Councillors give go-ahead for controversial 440- homes plan in Bingley

Bradford Telegraph and Argus: DISMAY:  Councillors Mark Shaw (left) and David Hesseltine (centre), with Terry Brown, chairman of Greenhill Action Group after the meeting DISMAY: Councillors Mark Shaw (left) and David Hesseltine (centre), with Terry Brown, chairman of Greenhill Action Group after the meeting

Campaigners against a 440-home development on a greenfield site near Bingley have suffered a crushing blow when Bradford councillors voted in favour of the controversial Sty Lane scheme.

And despite describing the decision as “the start of a nightmare” the objectors are now seeking legal advice on challenging the decision.

The successful application by Redrow Homes and Bellway homes follows on from an initial proposal first made in September 2009 and previously dismissed by the Secretary of State for Communities Eric Pickles exactly a year ago after being refused by Bradford Council and a Planning Inspector.

This revised plan, approved today by the Council's regulatory and appeals committee, features a new double carriageway swing bridge over the Leeds and Liverpool Canal to replace the old one on Micklethwaite Lane and tackles previous concerns about access for emergency vehicles by installing instantly retractable bollards at an otherwise blocked entrance to the site from Oakwood Drive.

The bridge and bollard system would be monitored 24 hours a day by CCTV operators in Bradford who would also send out text and email messages to residents should the swing bridge fail and traffic be diverted to the Oakwood Drive junction.

But some 200 protesters packed Bingley Arts Centre for the committee meeting, desperate to voice anger and fears over the new development after 416 letters against the proposal were received by Bradford Council, together with a 1,181 signature petition.

And they were frustrated by only having a strict ten minute slot in which to make all their arguments.

Janet Payn, of Crossflatts Village Society, had barely 30 seconds to speak of the negative impact, unable to finish her speech which had the concluding line: “This would only benefit the developers’ profits and satisfy council officers by providing the perceived number of houses needed, regardless of the safety and welfare of the existing tax-paying community.”

Committee member Councillor Malcolm Sykes spoke repeatedly against the proposal: “We are stuck with a very narrow, country lane environment – the infrastructure just won’t cope. I’m not convinced.”

And Councillor Jackie Whitely also tried to persuade colleagues against the plan because Council officers had not consulted with emergency services over the use of the retractable bollards.

Councillor Imran Khan said it was an extremely hard decision to make.

“To be honest, if I lived in that area I’d be really upset, it’s very difficult but I feel we have no choice but to approve this," he said.

“I know it’s an unpopular decision, but we haven’t got any real planning reasons to refuse.

Committee chairman Councillor David Warburton said he had made private visits to view the site in preparation for the decision and he too could not see a reason to reason to refuse as in his opinion the developers had made every effort to remove earlier stumbling blocks.

The vote was carried by five votes to two in favour and was met with loud cries of “Shame on you!”

After the meeting, Terry Brown, chairman of the Greenhill Action Group, said it was “a sad moment”.

“We will not give up, we’re taking legal advice as we believe Bradford Council has not followed due process,” Mr Brown said.

All three Bingley ward councillors also spoke passionately against the plan during the meeting and later expressed their disappointment

Councillor John Pennington said: “Granting this will cause mayhem for years to come – they have not listened to the people.”

“It’s a case of profit over community and when that bridge breaks down, which it will, there’ll be 1,000 souls trapped up there,” said Councillor David Heseltine.

And Councillor Mark Shaw said: “They didn’t even bother to contact the emergency services over an issue of such importance,” said Councillor Mark Shaw.

Comments (50)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:47pm Thu 19 Jun 14

bingleybantam says...

Final nail in the coffin. There is a growing demand for the Aire Valley to become independent from Bradford Council. We get NOTHING in terms of investment for the high levels of council tax paid here. The council is only interested in us as a cash cow to milk dry to fund the inner city & pet projects to buy votes for Labour supporters. Shame on you Bradford Council.

The time has come for REAL change.
Final nail in the coffin. There is a growing demand for the Aire Valley to become independent from Bradford Council. We get NOTHING in terms of investment for the high levels of council tax paid here. The council is only interested in us as a cash cow to milk dry to fund the inner city & pet projects to buy votes for Labour supporters. Shame on you Bradford Council. The time has come for REAL change. bingleybantam
  • Score: 51

7:51pm Thu 19 Jun 14

idf fanclub says...

Guess what.

Bradford Council Regen Nazis strike again.

Totally ignoring the local community in favour of developers.

But what's new in Paradise Barfdord?
Guess what. Bradford Council Regen Nazis strike again. Totally ignoring the local community in favour of developers. But what's new in Paradise Barfdord? idf fanclub
  • Score: 39

7:56pm Thu 19 Jun 14

Grumpygirl says...

Developers 1, Human Beings 0.

