Residents fear Darwen field could get 500 homes

Lancashire Telegraph: MP Jake Berry (second right) with protesters on Bailey’s Field MP Jake Berry (second right) with protesters on Bailey’s Field

A PETITION has been launched to protect a Darwen field from a potential development of 500 houses.

Bailey’s Field has been included in the council’s local plan, produced after the authority was told sites for more than 9,000 new homes were required in the borough.

But residents have hit out at the field’s inclusion, which they say is littered with mine shafts and would lead to traffic problems due to the size of any potential development.

Although no planning applications have been submitted, Blackburn with Darwen Council has identified the sites for development to avoid building taking place in areas it does not want it to.

Darwen MP Jake Berry launched the petition after being contacted by worried constituents. He said: “A number of people in Darwen have been in touch to express their concern that Blackburn with Darwen Council have earmarked Bailey’s Field for 500 new houses. Anyone who lives in Darwen will tell you that this site is not suitable for such a massive development.”

Eileen Eastham, of Milton Close, a member of Darwen Townswomen’s Guild, said: “The proposal is mind-boggling to say the least.

“What an horrendous impact such a development would have on the area which already suffers a high volume of traffic.

“The site is riddled with mine shafts which serve a useful purpose at present in allowing some drainage from the land. Where will that water go? It is a recipe for more flooding.”

Darwen councillor Peter Hollings said the council had no choice but to include Bailey’s Field in the plan.

He said: “This has been a costly and time-consuming exercise for the council and includes sites which will undoubtedly be unpopular with some members of the public.

“In generating this plan we can safeguard other parts of the borough.

“Bailey’s Field would be ideal for the placement of new homes, adjoining other developments on Marsh House Lane and St James’ Estate.”

Sudell councillor Paul Browne said: “The only thing I have against it is there are a lot of mine shafts underneath so I do not think it will be safe enough.”

To sign the petition, visit www.protectbaileysfield. tk or call 01254 701258 for a paper copy.

Comments (20)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:34pm Wed 5 Feb 14

abetterblackburn says...

How interesting!

Not long ago just over the road Kate Hollern was standing next to Jack Straw’s son who’s wanting Jake Berry’s job celebrating a similar area where new houses were refused preferring a football field instead. The area I believe is where old mining shafts still are and the houses that your able to see in the photo have been built only recently just below and have already been flooded by unsatisfactory drainage from those fields. Only last week a shop was flooded lower down probably due to the same poor drainage problems.

Where have all the 500 houses gone could very well be a headline to come and wish all those protesters all the luck in the world!
How interesting! Not long ago just over the road Kate Hollern was standing next to Jack Straw’s son who’s wanting Jake Berry’s job celebrating a similar area where new houses were refused preferring a football field instead. The area I believe is where old mining shafts still are and the houses that your able to see in the photo have been built only recently just below and have already been flooded by unsatisfactory drainage from those fields. Only last week a shop was flooded lower down probably due to the same poor drainage problems. Where have all the 500 houses gone could very well be a headline to come and wish all those protesters all the luck in the world! abetterblackburn

6:11pm Wed 5 Feb 14

Birtrumthegreat says...

If we stopped immigration, there wouldn't be a need to 9,000 homes in Blackburn and 5,000 in the Ribble Valley. UKIP is the only way forward, after all it was Jack Straw and his party that decided open immigration was a good thing, in exchange for votes.
If we stopped immigration, there wouldn't be a need to 9,000 homes in Blackburn and 5,000 in the Ribble Valley. UKIP is the only way forward, after all it was Jack Straw and his party that decided open immigration was a good thing, in exchange for votes. Birtrumthegreat

6:31pm Wed 5 Feb 14

georgieRTID says...

this council couldnt run a bath. 500 houses on a field thats ful of mine shafts??? madness. good to see a politician actually taking an interest.
this council couldnt run a bath. 500 houses on a field thats ful of mine shafts??? madness. good to see a politician actually taking an interest. georgieRTID

6:42pm Wed 5 Feb 14

Malthus says...

