Campaigners urge Council to postpone meeting over 440 new homes in Micklethwaite

Terry Brown of the Greenhill Action Group at the Sty Lane site

Terry Brown of the Greenhill Action Group at the Sty Lane site

First published in News Bradford Telegraph and Argus: Photograph of the Author by , T&A Reporter

Protesters against controversial plans for up to 440 homes on a green field site near Bingley say they need more time to consider an updated report on the scheme after Bradford Council sent out letters to say the deadline to make views was fast looming.

The application for the homes off Sty Lane, Micklethwaite, would also see the removal of an existing vehicular swing bridge to be replaced with a vehicular and pedestrian swing bridge over the Leeds-Liverpool Canal.

Protesters have argued the plans would not only destroy fields between Crossflatts and Micklethwaite, but also cause traffic problems due to narrow roads and a single-track bridge across the Leeds-Liverpool canal.

The application, submitted by Redrow Homes and Bellway Homes, was first made in September 2009 and has previously been dismissed by the Secretary of State for Communities Eric Pickles, and also refused by Bradford Council and a planning inspector.

Residents near the proposed site have received notification letters, dated June 3, from Bradford Council stating a planning application has been submitted and any objectors have until June 16 to make their submissions.

But Terry Brown, chairman of the Greenhill Action Group, which is battling to stop the development, said engineering firm Sandersons Associates has compiled an 86-page document, made available on May 21, which he said protesters were not told about and contains new drawings and updated plans.

Mr Brown said they need more time to examine the new document as Bradford Council’s Regulatory and Appeals Committee is set to meet to discuss the plans on June 19, only three days after the deadline for public comments expires.

He said the document contains new plans, drawings and supplementary information for the site which have yet to be mulled over by the public and he has urged the Council to put back the date of the meeting.

He said: “It’s totally unfair to the public. The only sensible way is to postpone the meeting and arrange a new meeting so the supplementary information that they have provided can be considered.”

In an e-mail to Mr Brown, seen by the Telegraph & Argus, John Eyles, Bradford Council’s major developments manager, said there would not be a deferment of the committee date agreed.

Bellway Homes has previously stated its confidence that its plans for the site, which has been earmarked for housing since 1998, will be approved.

Last week Shipley Conservative MP Philip Davies told the Commons that it was “wholly unsuitable” to build on the site and as well as number of others in his constituency.

Comments (30)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:13am Mon 9 Jun 14

BaildonGuy says...

This is absolutely typical of the unfair and underhand way in which City Hall operates. The Developer will have had continual access to the planning department for months. The Council has had the final document for weeks before the locals get to see it. At the enquirey they will then be given five minutes at most to put their case.

It is clear whose side City Hall is on, and it’s not the side of its ratepayers,
This is absolutely typical of the unfair and underhand way in which City Hall operates. The Developer will have had continual access to the planning department for months. The Council has had the final document for weeks before the locals get to see it. At the enquirey they will then be given five minutes at most to put their case. It is clear whose side City Hall is on, and it’s not the side of its ratepayers, BaildonGuy
  • Score: 38

9:28am Mon 9 Jun 14

A650 says...

Well Val Slater declared war on the middle classes didn’t she? Her husband is a councillor for nearby East Morton though I doubt it would be for much longer if this went through. Even with the replacement of the bridge 440 homes would add a ridiculous amount of traffic to the area and make the already inadequate roads down to Crossflatts and Bingley totally gridlocked.
Well Val Slater declared war on the middle classes didn’t she? Her husband is a councillor for nearby East Morton though I doubt it would be for much longer if this went through. Even with the replacement of the bridge 440 homes would add a ridiculous amount of traffic to the area and make the already inadequate roads down to Crossflatts and Bingley totally gridlocked. A650
  • Score: 19

10:04am Mon 9 Jun 14

G_Firth says...

Thought planning was already refused on this site
Thought planning was already refused on this site G_Firth
  • Score: 10

10:33am Mon 9 Jun 14

Quintilian says...

We need new houses and increasing the density of existing sites and new sites within the urban environment does not work; it leads to a lot of issues both with respects to health and social harmony. Also, our public services i.e. schools, doctors etc. are already at maximum capacity in these urban environments. We do have to build on green field sites, that is a given. What is not a given are which green field sites are the better ones to develop.

My only objection to building on green field sites are the type buildings themselves; they need to incorporate renewable energy technologies and other technologies that would make them more sustainable in terms of the householder's consumption.

There will always be objections to building on green field sites but it must occur.
We need new houses and increasing the density of existing sites and new sites within the urban environment does not work; it leads to a lot of issues both with respects to health and social harmony. Also, our public services i.e. schools, doctors etc. are already at maximum capacity in these urban environments. We do have to build on green field sites, that is a given. What is not a given are which green field sites are the better ones to develop. My only objection to building on green field sites are the type buildings themselves; they need to incorporate renewable energy technologies and other technologies that would make them more sustainable in terms of the householder's consumption. There will always be objections to building on green field sites but it must occur. Quintilian
  • Score: -19

10:50am Mon 9 Jun 14

sorrow&anger says...

G_Firth wrote:
Thought planning was already refused on this site
Permission has surely been refused, twice. But the rules say Developers can keep resubmitting especially when, as in this case, City Hall is encouraging them.

