Bradford Telegraph and ArgusPlans submitted for Cullingworth quarrying site (From Bradford Telegraph and Argus)

Get involved: send your pictures, video, news and views by texting TANEWS to 80360, or email

Plans submitted for Cullingworth quarrying site

Bradford Telegraph and Argus: The Manywells site The Manywells site

Detailed plans for 233 homes on an industrial estate at Cullingworth have been submitted to Bradford planners.

Barratt David Wilson Homes Yorkshire West has put in a full application to develop the 10.2 hectare Manywells industrial site which will include housing and also 15,000 square feet of new commercial units.

The mixed development on the brownfield site south of Cullingworth would have 36 two-bedroom, 30 three-bedroom and 117 four-bedroom homes.

The builders are named on the application with developer GMV Thirteen.

Bradford Council has already expressed its wish for that number of houses to be built in the area and ward councillor Simon Cooke said he thought it likely the scheme would be approved.

“I have had a look at the new plan and we are not seeing anything significantly different to what was presented to local people when a public consultation was held back in the autumn,” Coun Cooke said.

“Realistically, one has to think it is going to get approval.

“It’s on a brownfield site and to be honest I would rather it was there than another greenfield site.”

Concerns were raised in October by Cullingworth Village Council about the effects of increasing local housing stock by a quarter by building so many houses in just one place.

However, chairman Jacqui Guy said the council had not had time to scrutinise the plans and could only comment fully after having discussed them.

“It is a challenging site where there has been mining and quarrying and there are a lot of water springs. It’s going to be a very long process.”

Bingley Rural district councillor Mr Cooke said the application represented an opportunity in terms of “planning gain” for Cullingworth.

“What is most important is we get as much money as possible for projects such as the new village hall,” he said.

There has been no comment from the developers.

Comments (21)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:46am Wed 19 Mar 14

Ratters Rat says...

Great idea so where will they go to school? Will there be a good bus service?
What about a community centre? A village green for children to play? It alright building these houses but planners and builders seem to miss the point that services are needed to support these houses and should be a standard requirement.
Great idea so where will they go to school? Will there be a good bus service? What about a community centre? A village green for children to play? It alright building these houses but planners and builders seem to miss the point that services are needed to support these houses and should be a standard requirement. Ratters Rat
  • Score: 6

7:07am Wed 19 Mar 14

Albion. says...

Ratters Rat wrote:
Great idea so where will they go to school? Will there be a good bus service?
What about a community centre? A village green for children to play? It alright building these houses but planners and builders seem to miss the point that services are needed to support these houses and should be a standard requirement.
It's up to potential purchasers to find these things out before going ahead.
[quote][p][bold]Ratters Rat[/bold] wrote: Great idea so where will they go to school? Will there be a good bus service? What about a community centre? A village green for children to play? It alright building these houses but planners and builders seem to miss the point that services are needed to support these houses and should be a standard requirement.[/p][/quote]It's up to potential purchasers to find these things out before going ahead. Albion.
  • Score: 0

8:15am Wed 19 Mar 14

Bone_idle18 says...

Ratters Rat wrote:
Great idea so where will they go to school? Will there be a good bus service?
What about a community centre? A village green for children to play? It alright building these houses but planners and builders seem to miss the point that services are needed to support these houses and should be a standard requirement.
Would you prefer houses built on green field?

Or maybe inner city brownfield, as advocated by many, will provide village greens, loafs of school places and a community centre?

As far as I can see this site is ideal, existing brownfield in a decent area.
[quote][p][bold]Ratters Rat[/bold] wrote: Great idea so where will they go to school? Will there be a good bus service? What about a community centre? A village green for children to play? It alright building these houses but planners and builders seem to miss the point that services are needed to support these houses and should be a standard requirement.[/p][/quote]Would you prefer houses built on green field? Or maybe inner city brownfield, as advocated by many, will provide village greens, loafs of school places and a community centre? As far as I can see this site is ideal, existing brownfield in a decent area. Bone_idle18
  • Score: 6

8:16am Wed 19 Mar 14

MarkPullen says...

Ratters Rat wrote:
Great idea so where will they go to school? Will there be a good bus service?
What about a community centre? A village green for children to play? It alright building these houses but planners and builders seem to miss the point that services are needed to support these houses and should be a standard requirement.
If they submitted plans for the whole development then a Section 106 agreement would be likely which allocates funds from the developer towards various aspects of the services required by the community.

Unfortunately that doesn't normally equate to every £ "charged" being spent in that community as the council elects when and where it goes.

The local community needs to ensure that they have their say online (or by post) regarding any application - even if it is likely to be granted the community must push the issues that will be raised (schooling and road safety are the two major ones normally).