I bet the most vociferous of the complainants are the ones who have properties that overlook the fields. The population is getting higher and therefore more properties are needed. Perhaps if there were a significant building programme in the area the over inflated house prices may be forced down. If people do not think this will happen then I can assure you that the properties I mentioned in my first sentence will be a lot more affordable once building work commences.
I bet the most vociferous of the complainants are the ones who have properties that overlook the fields. The population is getting higher and therefore more properties are needed. Perhaps if there were a significant building programme in the area the over inflated house prices may be forced down. If people do not think this will happen then I can assure you that the properties I mentioned in my first sentence will be a lot more affordable once building work commences. Malthus

6:58pm Wed 5 Feb 14

Bat E Karen says...

Malthus wrote:
I bet the most vociferous of the complainants are the ones who have properties that overlook the fields. The population is getting higher and therefore more properties are needed. Perhaps if there were a significant building programme in the area the over inflated house prices may be forced down. If people do not think this will happen then I can assure you that the properties I mentioned in my first sentence will be a lot more affordable once building work commences.
Er, one of the reasons they would have bought them in the first place is for the views. There are plenty of other sites in Darwen, without fields, that they can build on.

How many estates have been started and abandoned in recent years? There's the old health centre site that looked a disgrace for ages and Belgrave is looking a tatty mess because of that office.

How do we know the same won't happen with this field, where the existing residents have more to lose?
[quote][p][bold]Malthus[/bold] wrote: I bet the most vociferous of the complainants are the ones who have properties that overlook the fields. The population is getting higher and therefore more properties are needed. Perhaps if there were a significant building programme in the area the over inflated house prices may be forced down. If people do not think this will happen then I can assure you that the properties I mentioned in my first sentence will be a lot more affordable once building work commences.[/p][/quote]Er, one of the reasons they would have bought them in the first place is for the views. There are plenty of other sites in Darwen, without fields, that they can build on. How many estates have been started and abandoned in recent years? There's the old health centre site that looked a disgrace for ages and Belgrave is looking a tatty mess because of that office. How do we know the same won't happen with this field, where the existing residents have more to lose? Bat E Karen

8:05pm Wed 5 Feb 14

Mothernature says...

You're all getting your knickers in a twist over something that will never happen. Previous planning applications have been submitted for Baileys' field and nothing has come of it. Tests have been done on it, but the site is too unstable. No developer in their right mind would risk thousands of pounds on this field.
You're all getting your knickers in a twist over something that will never happen. Previous planning applications have been submitted for Baileys' field and nothing has come of it. Tests have been done on it, but the site is too unstable. No developer in their right mind would risk thousands of pounds on this field. Mothernature

8:38pm Wed 5 Feb 14

happycyclist says...

Mothernature wrote:
You're all getting your knickers in a twist over something that will never happen. Previous planning applications have been submitted for Baileys' field and nothing has come of it. Tests have been done on it, but the site is too unstable. No developer in their right mind would risk thousands of pounds on this field.
And Jake gets to look good by backing a no-brainer.
[quote][p][bold]Mothernature[/bold] wrote: You're all getting your knickers in a twist over something that will never happen. Previous planning applications have been submitted for Baileys' field and nothing has come of it. Tests have been done on it, but the site is too unstable. No developer in their right mind would risk thousands of pounds on this field.[/p][/quote]And Jake gets to look good by backing a no-brainer. happycyclist

8:53pm Wed 5 Feb 14

Excluded again says...

The government have given Blackburn with Darwen Council a target of sites for 9000 new homes.

If Baileys Field is taken out, then the Council will have to find other sites to put forward to the government. These may have far worse impact - Jake Berry has been very quiet about what he thinks the alternative should be.

For those people saying development may never happen on Baileys Field, you may well be right. Maybe the Council has been a bit cute here - nominating a site which will never be developed to reach its government imposed target and gambling that no-one in Whitehall will have the foggiest idea where Baileys Field is or its history.
The government have given Blackburn with Darwen Council a target of sites for 9000 new homes. If Baileys Field is taken out, then the Council will have to find other sites to put forward to the government. These may have far worse impact - Jake Berry has been very quiet about what he thinks the alternative should be. For those people saying development may never happen on Baileys Field, you may well be right. Maybe the Council has been a bit cute here - nominating a site which will never be developed to reach its government imposed target and gambling that no-one in Whitehall will have the foggiest idea where Baileys Field is or its history. Excluded again

10:51pm Wed 5 Feb 14

Ian K says...

