Campaigners have lost their high-profile fight to save the woodland site in Marton West from being developed for housing.
Middlesbrough Council’s planning committee has voted by seven votes to three to grant planning consent to Gentoo Homes for 79 houses to be built on the almost eight-acre site.
After the decision, leading campaigner Councillor Chris Hobson said: “That’s it. We have nowhere else to go.
“When they do come in to bulldoze the trees we will be there to film the destruction. It will go out to everyone in the world through the internet.”
A final effort to derail the plans was made at the planning committee meeting.
Cllr Hobson told the committee: “Is it too much to ask that we keep this woodland for the children who play there and for the wildlife that live and forage there? The school also uses it as an outdoor classroom.
“Do we really want to destroy all of this for just 79 houses which Middlesbrough currently does not need?”
Local residents Ray Brown and Ron Armstrong also spoke out.
Mr Brown said: “Middlesbrough wants to champion itself as an Environment City but this proposed development will only add to pollution and the destruction of trees. Commonsense has to apply in this case.”
1 2
next
Comments (24)Recommend Related Tags
longridge wood
(What's this)
Sponsored Links
Ads by Google
Solar Panel Grants
Can Your Home Fit Solar Panels? Use Our Online Postcode Finder Now!
TrustedSolarPrices.co.uk/PostCode
Solar Panel Grants
UK Government Backed Solar Scheme. Is Your Roof Eligible - Find Out!
Which-Compare.co.uk/SolarPanelGrant
Share
inShare0 Share on emailShare on printComments (24)
Please wait while we process your request
Please wait while we retrieve the user's information
Bio
Your bio is currently empty. Now is a great time to fill in your profile.
This profile is private.
This profile is only shared with friends.
This profile is under review.
We were unable to request friendship with this user.
We were unable to request friendship with this user. Are you logged in?
Your friendship request has been sent to this user.
We were unable to terminate friendship with this user.
We were unable to terminate friendship with this user. Are you logged in?
You are no longer friends with this user.
We were unable to ignore this user.
We were unable to ignore this user. Are you logged in?
This user is now ignored.
We were unable to stop ignoring this user.
We were unable to stop ignoring this user. Are you logged in?
This user is no longer ignored.
We encountered a problem recommending this user.
pluck_user_recommend_permission
You have recommended this user.
Type Obscenity/VulgarityHate SpeechPersonal AttackAdvertising/SpamCopyright/PlagiarismOther
Comment
(optional)
pluck_user_mp-abuse_too_long_err
Send
Cancel
What Do You Think?
Please wait while we add your comment.
Please wait while we contact Facebook.Do you wish to connect to Twitter?
OK Cancel Do you wish to connect to LinkedIn?
OK Cancel Do you wish to connect to Facebook?
OK Cancel You must log into facebook before your comment is posted. Do you wish to connect to Facebook?
OK Cancel Thanks for submitting your comment. It will appear after editor approval.
We were unable to post your comment to Twitter.
We were unable to post your comment to Facebook.
We were unable to post your comment to LinkedIn.
We restrict rapid posting of multiple comments for quality reasons. You have already posted a comment within the last several seconds. Please try again later.
We limit the number of comments, reviews, and postings an individual user can submit over a given period for quality reasons. You have currently reached that limit. Please try resubmitting your comment again later.
We are unable to add your comment at this time.
We are unable to add your comment. Are you logged in?
We will not add your comment until you remove the following words: .
We're sorry, but the comment you are replying to has been removed from the site.
Please let us know what you think.
Please shorten your comment to 2147483647characters.
characters left character left characters must be removed character must be removed
Post My Reply What Do You Think?
To leave a comment, you need to sign up.
Sign up
Log in
Please wait while we perform your request. 14 comments
Sort by:
Oldest to Newest Newest to Oldest Highest Score Most Active
Please wait while we perform your request.You voted
Abuse Reported Report Abuse Score: 4 Name withheld
gordon
11:30 AM on 24/7/2012
This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore gordon. Show DetailsHide Details
This comment is hidden because you have submitted an abuse report against it. Show DetailsHide Details
If no-one buys the houses then the developers will stop building!
We limit the number of reactions an individual user can submit over a given period for quality reasons. You have currently reached that limit. Please try recommending this comment again later.
We are unable to record your recommendation at this time. Please try again later.
1 replies1 reply 1 replies1 reply
Please wait while we perform your request.
Please wait while we perform your request.You voted
Abuse Reported Report Abuse Score: 20 Name withheld
browser2
11:43 AM on 24/7/2012
This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore browser2. Show DetailsHide Details
This comment is hidden because you have submitted an abuse report against it. Show DetailsHide Details
Yet again we see the wanton destruction of trees in this established setting, all for an " inducement" of £900,000 to be spent elsewhere. I wonder if the price paid by Gentoo for this site is known.