Oh and the Council gets all that lovely tax revenue. What a stitch up.
Developers 1, Human Beings 0. Oh and the Council gets all that lovely tax revenue. What a stitch up. Grumpygirl
  • Score: 62

7:59pm Thu 19 Jun 14

bluebluerobin says...

Are there no depths the Bradford Labour Group won't plumb in order to raise the cash necessary to cover up their waste and incompetence.
Are there no depths the Bradford Labour Group won't plumb in order to raise the cash necessary to cover up their waste and incompetence. bluebluerobin
  • Score: 51

8:04pm Thu 19 Jun 14

bachtothefuture says...

bingleybantam wrote:
Final nail in the coffin. There is a growing demand for the Aire Valley to become independent from Bradford Council. We get NOTHING in terms of investment for the high levels of council tax paid here. The council is only interested in us as a cash cow to milk dry to fund the inner city & pet projects to buy votes for Labour supporters. Shame on you Bradford Council.

The time has come for REAL change.
I agree. City Hall does nothing for the periphery except bleed it dry and divert the funds into the inner city. It wouldn't be so bad if there were any signs of regeneration, but as far as I can see there's absolutely no improvements. It's a total lose-lose situation that only the idiots at City hall could have dreamed up.
[quote][p][bold]bingleybantam[/bold] wrote: Final nail in the coffin. There is a growing demand for the Aire Valley to become independent from Bradford Council. We get NOTHING in terms of investment for the high levels of council tax paid here. The council is only interested in us as a cash cow to milk dry to fund the inner city & pet projects to buy votes for Labour supporters. Shame on you Bradford Council. The time has come for REAL change.[/p][/quote]I agree. City Hall does nothing for the periphery except bleed it dry and divert the funds into the inner city. It wouldn't be so bad if there were any signs of regeneration, but as far as I can see there's absolutely no improvements. It's a total lose-lose situation that only the idiots at City hall could have dreamed up. bachtothefuture
  • Score: 56

8:04pm Thu 19 Jun 14

Postman pedro says...

Time to get out of Bradford.
Time to get out of Bradford. Postman pedro
  • Score: 51

8:09pm Thu 19 Jun 14

gouldengirl says...

Did anybody expect anything different? As Philip Davies pointed out the Council invited the developers back in and encouraged them to reapply. Time was when the Council saw its duty as looking after its citizens. not fleecing them bare.

Time the Worth and Aire valleys declared UDI. City Hall will never be on our side.
Did anybody expect anything different? As Philip Davies pointed out the Council invited the developers back in and encouraged them to reapply. Time was when the Council saw its duty as looking after its citizens. not fleecing them bare. Time the Worth and Aire valleys declared UDI. City Hall will never be on our side. gouldengirl
  • Score: 59

8:14pm Thu 19 Jun 14

sorrow&anger says...

Now you know why Cllr. Green hijacked the Scrutiny Committees. Complaints are now impossible. He, and Cllr 'death to the middle classes' Slater, will now ride roughshod over every community they want to. Bradford no longer belongs to its citizens.
Now you know why Cllr. Green hijacked the Scrutiny Committees. Complaints are now impossible. He, and Cllr 'death to the middle classes' Slater, will now ride roughshod over every community they want to. Bradford no longer belongs to its citizens. sorrow&anger
  • Score: 49

8:19pm Thu 19 Jun 14

damraf says...

What is the make up of the committee is it councillor from outside the Bingley area, in rush hour I have to wait 10 mins at times to use the canal towpath it will just get worse
What is the make up of the committee is it councillor from outside the Bingley area, in rush hour I have to wait 10 mins at times to use the canal towpath it will just get worse damraf
  • Score: 15

8:19pm Thu 19 Jun 14

pcmanners says...

Good decision. In a free market developers should be free to build anywhere they like in order to make a profit. The Government removed all of the socialist red tape from the planning laws in order that more houses could be built. This shows that the new laws are working.
Good decision. In a free market developers should be free to build anywhere they like in order to make a profit. The Government removed all of the socialist red tape from the planning laws in order that more houses could be built. This shows that the new laws are working. pcmanners
  • Score: -66

8:21pm Thu 19 Jun 14

A650 says...

So much for localism. Time for Morton residents to kick out Val's husband at the next opportunity.
So much for localism. Time for Morton residents to kick out Val's husband at the next opportunity. A650
  • Score: 48

8:26pm Thu 19 Jun 14

FinlandStation says...

Labour in Bradford have lost contact with ordinary people. They are a Stalinist clique only concerned with servicing their core vote in the inner city. So much for 'One Nation' Labour. I hope Milliband knows how many votes Cllr Green loses him on a regular basis.
Labour in Bradford have lost contact with ordinary people. They are a Stalinist clique only concerned with servicing their core vote in the inner city. So much for 'One Nation' Labour. I hope Milliband knows how many votes Cllr Green loses him on a regular basis. FinlandStation
  • Score: 47

8:47pm Thu 19 Jun 14

izzystillbreathing says...