The problem rises when a developer submits outline planning permission for a major development and then smaller applications that fall under the minimum level to trigger Section 106.

I'm rusty on all this (been out of circulation for 2-3 years) but I do know that the community needs to ensure they are heard - either individually or collectively.
[quote][p][bold]Ratters Rat[/bold] wrote: Great idea so where will they go to school? Will there be a good bus service? What about a community centre? A village green for children to play? It alright building these houses but planners and builders seem to miss the point that services are needed to support these houses and should be a standard requirement.[/p][/quote]If they submitted plans for the whole development then a Section 106 agreement would be likely which allocates funds from the developer towards various aspects of the services required by the community. Unfortunately that doesn't normally equate to every £ "charged" being spent in that community as the council elects when and where it goes. The local community needs to ensure that they have their say online (or by post) regarding any application - even if it is likely to be granted the community must push the issues that will be raised (schooling and road safety are the two major ones normally). The problem rises when a developer submits outline planning permission for a major development and then smaller applications that fall under the minimum level to trigger Section 106. I'm rusty on all this (been out of circulation for 2-3 years) but I do know that the community needs to ensure they are heard - either individually or collectively. MarkPullen
  • Score: 6

8:22am Wed 19 Mar 14

angry bradfordian says...

Ratters Rat wrote:
Great idea so where will they go to school? Will there be a good bus service?
What about a community centre? A village green for children to play? It alright building these houses but planners and builders seem to miss the point that services are needed to support these houses and should be a standard requirement.
Queensbury is an excellent example of this.

There must have been thousands of houses built there over the last 10 years. For all the money the developers have given the council, the only difference I can see in public facilities are a few more classrooms and a threat to close the swimming pool!
The argument about thriving local businesses also seems pretty hollow, as the range of shops, businesses and pubs seems to have diminished over the same period.
[quote][p][bold]Ratters Rat[/bold] wrote: Great idea so where will they go to school? Will there be a good bus service? What about a community centre? A village green for children to play? It alright building these houses but planners and builders seem to miss the point that services are needed to support these houses and should be a standard requirement.[/p][/quote]Queensbury is an excellent example of this. There must have been thousands of houses built there over the last 10 years. For all the money the developers have given the council, the only difference I can see in public facilities are a few more classrooms and a threat to close the swimming pool! The argument about thriving local businesses also seems pretty hollow, as the range of shops, businesses and pubs seems to have diminished over the same period. angry bradfordian
  • Score: -1

8:43am Wed 19 Mar 14

bd7 helper says...

Ideas of making money not spending money
Ideas of making money not spending money bd7 helper
  • Score: -1

8:51am Wed 19 Mar 14

36a says...

I could see the site supporting quite a lot of houses but 233 seems excessive

Whilst it may be 'brownfield' the first thing a developer would do is fell every one of those trees you can see

They need some protection first
I could see the site supporting quite a lot of houses but 233 seems excessive Whilst it may be 'brownfield' the first thing a developer would do is fell every one of those trees you can see They need some protection first 36a
  • Score: 0

9:37am Wed 19 Mar 14

Bone_idle18 says...

36a wrote:
I could see the site supporting quite a lot of houses but 233 seems excessive

Whilst it may be 'brownfield' the first thing a developer would do is fell every one of those trees you can see

They need some protection first
They might already be subject to a tree preservation order. Developments near us were, and the trees were kept.
[quote][p][bold]36a[/bold] wrote: I could see the site supporting quite a lot of houses but 233 seems excessive Whilst it may be 'brownfield' the first thing a developer would do is fell every one of those trees you can see They need some protection first[/p][/quote]They might already be subject to a tree preservation order. Developments near us were, and the trees were kept. Bone_idle18
  • Score: 4

11:02am Wed 19 Mar 14

sorrow&anger says...

Basically it's a tale of two brownfields. Developers will build on brownfields providing they're in desirable areas such as pleasant residential villages like Cullingworth or in thriving metropolitan areas like London.

What developers won't do is build on brownfields in derelict dumps like Bradford.

If City Hall got one with the job of regeneration then the brownfields would become viable and the pressure on what's left of our green spaces would ease. Chicken and egg situations like these always require bold actions. The Council needs to buy up and develop the 'undevelopable' derelict sites itself. It's time for Cllr. Green to actually do something.
Basically it's a tale of two brownfields. Developers will build on brownfields providing they're in desirable areas such as pleasant residential villages like Cullingworth or in thriving metropolitan areas like London. What developers won't do is build on brownfields in derelict dumps like Bradford. If City Hall got one with the job of regeneration then the brownfields would become viable and the pressure on what's left of our green spaces would ease. Chicken and egg situations like these always require bold actions. The Council needs to buy up and develop the 'undevelopable' derelict sites itself. It's time for Cllr. Green to actually do something. sorrow&anger
  • Score: 3

11:15am Wed 19 Mar 14

BaildonGuy says...

sorrow&anger wrote:
Basically it's a tale of two brownfields. Developers will build on brownfields providing they're in desirable areas such as pleasant residential villages like Cullingworth or in thriving metropolitan areas like London.