Can the planned development be referred to a Government minister?
We limit the number of reactions an individual user can submit over a given period for quality reasons. You have currently reached that limit. Please try recommending this comment again later.
We are unable to record your recommendation at this time. Please try again later.
1 replies1 reply 1 replies1 reply
Please wait while we perform your request.
Please wait while we perform your request.You voted
Abuse Reported Report Abuse Score: 12 Name withheld
chrisby
11:48 AM on 24/7/2012
This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore chrisby. Show DetailsHide Details
This comment is hidden because you have submitted an abuse report against it. Show DetailsHide Details
Why don' t the people launch an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate? then to the courts?
Just because Mbro council have made a decision doesn't make it final
The more you fight, the more it costs the developer, hitting his profit margin. in the mean time raise money to buy the land using grants and charities.
do not give up!
We limit the number of reactions an individual user can submit over a given period for quality reasons. You have currently reached that limit. Please try recommending this comment again later.
We are unable to record your recommendation at this time. Please try again later.
1 replies1 reply 1 replies1 reply
Please wait while we perform your request.
Please wait while we perform your request.You voted
Abuse Reported Report Abuse Score: 14 Name withheld
WhoShotMcGyver
11:50 AM on 24/7/2012
This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore WhoShotMcGyver. Show DetailsHide Details
This comment is hidden because you have submitted an abuse report against it. Show DetailsHide Details
looks like the council is just using this site to bring in revenue with no care for the environment. how many brown field sites are there in the Middlesbrough area?? must be loads of unused land around
We limit the number of reactions an individual user can submit over a given period for quality reasons. You have currently reached that limit. Please try recommending this comment again later.
We are unable to record your recommendation at this time. Please try again later.
0 replies1 reply 0 replies1 reply
Please wait while we perform your request.
Please wait while we perform your request.You voted
Abuse Reported Report Abuse Score: 14 Name withheld
gods_country
12:39 PM on 24/7/2012
This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore gods_country. Show DetailsHide Details
This comment is hidden because you have submitted an abuse report against it. Show DetailsHide Details
Just sums everything about this town and council up - absolutely pathetic
We limit the number of reactions an individual user can submit over a given period for quality reasons. You have currently reached that limit. Please try recommending this comment again later.
We are unable to record your recommendation at this time. Please try again later.
1 replies1 reply 1 replies1 reply
Please wait while we perform your request.
Please wait while we perform your request.You voted
Abuse Reported Report Abuse Score: 15 Name withheld
finnsgran
12:40 PM on 24/7/2012
This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore finnsgran. Show DetailsHide Details
This comment is hidden because you have submitted an abuse report against it. Show DetailsHide Details
Another disgraceful decision by Labour councillors. They do not care about the people of this borough and it does make me wonder about 'inducements'. Brenda Thompson should be ashamed of herself.
We limit the number of reactions an individual user can submit over a given period for quality reasons. You have currently reached that limit. Please try recommending this comment again later.
We are unable to record your recommendation at this time. Please try again later.
1 replies1 reply 1 replies1 reply
Please wait while we perform your request.
Please wait while we perform your request.You voted
Abuse Reported Report Abuse Score: 10 Name withheld
Pancrack
1:55 PM on 24/7/2012
This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Pancrack. Show DetailsHide Details
This comment is hidden because you have submitted an abuse report against it. Show DetailsHide Details
"Councillor Frances McIntyre said the site had always been ear-marked for housing"...
In trotting out this argument yet again, they reaffirm the fact that The Council has NO ETHICAL (let alone environmental) justification for their plan. And that's because, 15 years ago, M'bro Council allowed a conservation charity to plant the Longridge site with 600 trees knowing that the site was earmarked for housing (they claim since 1979). So why didn't the council tell the conservation charity about their long established plan? It would have been unethical not to, right?
Regardless of that, wouldn't it also be unethical to now tear down this charitable gift to the town? And also why wasn't the site built on in the eighties, nineties or early noughties? And the reason for that is that a major powerline crossed the site and a great pylon stood on it; and had done since the 1970s!
It was only after 2003 when the National Grid re-routed the line and removed the pylon that building housing was suddenly on the agenda - and by then, of course the trees had been planted for several years!!!
So it seems that The Council were either disingenuous in dealing with the conservation charity OR, in having no idea that the powerline would be re-routed, they actually had NO plans to build on the site at all !!!