Interesting that Cllr. Roy Davies has remained silent on this. He was fast enough to get mentioned in the story about floods on Sudellside Street ( LT proofreader please note the spelling)below this possible development.
He must have some knowledge as he has lived in the area all his life, back to when the "field" consisted of many smaller fields separated by drystone walls, couple that with the fact that his father was a worker in the local mines.
Interesting that Cllr. Roy Davies has remained silent on this. He was fast enough to get mentioned in the story about floods on Sudellside Street ( LT proofreader please note the spelling)below this possible development. He must have some knowledge as he has lived in the area all his life, back to when the "field" consisted of many smaller fields separated by drystone walls, couple that with the fact that his father was a worker in the local mines. Ian K

12:24am Thu 6 Feb 14

english rose 1 says...

Birtrumthegreat wrote:
If we stopped immigration, there wouldn't be a need to 9,000 homes in Blackburn and 5,000 in the Ribble Valley. UKIP is the only way forward, after all it was Jack Straw and his party that decided open immigration was a good thing, in exchange for votes.
if UKIP got elected immigration would in all likelihood increase as most of the 1.8m Brits living in the EU would have to come back. Where would they live ?
*
Britain has ALWAYS had immigration, we are a nation of immigrants as are most countries.
[quote][p][bold]Birtrumthegreat[/bold] wrote: If we stopped immigration, there wouldn't be a need to 9,000 homes in Blackburn and 5,000 in the Ribble Valley. UKIP is the only way forward, after all it was Jack Straw and his party that decided open immigration was a good thing, in exchange for votes.[/p][/quote]if UKIP got elected immigration would in all likelihood increase as most of the 1.8m Brits living in the EU would have to come back. Where would they live ? * Britain has ALWAYS had immigration, we are a nation of immigrants as are most countries. english rose 1

12:30am Thu 6 Feb 14

english rose 1 says...

Excluded again wrote:
The government have given Blackburn with Darwen Council a target of sites for 9000 new homes.

If Baileys Field is taken out, then the Council will have to find other sites to put forward to the government. These may have far worse impact - Jake Berry has been very quiet about what he thinks the alternative should be.

For those people saying development may never happen on Baileys Field, you may well be right. Maybe the Council has been a bit cute here - nominating a site which will never be developed to reach its government imposed target and gambling that no-one in Whitehall will have the foggiest idea where Baileys Field is or its history.
Berry will not mention an alternative site unless he is challenged. He needs to be asked and asked again where in Darwen where he would allocate land for the 500 extra homes.
*
The site at Bailey's field has been allocated for housing for donkey's years and will probably never be developed (because it would cost a fortune for the groundworks / mine shafts etc). So it's good that 500 of the allocation is taken up on land that will probably not be developed otherwise it will mean that another area of town will be allocated.
[quote][p][bold]Excluded again[/bold] wrote: The government have given Blackburn with Darwen Council a target of sites for 9000 new homes. If Baileys Field is taken out, then the Council will have to find other sites to put forward to the government. These may have far worse impact - Jake Berry has been very quiet about what he thinks the alternative should be. For those people saying development may never happen on Baileys Field, you may well be right. Maybe the Council has been a bit cute here - nominating a site which will never be developed to reach its government imposed target and gambling that no-one in Whitehall will have the foggiest idea where Baileys Field is or its history.[/p][/quote]Berry will not mention an alternative site unless he is challenged. He needs to be asked and asked again where in Darwen where he would allocate land for the 500 extra homes. * The site at Bailey's field has been allocated for housing for donkey's years and will probably never be developed (because it would cost a fortune for the groundworks / mine shafts etc). So it's good that 500 of the allocation is taken up on land that will probably not be developed otherwise it will mean that another area of town will be allocated. english rose 1

1:05am Thu 6 Feb 14

louderfasterlonger says...

Excluded again wrote:
The government have given Blackburn with Darwen Council a target of sites for 9000 new homes.