What developers won't do is build on brownfields in derelict dumps like Bradford.

If City Hall got one with the job of regeneration then the brownfields would become viable and the pressure on what's left of our green spaces would ease. Chicken and egg situations like these always require bold actions. The Council needs to buy up and develop the 'undevelopable' derelict sites itself. It's time for Cllr. Green to actually do something.
Good point but the Council are hypocrites and in the pockets of the developers.

They refused to buy brownfields for the Buck Lane Industrial Estate. Instead they preferred to maximise the developers' profits and purchase prime agricultural land and reduce our dwindling stock of green space.

Bradford will never regenerate until City Hall learns to put the needs of its citizens above the profits of developers.
[quote][p][bold]sorrow&anger[/bold] wrote: Basically it's a tale of two brownfields. Developers will build on brownfields providing they're in desirable areas such as pleasant residential villages like Cullingworth or in thriving metropolitan areas like London. What developers won't do is build on brownfields in derelict dumps like Bradford. If City Hall got one with the job of regeneration then the brownfields would become viable and the pressure on what's left of our green spaces would ease. Chicken and egg situations like these always require bold actions. The Council needs to buy up and develop the 'undevelopable' derelict sites itself. It's time for Cllr. Green to actually do something.[/p][/quote]Good point but the Council are hypocrites and in the pockets of the developers. They refused to buy brownfields for the Buck Lane Industrial Estate. Instead they preferred to maximise the developers' profits and purchase prime agricultural land and reduce our dwindling stock of green space. Bradford will never regenerate until City Hall learns to put the needs of its citizens above the profits of developers. BaildonGuy
  • Score: 2

11:35am Wed 19 Mar 14

Albion. says...

BaildonGuy wrote:
sorrow&anger wrote:
Basically it's a tale of two brownfields. Developers will build on brownfields providing they're in desirable areas such as pleasant residential villages like Cullingworth or in thriving metropolitan areas like London.

What developers won't do is build on brownfields in derelict dumps like Bradford.

If City Hall got one with the job of regeneration then the brownfields would become viable and the pressure on what's left of our green spaces would ease. Chicken and egg situations like these always require bold actions. The Council needs to buy up and develop the 'undevelopable' derelict sites itself. It's time for Cllr. Green to actually do something.
Good point but the Council are hypocrites and in the pockets of the developers.

They refused to buy brownfields for the Buck Lane Industrial Estate. Instead they preferred to maximise the developers' profits and purchase prime agricultural land and reduce our dwindling stock of green space.

Bradford will never regenerate until City Hall learns to put the needs of its citizens above the profits of developers.
Buck Lane wasn't used for agricultural purposes for many years and certainly wasn't "prime". There will be much more building on green field sites over the coming years, whether you, I, or anyone else likes it or not.
[quote][p][bold]BaildonGuy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sorrow&anger[/bold] wrote: Basically it's a tale of two brownfields. Developers will build on brownfields providing they're in desirable areas such as pleasant residential villages like Cullingworth or in thriving metropolitan areas like London. What developers won't do is build on brownfields in derelict dumps like Bradford. If City Hall got one with the job of regeneration then the brownfields would become viable and the pressure on what's left of our green spaces would ease. Chicken and egg situations like these always require bold actions. The Council needs to buy up and develop the 'undevelopable' derelict sites itself. It's time for Cllr. Green to actually do something.[/p][/quote]Good point but the Council are hypocrites and in the pockets of the developers. They refused to buy brownfields for the Buck Lane Industrial Estate. Instead they preferred to maximise the developers' profits and purchase prime agricultural land and reduce our dwindling stock of green space. Bradford will never regenerate until City Hall learns to put the needs of its citizens above the profits of developers.[/p][/quote]Buck Lane wasn't used for agricultural purposes for many years and certainly wasn't "prime". There will be much more building on green field sites over the coming years, whether you, I, or anyone else likes it or not. Albion.
  • Score: 0

1:04pm Wed 19 Mar 14

pjl20 says...

Plans for a large new housing development such as these 233 homes in Cullingworth, have to include consideration for local services such as nearby schools, and even drainage etc.

As many as 1000 new inhabitants will occupy these houses. A big impact upon a small local community.

Over in Ilkley, the Bradford LDF plan calls for 850 new homes to be built on green belt land. This is in a town overflowing to full capacity. The local services will never ever cope with another 3400+ people, on top of the local population.