Either way, Mallon and the Council's weak argument falls down yet again.
CRAIG HORNBY maker of the 'Bulldozing Democracy'. watch on youtube and get the bigger picture.
We limit the number of reactions an individual user can submit over a given period for quality reasons. You have currently reached that limit. Please try recommending this comment again later.
We are unable to record your recommendation at this time. Please try again later.
3 replies1 reply 3 replies1 reply
Please wait while we perform your request.
Please wait while we perform your request.You voted
Abuse Reported Report Abuse Score: 3 Name withheld
browser2
5:56 PM on 24/7/2012
This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore browser2. Show DetailsHide Details
This comment is hidden because you have submitted an abuse report against it. Show DetailsHide Details
Pancrack- It would be an insult to all campaigners and your efforts that I have just re-visited here-
http://www.pancrack.tv/longridge.html
I hope that the campaigners can find the energy and determination to continue their struggle.
We limit the number of reactions an individual user can submit over a given period for quality reasons. You have currently reached that limit. Please try recommending this comment again later.
We are unable to record your recommendation at this time. Please try again later.
0 replies1 reply 0 replies1 reply
Please wait while we perform your request.
Please wait while we perform your request.You voted
Abuse Reported Report Abuse Score: 0 Name withheld
disleydog
7:52 PM on 24/7/2012
This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore disleydog. Show DetailsHide Details
This comment is hidden because you have submitted an abuse report against it. Show DetailsHide Details
"Group planning officer Ernie Vickers said the site has been allocated for housing in the Coulby Newham masterplan."
BUT......Longridge Wood is in Marton !!
We limit the number of reactions an individual user can submit over a given period for quality reasons. You have currently reached that limit. Please try recommending this comment again later.
We are unable to record your recommendation at this time. Please try again later.
0 replies1 reply 0 replies1 reply
Please wait while we perform your request.
Please wait while we perform your request.You voted
Abuse Reported Report Abuse Score: 2 Name withheld
PredatorDrone
10:17 PM on 24/7/2012
This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore PredatorDrone. Show DetailsHide Details
This comment is hidden because you have submitted an abuse report against it. Show DetailsHide Details
A done deal if ever there was one.
A declining population and an increasing build on green sites.
A town of which has the lowest number of trees in the whole of the country, less than one percent.
MBC are useless at building trees and a green environment but up there building bricks and concrete in green environments.
The middle of town and surrounds look like the aftermath of world war two, but with a destruction on a far far greater scale than anything the Luftwaffe were able to achieve with high explosives.
It might be worthwhile checking the several revisions of the plans, and the different position that site number 44 occupied! It moved around like a playing card.
Asking MBC councillors to hang their heads in shame has little or no impact as long as they are collecting their respective allowances and extras.
We limit the number of reactions an individual user can submit over a given period for quality reasons. You have currently reached that limit. Please try recommending this comment again later.
We are unable to record your recommendation at this time. Please try again later.
1 replies1 reply 1 replies1 reply
Please wait while we perform your request.
Please wait while we perform your request.You voted
Abuse Reported Report Abuse Score: 0 Name withheld
Ylangrose
10:21 PM on 24/7/2012
This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Ylangrose. Show DetailsHide Details
This comment is hidden because you have submitted an abuse report against it. Show DetailsHide Details
Just wanted to say I feel for you all. The exact same thing is proposed for several sites in Yarm. If the housing goes ahead, we will lose several green field sites and a wildlife haven which has been protected for some years. I hope you manage to appeal and win.
We limit the number of reactions an individual user can submit over a given period for quality reasons. You have currently reached that limit. Please try recommending this comment again later.
We are unable to record your recommendation at this time. Please try again later.
1 replies1 reply 1 replies1 reply
Please wait while we perform your request.
Please wait while we perform your request.You voted
Abuse Reported Report Abuse Score: 2 Name withheld
jasper
6:29 AM on 25/7/2012
This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore jasper. Show DetailsHide Details
This comment is hidden because you have submitted an abuse report against it. Show DetailsHide Details
putting people first,and trees second"NEW LOGO"middles brough executive
We limit the number of reactions an individual user can submit over a given period for quality reasons. You have currently reached that limit. Please try recommending this comment again later.
We are unable to record your recommendation at this time. Please try again later.
0 replies1 reply 0 replies1 reply
Please wait while we perform your request.
Please wait while we perform your request.You voted
Abuse Reported Report Abuse Score: 0 Name withheld
lastsaneman
7:50 AM on 25/7/2012
This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore lastsaneman. Show DetailsHide Details
This comment is hidden because you have submitted an abuse report against it. Show DetailsHide Details
Follow the money as the saying goes.