If Baileys Field is taken out, then the Council will have to find other sites to put forward to the government. These may have far worse impact - Jake Berry has been very quiet about what he thinks the alternative should be.

For those people saying development may never happen on Baileys Field, you may well be right. Maybe the Council has been a bit cute here - nominating a site which will never be developed to reach its government imposed target and gambling that no-one in Whitehall will have the foggiest idea where Baileys Field is or its history.
Perhaps they could move them to the triangle at at the top of Marsh House / Pole Lane that the publicity shy Cllr Frank Connor fought so hard to have deleted from the plan.
[quote][p][bold]Excluded again[/bold] wrote: The government have given Blackburn with Darwen Council a target of sites for 9000 new homes. If Baileys Field is taken out, then the Council will have to find other sites to put forward to the government. These may have far worse impact - Jake Berry has been very quiet about what he thinks the alternative should be. For those people saying development may never happen on Baileys Field, you may well be right. Maybe the Council has been a bit cute here - nominating a site which will never be developed to reach its government imposed target and gambling that no-one in Whitehall will have the foggiest idea where Baileys Field is or its history.[/p][/quote]Perhaps they could move them to the triangle at at the top of Marsh House / Pole Lane that the publicity shy Cllr Frank Connor fought so hard to have deleted from the plan. louderfasterlonger

8:32am Thu 6 Feb 14

chargreaves says...

english rose 1 wrote:
Excluded again wrote:
The government have given Blackburn with Darwen Council a target of sites for 9000 new homes.

If Baileys Field is taken out, then the Council will have to find other sites to put forward to the government. These may have far worse impact - Jake Berry has been very quiet about what he thinks the alternative should be.

For those people saying development may never happen on Baileys Field, you may well be right. Maybe the Council has been a bit cute here - nominating a site which will never be developed to reach its government imposed target and gambling that no-one in Whitehall will have the foggiest idea where Baileys Field is or its history.
Berry will not mention an alternative site unless he is challenged. He needs to be asked and asked again where in Darwen where he would allocate land for the 500 extra homes.
*
The site at Bailey's field has been allocated for housing for donkey's years and will probably never be developed (because it would cost a fortune for the groundworks / mine shafts etc). So it's good that 500 of the allocation is taken up on land that will probably not be developed otherwise it will mean that another area of town will be allocated.
erm, why is that his job?? he's meant to be representing us in london, not having to intervene cos idiot councillors like you can't organise a p** up in a brewery.
[quote][p][bold]english rose 1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Excluded again[/bold] wrote: The government have given Blackburn with Darwen Council a target of sites for 9000 new homes. If Baileys Field is taken out, then the Council will have to find other sites to put forward to the government. These may have far worse impact - Jake Berry has been very quiet about what he thinks the alternative should be. For those people saying development may never happen on Baileys Field, you may well be right. Maybe the Council has been a bit cute here - nominating a site which will never be developed to reach its government imposed target and gambling that no-one in Whitehall will have the foggiest idea where Baileys Field is or its history.[/p][/quote]Berry will not mention an alternative site unless he is challenged. He needs to be asked and asked again where in Darwen where he would allocate land for the 500 extra homes. * The site at Bailey's field has been allocated for housing for donkey's years and will probably never be developed (because it would cost a fortune for the groundworks / mine shafts etc). So it's good that 500 of the allocation is taken up on land that will probably not be developed otherwise it will mean that another area of town will be allocated.[/p][/quote]erm, why is that his job?? he's meant to be representing us in london, not having to intervene cos idiot councillors like you can't organise a p** up in a brewery. chargreaves

11:05am Thu 6 Feb 14

Dan Clough says...