This has been a bad day for the world. I hope City Hall is proud of itself.

If they keep allowing the developers to build on the green fields what do they propose to do with all the dereliction? Just hope that nobody notices it?
This has been a bad day for the world. I hope City Hall is proud of itself. If they keep allowing the developers to build on the green fields what do they propose to do with all the dereliction? Just hope that nobody notices it? izzystillbreathing
  • Score: 48

8:59pm Thu 19 Jun 14

micela22 says...

Inner city Bradford is ruined. The suburbs, idle, wrose, queensbury, clayton, haworth etc are ruined by being over developed. Developers seem able to expand & ruin the final jewels that were left in Bradfords crumbling crown. Roads are choked, services stretched to a maximum & we all know that there have been serious issues with Bradford Planning dept for years. They need to remember who pays their wages & that those people are beginning to get a little fed up
Inner city Bradford is ruined. The suburbs, idle, wrose, queensbury, clayton, haworth etc are ruined by being over developed. Developers seem able to expand & ruin the final jewels that were left in Bradfords crumbling crown. Roads are choked, services stretched to a maximum & we all know that there have been serious issues with Bradford Planning dept for years. They need to remember who pays their wages & that those people are beginning to get a little fed up micela22
  • Score: 43

9:16pm Thu 19 Jun 14

baildongreen says...

FinlandStation wrote:
Labour in Bradford have lost contact with ordinary people. They are a Stalinist clique only concerned with servicing their core vote in the inner city. So much for 'One Nation' Labour. I hope Milliband knows how many votes Cllr Green loses him on a regular basis.
I don't think Coun Green or Bradford Labour ever think or care about the national Party.

They're big toads in a little pond with their nice little earners and an unassailable grip on power at least until the inner city realises that they're getting nothing for their loyalty except promises and artists impressions of the sunlit uplands to which Coun Moses Green is going to lead them. The time will come.
[quote][p][bold]FinlandStation[/bold] wrote: Labour in Bradford have lost contact with ordinary people. They are a Stalinist clique only concerned with servicing their core vote in the inner city. So much for 'One Nation' Labour. I hope Milliband knows how many votes Cllr Green loses him on a regular basis.[/p][/quote]I don't think Coun Green or Bradford Labour ever think or care about the national Party. They're big toads in a little pond with their nice little earners and an unassailable grip on power at least until the inner city realises that they're getting nothing for their loyalty except promises and artists impressions of the sunlit uplands to which Coun Moses Green is going to lead them. The time will come. baildongreen
  • Score: 30

9:18pm Thu 19 Jun 14

Alhaurinrhino says...

Brown envelope will always count for more than an "x" placed in a box.

KERCHING
Brown envelope will always count for more than an "x" placed in a box. KERCHING Alhaurinrhino
  • Score: 26

9:30pm Thu 19 Jun 14

SurprisedByJoyce says...

Alhaurinrhino wrote:
Brown envelope will always count for more than an "x" placed in a box.

KERCHING
City Hall is so unfair and undemocratic. They allow developers unlimited access to planning officers and listen sympathetically to their arguments and show them ways to get round any obstacles. They even pay developers to act as consultants.

Human beings on the other hand, are only allowed a couple of minutes at the planning meeting to present their case. This gives the developers the overwhelming advantage, which of course is what City Hall wants.

Objectors should be given equal access to planning officers and should be allowed to sit in at all meetings between the Council and developers. Councillors should even be forced to share their bribes.
[quote][p][bold]Alhaurinrhino[/bold] wrote: Brown envelope will always count for more than an "x" placed in a box. KERCHING[/p][/quote]City Hall is so unfair and undemocratic. They allow developers unlimited access to planning officers and listen sympathetically to their arguments and show them ways to get round any obstacles. They even pay developers to act as consultants. Human beings on the other hand, are only allowed a couple of minutes at the planning meeting to present their case. This gives the developers the overwhelming advantage, which of course is what City Hall wants. Objectors should be given equal access to planning officers and should be allowed to sit in at all meetings between the Council and developers. Councillors should even be forced to share their bribes. SurprisedByJoyce
  • Score: 40

10:09pm Thu 19 Jun 14

baildongreen says...

Alhaurinrhino wrote:
Brown envelope will always count for more than an "x" placed in a box.

KERCHING
Spoken like a true Asian.
[quote][p][bold]Alhaurinrhino[/bold] wrote: Brown envelope will always count for more than an "x" placed in a box. KERCHING[/p][/quote]Spoken like a true Asian. baildongreen
  • Score: 18

10:14pm Thu 19 Jun 14

angry bradfordian says...

