues, why are you so against clean renewables such as wind farms? You can't have it both ways... oh please don't start with the old hat wind farms are unsightly, they are expensive blots on the landscape. They are expensive because the energy companies are creating the conditions for these things to be expensive because they have the current monopoly which includes price fixing and profit.

As for paying off people... I would be the first to condemn the actions of council policy for erroneous financial matters, but planning and development along with architecture does cost money. I would be of course against in-house money making via a council members own business venture. But in this case it is not.

No it is a fact that Bolton is going to HAVE to start developing in greener areas. If this includes more carbon neutral housing then I am all for it.
To refer to greenbelt land as 'Dog Toilets' is perhaps the most blinkered and stupid comment ever posted, ever.
And that is all you have to say? I suggest you get out of your car and take a walk on the green land in question... lol blinkered... while you are there keep an eye on your feet.
[quote][p][bold]irwell1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Beyond News Forum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Think About This![/bold] wrote: Great Places says 50 per cent of the homes would be available for local people. 50% ??? Who will the other 50% go to? Let me guess "overseas visitors"[/p][/quote]Well, this is just a speculative thought but inviting new residents from out of town for employment purposes may be a good idea as long as they are bring jobs with them. Now having said that, we do have a lot of green belt land that is just used as a dog toilet. Maybe those who are moaning about the issue could clean up after their pets, because right now my mindset is 'one less dog toilet!' Now to all those who are avidly against building on green belt land I do hold a little sympathy with you just because we have so many areas and buildings with associated land that need demolishing and starting again with. But having said that, in a day and age were Bolton does have an increasing population with a need for housing, where do you suggest we start? The 'not in my back yard' people have to allow for new investment into Bolton if Bolton is to thrive again. We need to use land to help fight the energy companies and their price increases, we need to stop the rot that is urban and suburban decay. So what do you suggest? You can't have it both ways. Especially those who are supposedly on the side of environmental issues, why are you so against clean renewables such as wind farms? You can't have it both ways... oh please don't start with the old hat wind farms are unsightly, they are expensive blots on the landscape. They are expensive because the energy companies are creating the conditions for these things to be expensive because they have the current monopoly which includes price fixing and profit. As for paying off people... I would be the first to condemn the actions of council policy for erroneous financial matters, but planning and development along with architecture does cost money. I would be of course against in-house money making via a council members own business venture. But in this case it is not. No it is a fact that Bolton is going to HAVE to start developing in greener areas. If this includes more carbon neutral housing then I am all for it.[/p][/quote]To refer to greenbelt land as 'Dog Toilets' is perhaps the most blinkered and stupid comment ever posted, ever.[/p][/quote]And that is all you have to say? I suggest you get out of your car and take a walk on the green land in question... lol blinkered... while you are there keep an eye on your feet. Beyond News Forum
  • Score: 0

11:15am Mon 7 Jan 13

berushka says...

Is this a desirable residential area, or will it be just an overspill for the people of Breightmet? No offence, but I for one would not buy a house in that particular area.
Is this a desirable residential area, or will it be just an overspill for the people of Breightmet? No offence, but I for one would not buy a house in that particular area. berushka
  • Score: 0

11:35am Mon 7 Jan 13

tony000 says...

they knocked down over 35 houses on greenroyd ave then promised the land for local use .they used money ment for upgrading the area to put up very expensive .wrought iron fencing .then tey took the land back and decided to build 21 new houses .so what chance have you of stoping them building none .to this day the residents have not been told why they pulled down houses.when they could have been renovated
they knocked down over 35 houses on greenroyd ave then promised the land for local use .they used money ment for upgrading the area to put up very expensive .wrought iron fencing .then tey took the land back and decided to build 21 new houses .so what chance have you of stoping them building none .to this day the residents have not been told why they pulled down houses.when they could have been renovated tony000
  • Score: 0

11:43am Mon 7 Jan 13

tony000 says...

tony000 wrote:
they knocked down over 35 houses on greenroyd ave then promised the land for local use .they used money ment for upgrading the area to put up very expensive .wrought iron fencing .then tey took the land back and decided to build 21 new houses .so what chance have you of stoping them building none .to this day the residents have not been told why they pulled down houses.when they could have been renovated
why did they knock down the houses if they feel there is such a shortage .i just can not understand thisand why promise the land to the locals build a nice face around it .then take it back .i can understnd this .the land would be worth a lot more.crafty arnt they
[quote][p][bold]tony000[/bold] wrote: they knocked down over 35 houses on greenroyd ave then promised the land for local use .they used money ment for upgrading the area to put up very expensive .wrought iron fencing .then tey took the land back and decided to build 21 new houses .so what chance have you of stoping them building none .to this day the residents have not been told why they pulled down houses.when they could have been renovated[/p][/quote]why did they knock down the houses if they feel there is such a shortage .i just can not understand thisand why promise the land to the locals build a nice face around it .then take it back .i can understnd this .the land would be worth a lot more.crafty arnt they tony000
  • Score: 0