Ian K wrote:
Interesting that Cllr. Roy Davies has remained silent on this. He was fast enough to get mentioned in the story about floods on Sudellside Street ( LT proofreader please note the spelling)below this possible development.
He must have some knowledge as he has lived in the area all his life, back to when the "field" consisted of many smaller fields separated by drystone walls, couple that with the fact that his father was a worker in the local mines.
To be fair to Coun Davies, he was not approached for a comment on this story
[quote][p][bold]Ian K[/bold] wrote: Interesting that Cllr. Roy Davies has remained silent on this. He was fast enough to get mentioned in the story about floods on Sudellside Street ( LT proofreader please note the spelling)below this possible development. He must have some knowledge as he has lived in the area all his life, back to when the "field" consisted of many smaller fields separated by drystone walls, couple that with the fact that his father was a worker in the local mines.[/p][/quote]To be fair to Coun Davies, he was not approached for a comment on this story Dan Clough

2:57pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Excluded again says...

chargreaves wrote:
english rose 1 wrote:
Excluded again wrote:
The government have given Blackburn with Darwen Council a target of sites for 9000 new homes.

If Baileys Field is taken out, then the Council will have to find other sites to put forward to the government. These may have far worse impact - Jake Berry has been very quiet about what he thinks the alternative should be.

For those people saying development may never happen on Baileys Field, you may well be right. Maybe the Council has been a bit cute here - nominating a site which will never be developed to reach its government imposed target and gambling that no-one in Whitehall will have the foggiest idea where Baileys Field is or its history.
Berry will not mention an alternative site unless he is challenged. He needs to be asked and asked again where in Darwen where he would allocate land for the 500 extra homes.
*
The site at Bailey's field has been allocated for housing for donkey's years and will probably never be developed (because it would cost a fortune for the groundworks / mine shafts etc). So it's good that 500 of the allocation is taken up on land that will probably not be developed otherwise it will mean that another area of town will be allocated.
erm, why is that his job?? he's meant to be representing us in london, not having to intervene cos idiot councillors like you can't organise a p** up in a brewery.
Maybe Jake Berry could negotiate with his government to reduce Blackburn with Darwen's target from sites for 9000 houses. If Mr Berry's government was not forcing the Council to allocate sites for 9000 new houses, then the Council could easily take some sites out of their plans.
[quote][p][bold]chargreaves[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]english rose 1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Excluded again[/bold] wrote: The government have given Blackburn with Darwen Council a target of sites for 9000 new homes. If Baileys Field is taken out, then the Council will have to find other sites to put forward to the government. These may have far worse impact - Jake Berry has been very quiet about what he thinks the alternative should be. For those people saying development may never happen on Baileys Field, you may well be right. Maybe the Council has been a bit cute here - nominating a site which will never be developed to reach its government imposed target and gambling that no-one in Whitehall will have the foggiest idea where Baileys Field is or its history.[/p][/quote]Berry will not mention an alternative site unless he is challenged. He needs to be asked and asked again where in Darwen where he would allocate land for the 500 extra homes. * The site at Bailey's field has been allocated for housing for donkey's years and will probably never be developed (because it would cost a fortune for the groundworks / mine shafts etc). So it's good that 500 of the allocation is taken up on land that will probably not be developed otherwise it will mean that another area of town will be allocated.[/p][/quote]erm, why is that his job?? he's meant to be representing us in london, not having to intervene cos idiot councillors like you can't organise a p** up in a brewery.[/p][/quote]Maybe Jake Berry could negotiate with his government to reduce Blackburn with Darwen's target from sites for 9000 houses. If Mr Berry's government was not forcing the Council to allocate sites for 9000 new houses, then the Council could easily take some sites out of their plans. Excluded again

4:36pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Ponytail Dave says...

Building Houses on Bailey's field is asking for trouble, as said in previous comments the land is riddled with mine shafts and there are areas with existing drainage problems, before any further development can be undertaken on this land all these outstanding issues would have to be dealt with and that would cost millions, money that the council hasn't got. There are plenty of other sites in Darwen, what about Roman road where the playing fields used to be? surely that would be far more suitable.
Building Houses on Bailey's field is asking for trouble, as said in previous comments the land is riddled with mine shafts and there are areas with existing drainage problems, before any further development can be undertaken on this land all these outstanding issues would have to be dealt with and that would cost millions, money that the council hasn't got. There are plenty of other sites in Darwen, what about Roman road where the playing fields used to be? surely that would be far more suitable. Ponytail Dave

7:20pm Thu 6 Feb 14

english rose 1 says...