If anyone is in doubt how dodgy this decision is, Councillor Khan is the same man who voted for the illegal Tradex Bazaar to be given retrospective permission!
And now he's suddenly found a conscious about sticking to the law!
If anyone is in doubt how dodgy this decision is, Councillor Khan is the same man who voted for the illegal Tradex Bazaar to be given retrospective permission! And now he's suddenly found a conscious about sticking to the law! angry bradfordian
  • Score: 44

10:40pm Thu 19 Jun 14

linebacker2 says...

pcmanners wrote:
Good decision. In a free market developers should be free to build anywhere they like in order to make a profit. The Government removed all of the socialist red tape from the planning laws in order that more houses could be built. This shows that the new laws are working.
You are of course quite correct.

Britains planning laws are among the most complex and arcane in the world and allow nimby's to delay much needed development.

In most countries, even socialist ones it's possible to build a new factory/housing development/airport etc from scratch before we even get past the planning stage.

Also many of these greenfields aren't particularly attractive anyway - many are covered in chemicals for heavily subsidised farming or are just used as convenient places for locals to walk and empty their dogs.
[quote][p][bold]pcmanners[/bold] wrote: Good decision. In a free market developers should be free to build anywhere they like in order to make a profit. The Government removed all of the socialist red tape from the planning laws in order that more houses could be built. This shows that the new laws are working.[/p][/quote]You are of course quite correct. Britains planning laws are among the most complex and arcane in the world and allow nimby's to delay much needed development. In most countries, even socialist ones it's possible to build a new factory/housing development/airport etc from scratch before we even get past the planning stage. Also many of these greenfields aren't particularly attractive anyway - many are covered in chemicals for heavily subsidised farming or are just used as convenient places for locals to walk and empty their dogs. linebacker2
  • Score: -32

10:45pm Thu 19 Jun 14

fiverise says...

linebacker2 wrote:
pcmanners wrote:
Good decision. In a free market developers should be free to build anywhere they like in order to make a profit. The Government removed all of the socialist red tape from the planning laws in order that more houses could be built. This shows that the new laws are working.
You are of course quite correct.

Britains planning laws are among the most complex and arcane in the world and allow nimby's to delay much needed development.

In most countries, even socialist ones it's possible to build a new factory/housing development/airport etc from scratch before we even get past the planning stage.

Also many of these greenfields aren't particularly attractive anyway - many are covered in chemicals for heavily subsidised farming or are just used as convenient places for locals to walk and empty their dogs.
Trawling out the worn, old NIMBY justification again. How utterly tedious and in this case, misguided. You obviously know very little about this particular application and its lack of merits.
[quote][p][bold]linebacker2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pcmanners[/bold] wrote: Good decision. In a free market developers should be free to build anywhere they like in order to make a profit. The Government removed all of the socialist red tape from the planning laws in order that more houses could be built. This shows that the new laws are working.[/p][/quote]You are of course quite correct. Britains planning laws are among the most complex and arcane in the world and allow nimby's to delay much needed development. In most countries, even socialist ones it's possible to build a new factory/housing development/airport etc from scratch before we even get past the planning stage. Also many of these greenfields aren't particularly attractive anyway - many are covered in chemicals for heavily subsidised farming or are just used as convenient places for locals to walk and empty their dogs.[/p][/quote]Trawling out the worn, old NIMBY justification again. How utterly tedious and in this case, misguided. You obviously know very little about this particular application and its lack of merits. fiverise
  • Score: 36

10:58pm Thu 19 Jun 14

Victor Clayton says...

Disgraceful
Disgraceful Victor Clayton
  • Score: 26

11:10pm Thu 19 Jun 14

Angela Richardson says...

So sad, what I want to know is where are all the children from these family homes going to go to school, after all the schools in Bingley are already over subscribed. Is the council going to build new schools. Where are all these people going to shop? Sainsbury's has stitched up the town. What about doctors, it takes nearly 3 weeks to get an appointment as it is. Answers please Bradford council answers please!!
So sad, what I want to know is where are all the children from these family homes going to go to school, after all the schools in Bingley are already over subscribed. Is the council going to build new schools. Where are all these people going to shop? Sainsbury's has stitched up the town. What about doctors, it takes nearly 3 weeks to get an appointment as it is. Answers please Bradford council answers please!! Angela Richardson
  • Score: 43

11:16pm Thu 19 Jun 14

fiverise says...