Development in Bradford is all about Council Tax revenue and Section 106 windfalls. Nothing else. In this Cllr Green is being more than usually short sighted. Neither Governments, nor funding models, are permanent; but the loss of precious countryside is. City Hall destroyed Bradford’s Victorian heritage for short term, developer driven, gains. They are now doing the same with our green fields.

Cllrs. Green, Slater and Hinchcliffe need to start thinking and not simply reacting.
[quote][p][bold]G_Firth[/bold] wrote: Thought planning was already refused on this site[/p][/quote]Permission has surely been refused, twice. But the rules say Developers can keep resubmitting especially when, as in this case, City Hall is encouraging them. Development in Bradford is all about Council Tax revenue and Section 106 windfalls. Nothing else. In this Cllr Green is being more than usually short sighted. Neither Governments, nor funding models, are permanent; but the loss of precious countryside is. City Hall destroyed Bradford’s Victorian heritage for short term, developer driven, gains. They are now doing the same with our green fields. Cllrs. Green, Slater and Hinchcliffe need to start thinking and not simply reacting. sorrow&anger
  • Score: 26

11:06am Mon 9 Jun 14

A650 says...

We certainly need new houses but continuing to build on greenbelt without properly exploring how we can use brownfield is unsustainable. Of course people want to live in the countryside but it’s in everyone’s interest to make sure we preserve the dwindling amount that we have and make sure that if it must happen then it has to be in areas that it is suitable.

Schools, doctors, social services are at maximum capacity in all areas. Greenfield sites are no different and often do not have the transport or utility infrastructure either.

Renewable and sustainable technologies can be used in all new building and should be used in brownfield sites too. Germany and the Netherlands have succeeded in building superb housing on brownfield sites that is actually desirable and regenerates urban areas that would otherwise just rot.

Building on greenfield sites might not be totally unavoidable but when it’s proposed in an area like this that is so unsuitable for 440 houses, and is thrown out repeatedly then surely it’s time to say no.
We certainly need new houses but continuing to build on greenbelt without properly exploring how we can use brownfield is unsustainable. Of course people want to live in the countryside but it’s in everyone’s interest to make sure we preserve the dwindling amount that we have and make sure that if it must happen then it has to be in areas that it is suitable. Schools, doctors, social services are at maximum capacity in all areas. Greenfield sites are no different and often do not have the transport or utility infrastructure either. Renewable and sustainable technologies can be used in all new building and should be used in brownfield sites too. Germany and the Netherlands have succeeded in building superb housing on brownfield sites that is actually desirable and regenerates urban areas that would otherwise just rot. Building on greenfield sites might not be totally unavoidable but when it’s proposed in an area like this that is so unsuitable for 440 houses, and is thrown out repeatedly then surely it’s time to say no. A650
  • Score: 19

11:16am Mon 9 Jun 14

gouldengirl says...

Quintilian wrote:
We need new houses and increasing the density of existing sites and new sites within the urban environment does not work; it leads to a lot of issues both with respects to health and social harmony. Also, our public services i.e. schools, doctors etc. are already at maximum capacity in these urban environments. We do have to build on green field sites, that is a given. What is not a given are which green field sites are the better ones to develop.

My only objection to building on green field sites are the type buildings themselves; they need to incorporate renewable energy technologies and other technologies that would make them more sustainable in terms of the householder's consumption.

There will always be objections to building on green field sites but it must occur.
I think you’re just a mouthpiece for the Council or the Developer.

“My only objection to building on green field sites are the type buildings themselves”. How silly! So we should simply leave the brownfields to rot and build on greenfields until they are all used up? This is the mad hatter approach to planning, don’t recycle just move onto fresh fields. People like you will reduce this country to an urban wasteland just so a few greedy developers can make lots of money.
[quote][p][bold]Quintilian[/bold] wrote: We need new houses and increasing the density of existing sites and new sites within the urban environment does not work; it leads to a lot of issues both with respects to health and social harmony. Also, our public services i.e. schools, doctors etc. are already at maximum capacity in these urban environments. We do have to build on green field sites, that is a given. What is not a given are which green field sites are the better ones to develop. My only objection to building on green field sites are the type buildings themselves; they need to incorporate renewable energy technologies and other technologies that would make them more sustainable in terms of the householder's consumption. There will always be objections to building on green field sites but it must occur.[/p][/quote]I think you’re just a mouthpiece for the Council or the Developer. “My only objection to building on green field sites are the type buildings themselves”. How silly! So we should simply leave the brownfields to rot and build on greenfields until they are all used up? This is the mad hatter approach to planning, don’t recycle just move onto fresh fields. People like you will reduce this country to an urban wasteland just so a few greedy developers can make lots of money. gouldengirl
  • Score: 19

11:41am Mon 9 Jun 14

BD16 says...

Quintilian wrote:
We need new houses and increasing the density of existing sites and new sites within the urban environment does not work; it leads to a lot of issues both with respects to health and social harmony. Also, our public services i.e. schools, doctors etc. are already at maximum capacity in these urban environments. We do have to build on green field sites, that is a given. What is not a given are which green field sites are the better ones to develop.

My only objection to building on green field sites are the type buildings themselves; they need to incorporate renewable energy technologies and other technologies that would make them more sustainable in terms of the householder's consumption.