Someone will be profiting from this and not just the builders.
We limit the number of reactions an individual user can submit over a given period for quality reasons. You have currently reached that limit. Please try recommending this comment again later.
We are unable to record your recommendation at this time. Please try again later.
0 replies1 reply 0 replies1 reply
Please wait while we perform your request.
Please wait while we perform your request.You voted
Abuse Reported Report Abuse Score: 1 Name withheld
Indie
7:45 PM on 25/7/2012
This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Indie. Show DetailsHide Details
This comment is hidden because you have submitted an abuse report against it. Show DetailsHide Details
Cllr Geraldine Purvis (Labour) stood in on the committee for another Labour cllr who was absent. She voted for the application but she did NOT even go on a site visit !!
We limit the number of reactions an individual user can submit over a given period for quality reasons. You have currently reached that limit. Please try recommending this comment again later.
We are unable to record your recommendation at this time. Please try again later.
0 replies1 reply 0 replies1 reply
Please wait while we perform your request.
Please wait while we add your comment.
Please wait while we contact Facebook.Do you wish to connect to Twitter?
OK Cancel Do you wish to connect to LinkedIn?
OK Cancel Do you wish to connect to Facebook?
OK Cancel You must log into facebook before your comment is posted. Do you wish to connect to Facebook?
OK Cancel Write a reply
FELLING DUE IN
FEBRUARY 2011
Trees on the controversial Longridge site in Middlesbrough could be felled within the next few weeks, campaigners fear.
Friends of Longridge Wood at Marton West want to preserve the site and halt plans to build new homes on it.
They say no deal has been completed for the sale of the site to a developer.
And they are asking if it is right for the council to spend £25,000 removing the trees without a developer waiting to build on the site and when the council is faced with having to make cuts in front-line services.
The existing felling licence expires in July and if the work is to be completed under the existing licence it would have to be completed before the end of February and the start of the bird nesting season.
Charlie Rooney, Middlesbrough Council’s Executive councillor for Economic Development, says the development will benefit the area.
But Jeanette and Jim Bowen and local councillors Chris and John Hobson, who are members of Friends of Longridge Wood, want to know why the council wants to press ahead if the site has not yet been sold.
They said when the Forestry Commission’s North East Advisory Committee had backed the council’s felling licence application it had said the council would “not feel the need for further clearance to be carried out until the development is becoming a realistic option”.
The campaigners, who took a 1,575 signature petition to Downing Street, say they are determined to carry on their six-year fight to save the woodland.
But Cllr Rooney said: “Middlesbrough needs a high quality housing site, and that’s exactly what this site has been designated as for many years.
“We remain in talks with an interested party and I am confident any development will be of considerable benefit to the local area and the town as a whole.
“That’s why it is important we complete this work as soon as possible, ensuring the site is in the best possible condition for work to commence.”
Read More http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-breaking-news/2011/01/12/renewed-fight-for-longridge-wood-84229-27972173/#ixzz1BbWe6GXL
Middlesbrough’s Longridge Woods house fight goes to Downing Street
Sep 9 2010 By Fiona Henderson
CAMPAIGNERS fighting to save a wooded area in Middlesbrough have taken their campaign to the steps of 10 Downing Street.
Marton West councillors Chris and John Hobson with Paul Bristow, who stood as the Conservative candidate in Mays General Election in Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland, have delivered a petition to the Prime Minister.
They have been among the Friends of Longridge Wood who, over the past five-and-a-half years, have been fighting Middlesbrough Councils plans to sell off the site for housing.
They claim the area is a huge community asset and is a valuable wildlife habitat.
Now the campaigners have suggested that they should take over the running of the woodland under David Camerons Big Society agenda.
Middlesbrough Council has pointed out that the area has been earmarked for housing since the 1970s and its proposals have been supported by Government inspectors who conducted inquiries into the authoritys Local Development Framework proposals and into the unsuccessful bid by campaigners to have the area declared a Village Green.
The council has selected a preferred developer to take forward the housing plans for the site.
The petition with 1,575 signatures was handed in to 10 Downing Street with a copy of a DVD made by Teesside film-maker Craig Hornby at a protest event last month on the site.
At the event Lord Michael Bates - a former MP for the area and now deputy chairman of the Conservative Party - said the action by residents in trying to save the woodland was the embodiment of the Big Society which aims to empower communities to come together to address local issues.
Councillor Chris Hobson said: We hope that with the petition and the DVD the Government will do some kind of call-in of the decision to sell the site and it will stop the building of homes at Longridge.