Angela Richardson wrote:
So sad, what I want to know is where are all the children from these family homes going to go to school, after all the schools in Bingley are already over subscribed. Is the council going to build new schools. Where are all these people going to shop? Sainsbury's has stitched up the town. What about doctors, it takes nearly 3 weeks to get an appointment as it is. Answers please Bradford council answers please!!
I suspect most of them will do their shopping online so the narrow and dangerous roads will be further blocked by hoards of Ocado, Tesco and Sainsburys delivery vans trying to pass each other on the new (but not quite wide enough) swing bridge. : \
[quote][p][bold]Angela Richardson[/bold] wrote: So sad, what I want to know is where are all the children from these family homes going to go to school, after all the schools in Bingley are already over subscribed. Is the council going to build new schools. Where are all these people going to shop? Sainsbury's has stitched up the town. What about doctors, it takes nearly 3 weeks to get an appointment as it is. Answers please Bradford council answers please!![/p][/quote]I suspect most of them will do their shopping online so the narrow and dangerous roads will be further blocked by hoards of Ocado, Tesco and Sainsburys delivery vans trying to pass each other on the new (but not quite wide enough) swing bridge. : \ fiverise
  • Score: 28

7:21am Fri 20 Jun 14

linebacker2 says...

Angela Richardson wrote:
So sad, what I want to know is where are all the children from these family homes going to go to school, after all the schools in Bingley are already over subscribed. Is the council going to build new schools. Where are all these people going to shop? Sainsbury's has stitched up the town. What about doctors, it takes nearly 3 weeks to get an appointment as it is. Answers please Bradford council answers please!!
Take it you didn't read the article earlier this week that schools right across the district are over subscribed?

As for shopping, do you really think people in Bingley will struggle to spend their money?
[quote][p][bold]Angela Richardson[/bold] wrote: So sad, what I want to know is where are all the children from these family homes going to go to school, after all the schools in Bingley are already over subscribed. Is the council going to build new schools. Where are all these people going to shop? Sainsbury's has stitched up the town. What about doctors, it takes nearly 3 weeks to get an appointment as it is. Answers please Bradford council answers please!![/p][/quote]Take it you didn't read the article earlier this week that schools right across the district are over subscribed? As for shopping, do you really think people in Bingley will struggle to spend their money? linebacker2
  • Score: 1

8:38am Fri 20 Jun 14

fiverise says...

linebacker2 wrote:
Angela Richardson wrote:
So sad, what I want to know is where are all the children from these family homes going to go to school, after all the schools in Bingley are already over subscribed. Is the council going to build new schools. Where are all these people going to shop? Sainsbury's has stitched up the town. What about doctors, it takes nearly 3 weeks to get an appointment as it is. Answers please Bradford council answers please!!
Take it you didn't read the article earlier this week that schools right across the district are over subscribed?

As for shopping, do you really think people in Bingley will struggle to spend their money?
You fail to miss the point being made ie. as there isn't even a convenience store designed into this development, the 440 households are all going to have to get into their cars to visit the local Co-op, or better still Aldi, as the Sainsbury's fiasco in Bingley has left the town without any sustainably-reached decent supermarket.
[quote][p][bold]linebacker2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angela Richardson[/bold] wrote: So sad, what I want to know is where are all the children from these family homes going to go to school, after all the schools in Bingley are already over subscribed. Is the council going to build new schools. Where are all these people going to shop? Sainsbury's has stitched up the town. What about doctors, it takes nearly 3 weeks to get an appointment as it is. Answers please Bradford council answers please!![/p][/quote]Take it you didn't read the article earlier this week that schools right across the district are over subscribed? As for shopping, do you really think people in Bingley will struggle to spend their money?[/p][/quote]You fail to miss the point being made ie. as there isn't even a convenience store designed into this development, the 440 households are all going to have to get into their cars to visit the local Co-op, or better still Aldi, as the Sainsbury's fiasco in Bingley has left the town without any sustainably-reached decent supermarket. fiverise
  • Score: 18

9:07am Fri 20 Jun 14

Joedavid says...

Angela Richardson wrote:
So sad, what I want to know is where are all the children from these family homes going to go to school, after all the schools in Bingley are already over subscribed. Is the council going to build new schools. Where are all these people going to shop? Sainsbury's has stitched up the town. What about doctors, it takes nearly 3 weeks to get an appointment as it is. Answers please Bradford council answers please!!
Schools and Services etc. are short supply all over Bradford it is a bigger problem than this small area.
[quote][p][bold]Angela Richardson[/bold] wrote: So sad, what I want to know is where are all the children from these family homes going to go to school, after all the schools in Bingley are already over subscribed. Is the council going to build new schools. Where are all these people going to shop? Sainsbury's has stitched up the town. What about doctors, it takes nearly 3 weeks to get an appointment as it is. Answers please Bradford council answers please!![/p][/quote]Schools and Services etc. are short supply all over Bradford it is a bigger problem than this small area. Joedavid
  • Score: 9

9:12am Fri 20 Jun 14

Joedavid says...