Poor planning and suspect analysis by so-called 'experts'.
Plans for a large new housing development such as these 233 homes in Cullingworth, have to include consideration for local services such as nearby schools, and even drainage etc. As many as 1000 new inhabitants will occupy these houses. A big impact upon a small local community. Over in Ilkley, the Bradford LDF plan calls for 850 new homes to be built on green belt land. This is in a town overflowing to full capacity. The local services will never ever cope with another 3400+ people, on top of the local population. Poor planning and suspect analysis by so-called 'experts'. pjl20
  • Score: 0

2:56pm Wed 19 Mar 14

BaildonGuy says...

Albion. wrote:
BaildonGuy wrote:
sorrow&anger wrote:
Basically it's a tale of two brownfields. Developers will build on brownfields providing they're in desirable areas such as pleasant residential villages like Cullingworth or in thriving metropolitan areas like London.

What developers won't do is build on brownfields in derelict dumps like Bradford.

If City Hall got one with the job of regeneration then the brownfields would become viable and the pressure on what's left of our green spaces would ease. Chicken and egg situations like these always require bold actions. The Council needs to buy up and develop the 'undevelopable' derelict sites itself. It's time for Cllr. Green to actually do something.
Good point but the Council are hypocrites and in the pockets of the developers.

They refused to buy brownfields for the Buck Lane Industrial Estate. Instead they preferred to maximise the developers' profits and purchase prime agricultural land and reduce our dwindling stock of green space.

Bradford will never regenerate until City Hall learns to put the needs of its citizens above the profits of developers.
Buck Lane wasn't used for agricultural purposes for many years and certainly wasn't "prime". There will be much more building on green field sites over the coming years, whether you, I, or anyone else likes it or not.
Precisely, the Council is in the pockets of the developers.

Buck Lane was the only remaining piece of Grade II agricultural land between Shipley and Ilkley. The Council behaved like vandals.
[quote][p][bold]Albion.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BaildonGuy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sorrow&anger[/bold] wrote: Basically it's a tale of two brownfields. Developers will build on brownfields providing they're in desirable areas such as pleasant residential villages like Cullingworth or in thriving metropolitan areas like London. What developers won't do is build on brownfields in derelict dumps like Bradford. If City Hall got one with the job of regeneration then the brownfields would become viable and the pressure on what's left of our green spaces would ease. Chicken and egg situations like these always require bold actions. The Council needs to buy up and develop the 'undevelopable' derelict sites itself. It's time for Cllr. Green to actually do something.[/p][/quote]Good point but the Council are hypocrites and in the pockets of the developers. They refused to buy brownfields for the Buck Lane Industrial Estate. Instead they preferred to maximise the developers' profits and purchase prime agricultural land and reduce our dwindling stock of green space. Bradford will never regenerate until City Hall learns to put the needs of its citizens above the profits of developers.[/p][/quote]Buck Lane wasn't used for agricultural purposes for many years and certainly wasn't "prime". There will be much more building on green field sites over the coming years, whether you, I, or anyone else likes it or not.[/p][/quote]Precisely, the Council is in the pockets of the developers. Buck Lane was the only remaining piece of Grade II agricultural land between Shipley and Ilkley. The Council behaved like vandals. BaildonGuy
  • Score: -1

2:56pm Wed 19 Mar 14

BaildonGuy says...

Albion. wrote:
BaildonGuy wrote:
sorrow&anger wrote:
Basically it's a tale of two brownfields. Developers will build on brownfields providing they're in desirable areas such as pleasant residential villages like Cullingworth or in thriving metropolitan areas like London.

What developers won't do is build on brownfields in derelict dumps like Bradford.

If City Hall got one with the job of regeneration then the brownfields would become viable and the pressure on what's left of our green spaces would ease. Chicken and egg situations like these always require bold actions. The Council needs to buy up and develop the 'undevelopable' derelict sites itself. It's time for Cllr. Green to actually do something.
Good point but the Council are hypocrites and in the pockets of the developers.

They refused to buy brownfields for the Buck Lane Industrial Estate. Instead they preferred to maximise the developers' profits and purchase prime agricultural land and reduce our dwindling stock of green space.

Bradford will never regenerate until City Hall learns to put the needs of its citizens above the profits of developers.
Buck Lane wasn't used for agricultural purposes for many years and certainly wasn't "prime". There will be much more building on green field sites over the coming years, whether you, I, or anyone else likes it or not.
Precisely, the Council is in the pockets of the developers.

Buck Lane was the only remaining piece of Grade II agricultural land between Shipley and Ilkley. The Council behaved like vandals.
[quote][p][bold]Albion.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BaildonGuy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sorrow&anger[/bold] wrote: Basically it's a tale of two brownfields. Developers will build on brownfields providing they're in desirable areas such as pleasant residential villages like Cullingworth or in thriving metropolitan areas like London. What developers won't do is build on brownfields in derelict dumps like Bradford. If City Hall got one with the job of regeneration then the brownfields would become viable and the pressure on what's left of our green spaces would ease. Chicken and egg situations like these always require bold actions. The Council needs to buy up and develop the 'undevelopable' derelict sites itself. It's time for Cllr. Green to actually do something.[/p][/quote]Good point but the Council are hypocrites and in the pockets of the developers. They refused to buy brownfields for the Buck Lane Industrial Estate. Instead they preferred to maximise the developers' profits and purchase prime agricultural land and reduce our dwindling stock of green space. Bradford will never regenerate until City Hall learns to put the needs of its citizens above the profits of developers.[/p][/quote]Buck Lane wasn't used for agricultural purposes for many years and certainly wasn't "prime". There will be much more building on green field sites over the coming years, whether you, I, or anyone else likes it or not.[/p][/quote]Precisely, the Council is in the pockets of the developers. Buck Lane was the only remaining piece of Grade II agricultural land between Shipley and Ilkley. The Council behaved like vandals. BaildonGuy
  • Score: 1

2:58pm Wed 19 Mar 14

MarkPullen says...

pjl20 wrote:
Plans for a large new housing development such as these 233 homes in Cullingworth, have to include consideration for local services such as nearby schools, and even drainage etc.

As many as 1000 new inhabitants will occupy these houses. A big impact upon a small local community.

Over in Ilkley, the Bradford LDF plan calls for 850 new homes to be built on green belt land. This is in a town overflowing to full capacity. The local services will never ever cope with another 3400+ people, on top of the local population.

Poor planning and suspect analysis by so-called 'experts'.
Hello Paul....it's been a while!
[quote][p][bold]pjl20[/bold] wrote: Plans for a large new housing development such as these 233 homes in Cullingworth, have to include consideration for local services such as nearby schools, and even drainage etc. As many as 1000 new inhabitants will occupy these houses. A big impact upon a small local community. Over in Ilkley, the Bradford LDF plan calls for 850 new homes to be built on green belt land. This is in a town overflowing to full capacity. The local services will never ever cope with another 3400+ people, on top of the local population. Poor planning and suspect analysis by so-called 'experts'.[/p][/quote]Hello Paul....it's been a while! MarkPullen
  • Score: -2

3:08pm Wed 19 Mar 14

Albion. says...

BaildonGuy wrote:
Albion. wrote:
BaildonGuy wrote:
sorrow&anger wrote:
Basically it's a tale of two brownfields. Developers will build on brownfields providing they're in desirable areas such as pleasant residential villages like Cullingworth or in thriving metropolitan areas like London.

What developers won't do is build on brownfields in derelict dumps like Bradford.

If City Hall got one with the job of regeneration then the brownfields would become viable and the pressure on what's left of our green spaces would ease. Chicken and egg situations like these always require bold actions. The Council needs to buy up and develop the 'undevelopable' derelict sites itself. It's time for Cllr. Green to actually do something.
Good point but the Council are hypocrites and in the pockets of the developers.

They refused to buy brownfields for the Buck Lane Industrial Estate. Instead they preferred to maximise the developers' profits and purchase prime agricultural land and reduce our dwindling stock of green space.

Bradford will never regenerate until City Hall learns to put the needs of its citizens above the profits of developers.
Buck Lane wasn't used for agricultural purposes for many years and certainly wasn't "prime". There will be much more building on green field sites over the coming years, whether you, I, or anyone else likes it or not.
Precisely, the Council is in the pockets of the developers.

Buck Lane was the only remaining piece of Grade II agricultural land between Shipley and Ilkley. The Council behaved like vandals.
They already owned it and it was earmarked for development. It simply continues a line of development from Shipley to Buck Lane.
[quote][p][bold]BaildonGuy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Albion.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BaildonGuy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sorrow&anger[/bold] wrote: Basically it's a tale of two brownfields. Developers will build on brownfields providing they're in desirable areas such as pleasant residential villages like Cullingworth or in thriving metropolitan areas like London. What developers won't do is build on brownfields in derelict dumps like Bradford. If City Hall got one with the job of regeneration then the brownfields would become viable and the pressure on what's left of our green spaces would ease. Chicken and egg situations like these always require bold actions. The Council needs to buy up and develop the 'undevelopable' derelict sites itself. It's time for Cllr. Green to actually do something.[/p][/quote]Good point but the Council are hypocrites and in the pockets of the developers. They refused to buy brownfields for the Buck Lane Industrial Estate. Instead they preferred to maximise the developers' profits and purchase prime agricultural land and reduce our dwindling stock of green space. Bradford will never regenerate until City Hall learns to put the needs of its citizens above the profits of developers.[/p][/quote]Buck Lane wasn't used for agricultural purposes for many years and certainly wasn't "prime". There will be much more building on green field sites over the coming years, whether you, I, or anyone else likes it or not.[/p][/quote]Precisely, the Council is in the pockets of the developers. Buck Lane was the only remaining piece of Grade II agricultural land between Shipley and Ilkley. The Council behaved like vandals.[/p][/quote]They already owned it and it was earmarked for development. It simply continues a line of development from Shipley to Buck Lane. Albion.
  • Score: 1