We believe there is still a good chance we can save the woodland. Over five and a half years we have not stopped doing something to try to save this woodland.
Decisions taken in the past can be changed. The Hemlington Grange site was originally to be for industrial use but now the site is also to include 700 homes.
Life changes, said Cllr Hobson.
//'); document.write('
'); tm.siteLife.daapi.getArticle( "42-84229-27235717", function(article){ tm.siteLife.display.displayCommentCount( article, 'sitelife-commentsWidget-bottom', false, 'Comments', false ); } ); })(); var pluckLoginURL = "http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/registration/index.cfm?redirect=", pluckRegisterURL = "http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/registration/index.cfm?register=1&type=4&redirect="; //]]>
A DEVELOPER is to be chosen for a controversial site earmarked for housing in Middlesbrough.
Locals have been campaigning to preserve the Longridge site at Marton West and have vowed to continue the fight.
Developers have submitted schemes and financial offers for the site, which Middlesbrough Council says is central to the town’s long-term regeneration plans.
The council says the site has been allocated for housing since the 1970s.
It points out the council’s policy – leading to the creation of about 80-90 high-quality family homes – was endorsed by an independent planning inspector.
The authority wants the site developed as part of its efforts to reverse Middlesbrough’s population loss in recent years, partly caused through a limited housing offer.
Sale of the site will generate a capital receipt which will be invested in regeneration projects elsewhere in the town.
An offer of more than £8m was originally received for the site but since then land values have dropped and last year the council re-marketed the site.
The council says the removal of scrub and stripling trees at the site in 2008 had been more than off-set by the planting of more than 8,000 new trees and about 1,500 shrubs in a new tree belt at Newham Grange Country Farm.
A decision to select a preferred developer will be taken at a meeting of Middlesbrough Council’s Property Sub Committee on Monday.
Charlie Rooney, Executive councillor for regeneration and economic development, said: “This site has long been earmarked for housing and has an important role to play in the ongoing regeneration of Middlesbrough.
“The town is crying out for a high-quality housing site that will benefit both the immediate area and the town as a whole.
“I have no doubt that this scheme will stand the area in good stead for the future.”
But protesters remain firmly opposed to the development of the site.
Local councillors Chris and John Hobson and residents Jim and Jeanette Bowen - all members of Friends of Longridge Wood - say the council is only interested in the capital receipt from the sale of the site.
They pointed out that houses are currently being built at Scholars Rise on Prissick Base, West Lane, Whinney Banks and Kirby College.
The Hemlington Hospital site was on schedule for 740 houses - and there were many houses for sale throughout the town, they added.
They said many of the 8,000 new trees at Newham Grange Farm had died. It would be years before it becomes a tree belt and would not replace the recreational and wildlife value of Longridge Wood.
The protesters said: “Longridge Wood is now a well established nature reserve, a natural play area for children and much used by the local residents. What was decided in the 1970s and 1990s regarding this site is now totally irrelevant. How can the council still want to bulldoze natural woodland to build yet more houses?
“The new Government’s Bill on garden grabbing has been well received and we are actively engaged with them on various ideas for green spaces and will not give up our fight.”
Village Green appeal Feb 28 2007
Sandy Mckenzie, Evening Gazette
A new front has opened up in the battle to save a wooded area in Middlesbrough from being developed for housing.
Campaigners to preserve the Longridge site have lodged an application to have the site declared a village green.
The application is made under the 1965 Commons Registration Act. If successful, it would mean the area would be protected from development. Middlesbrough Council is set to start a process which is likely to include a hearing similar to a public inquiry.
The campaigners have taken the action as part of their efforts to prevent the council selling the site for more than £8m to housing developers Yuills.
The site has been earmarked for housing for a number of years. But it is only in recent years that a line of pylons crossing the site has been removed, which has opened the way for development.
Residents have mounted a sustained campaign against the sell-off of the site. Around 80 homes could be built on it. They said the site is a well used community asset.
Under the process to seek Village Green designation, the campaigners will have to show the site has been walked over and used by the public for more than 20 years.
Chris Hobson, a leading campaigner, told the Gazette the site had been used for the past 47 years for sport and recreation.
She said: "The land is used for playing games - the residents get together with their children and play football and cricket. The council's new play policy promotes this activity. The site is also used by many older people as it is a safe and friendly environment."
She said 194 people had filled in questionnaires which showed the variety of uses made of the site.
Mrs Hobson said there had been a public right of way over the site since 1771.
The campaigners are being supported by the Open Spaces Society - Britain's oldest national conservation body. The society's general secretary, Kate Ashbrook, said: "We are delighted local people were able to gather the necessary evidence to submit the claim.