Well 440 families will get nice new houses to live in that's a good thing to me.
Possibly they are moving up in size and price thus allowing younger couples to get their first home in the houses they vacate.
Well 440 families will get nice new houses to live in that's a good thing to me. Possibly they are moving up in size and price thus allowing younger couples to get their first home in the houses they vacate. Joedavid
  • Score: -4

9:14am Fri 20 Jun 14

WILLIAM TONI says...

Grumpygirl wrote:
Developers 1, Human Beings 0.

Oh and the Council gets all that lovely tax revenue. What a stitch up.
Should read Developers 1, Sheep 0. As sheep follow each other just like the Nimbys,
[quote][p][bold]Grumpygirl[/bold] wrote: Developers 1, Human Beings 0. Oh and the Council gets all that lovely tax revenue. What a stitch up.[/p][/quote]Should read Developers 1, Sheep 0. As sheep follow each other just like the Nimbys, WILLIAM TONI
  • Score: -19

11:03am Fri 20 Jun 14

pcmanners says...

linebacker2 wrote:
pcmanners wrote:
Good decision. In a free market developers should be free to build anywhere they like in order to make a profit. The Government removed all of the socialist red tape from the planning laws in order that more houses could be built. This shows that the new laws are working.
You are of course quite correct.

Britains planning laws are among the most complex and arcane in the world and allow nimby's to delay much needed development.

In most countries, even socialist ones it's possible to build a new factory/housing development/airport etc from scratch before we even get past the planning stage.

Also many of these greenfields aren't particularly attractive anyway - many are covered in chemicals for heavily subsidised farming or are just used as convenient places for locals to walk and empty their dogs.
Thank you. A man after my own heart.

In a proper market economy everything, including the countryside, has a price. The Government has very sensibly removed the socialist restrictions on building on green fields so that these assets can be use to generate the maximum return for those developers willing to risk their capital.

Now Sty Lane has shown the way, this process will be repeated all over Bradford. Except for the inevitable whingeing lefties everybody will benefit.
[quote][p][bold]linebacker2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pcmanners[/bold] wrote: Good decision. In a free market developers should be free to build anywhere they like in order to make a profit. The Government removed all of the socialist red tape from the planning laws in order that more houses could be built. This shows that the new laws are working.[/p][/quote]You are of course quite correct. Britains planning laws are among the most complex and arcane in the world and allow nimby's to delay much needed development. In most countries, even socialist ones it's possible to build a new factory/housing development/airport etc from scratch before we even get past the planning stage. Also many of these greenfields aren't particularly attractive anyway - many are covered in chemicals for heavily subsidised farming or are just used as convenient places for locals to walk and empty their dogs.[/p][/quote]Thank you. A man after my own heart. In a proper market economy everything, including the countryside, has a price. The Government has very sensibly removed the socialist restrictions on building on green fields so that these assets can be use to generate the maximum return for those developers willing to risk their capital. Now Sty Lane has shown the way, this process will be repeated all over Bradford. Except for the inevitable whingeing lefties everybody will benefit. pcmanners
  • Score: 5

12:53pm Fri 20 Jun 14

linebacker2 says...

fiverise wrote:
linebacker2 wrote:
Angela Richardson wrote:
So sad, what I want to know is where are all the children from these family homes going to go to school, after all the schools in Bingley are already over subscribed. Is the council going to build new schools. Where are all these people going to shop? Sainsbury's has stitched up the town. What about doctors, it takes nearly 3 weeks to get an appointment as it is. Answers please Bradford council answers please!!
Take it you didn't read the article earlier this week that schools right across the district are over subscribed?

As for shopping, do you really think people in Bingley will struggle to spend their money?
You fail to miss the point being made ie. as there isn't even a convenience store designed into this development, the 440 households are all going to have to get into their cars to visit the local Co-op, or better still Aldi, as the Sainsbury's fiasco in Bingley has left the town without any sustainably-reached decent supermarket.
Maybe true, maybe not.

But isn't the locality of shops an issue for folk who buy houses on this development rather than yours?
[quote][p][bold]fiverise[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]linebacker2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angela Richardson[/bold] wrote: So sad, what I want to know is where are all the children from these family homes going to go to school, after all the schools in Bingley are already over subscribed. Is the council going to build new schools. Where are all these people going to shop? Sainsbury's has stitched up the town. What about doctors, it takes nearly 3 weeks to get an appointment as it is. Answers please Bradford council answers please!![/p][/quote]Take it you didn't read the article earlier this week that schools right across the district are over subscribed? As for shopping, do you really think people in Bingley will struggle to spend their money?[/p][/quote]You fail to miss the point being made ie. as there isn't even a convenience store designed into this development, the 440 households are all going to have to get into their cars to visit the local Co-op, or better still Aldi, as the Sainsbury's fiasco in Bingley has left the town without any sustainably-reached decent supermarket.[/p][/quote]Maybe true, maybe not. But isn't the locality of shops an issue for folk who buy houses on this development rather than yours? linebacker2
  • Score: 0