3:19pm Wed 19 Mar 14

Bone_idle18 says...

pjl20 wrote:
Plans for a large new housing development such as these 233 homes in Cullingworth, have to include consideration for local services such as nearby schools, and even drainage etc.

As many as 1000 new inhabitants will occupy these houses. A big impact upon a small local community.

Over in Ilkley, the Bradford LDF plan calls for 850 new homes to be built on green belt land. This is in a town overflowing to full capacity. The local services will never ever cope with another 3400+ people, on top of the local population.

Poor planning and suspect analysis by so-called 'experts'.
So you think inner city brownfield developments wouldn't have these problems? Innercity schools are the most over subscribed in the area, innercity traffic is the worst in the area, the problem is the same, on a larger scale. Planning isn't easy, but it is easier to expand school when there is space around them, same with roads etc.
[quote][p][bold]pjl20[/bold] wrote: Plans for a large new housing development such as these 233 homes in Cullingworth, have to include consideration for local services such as nearby schools, and even drainage etc. As many as 1000 new inhabitants will occupy these houses. A big impact upon a small local community. Over in Ilkley, the Bradford LDF plan calls for 850 new homes to be built on green belt land. This is in a town overflowing to full capacity. The local services will never ever cope with another 3400+ people, on top of the local population. Poor planning and suspect analysis by so-called 'experts'.[/p][/quote]So you think inner city brownfield developments wouldn't have these problems? Innercity schools are the most over subscribed in the area, innercity traffic is the worst in the area, the problem is the same, on a larger scale. Planning isn't easy, but it is easier to expand school when there is space around them, same with roads etc. Bone_idle18
  • Score: 1

3:20pm Wed 19 Mar 14

MarkPullen says...

Bone_idle18 wrote:
pjl20 wrote:
Plans for a large new housing development such as these 233 homes in Cullingworth, have to include consideration for local services such as nearby schools, and even drainage etc.

As many as 1000 new inhabitants will occupy these houses. A big impact upon a small local community.

Over in Ilkley, the Bradford LDF plan calls for 850 new homes to be built on green belt land. This is in a town overflowing to full capacity. The local services will never ever cope with another 3400+ people, on top of the local population.

Poor planning and suspect analysis by so-called 'experts'.
So you think inner city brownfield developments wouldn't have these problems? Innercity schools are the most over subscribed in the area, innercity traffic is the worst in the area, the problem is the same, on a larger scale. Planning isn't easy, but it is easier to expand school when there is space around them, same with roads etc.
Don't bother Bone-idle18 - pjl20 is seeking election for Ilkley in May so he's only interested in green lawns and afternoon tea.
[quote][p][bold]Bone_idle18[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pjl20[/bold] wrote: Plans for a large new housing development such as these 233 homes in Cullingworth, have to include consideration for local services such as nearby schools, and even drainage etc. As many as 1000 new inhabitants will occupy these houses. A big impact upon a small local community. Over in Ilkley, the Bradford LDF plan calls for 850 new homes to be built on green belt land. This is in a town overflowing to full capacity. The local services will never ever cope with another 3400+ people, on top of the local population. Poor planning and suspect analysis by so-called 'experts'.[/p][/quote]So you think inner city brownfield developments wouldn't have these problems? Innercity schools are the most over subscribed in the area, innercity traffic is the worst in the area, the problem is the same, on a larger scale. Planning isn't easy, but it is easier to expand school when there is space around them, same with roads etc.[/p][/quote]Don't bother Bone-idle18 - pjl20 is seeking election for Ilkley in May so he's only interested in green lawns and afternoon tea. MarkPullen
  • Score: 3

4:17pm Wed 19 Mar 14

BaildonGuy says...

Albion. wrote:
BaildonGuy wrote:
Albion. wrote:
BaildonGuy wrote:
sorrow&anger wrote:
Basically it's a tale of two brownfields. Developers will build on brownfields providing they're in desirable areas such as pleasant residential villages like Cullingworth or in thriving metropolitan areas like London.