There will always be objections to building on green field sites but it must occur.
What we actually need is better control of the size of our population. We have a finite amount of space on these islands and if we don't get a grip of the number of people we are going to be in a real mess in a couple of generations time. Climate change is going to lead to issues with food production as drought or flooding becomes more common and an ever increasing population is going to place even greater strain on the resources we have.

It's not about race, religion or colour, simply numbers.
[quote][p][bold]Quintilian[/bold] wrote: We need new houses and increasing the density of existing sites and new sites within the urban environment does not work; it leads to a lot of issues both with respects to health and social harmony. Also, our public services i.e. schools, doctors etc. are already at maximum capacity in these urban environments. We do have to build on green field sites, that is a given. What is not a given are which green field sites are the better ones to develop. My only objection to building on green field sites are the type buildings themselves; they need to incorporate renewable energy technologies and other technologies that would make them more sustainable in terms of the householder's consumption. There will always be objections to building on green field sites but it must occur.[/p][/quote]What we actually need is better control of the size of our population. We have a finite amount of space on these islands and if we don't get a grip of the number of people we are going to be in a real mess in a couple of generations time. Climate change is going to lead to issues with food production as drought or flooding becomes more common and an ever increasing population is going to place even greater strain on the resources we have. It's not about race, religion or colour, simply numbers. BD16
  • Score: 19

11:43am Mon 9 Jun 14

bluebluerobin says...

A650 wrote:
We certainly need new houses but continuing to build on greenbelt without properly exploring how we can use brownfield is unsustainable. Of course people want to live in the countryside but it’s in everyone’s interest to make sure we preserve the dwindling amount that we have and make sure that if it must happen then it has to be in areas that it is suitable.

Schools, doctors, social services are at maximum capacity in all areas. Greenfield sites are no different and often do not have the transport or utility infrastructure either.

Renewable and sustainable technologies can be used in all new building and should be used in brownfield sites too. Germany and the Netherlands have succeeded in building superb housing on brownfield sites that is actually desirable and regenerates urban areas that would otherwise just rot.

Building on greenfield sites might not be totally unavoidable but when it’s proposed in an area like this that is so unsuitable for 440 houses, and is thrown out repeatedly then surely it’s time to say no.
Other countries, other cities seem to be able to reuse their brownfields imaginatively and profitably.

The problem with brownfields in Bradford is that our criminally inept Council has failed to regenerate the inner city. You only have to drive through it to be appalled at the dereliction and, quite honestly, wonder what country you are in. So quite naturally the developers only want to build on the green periphery. You can’t blame them. But you can blame the Council for leaving the inner city the way it is.

This is the Detroit scenario, and we all know how that ended up.
[quote][p][bold]A650[/bold] wrote: We certainly need new houses but continuing to build on greenbelt without properly exploring how we can use brownfield is unsustainable. Of course people want to live in the countryside but it’s in everyone’s interest to make sure we preserve the dwindling amount that we have and make sure that if it must happen then it has to be in areas that it is suitable. Schools, doctors, social services are at maximum capacity in all areas. Greenfield sites are no different and often do not have the transport or utility infrastructure either. Renewable and sustainable technologies can be used in all new building and should be used in brownfield sites too. Germany and the Netherlands have succeeded in building superb housing on brownfield sites that is actually desirable and regenerates urban areas that would otherwise just rot. Building on greenfield sites might not be totally unavoidable but when it’s proposed in an area like this that is so unsuitable for 440 houses, and is thrown out repeatedly then surely it’s time to say no.[/p][/quote]Other countries, other cities seem to be able to reuse their brownfields imaginatively and profitably. The problem with brownfields in Bradford is that our criminally inept Council has failed to regenerate the inner city. You only have to drive through it to be appalled at the dereliction and, quite honestly, wonder what country you are in. So quite naturally the developers only want to build on the green periphery. You can’t blame them. But you can blame the Council for leaving the inner city the way it is. This is the Detroit scenario, and we all know how that ended up. bluebluerobin
  • Score: 9

11:57am Mon 9 Jun 14

bachtothefuture says...

BD16 wrote:
Quintilian wrote:
We need new houses and increasing the density of existing sites and new sites within the urban environment does not work; it leads to a lot of issues both with respects to health and social harmony. Also, our public services i.e. schools, doctors etc. are already at maximum capacity in these urban environments. We do have to build on green field sites, that is a given. What is not a given are which green field sites are the better ones to develop.

My only objection to building on green field sites are the type buildings themselves; they need to incorporate renewable energy technologies and other technologies that would make them more sustainable in terms of the householder's consumption.

There will always be objections to building on green field sites but it must occur.
What we actually need is better control of the size of our population. We have a finite amount of space on these islands and if we don't get a grip of the number of people we are going to be in a real mess in a couple of generations time. Climate change is going to lead to issues with food production as drought or flooding becomes more common and an ever increasing population is going to place even greater strain on the resources we have.

It's not about race, religion or colour, simply numbers.
The problem with Bradford is the very high population growth and the pressure that puts on housing and jobs. It’s a very third world type of issue and maybe City Hall could learn from places like Bangladesh.