1:49pm Fri 20 Jun 14

Bone_idle18 says...

fiverise wrote:
linebacker2 wrote:
Angela Richardson wrote:
So sad, what I want to know is where are all the children from these family homes going to go to school, after all the schools in Bingley are already over subscribed. Is the council going to build new schools. Where are all these people going to shop? Sainsbury's has stitched up the town. What about doctors, it takes nearly 3 weeks to get an appointment as it is. Answers please Bradford council answers please!!
Take it you didn't read the article earlier this week that schools right across the district are over subscribed?

As for shopping, do you really think people in Bingley will struggle to spend their money?
You fail to miss the point being made ie. as there isn't even a convenience store designed into this development, the 440 households are all going to have to get into their cars to visit the local Co-op, or better still Aldi, as the Sainsbury's fiasco in Bingley has left the town without any sustainably-reached decent supermarket.
Or maybe they will do what most of us do, and shop on the way back from work, so avoiding an extra journey?

Remnds me of protests in Thackley from people complaining about congestion if a 260 home development goes ahead. I've seen the protestors driving their kids under a mile to school every morning, an easy argument to provide if you're a planner or developer justifying a development.

Traffic shouldn't be used to oppose developments (in general), as the planners etc will generally laugh it off, and it's just a waste of effort. Lack of local amenities and schools/doctors etc is where efforts should be concentrated.

I'm sure developers will argue you don't have the right to a congestion free commute. HOWEVER, they can't argue that people kids don't have a right to a school place or you don't have a right to a local GP.
[quote][p][bold]fiverise[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]linebacker2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angela Richardson[/bold] wrote: So sad, what I want to know is where are all the children from these family homes going to go to school, after all the schools in Bingley are already over subscribed. Is the council going to build new schools. Where are all these people going to shop? Sainsbury's has stitched up the town. What about doctors, it takes nearly 3 weeks to get an appointment as it is. Answers please Bradford council answers please!![/p][/quote]Take it you didn't read the article earlier this week that schools right across the district are over subscribed? As for shopping, do you really think people in Bingley will struggle to spend their money?[/p][/quote]You fail to miss the point being made ie. as there isn't even a convenience store designed into this development, the 440 households are all going to have to get into their cars to visit the local Co-op, or better still Aldi, as the Sainsbury's fiasco in Bingley has left the town without any sustainably-reached decent supermarket.[/p][/quote]Or maybe they will do what most of us do, and shop on the way back from work, so avoiding an extra journey? Remnds me of protests in Thackley from people complaining about congestion if a 260 home development goes ahead. I've seen the protestors driving their kids under a mile to school every morning, an easy argument to provide if you're a planner or developer justifying a development. Traffic shouldn't be used to oppose developments (in general), as the planners etc will generally laugh it off, and it's just a waste of effort. Lack of local amenities and schools/doctors etc is where efforts should be concentrated. I'm sure developers will argue you don't have the right to a congestion free commute. HOWEVER, they can't argue that people kids don't have a right to a school place or you don't have a right to a local GP. Bone_idle18
  • Score: 4

1:52pm Fri 20 Jun 14

fiverise says...

linebacker2 wrote:
fiverise wrote:
linebacker2 wrote:
Angela Richardson wrote:
So sad, what I want to know is where are all the children from these family homes going to go to school, after all the schools in Bingley are already over subscribed. Is the council going to build new schools. Where are all these people going to shop? Sainsbury's has stitched up the town. What about doctors, it takes nearly 3 weeks to get an appointment as it is. Answers please Bradford council answers please!!
Take it you didn't read the article earlier this week that schools right across the district are over subscribed?

As for shopping, do you really think people in Bingley will struggle to spend their money?
You fail to miss the point being made ie. as there isn't even a convenience store designed into this development, the 440 households are all going to have to get into their cars to visit the local Co-op, or better still Aldi, as the Sainsbury's fiasco in Bingley has left the town without any sustainably-reached decent supermarket.
Maybe true, maybe not.

But isn't the locality of shops an issue for folk who buy houses on this development rather than yours?
It's only an issue if there's eventually that many households all cramming in and out of the same single lane country roads, driving up on the pavements and blocking up the streets by parking around the station at Crossflatts.