"If the land is registered as a Village Green it will be protected from development. It will then be impossible to build on it unless suitable land is provided in exchange."
A council spokesman said the council would appoint a barrister who was independent.
"The barrister will conduct a process which is similar to a statutory public inquiry and both ourselves as landowners and the objectors will be able to put our respective cases," he said.
"The inspector will make recommendations and after that the council will decide what to do.
"It is in everyone's interests that this matter is resolved quickly."
Poor green credentialsJan 25 2007
By Evening Gazette
It is gratifying to see our local paper is actively supporting the necessity to protect and improve the local environment together with protecting wildlife. From the Ten Top Tips for protecting wildlife...
1Plant a tree - These absorb carbon dioxide.
2Dig a pond - These support all sorts of wildlife.
3Put up a bird/bat box - These encourage nesting.
4Join Tees Valley Wildlife Trust - It needs donations and support to manage local nature reserves, create new habitats for wildlife and ensure the best local wildlife sites are protected from development.
It is also very encouraging to see the status of many of the sponsors and the commitment they state they have to this campaign.
I find the comments made by Cllr Coppinger, however, to be odd as he states, quite correctly, that climate change is a global problem but in Middlesbrough the actions being taken can make a difference.
This council is responsible for the actions being taken at Coulby Newham to destroy about seven acres of trees - which absorb carbon dioxide; possibly culvert/landscape the Marton West Beck - which supports an amazing variety of wild life; destroy the habitat of a variety of bats and birds - that require trees to nest; destroy the habitat of other wildlife ... all to enable a developer to build some 70 houses.
It also seems to me that the objectives of the Tees Valley Wildlife Trust are also suspect as they don't appear to be very active in making protests or taking action to protect one of the best local wildlife sites in the Middlesbrough area from "environmental vandalism" by Middlesbrough Council.
JOHN R HAWKINS, Nunthorpe
Green light for homesJan 20 2007
By Evening Gazette
Ray Mallon gave assurances to the Gazette (Fight On For Woodland, 17.1.07) that the noise, access, wildlife and habitat will be carefully examined in the planning process of removing 500 trees to build 72 more houses in Marton.
Thankfully then it should be a foregone conclusion that planning will not be granted as it would contradict everything the council has passionately espoused about enhancing green space, diversity of nature, leisure opportunities, health and wellbeing, community participation and, of course, reducing carbon emissions - traffic on Marton Road a particular favourite.
The list is as endless as it is righteous but sadly it appears to me to be hot air and as if the planet needed any more of that.
The council needs the money and Marton needs executive housing to stem the tide of wealthy people choosing to move away.
Can they not see that it is this mania for building on every bit of open space adding to roads already way beyond log-jam as fundamental to why people want out?
If this is what constitutes our future "City-Region" who could blame them?
CRAIG HORNBY, pancrack.tv
Learn leisure lesson from pastDec 22 2006
By Evening Gazette
When the town of Middlesbrough was laid out by the founding fathers, provision was made for an area for the pursuit of healthy recreational activities. This was Albert Park.
As time passed the parks that we have now were put into place because the councillors saw the necessity for such open spaces as the population expanded into what we now know as the suburbs.
The situation is no different today. Middlesbrough is still expanding with new housing estates continuing to absorb villages and identifiable areas and it is a sad fact of life that this expansion will continue as long as there is a demand for housing.
The difference now is that there would appear to be no provisions being put into place for large open recreational spaces and any location which would appear suitable for building on is seen as a building site rather than a social amenity.
This town has a golden opportunity to create one of the largest open air recreation centres in the country by connecting Marton West Beck from Brass Castle Lane with all the other smaller open spaces as far into the town centre as is possible.
This could provide, for the urban dweller, a new concept for a country park within the urban area; there would be already in place at least one formal park, a leisure farm, a golf course and the potential for such things as education of children in wildlife and country pursuits along with attracting more wildlife and potentially protecting endangered species.
I would remind all concerned that the provision of open spaces, for recreation, will do more for the health and well being of the population and should be seen as a long term advantage to the future development of the town rather that the short term financial advantage of building 70 more houses at Coulby Newham.