However places like Sty Lane won’t help with Bradford’s population boom because that’s mostly taking place in the ethnic Asian areas of the inner city. Sty Lane will be commuter homes for the well heeled because they maximise not only the developers profits but also Council Tax revenue.

It’s been said many tine before but Cllr. Green and his planners really do need to get off their backsides and do something about the dereliction. Other cities have, why not us?
[quote][p][bold]BD16[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Quintilian[/bold] wrote: We need new houses and increasing the density of existing sites and new sites within the urban environment does not work; it leads to a lot of issues both with respects to health and social harmony. Also, our public services i.e. schools, doctors etc. are already at maximum capacity in these urban environments. We do have to build on green field sites, that is a given. What is not a given are which green field sites are the better ones to develop. My only objection to building on green field sites are the type buildings themselves; they need to incorporate renewable energy technologies and other technologies that would make them more sustainable in terms of the householder's consumption. There will always be objections to building on green field sites but it must occur.[/p][/quote]What we actually need is better control of the size of our population. We have a finite amount of space on these islands and if we don't get a grip of the number of people we are going to be in a real mess in a couple of generations time. Climate change is going to lead to issues with food production as drought or flooding becomes more common and an ever increasing population is going to place even greater strain on the resources we have. It's not about race, religion or colour, simply numbers.[/p][/quote]The problem with Bradford is the very high population growth and the pressure that puts on housing and jobs. It’s a very third world type of issue and maybe City Hall could learn from places like Bangladesh. However places like Sty Lane won’t help with Bradford’s population boom because that’s mostly taking place in the ethnic Asian areas of the inner city. Sty Lane will be commuter homes for the well heeled because they maximise not only the developers profits but also Council Tax revenue. It’s been said many tine before but Cllr. Green and his planners really do need to get off their backsides and do something about the dereliction. Other cities have, why not us? bachtothefuture
  • Score: 12

12:13pm Mon 9 Jun 14

Quintilian says...

gouldengirl wrote:
Quintilian wrote:
We need new houses and increasing the density of existing sites and new sites within the urban environment does not work; it leads to a lot of issues both with respects to health and social harmony. Also, our public services i.e. schools, doctors etc. are already at maximum capacity in these urban environments. We do have to build on green field sites, that is a given. What is not a given are which green field sites are the better ones to develop.

My only objection to building on green field sites are the type buildings themselves; they need to incorporate renewable energy technologies and other technologies that would make them more sustainable in terms of the householder's consumption.

There will always be objections to building on green field sites but it must occur.
I think you’re just a mouthpiece for the Council or the Developer.

“My only objection to building on green field sites are the type buildings themselves”. How silly! So we should simply leave the brownfields to rot and build on greenfields until they are all used up? This is the mad hatter approach to planning, don’t recycle just move onto fresh fields. People like you will reduce this country to an urban wasteland just so a few greedy developers can make lots of money.
LOL, you are more than welcome to come visit me at my home. You are being overly paranoid and have not taken on board what I said. Did I say the proposed development is a good one? No I did not, I merely addressed the idea of building on green fields AND what type of housing we should be building. Nothing more nothings less.
[quote][p][bold]gouldengirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Quintilian[/bold] wrote: We need new houses and increasing the density of existing sites and new sites within the urban environment does not work; it leads to a lot of issues both with respects to health and social harmony. Also, our public services i.e. schools, doctors etc. are already at maximum capacity in these urban environments. We do have to build on green field sites, that is a given. What is not a given are which green field sites are the better ones to develop. My only objection to building on green field sites are the type buildings themselves; they need to incorporate renewable energy technologies and other technologies that would make them more sustainable in terms of the householder's consumption. There will always be objections to building on green field sites but it must occur.[/p][/quote]I think you’re just a mouthpiece for the Council or the Developer. “My only objection to building on green field sites are the type buildings themselves”. How silly! So we should simply leave the brownfields to rot and build on greenfields until they are all used up? This is the mad hatter approach to planning, don’t recycle just move onto fresh fields. People like you will reduce this country to an urban wasteland just so a few greedy developers can make lots of money.[/p][/quote]LOL, you are more than welcome to come visit me at my home. You are being overly paranoid and have not taken on board what I said. Did I say the proposed development is a good one? No I did not, I merely addressed the idea of building on green fields AND what type of housing we should be building. Nothing more nothings less. Quintilian
  • Score: -10

12:23pm Mon 9 Jun 14

Thackleygirl says...

We do not need new houses - the article in the Telegraph & Argus dated the 4 June 2014 stated that in Bradford "The number of long-term empty homes fell from 4,766 in 2012 to 3,981 in 2013, the Empty Homes Agency revealed earlier this month". That's 3,981 empty houses in the Bradford area!! Surely it must be a priority to use these first of all, then brownfield sites before building on any green fields?

The schools and infrastructure simply cannot cope. When the 3,981 are filled the majority will require school places and then Bradford Council will allow more houses to be built and these families will also require school places as well - what happens then? They won't build a new school as not land will be left...
We do not need new houses - the article in the Telegraph & Argus dated the 4 June 2014 stated that in Bradford "The number of long-term empty homes fell from 4,766 in 2012 to 3,981 in 2013, the Empty Homes Agency revealed earlier this month". That's 3,981 empty houses in the Bradford area!! Surely it must be a priority to use these first of all, then brownfield sites before building on any green fields? The schools and infrastructure simply cannot cope. When the 3,981 are filled the majority will require school places and then Bradford Council will allow more houses to be built and these families will also require school places as well - what happens then? They won't build a new school as not land will be left... Thackleygirl
  • Score: 12

12:30pm Mon 9 Jun 14

DCarbz says...