11:44am Mon 7 Jan 13

tony000 says...

tony000 wrote:
tony000 wrote:
they knocked down over 35 houses on greenroyd ave then promised the land for local use .they used money ment for upgrading the area to put up very expensive .wrought iron fencing .then tey took the land back and decided to build 21 new houses .so what chance have you of stoping them building none .to this day the residents have not been told why they pulled down houses.when they could have been renovated
why did they knock down the houses if they feel there is such a shortage .i just can not understand thisand why promise the land to the locals build a nice face around it .then take it back .i can understnd this .the land would be worth a lot more.crafty arnt they
fence
[quote][p][bold]tony000[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tony000[/bold] wrote: they knocked down over 35 houses on greenroyd ave then promised the land for local use .they used money ment for upgrading the area to put up very expensive .wrought iron fencing .then tey took the land back and decided to build 21 new houses .so what chance have you of stoping them building none .to this day the residents have not been told why they pulled down houses.when they could have been renovated[/p][/quote]why did they knock down the houses if they feel there is such a shortage .i just can not understand thisand why promise the land to the locals build a nice face around it .then take it back .i can understnd this .the land would be worth a lot more.crafty arnt they[/p][/quote]fence tony000
  • Score: 0

1:27pm Mon 7 Jan 13

boltonnut says...

I tend to agree withMr think about this...re 50%Getting to Mr.news forums'comment about this other so called 50% bringing their jobs with them is moot.If they had decent jobs would they live in this area?Would you?Isay let the residents keep their garden of Eden,maybe make a nice community garden on the site and clean it up.I hope it works out for you.
I tend to agree withMr think about this...re 50%Getting to Mr.news forums'comment about this other so called 50% bringing their jobs with them is moot.If they had decent jobs would they live in this area?Would you?Isay let the residents keep their garden of Eden,maybe make a nice community garden on the site and clean it up.I hope it works out for you. boltonnut
  • Score: 0

5:08pm Tue 8 Jan 13

berniethebolt says...

i lived opposite this field for 22 years from the age of 11 having moved from the chorley old rd area where i spent a happy child hood, but surrounded by mills.to say we were elated at the prospect of an amenity and view like that is an understatement,and quite frankly that is how it should stay! the old argument about the need for houses will go on forever as long as the population rises at the ridiculous rate we are presently seeing,no matter where the increase comes from.there are plenty of sites,derelict and otherwise in bolton where hundreds of houses could be built which would improve the areas without annoying anyone.
i lived opposite this field for 22 years from the age of 11 having moved from the chorley old rd area where i spent a happy child hood, but surrounded by mills.to say we were elated at the prospect of an amenity and view like that is an understatement,and quite frankly that is how it should stay! the old argument about the need for houses will go on forever as long as the population rises at the ridiculous rate we are presently seeing,no matter where the increase comes from.there are plenty of sites,derelict and otherwise in bolton where hundreds of houses could be built which would improve the areas without annoying anyone. berniethebolt
  • Score: 0

11:01pm Wed 16 Jan 13

Samanthabrady says...

Can I just point out its miss roscoe and she isn't moaning she's genuinely worried by the plans, and as for the other part of the rant.. She recycles her cans,glass,paper,car
dboard,garden rubbish, oh and I know she for one doesn't use the field as a dog toilet as she PICKS IT UP! I know all the above as she's my mother so take pressumtions elsewhere, the council should have thought about housing issues before knocking down the other houses already there, I.e greenroyd avenue etc
Can I just point out its miss roscoe and she isn't moaning she's genuinely worried by the plans, and as for the other part of the rant.. She recycles her cans,glass,paper,car dboard,garden rubbish, oh and I know she for one doesn't use the field as a dog toilet as she PICKS IT UP! I know all the above as she's my mother so take pressumtions elsewhere, the council should have thought about housing issues before knocking down the other houses already there, I.e greenroyd avenue etc Samanthabrady
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree