Skip to main content

No to the Broompark Development!

235 Comments

Y
Yvonne Hannah
8 years ago

Proposal is similar to rejected proposal from 2006 : reasons for rejection will be same - Lack of infrastructure Inability to grow road /bus/rail links Inability to service population with schools /nurseries/doctors etc Diminishing wildlife in a green belt I object on this basis

I
Isabel Haughey
8 years ago

We do not need more houses our roads cannot handle the traffic on it at the moment

P
Paul Waters
8 years ago

This area is supposed to be a green belt area, I can't believe they are trying to build on this land

R
Roy Rigg
8 years ago

We have already had numerous developments in east/Mid Calder without any new schools or doctors surgeries. The health centre is already bursting at the seams

G
Geoff Bix
8 years ago

There is no transport infrastructure to this part land nor can there be with the Almond running beside this development.

M
Mary cruickshank
8 years ago

Can’t get parked or doctors appointment as it is , a disgrace eventothink of building more houses

H
Holly Waters
8 years ago

I lived there for most of my life and it’s not fair on the wildlife that is there

A
Angela Waters
8 years ago

Over population for village. Poor amenities already and traffic through village is too busy without more homes. Wildlife are getting less area to move.

A
Anonymous
8 years ago

Travelling through East Calder at present is horrendous with cars parked on both sides of the street and adding more houses in this area would only be detrimental not only to the area but to everyone who lives here at present.

G
Gary Murchison
8 years ago

This seems very similar to the REFUSED outline planning permission of 2006. See https://planning.westlothian.gov.uk/publicaccess/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=ZZZWU8RJJV144 Interestingly, amongst various reasons why the above was rejected: "... the proposal would have an unacceptable adverse impact on the environmental quality of the area." "... would contribute toward the coalescence of these settlements and would prejudice their countryside setting." "... there is insufficient education capacity to cater for children that would require to be educated as a result of residential development on this site..."

M
Marguerita sutherland
8 years ago

Leave the villages alone , there will be no more green land for the next generation

A
Anonymous
8 years ago

We dont need housimg . Let the villages remain villages instead of turning into a town for goodness sake

L
Libby King
8 years ago

This will only serve to merge both villages into one with no separate identities at all. Plus the woods and greenery are what identify these villages and their wildlife. Once they are gone they are gone FOREVER.

D
donna white
8 years ago

That is protected land and we def don’t need another 670 houses. Go build your houses somewhere else

G
Graham campbell
8 years ago

Houses not required. No infrastructure to support these.

M
Moira McDonald
8 years ago

No new road, no houses

H
Heather Cowie
8 years ago

I object to the proposal, no thank you, the traffic through Mid Calder and East Calder would be a nightmare. The schools are at bursting point, can the medical centre cope and the roads are a mess, put more cars in that area, East Calder and Mid Calder would be at a standhill every day.

G
Graham Robertson
8 years ago

This development is too large and puts great pressure on roads and services.

J
Joyce Lambie
8 years ago

Our "village" is no longer a village our doctors, schools and roads cannot cope as it is with all the new houses already!

G
Gilllian Wilson
8 years ago

Mid and east calder do not have the infrastructure to support this number of extra housing on top of what is already planned for east calder. This would also mean the destruction of a large area of natural woodland.