Finally the Council get the swing bridge replaced at no cost to them. The one at Bradley many years ago cost around £250,000 and the approach roads were level.
When will the developers throw in the access road via Canal Road and a tunnel under the canal version or the diversion of the canal trough the allotments version. Both have been considered in the past.
Regret this saga will run and run.
Finally the Council get the swing bridge replaced at no cost to them. The one at Bradley many years ago cost around £250,000 and the approach roads were level. When will the developers throw in the access road via Canal Road and a tunnel under the canal version or the diversion of the canal trough the allotments version. Both have been considered in the past. Regret this saga will run and run. DCarbz
  • Score: -9

12:40pm Mon 9 Jun 14

gaggedandbound says...

It's the geese I feel sorry for, where will they peck?
It's the geese I feel sorry for, where will they peck? gaggedandbound
  • Score: -8

12:41pm Mon 9 Jun 14

gaggedandbound says...

Hasn't Terry got big hands!
Hasn't Terry got big hands! gaggedandbound
  • Score: -7

12:56pm Mon 9 Jun 14

Michael Manus says...

Thackleygirl wrote:
We do not need new houses - the article in the Telegraph & Argus dated the 4 June 2014 stated that in Bradford "The number of long-term empty homes fell from 4,766 in 2012 to 3,981 in 2013, the Empty Homes Agency revealed earlier this month". That's 3,981 empty houses in the Bradford area!! Surely it must be a priority to use these first of all, then brownfield sites before building on any green fields?

The schools and infrastructure simply cannot cope. When the 3,981 are filled the majority will require school places and then Bradford Council will allow more houses to be built and these families will also require school places as well - what happens then? They won't build a new school as not land will be left...
You only have to look at the schools and infrastructure for Queensbury since the new housing have been shooting up all over the village, it's an absolute joke. But hey as long as Councillor Green is receiving additional Council Tax revenue from the new builds I'm afraid no amount of objections will stop this development going ahead.
[quote][p][bold]Thackleygirl[/bold] wrote: We do not need new houses - the article in the Telegraph & Argus dated the 4 June 2014 stated that in Bradford "The number of long-term empty homes fell from 4,766 in 2012 to 3,981 in 2013, the Empty Homes Agency revealed earlier this month". That's 3,981 empty houses in the Bradford area!! Surely it must be a priority to use these first of all, then brownfield sites before building on any green fields? The schools and infrastructure simply cannot cope. When the 3,981 are filled the majority will require school places and then Bradford Council will allow more houses to be built and these families will also require school places as well - what happens then? They won't build a new school as not land will be left...[/p][/quote]You only have to look at the schools and infrastructure for Queensbury since the new housing have been shooting up all over the village, it's an absolute joke. But hey as long as Councillor Green is receiving additional Council Tax revenue from the new builds I'm afraid no amount of objections will stop this development going ahead. Michael Manus
  • Score: 13

1:02pm Mon 9 Jun 14

gaggedandbound says...

Michael M Anus, I've noticed it shooting up all over Queensbury too, it won't be long before it's shooting up all over Bingley unfortunately. Hats off to Terry and GAG for trying, I hope they succeed.
Michael M Anus, I've noticed it shooting up all over Queensbury too, it won't be long before it's shooting up all over Bingley unfortunately. Hats off to Terry and GAG for trying, I hope they succeed. gaggedandbound
  • Score: -2

1:08pm Mon 9 Jun 14

Albion. says...

Thackleygirl wrote:
We do not need new houses - the article in the Telegraph & Argus dated the 4 June 2014 stated that in Bradford "The number of long-term empty homes fell from 4,766 in 2012 to 3,981 in 2013, the Empty Homes Agency revealed earlier this month". That's 3,981 empty houses in the Bradford area!! Surely it must be a priority to use these first of all, then brownfield sites before building on any green fields?

The schools and infrastructure simply cannot cope. When the 3,981 are filled the majority will require school places and then Bradford Council will allow more houses to be built and these families will also require school places as well - what happens then? They won't build a new school as not land will be left...
Are they all available for sale or rent? The estimate for new houses around the Bradford area is far higher than that.
[quote][p][bold]Thackleygirl[/bold] wrote: We do not need new houses - the article in the Telegraph & Argus dated the 4 June 2014 stated that in Bradford "The number of long-term empty homes fell from 4,766 in 2012 to 3,981 in 2013, the Empty Homes Agency revealed earlier this month". That's 3,981 empty houses in the Bradford area!! Surely it must be a priority to use these first of all, then brownfield sites before building on any green fields? The schools and infrastructure simply cannot cope. When the 3,981 are filled the majority will require school places and then Bradford Council will allow more houses to be built and these families will also require school places as well - what happens then? They won't build a new school as not land will be left...[/p][/quote]Are they all available for sale or rent? The estimate for new houses around the Bradford area is far higher than that. Albion.
  • Score: -9

1:10pm Mon 9 Jun 14

Albion. says...

gaggedandbound wrote:
Hasn't Terry got big hands!
They're for grabbing your money at his business.
[quote][p][bold]gaggedandbound[/bold] wrote: Hasn't Terry got big hands![/p][/quote]They're for grabbing your money at his business. Albion.
  • Score: 5

1:55pm Mon 9 Jun 14

Grumpygirl says...

Albion. wrote:
gaggedandbound wrote:
Hasn't Terry got big hands!
They're for grabbing your money at his business.
Albion you're slipping. That was a very Hoffster type of response, thereby proving that you are one and the same. As my family will tell you, my intuition is seldom wrong.
[quote][p][bold]Albion.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gaggedandbound[/bold] wrote: Hasn't Terry got big hands![/p][/quote]They're for grabbing your money at his business.[/p][/quote]Albion you're slipping. That was a very Hoffster type of response, thereby proving that you are one and the same. As my family will tell you, my intuition is seldom wrong. Grumpygirl
  • Score: 1

2:11pm Mon 9 Jun 14

Albion. says...

Grumpygirl wrote:
Albion. wrote:
gaggedandbound wrote:
Hasn't Terry got big hands!
They're for grabbing your money at his business.
Albion you're slipping. That was a very Hoffster type of response, thereby proving that you are one and the same. As my family will tell you, my intuition is seldom wrong.
I know Terry and have done business with his company... .Big mistake!
By the way, the Hoffster is an Asian, I certainly am not.
[quote][p][bold]Grumpygirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Albion.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gaggedandbound[/bold] wrote: Hasn't Terry got big hands![/p][/quote]They're for grabbing your money at his business.[/p][/quote]Albion you're slipping. That was a very Hoffster type of response, thereby proving that you are one and the same. As my family will tell you, my intuition is seldom wrong.[/p][/quote]I know Terry and have done business with his company... .Big mistake! By the way, the Hoffster is an Asian, I certainly am not. Albion.
  • Score: 11

2:50pm Mon 9 Jun 14

Grumpygirl says...

Albion. wrote:
Grumpygirl wrote:
Albion. wrote:
gaggedandbound wrote:
Hasn't Terry got big hands!
They're for grabbing your money at his business.
Albion you're slipping. That was a very Hoffster type of response, thereby proving that you are one and the same. As my family will tell you, my intuition is seldom wrong.
I know Terry and have done business with his company... .Big mistake!
By the way, the Hoffster is an Asian, I certainly am not.
Hoffster, you doth protest to much. It's definitely you. And what's wrong with being Asian?
[quote][p][bold]Albion.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Grumpygirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Albion.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gaggedandbound[/bold] wrote: Hasn't Terry got big hands![/p][/quote]They're for grabbing your money at his business.[/p][/quote]Albion you're slipping. That was a very Hoffster type of response, thereby proving that you are one and the same. As my family will tell you, my intuition is seldom wrong.[/p][/quote]I know Terry and have done business with his company... .Big mistake! By the way, the Hoffster is an Asian, I certainly am not.[/p][/quote]Hoffster, you doth protest to much. It's definitely you. And what's wrong with being Asian? Grumpygirl
  • Score: 0

3:51pm Mon 9 Jun 14

Thackleygirl says...

Does it matter if they are for sale or rent - I am sure there is a mixture? I am quoting what was in the news article and at least it would be a start if these empty houses were used first of all. The main point is that these homes are empty and the question should be - why are the empty? What can be done to encourage families to occupy them and what needs to be done to get these empty houses used?
Does it matter if they are for sale or rent - I am sure there is a mixture? I am quoting what was in the news article and at least it would be a start if these empty houses were used first of all. The main point is that these homes are empty and the question should be - why are the empty? What can be done to encourage families to occupy them and what needs to be done to get these empty houses used? Thackleygirl
  • Score: 5

3:56pm Mon 9 Jun 14

linebacker2 says...

Thackleygirl wrote:
We do not need new houses - the article in the Telegraph & Argus dated the 4 June 2014 stated that in Bradford "The number of long-term empty homes fell from 4,766 in 2012 to 3,981 in 2013, the Empty Homes Agency revealed earlier this month". That's 3,981 empty houses in the Bradford area!! Surely it must be a priority to use these first of all, then brownfield sites before building on any green fields?

The schools and infrastructure simply cannot cope. When the 3,981 are filled the majority will require school places and then Bradford Council will allow more houses to be built and these families will also require school places as well - what happens then? They won't build a new school as not land will be left...
Do you really believe developers are going to build housing they can't sell?

As for schools & infrastructure not coping - the infrastructure in the brownfield sites we keep hearing about is even more overloaded than in the outskirts of the city.
[quote][p][bold]Thackleygirl[/bold] wrote: We do not need new houses - the article in the Telegraph & Argus dated the 4 June 2014 stated that in Bradford "The number of long-term empty homes fell from 4,766 in 2012 to 3,981 in 2013, the Empty Homes Agency revealed earlier this month". That's 3,981 empty houses in the Bradford area!! Surely it must be a priority to use these first of all, then brownfield sites before building on any green fields? The schools and infrastructure simply cannot cope. When the 3,981 are filled the majority will require school places and then Bradford Council will allow more houses to be built and these families will also require school places as well - what happens then? They won't build a new school as not land will be left...[/p][/quote]Do you really believe developers are going to build housing they can't sell? As for schools & infrastructure not coping - the infrastructure in the brownfield sites we keep hearing about is even more overloaded than in the outskirts of the city. linebacker2
  • Score: 3

4:00pm Mon 9 Jun 14

Albion. says...

