Properties lie empty as 600 homes planned for green belt

I READ with interest the article (Yorkshire Post, August 13) entitled “Empty property targeted in bid to tackle blight”.

The article mentions that there are currently 5,710 empty homes in the East Riding, of which 1,250 are classed as long-term 
empty. Also, in nearby Hull 
there are 5,972 empty properties of which 3,183 are long-term empty.

I do hope that the East Riding of Yorkshire Council will take these figures into account as they are considering the current planning application to build 600 houses on green belt land on the outskirts of Cottingham and Willerby.

This application is currently described as plans for building “600 units” on “playing fields”, but anyone viewing the proposed development land will clearly see that the vast majority of the area proposed for development is in fact farmland which provides a green “break” between the villages of Cottingham and Willerby.

Surely, if the development of this farmland (owned by the local health authority) is allowed to go ahead with such a huge number of homes planned, both East Riding and Hull councils will find it much harder to persuade people to live in the even larger number of existing/already built but empty properties, which they are trying to bring back into use?

If efforts were concentrated on ensuring these empty properties were occupied in future, neighbourhoods which suffer as a result of the crime associated with empty properties would benefit, the councils would benefit from the council tax income from new residents and the good people of Cottingham and Willerby would also benefit by not losing a large chunk of the dwindling green space that currently makes their living environment reasonably pleasant?

I ask the East Riding of Yorkshire Council to kindly (and sensibly) hold off granting planning permission for this huge new development until they can say that the homes currently available are occupied.

From: H Marjorie Gill. Clarence Drive, Menston.

FARMING has made a great contribution to Britain’s export trade; therefore the Government should do all it can to encourage farmers and refuse to allow any building on greenfield sites.

Perhaps developers might be given an incentive to use brown- field sites – many of which already have planning permission, so costly planning meetings would be avoided also. Food is more vital than housing – we can crowd into shelter, but we can’t live without food.

Surely now is the time to study a map with all the farming and beauty spots blocked out to tackle the thorny problems of transport?

Surely there are a great many old unused tracks canals etc which could be developed to carry people and goods without spoiling our precious heritage and vital farming lands?

From: BJ Cussons, Ilkley.

WE need to think differently nowadays but has life been better or worse since it became more global?

Was it better when we had many small manufacturing companies or now when people build up businesses simply to sell them and make a quick profit? Which gave better employment? The same with food – superstores or family-run small shops?

And doesn’t it seem obvious that the Post Office is putting up prices unrealistically month by month to stop people using the service?

Being global has also meant many of our younger generation moving abroad with ageing parents finally having to give up on the long journey to visit them are left to fend for themselves.

On the other side of the coin we have been invaded by people of every nationality under the sun who curiously want to leave their culture back home because of its lack of democracy, corruption and sometimes cruelty and then impose that same culture on Great Britain.

I am one of many who want to see more English culture and people on our TV screens. Soon it will be too late.

Integration might be suitable for transport but at what cost?