Ponytail Dave wrote:
Building Houses on Bailey's field is asking for trouble, as said in previous comments the land is riddled with mine shafts and there are areas with existing drainage problems, before any further development can be undertaken on this land all these outstanding issues would have to be dealt with and that would cost millions, money that the council hasn't got. There are plenty of other sites in Darwen, what about Roman road where the playing fields used to be? surely that would be far more suitable.
But no-one is proposing to build houses on Bailey's Field.
[quote][p][bold]Ponytail Dave[/bold] wrote: Building Houses on Bailey's field is asking for trouble, as said in previous comments the land is riddled with mine shafts and there are areas with existing drainage problems, before any further development can be undertaken on this land all these outstanding issues would have to be dealt with and that would cost millions, money that the council hasn't got. There are plenty of other sites in Darwen, what about Roman road where the playing fields used to be? surely that would be far more suitable.[/p][/quote]But no-one is proposing to build houses on Bailey's Field. english rose 1

7:25pm Thu 6 Feb 14

english rose 1 says...

chargreaves wrote:
english rose 1 wrote:
Excluded again wrote:
The government have given Blackburn with Darwen Council a target of sites for 9000 new homes.

If Baileys Field is taken out, then the Council will have to find other sites to put forward to the government. These may have far worse impact - Jake Berry has been very quiet about what he thinks the alternative should be.

For those people saying development may never happen on Baileys Field, you may well be right. Maybe the Council has been a bit cute here - nominating a site which will never be developed to reach its government imposed target and gambling that no-one in Whitehall will have the foggiest idea where Baileys Field is or its history.
Berry will not mention an alternative site unless he is challenged. He needs to be asked and asked again where in Darwen where he would allocate land for the 500 extra homes.
*
The site at Bailey's field has been allocated for housing for donkey's years and will probably never be developed (because it would cost a fortune for the groundworks / mine shafts etc). So it's good that 500 of the allocation is taken up on land that will probably not be developed otherwise it will mean that another area of town will be allocated.
erm, why is that his job?? he's meant to be representing us in london, not having to intervene cos idiot councillors like you can't organise a p** up in a brewery.
Of course it is his job ! His Govt are FORCING Councils all over the country to allocate immediately developable landfor housing. He voted for a change in the rules.
*
He is the Brewery !
[quote][p][bold]chargreaves[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]english rose 1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Excluded again[/bold] wrote: The government have given Blackburn with Darwen Council a target of sites for 9000 new homes. If Baileys Field is taken out, then the Council will have to find other sites to put forward to the government. These may have far worse impact - Jake Berry has been very quiet about what he thinks the alternative should be. For those people saying development may never happen on Baileys Field, you may well be right. Maybe the Council has been a bit cute here - nominating a site which will never be developed to reach its government imposed target and gambling that no-one in Whitehall will have the foggiest idea where Baileys Field is or its history.[/p][/quote]Berry will not mention an alternative site unless he is challenged. He needs to be asked and asked again where in Darwen where he would allocate land for the 500 extra homes. * The site at Bailey's field has been allocated for housing for donkey's years and will probably never be developed (because it would cost a fortune for the groundworks / mine shafts etc). So it's good that 500 of the allocation is taken up on land that will probably not be developed otherwise it will mean that another area of town will be allocated.[/p][/quote]erm, why is that his job?? he's meant to be representing us in london, not having to intervene cos idiot councillors like you can't organise a p** up in a brewery.[/p][/quote]Of course it is his job ! His Govt are FORCING Councils all over the country to allocate immediately developable landfor housing. He voted for a change in the rules. * He is the Brewery ! english rose 1

7:27pm Thu 6 Feb 14

english rose 1 says...

And if you don't believe me ask Conservative Councillors in the Ribble Valley who pleaded against the rule changes.
And if you don't believe me ask Conservative Councillors in the Ribble Valley who pleaded against the rule changes. english rose 1

7:49pm Thu 6 Feb 14

mother of 4 says...

Do those complaining live in the new houses in the poicture that took up green land from the town.........people in glass houses should not throw stones!!!!!
Do those complaining live in the new houses in the poicture that took up green land from the town.........people in glass houses should not throw stones!!!!! mother of 4

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

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