Thackleygirl wrote:
Does it matter if they are for sale or rent - I am sure there is a mixture? I am quoting what was in the news article and at least it would be a start if these empty houses were used first of all. The main point is that these homes are empty and the question should be - why are the empty? What can be done to encourage families to occupy them and what needs to be done to get these empty houses used?
And if the owner (if he can be found) doesn't wish to sell? compulsory purchase never pays the full market value, now that prices are rising, owners might wish to hold on to their increasing assets. The market rules and financiers only support building projects if they feel they will make a decent profit, you can't expect the council to do much with the savings and cuts that are forced upon them.
[quote][p][bold]Thackleygirl[/bold] wrote: Does it matter if they are for sale or rent - I am sure there is a mixture? I am quoting what was in the news article and at least it would be a start if these empty houses were used first of all. The main point is that these homes are empty and the question should be - why are the empty? What can be done to encourage families to occupy them and what needs to be done to get these empty houses used?[/p][/quote]And if the owner (if he can be found) doesn't wish to sell? compulsory purchase never pays the full market value, now that prices are rising, owners might wish to hold on to their increasing assets. The market rules and financiers only support building projects if they feel they will make a decent profit, you can't expect the council to do much with the savings and cuts that are forced upon them. Albion.
  • Score: 5

7:48pm Mon 9 Jun 14

pcmanners says...

Albion. wrote:
Thackleygirl wrote:
Does it matter if they are for sale or rent - I am sure there is a mixture? I am quoting what was in the news article and at least it would be a start if these empty houses were used first of all. The main point is that these homes are empty and the question should be - why are the empty? What can be done to encourage families to occupy them and what needs to be done to get these empty houses used?
And if the owner (if he can be found) doesn't wish to sell? compulsory purchase never pays the full market value, now that prices are rising, owners might wish to hold on to their increasing assets. The market rules and financiers only support building projects if they feel they will make a decent profit, you can't expect the council to do much with the savings and cuts that are forced upon them.
At last you and your socialist friends are seeing sense.

The market does rule. That is all there is to it. If developers only want to build on greenfields then they should be allowed to do so. Anything else is state control and is bound to fail. Socialism can only hold back the force of the market for so long, after that the natural order reasserts itself. Look at the communists in Russia.
[quote][p][bold]Albion.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thackleygirl[/bold] wrote: Does it matter if they are for sale or rent - I am sure there is a mixture? I am quoting what was in the news article and at least it would be a start if these empty houses were used first of all. The main point is that these homes are empty and the question should be - why are the empty? What can be done to encourage families to occupy them and what needs to be done to get these empty houses used?[/p][/quote]And if the owner (if he can be found) doesn't wish to sell? compulsory purchase never pays the full market value, now that prices are rising, owners might wish to hold on to their increasing assets. The market rules and financiers only support building projects if they feel they will make a decent profit, you can't expect the council to do much with the savings and cuts that are forced upon them.[/p][/quote]At last you and your socialist friends are seeing sense. The market does rule. That is all there is to it. If developers only want to build on greenfields then they should be allowed to do so. Anything else is state control and is bound to fail. Socialism can only hold back the force of the market for so long, after that the natural order reasserts itself. Look at the communists in Russia. pcmanners
  • Score: 3

8:01pm Mon 9 Jun 14

Grumpygirl says...

pcmanners wrote:
Albion. wrote:
Thackleygirl wrote:
Does it matter if they are for sale or rent - I am sure there is a mixture? I am quoting what was in the news article and at least it would be a start if these empty houses were used first of all. The main point is that these homes are empty and the question should be - why are the empty? What can be done to encourage families to occupy them and what needs to be done to get these empty houses used?
And if the owner (if he can be found) doesn't wish to sell? compulsory purchase never pays the full market value, now that prices are rising, owners might wish to hold on to their increasing assets. The market rules and financiers only support building projects if they feel they will make a decent profit, you can't expect the council to do much with the savings and cuts that are forced upon them.
At last you and your socialist friends are seeing sense.

The market does rule. That is all there is to it. If developers only want to build on greenfields then they should be allowed to do so. Anything else is state control and is bound to fail. Socialism can only hold back the force of the market for so long, after that the natural order reasserts itself. Look at the communists in Russia.
PC you are a gibbering lunatic.