What developers won't do is build on brownfields in derelict dumps like Bradford.

If City Hall got one with the job of regeneration then the brownfields would become viable and the pressure on what's left of our green spaces would ease. Chicken and egg situations like these always require bold actions. The Council needs to buy up and develop the 'undevelopable' derelict sites itself. It's time for Cllr. Green to actually do something.
Good point but the Council are hypocrites and in the pockets of the developers.

They refused to buy brownfields for the Buck Lane Industrial Estate. Instead they preferred to maximise the developers' profits and purchase prime agricultural land and reduce our dwindling stock of green space.

Bradford will never regenerate until City Hall learns to put the needs of its citizens above the profits of developers.
Buck Lane wasn't used for agricultural purposes for many years and certainly wasn't "prime". There will be much more building on green field sites over the coming years, whether you, I, or anyone else likes it or not.
Precisely, the Council is in the pockets of the developers.

Buck Lane was the only remaining piece of Grade II agricultural land between Shipley and Ilkley. The Council behaved like vandals.
They already owned it and it was earmarked for development. It simply continues a line of development from Shipley to Buck Lane.
No they didn't. They bought it from Filtronic.

The Council own plenty of brownfields why didn't they put the industrial estate on one of those? Why destroy green space unnecessarily? The Council earmarked Buck Lane for development so they could just as easily have unearmarked it.
[quote][p][bold]Albion.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BaildonGuy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Albion.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BaildonGuy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sorrow&anger[/bold] wrote: Basically it's a tale of two brownfields. Developers will build on brownfields providing they're in desirable areas such as pleasant residential villages like Cullingworth or in thriving metropolitan areas like London. What developers won't do is build on brownfields in derelict dumps like Bradford. If City Hall got one with the job of regeneration then the brownfields would become viable and the pressure on what's left of our green spaces would ease. Chicken and egg situations like these always require bold actions. The Council needs to buy up and develop the 'undevelopable' derelict sites itself. It's time for Cllr. Green to actually do something.[/p][/quote]Good point but the Council are hypocrites and in the pockets of the developers. They refused to buy brownfields for the Buck Lane Industrial Estate. Instead they preferred to maximise the developers' profits and purchase prime agricultural land and reduce our dwindling stock of green space. Bradford will never regenerate until City Hall learns to put the needs of its citizens above the profits of developers.[/p][/quote]Buck Lane wasn't used for agricultural purposes for many years and certainly wasn't "prime". There will be much more building on green field sites over the coming years, whether you, I, or anyone else likes it or not.[/p][/quote]Precisely, the Council is in the pockets of the developers. Buck Lane was the only remaining piece of Grade II agricultural land between Shipley and Ilkley. The Council behaved like vandals.[/p][/quote]They already owned it and it was earmarked for development. It simply continues a line of development from Shipley to Buck Lane.[/p][/quote]No they didn't. They bought it from Filtronic. The Council own plenty of brownfields why didn't they put the industrial estate on one of those? Why destroy green space unnecessarily? The Council earmarked Buck Lane for development so they could just as easily have unearmarked it. BaildonGuy
  • Score: -1

4:38pm Wed 19 Mar 14

Albion. says...

BaildonGuy wrote:
Albion. wrote:
BaildonGuy wrote:
Albion. wrote:
BaildonGuy wrote:
sorrow&anger wrote:
Basically it's a tale of two brownfields. Developers will build on brownfields providing they're in desirable areas such as pleasant residential villages like Cullingworth or in thriving metropolitan areas like London.

What developers won't do is build on brownfields in derelict dumps like Bradford.

If City Hall got one with the job of regeneration then the brownfields would become viable and the pressure on what's left of our green spaces would ease. Chicken and egg situations like these always require bold actions. The Council needs to buy up and develop the 'undevelopable' derelict sites itself. It's time for Cllr. Green to actually do something.
Good point but the Council are hypocrites and in the pockets of the developers.

They refused to buy brownfields for the Buck Lane Industrial Estate. Instead they preferred to maximise the developers' profits and purchase prime agricultural land and reduce our dwindling stock of green space.

Bradford will never regenerate until City Hall learns to put the needs of its citizens above the profits of developers.
Buck Lane wasn't used for agricultural purposes for many years and certainly wasn't "prime". There will be much more building on green field sites over the coming years, whether you, I, or anyone else likes it or not.
Precisely, the Council is in the pockets of the developers.

Buck Lane was the only remaining piece of Grade II agricultural land between Shipley and Ilkley. The Council behaved like vandals.
They already owned it and it was earmarked for development. It simply continues a line of development from Shipley to Buck Lane.
No they didn't. They bought it from Filtronic.

