Bradford Council opposition parties call for homes allocations rejection by Government inspector

Bradford Telegraph and Argus: Councillor Simon Cooke Councillor Simon Cooke

A blueprint for housebuilding across the district over the next 15 years is “not fit for purpose and doomed to failure”, according to local Conservatives.

Bradford Council’s Local Plan sets out roughly where 42,100 homes should be built across the district by 2030, on a mixture of green fields and previously-developed land.

But the Labour-led authority’s plan has sparked protests, mainly by campaigners calling for development to be kept off the Green Belt.

The plan’s ‘core strategy’ will now be scrutinised by the Government, and the Conservatives at Bradford Council are calling for its planning inspectors to throw it out.

Responding to a consultation which closed yesterday, the Conservatives said too much of the housebuilding was earmarked for rural communities, while the district’s population is expected to grow the most in the inner city.

They also argue that the district does not need 42,100 homes and that there simply isn’t enough available land to accommodate them all.

The party’s planning spokesman, Councillor Simon Cooke, said: “It is preposterous that 900 acres of Green Belt will be built upon and yet the people who need new homes will not have any available to them in locations that they want or at prices that they can afford.

“The strategy is simply not fit for purpose and doomed to failure.”

The Liberal Democrats have also formally objected to the plan, arguing that more should be done to improve derelict areas of the city centre and bring empty homes back into use.

Group leader, Councillor Jeanette Sunderland, said the plan was “packing in households in parts of the district when most of the city centre is derelict”.

She added: “In-filling around the urban edge without improving the infrastructure is just having a massively detrimental effect on local communities.”

Councillor Val Slater (Lab), executive member for planning, said bringing empty properties back into use was her top priority, and in the past two years, her team had rescued more than 3,000 empty homes. She said she shared the Conservatives’ concerns that there wasn’t enough land to build on, but that was the situation they were in.

Coun Slater added: “As far as they are maintaining that we are putting far too much in rural areas, I dispute that. The figures in rural areas have come down substantially from the original consultation report.”

Comments (7)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:27am Tue 1 Apr 14

tinytoonster says...

nothing this labour council does is fit for purpose.
they just want maximum council tax and sod the infrastructure!
nothing this labour council does is fit for purpose. they just want maximum council tax and sod the infrastructure! tinytoonster
  • Score: 0

9:57am Tue 1 Apr 14

collos25 says...

Its not just Labour councils, if you look around there is plenty of places to build but the building firms give bigger and fatter brown envelopes for green field sites because they know they can charge much more for the houses .
Its not just Labour councils, if you look around there is plenty of places to build but the building firms give bigger and fatter brown envelopes for green field sites because they know they can charge much more for the houses . collos25
  • Score: 3

10:18am Tue 1 Apr 14

allinittogether says...

Can't be having the great unwashed aspiring to live in Cullingworth can we Mr Cooke might spoil your cuntryside views
Can't be having the great unwashed aspiring to live in Cullingworth can we Mr Cooke might spoil your cuntryside views allinittogether
  • Score: 3

10:19am Tue 1 Apr 14

allinittogether says...

* countryside. Sorry genuine typo
* countryside. Sorry genuine typo allinittogether
  • Score: 4

10:24am Tue 1 Apr 14

pollywolly says...

The wording on the vote today is a bit ambiguous. Can't decide whether it means "Yes, it's not fit for purpose" or "No, it's not fit for purpose." Help, please. Sorry to be thick.
The wording on the vote today is a bit ambiguous. Can't decide whether it means "Yes, it's not fit for purpose" or "No, it's not fit for purpose." Help, please. Sorry to be thick. pollywolly
  • Score: 10

10:47am Tue 1 Apr 14

Albion. says...

pollywolly wrote:
The wording on the vote today is a bit ambiguous. Can't decide whether it means "Yes, it's not fit for purpose" or "No, it's not fit for purpose." Help, please. Sorry to be thick.
Vote yes if you agree that it's not fit for purpose or no if you agree with the opposition. Personally I think a lot of people would be somewhere between.
[quote][p][bold]pollywolly[/bold] wrote: The wording on the vote today is a bit ambiguous. Can't decide whether it means "Yes, it's not fit for purpose" or "No, it's not fit for purpose." Help, please. Sorry to be thick.[/p][/quote]Vote yes if you agree that it's not fit for purpose or no if you agree with the opposition. Personally I think a lot of people would be somewhere between. Albion.
  • Score: 1

5:39pm Tue 1 Apr 14

awasteoftime says...

I seem to recall that No 10 has said they will protect Green Belt so how can this proposal even happen. All cities just cannot keep gobbling up land be it green belt or green fields. Development should be based in and around the City and on Brownfield plus bring many empty homes back into use. How can another 42,000 people be brought into the area, surely we are getting pretty full. The roads are full the schools are full the Doctors are full, hospitals are struggling, we are in a mess and the population growth just has to be controlled yet new people are still arriving, so in 10 more years more homes will be require and then more & more. When does this madness stop.
I seem to recall that No 10 has said they will protect Green Belt so how can this proposal even happen. All cities just cannot keep gobbling up land be it green belt or green fields. Development should be based in and around the City and on Brownfield plus bring many empty homes back into use. How can another 42,000 people be brought into the area, surely we are getting pretty full. The roads are full the schools are full the Doctors are full, hospitals are struggling, we are in a mess and the population growth just has to be controlled yet new people are still arriving, so in 10 more years more homes will be require and then more & more. When does this madness stop. awasteoftime
  • 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