Listen to this afternoon’s news. Your Tory, no state-interference and privatise everything views shared by so much of Government has landed us with yet another care home scandal and a load of schools bent on turning out radicalised religious nut cases.
[quote][p][bold]pcmanners[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Albion.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thackleygirl[/bold] wrote: Does it matter if they are for sale or rent - I am sure there is a mixture? I am quoting what was in the news article and at least it would be a start if these empty houses were used first of all. The main point is that these homes are empty and the question should be - why are the empty? What can be done to encourage families to occupy them and what needs to be done to get these empty houses used?[/p][/quote]And if the owner (if he can be found) doesn't wish to sell? compulsory purchase never pays the full market value, now that prices are rising, owners might wish to hold on to their increasing assets. The market rules and financiers only support building projects if they feel they will make a decent profit, you can't expect the council to do much with the savings and cuts that are forced upon them.[/p][/quote]At last you and your socialist friends are seeing sense. The market does rule. That is all there is to it. If developers only want to build on greenfields then they should be allowed to do so. Anything else is state control and is bound to fail. Socialism can only hold back the force of the market for so long, after that the natural order reasserts itself. Look at the communists in Russia.[/p][/quote]PC you are a gibbering lunatic. Listen to this afternoon’s news. Your Tory, no state-interference and privatise everything views shared by so much of Government has landed us with yet another care home scandal and a load of schools bent on turning out radicalised religious nut cases. Grumpygirl
  • Score: 6

8:29pm Mon 9 Jun 14

TONI W F says...

Thackleygirl wrote:
We do not need new houses - the article in the Telegraph & Argus dated the 4 June 2014 stated that in Bradford "The number of long-term empty homes fell from 4,766 in 2012 to 3,981 in 2013, the Empty Homes Agency revealed earlier this month". That's 3,981 empty houses in the Bradford area!! Surely it must be a priority to use these first of all, then brownfield sites before building on any green fields?

The schools and infrastructure simply cannot cope. When the 3,981 are filled the majority will require school places and then Bradford Council will allow more houses to be built and these families will also require school places as well - what happens then? They won't build a new school as not land will be left...
That's the trouble with the brownfield development luvvies they believe everything they read!! Never satisfied when brownfield sites are developed, they still complain. An example! Otley's paper mill which had served it's purpose and was in need of re development, bought by developers, (sorry greedy developers as the activists like to quote) yet the nimbys of Otley are still not happy.
The answer to all the nimbys problems is move to your beloved brownfield developments, then they will have nothing to complain about, thinking about it though when they are happily settled in the wonderful brownfield developments they will still complain about nothing to complain about!!
[quote][p][bold]Thackleygirl[/bold] wrote: We do not need new houses - the article in the Telegraph & Argus dated the 4 June 2014 stated that in Bradford "The number of long-term empty homes fell from 4,766 in 2012 to 3,981 in 2013, the Empty Homes Agency revealed earlier this month". That's 3,981 empty houses in the Bradford area!! Surely it must be a priority to use these first of all, then brownfield sites before building on any green fields? The schools and infrastructure simply cannot cope. When the 3,981 are filled the majority will require school places and then Bradford Council will allow more houses to be built and these families will also require school places as well - what happens then? They won't build a new school as not land will be left...[/p][/quote]That's the trouble with the brownfield development luvvies they believe everything they read!! Never satisfied when brownfield sites are developed, they still complain. An example! Otley's paper mill which had served it's purpose and was in need of re development, bought by developers, (sorry greedy developers as the activists like to quote) yet the nimbys of Otley are still not happy. The answer to all the nimbys problems is move to your beloved brownfield developments, then they will have nothing to complain about, thinking about it though when they are happily settled in the wonderful brownfield developments they will still complain about nothing to complain about!! TONI W F
  • Score: 0

9:01pm Mon 9 Jun 14

Quintilian says...

Grumpygirl wrote:
Albion. wrote:
gaggedandbound wrote:
Hasn't Terry got big hands!
They're for grabbing your money at his business.
Albion you're slipping. That was a very Hoffster type of response, thereby proving that you are one and the same. As my family will tell you, my intuition is seldom wrong.
Looking at some of your assertions I think the onus is on you to justify your claims. Again, stop being so paranoid and assuming that people are not being genuine in posting their thoughts just because they are different form yours. Intuition is just that, total subjectivity and it is telling that you rely on it and make baseless assertions regarding housing stock.
[quote][p][bold]Grumpygirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Albion.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gaggedandbound[/bold] wrote: Hasn't Terry got big hands![/p][/quote]They're for grabbing your money at his business.[/p][/quote]Albion you're slipping. That was a very Hoffster type of response, thereby proving that you are one and the same. As my family will tell you, my intuition is seldom wrong.[/p][/quote]Looking at some of your assertions I think the onus is on you to justify your claims. Again, stop being so paranoid and assuming that people are not being genuine in posting their thoughts just because they are different form yours. Intuition is just that, total subjectivity and it is telling that you rely on it and make baseless assertions regarding housing stock. Quintilian
  • Score: 1

7:06pm Tue 10 Jun 14

bingleybantam says...

The council clearly sees the area as a Cash Cow to be milked of tax with little in return. Money raised will be spent on schemes to "buy"votes in the Inner City to keep Labour in power, funding "loans" to their mates up at Odsal...

Said it before, but the Aire & Worth Valley needs to have a separate council, like Craven to stop the rot that is Bradford City Council sucking the life blood from those that live here.
The council clearly sees the area as a Cash Cow to be milked of tax with little in return. Money raised will be spent on schemes to "buy"votes in the Inner City to keep Labour in power, funding "loans" to their mates up at Odsal... Said it before, but the Aire & Worth Valley needs to have a separate council, like Craven to stop the rot that is Bradford City Council sucking the life blood from those that live here. bingleybantam
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

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