JOHN R HAWKINS, Nunthorpe
Wood fight will go on
Dec 8 2006
Sandy Mckenzie, Evening Gazette
Protesters have failed in their latest bid to stop a woodland site in Middlesbrough being developed. But campaigners have vowed not to give up their battle.A challenge was thrown down to the decision to accept a £8.5m bid from housing developers Yuills for the Longridge site off Turnberry Way, Marton.But Middlesbrough Council's Overview and Scrutiny Board has decided not to refer the decision back for reconsideration by Dave Budd, Executive councillor for regeneration.The sale is now expected to go ahead after further improvement in the proposals are agreed with the developers.As well as the £8.5m cost, the developers are carrying out a further £350,000 of improvements.Marton West councillor Terry Ward, who called in the decision to accept the bid, told the board none of the bids made for the site met the standards required by the council. He said: "This is a high-visibility site on a steep hill."If it is to be developed a highly sensitive scheme is needed."The bid is not offering a high quality scheme but it is offering the largest sum of money."This is a extremely bad decision made in a hurried way."This is not an irrevocable decision. Mayor Mallon could get up tomorrow morning and decide we are not selling this land."Cllr Budd said negotiations would be carried out with the chosen developers to improve their proposals. If the council's aspirations were not met the sale would not proceed."There is a lot to be proud of in the development of Coulby Newham," Cllr Budd said.Tim White, the council's regeneration director, said the authority was confident the developer would hit the requirements of the development brief for the site.He said: "All councils have a duty to manage their resources - including land holdings - in the most efficient manner."That includes disposing of some sites with the capital receipts being used to the benefit of residents."Peter Metcalfe, the council's valuation and estates manager, said a well tried and tested bid process had been gone through to select the developer.After the meeting, Cllr Ward said the fight was not yet over.The decision could yet be changed before the sale went through, there were issues about public rights of way over the site, and planning consent was required, he added.
JAJ from Marton In Cleveland 20:12:40 08 December 2006
There is a lot to be proud of in the development of Coulby Newham, Cllr Budd said. Well Mr Budd, can you tell me what is there to be proud of ? This is disgraceful and hardly serving those who pay the wages of council executives
wild life care
what will MBC do about the reports of Badgers living and foraging at the Coulby Newham Development area known as Site 44?
Mr & Mrs Fact from Marton
21:01:12 30 November 2006
Yuills the builders have been accepted to buy land in Marton to build houses on. In their application they promised to build a classromm extension for a C. Newham School a pedestrain crossing in C. Newham etc At some point in time, this application to build the houses will come before planning - think about it! One of the cllrs for C. Newham is on the planning committee. Won't she be pleased to get these extra facilities for her ward? Always dig deeper and see what you can find!
At 2.15pm today, cllr Budd will make a decision as to whether the land here is left as a haven for wildlife (inc deer) or it is sold off for building. I think we all know what will happen. I am attending in order to see if either of the three Lab. cllrs for here bother to turn up. some Marton residents met with Mallon were told it was going ahead. Why bother going through the motions then?
D-Day is looming for site
Nov 16 2006
Sandy Mckenzie, Evening Gazette
The battle over the Longridge site at Marton in Middlesbrough is reaching a crucial stage.
On Monday Middlesbrough Council's Executive councillor for regeneration, Dave Budd, is being asked to approve the selection of a developer for the site.
But opponents are set to launch another bid to persuade the council to retain the site as woodland.
The Longridge site, off Stainton Way, is the last housing site to be disposed of under the Coulby Newham Master Plan.
Cllr Budd is being told in a report that the Longridge site has been earmarked in the Middlesbrough Local Plan for about 20 years.
"It represents a key step in the council site disposal programme mapped out in the Coulby Newham master plan. It represents the culmination of a protracted and intense site disposal effort by the council."
Cllr Budd is being recommended to select a developer but to ask for further talks with them to seek clarification and further information about their plans to ensure a high quality development on the site.
In addition to buying the site the council is requiring the chosen developer to pay £115,000 for a new classroom at Lingfield Primary School, £80,000 for improvements to the Marton West Valley Nature Reserve, £100,000 for pedestrian crossing improvements on Stainton Way and £30,000 for improved play facilities at The Pastures.
Local residents have voiced strong protests at the sell-off of the site. They have been backed by local councillor Terry Ward.
Jeanette Bowen, who has been among the protest leaders, said the feeling among local residents that the woodland should be retained was very strong.
"Local people are very cross, People from as far away as Eagle Park use this area. It is incredible how much use is made of it.
"There are frequently deer seen there and it seems a great pity we face the prospect of losing this lovely area," she said.
The Open Spaces Society, a national body campaigning for the protection of open spaces, has also written to the council calling for the woodland area to be safeguarded.
Kate Ashbrook, the society's general secretary, said: "This three-acre woodland has, for many years, been of great importance to local people. The wood is rich in wildlife and it is a vital lung in an urban area."