The Council own plenty of brownfields why didn't they put the industrial estate on one of those? Why destroy green space unnecessarily? The Council earmarked Buck Lane for development so they could just as easily have unearmarked it.
Why should they, it's time it was put to some use? I walk there frequently and I have no objection to the development and the new footpath is much better. It's all over, you lost, but every opportunity you get, you come on here moaning about it, even when it bears little or no relevance to the actual topic.
[quote][p][bold]BaildonGuy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Albion.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BaildonGuy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Albion.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BaildonGuy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sorrow&anger[/bold] wrote: Basically it's a tale of two brownfields. Developers will build on brownfields providing they're in desirable areas such as pleasant residential villages like Cullingworth or in thriving metropolitan areas like London. What developers won't do is build on brownfields in derelict dumps like Bradford. If City Hall got one with the job of regeneration then the brownfields would become viable and the pressure on what's left of our green spaces would ease. Chicken and egg situations like these always require bold actions. The Council needs to buy up and develop the 'undevelopable' derelict sites itself. It's time for Cllr. Green to actually do something.[/p][/quote]Good point but the Council are hypocrites and in the pockets of the developers. They refused to buy brownfields for the Buck Lane Industrial Estate. Instead they preferred to maximise the developers' profits and purchase prime agricultural land and reduce our dwindling stock of green space. Bradford will never regenerate until City Hall learns to put the needs of its citizens above the profits of developers.[/p][/quote]Buck Lane wasn't used for agricultural purposes for many years and certainly wasn't "prime". There will be much more building on green field sites over the coming years, whether you, I, or anyone else likes it or not.[/p][/quote]Precisely, the Council is in the pockets of the developers. Buck Lane was the only remaining piece of Grade II agricultural land between Shipley and Ilkley. The Council behaved like vandals.[/p][/quote]They already owned it and it was earmarked for development. It simply continues a line of development from Shipley to Buck Lane.[/p][/quote]No they didn't. They bought it from Filtronic. The Council own plenty of brownfields why didn't they put the industrial estate on one of those? Why destroy green space unnecessarily? The Council earmarked Buck Lane for development so they could just as easily have unearmarked it.[/p][/quote]Why should they, it's time it was put to some use? I walk there frequently and I have no objection to the development and the new footpath is much better. It's all over, you lost, but every opportunity you get, you come on here moaning about it, even when it bears little or no relevance to the actual topic. Albion.
  • Score: -1

6:04pm Wed 19 Mar 14

Bone_idle18 says...

MarkPullen wrote:
Bone_idle18 wrote:
pjl20 wrote:
Plans for a large new housing development such as these 233 homes in Cullingworth, have to include consideration for local services such as nearby schools, and even drainage etc.

As many as 1000 new inhabitants will occupy these houses. A big impact upon a small local community.

Over in Ilkley, the Bradford LDF plan calls for 850 new homes to be built on green belt land. This is in a town overflowing to full capacity. The local services will never ever cope with another 3400+ people, on top of the local population.

Poor planning and suspect analysis by so-called 'experts'.
So you think inner city brownfield developments wouldn't have these problems? Innercity schools are the most over subscribed in the area, innercity traffic is the worst in the area, the problem is the same, on a larger scale. Planning isn't easy, but it is easier to expand school when there is space around them, same with roads etc.
Don't bother Bone-idle18 - pjl20 is seeking election for Ilkley in May so he's only interested in green lawns and afternoon tea.
Ah, 900+ houses in Ilkley would include in quite a few affordable homes, and the riff-raff associated with them :) Might be a few too many commoners moving to the area lol!
[quote][p][bold]MarkPullen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bone_idle18[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pjl20[/bold] wrote: Plans for a large new housing development such as these 233 homes in Cullingworth, have to include consideration for local services such as nearby schools, and even drainage etc. As many as 1000 new inhabitants will occupy these houses. A big impact upon a small local community. Over in Ilkley, the Bradford LDF plan calls for 850 new homes to be built on green belt land. This is in a town overflowing to full capacity. The local services will never ever cope with another 3400+ people, on top of the local population. Poor planning and suspect analysis by so-called 'experts'.[/p][/quote]So you think inner city brownfield developments wouldn't have these problems? Innercity schools are the most over subscribed in the area, innercity traffic is the worst in the area, the problem is the same, on a larger scale. Planning isn't easy, but it is easier to expand school when there is space around them, same with roads etc.[/p][/quote]Don't bother Bone-idle18 - pjl20 is seeking election for Ilkley in May so he's only interested in green lawns and afternoon tea.[/p][/quote]Ah, 900+ houses in Ilkley would include in quite a few affordable homes, and the riff-raff associated with them :) Might be a few too many commoners moving to the area lol! Bone_idle18
  • Score: -2

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