As the LDF has planning for transport you can object to the amount of building close to the main roads which will affect traffic flow as our brains department do not seem to take that into acount because of the large benefits offered by builders such as - new school clasrooms and main road crossings and play areas on a farm so the builder can build 80 affordable houses on a small piece of land this offer to the council can be viewed in the gazette of late or ask your Local Honest Councillor - why builders offer bribes
Fight to rescue woods goes on
I notice that our three Labour councillors are very quiet about the building on the Longridge Site and the removal of 500 trees in the process. It's time they came out of hiding and stated whose side they were on. They will soon be asking us for their vote - they won't get mine this time.
I cannot understand why the decision makers in Middlesbrough Council seem determined to sell off the land bordering Stainton Way, Middlesbrough, which is known as Site 44, Longridge, for a proposed building of 80 dwelling houses.
Over the years the site has naturally developed into an attractive woodland and should remain as such.
Cllr David Budd has been quoted as saying that the site has been earmarked for housing for the past 25 years. So what? Such an intransigent outlook suggests that he is still living in the past.
He should be aware that we are living in a rapidly changing world and in the intervening years the emphasis now rightly focuses on protecting the fragile environment in which we all live.
Eighty extra houses. How many more cars would that generate, 150 plus maybe? How many of those cars would use Marton Road on a frequent basis? Surely the council must be aware of the increased congestion that they would incur?
A petition signed by 500 protestors opposing the destruction of the woodland was presented to Mayor Mallon, so it is shameful that a supposedly democratic council ignore the interests and wishes of the local citizens of Coulby Newham.
Should the woodland and associated flora and fauna be decimated to build 80 houses with their associated 150 plus cars in preference to the land continuing to contribute to a cleaner environment? If the woodland is destroyed, it will be lost forever.
KEN URWIN, Marton
I WOULD like to register my total objection to the proposal by Middlesbrough Council to develop housing at Site 44, Longridge Development.
This area presently offers local residents the facility for easy access for walking in a country type environment. It is a place for them to exercise their dogs. I personally use the area to collect wild fruits during the season for jam making.
The proposed development would necessitate the removal of scarce trees and hedgerows to the detriment of local wildlife.
The traffic problem on Stainton Way would be further exacerbated by the need to absorb another couple of hundred cars around peak periods. This again puts further strain on the Marton Road and Acklam Road feeder routes into Middlesbrough.
MIKE ASKINS, Middlesbrough
I wonder how many other readers were fascinated and perhaps even astounded to read Middlesbrough councillor Dave Budd's comments on developing the woodland at Coulby Newham (13.10.06).
Cllr Budd seemed very excited that this was a milestone as it is the last available housing site in Coulby Newham.
Many rural communities are being systematically destroyed by the current policy of two for one (knock one quality house down and build two, three or more). Remember what has already happened in The Grove, Middlesbrough.
All communities must be given greater ability to affect unaccountable planning decisions made by a handful of councillors.
Chasing ever increasing new build council targets is a recipe for environmental disaster.
Yes people in Middlesbrough need affordable homes to buy and rent but the penalty being paid by us all in the loss of scarce open space is too great.
Greater community involvement has to happen and it has to happen now.
CATHERINE ROZEVSKIS, Gresham, Middlesbrough
Mayor: I don't want to see trees chopped, but ...
THE Mayor of Middlesbrough has agreed with residents who opposed plans for a housing development in their neighbourhood.
But Ray Mallon has said the council's plan for 80 homes on the Longridge site, in Coulby Newham, should go ahead for the wider interests of the town.
He was speaking after meeting residents opposed to the Yuills development on the three-hectare site.
Local residents had campaigned to protect the woodland from housing plans.
The site was earmarked for housing in the original 1970s Coulby Newham Master Plan and in the Middlesbrough Local Plan in 1999.
It was not developed because the old Picton-Lackenby pylon line ran through it.
Mr Mallon said: "The protestors care about their neighbourhood and local environment - I commend them for that.
"Like them, I don't want to see trees chopped down and natural habitats disturbed. But the council has to balance the interests of this group of residents and this particular area against those of the whole town and the whole community.
"We have to make a decision which works for the greater good of Middlesbrough. In a narrow sense, they are right, but in the wider interests of the town, I am right as well."
He added: "I do not think the argument that we should build on another greenfield site instead has any merit. Nor do I think it is acceptable - as some protestors have suggested - we postpone development for 15 or 20 years."
Last month, filmmaker Craig Hornby, whose documentary A Century in Stone tells the story of the mining era at Eston, filmed the residents who are battling to save the site.
Protestor Chris Hobson said: "It is such a shame, because this is a mature, planted woodland containing more than 500 trees, many over 20ft tall. The site has become the habitat of families of deer, many birds, butterflies and plants."