So no, probably nothing to get bothered about.
[quote][p][bold]linebacker2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fiverise[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]linebacker2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angela Richardson[/bold] wrote: So sad, what I want to know is where are all the children from these family homes going to go to school, after all the schools in Bingley are already over subscribed. Is the council going to build new schools. Where are all these people going to shop? Sainsbury's has stitched up the town. What about doctors, it takes nearly 3 weeks to get an appointment as it is. Answers please Bradford council answers please!![/p][/quote]Take it you didn't read the article earlier this week that schools right across the district are over subscribed? As for shopping, do you really think people in Bingley will struggle to spend their money?[/p][/quote]You fail to miss the point being made ie. as there isn't even a convenience store designed into this development, the 440 households are all going to have to get into their cars to visit the local Co-op, or better still Aldi, as the Sainsbury's fiasco in Bingley has left the town without any sustainably-reached decent supermarket.[/p][/quote]Maybe true, maybe not. But isn't the locality of shops an issue for folk who buy houses on this development rather than yours?[/p][/quote]It's only an issue if there's eventually that many households all cramming in and out of the same single lane country roads, driving up on the pavements and blocking up the streets by parking around the station at Crossflatts. So no, probably nothing to get bothered about. fiverise
  • Score: 3

1:53pm Fri 20 Jun 14

bcfc1903 says...

I certainly believe there should be a mixed house building process throughout the City of Bradford including brownfield and green field sites. The idea that everyone would want to live in and around the centre of any large city is ludicrous. So I'd do what Leeds and Manchester do and have a mixture, I'm sure the prospective housing planned above if it goes ahead could be part of such a city wide house building scheme.
I certainly believe there should be a mixed house building process throughout the City of Bradford including brownfield and green field sites. The idea that everyone would want to live in and around the centre of any large city is ludicrous. So I'd do what Leeds and Manchester do and have a mixture, I'm sure the prospective housing planned above if it goes ahead could be part of such a city wide house building scheme. bcfc1903
  • Score: -6

2:54pm Fri 20 Jun 14

Angela Richardson says...

linebacker2 wrote:
fiverise wrote:
linebacker2 wrote:
Angela Richardson wrote:
So sad, what I want to know is where are all the children from these family homes going to go to school, after all the schools in Bingley are already over subscribed. Is the council going to build new schools. Where are all these people going to shop? Sainsbury's has stitched up the town. What about doctors, it takes nearly 3 weeks to get an appointment as it is. Answers please Bradford council answers please!!
Take it you didn't read the article earlier this week that schools right across the district are over subscribed?

As for shopping, do you really think people in Bingley will struggle to spend their money?
You fail to miss the point being made ie. as there isn't even a convenience store designed into this development, the 440 households are all going to have to get into their cars to visit the local Co-op, or better still Aldi, as the Sainsbury's fiasco in Bingley has left the town without any sustainably-reached decent supermarket.
Maybe true, maybe not.

But isn't the locality of shops an issue for folk who buy houses on this development rather than yours?
Actually it is the concern of the whole town. You obviously don't live in the town or you would be concerned as well and as for it being a problem all across the district these comments are about an article relating to Bingley not the rest of the district!
[quote][p][bold]linebacker2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fiverise[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]linebacker2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angela Richardson[/bold] wrote: So sad, what I want to know is where are all the children from these family homes going to go to school, after all the schools in Bingley are already over subscribed. Is the council going to build new schools. Where are all these people going to shop? Sainsbury's has stitched up the town. What about doctors, it takes nearly 3 weeks to get an appointment as it is. Answers please Bradford council answers please!![/p][/quote]Take it you didn't read the article earlier this week that schools right across the district are over subscribed? As for shopping, do you really think people in Bingley will struggle to spend their money?[/p][/quote]You fail to miss the point being made ie. as there isn't even a convenience store designed into this development, the 440 households are all going to have to get into their cars to visit the local Co-op, or better still Aldi, as the Sainsbury's fiasco in Bingley has left the town without any sustainably-reached decent supermarket.[/p][/quote]Maybe true, maybe not. But isn't the locality of shops an issue for folk who buy houses on this development rather than yours?[/p][/quote]Actually it is the concern of the whole town. You obviously don't live in the town or you would be concerned as well and as for it being a problem all across the district these comments are about an article relating to Bingley not the rest of the district! Angela Richardson
  • Score: 5

4:17pm Fri 20 Jun 14

linebacker2 says...

Angela Richardson wrote:
linebacker2 wrote:
fiverise wrote:
linebacker2 wrote:
Angela Richardson wrote:
So sad, what I want to know is where are all the children from these family homes going to go to school, after all the schools in Bingley are already over subscribed. Is the council going to build new schools. Where are all these people going to shop? Sainsbury's has stitched up the town. What about doctors, it takes nearly 3 weeks to get an appointment as it is. Answers please Bradford council answers please!!
Take it you didn't read the article earlier this week that schools right across the district are over subscribed?

As for shopping, do you really think people in Bingley will struggle to spend their money?
You fail to miss the point being made ie. as there isn't even a convenience store designed into this development, the 440 households are all going to have to get into their cars to visit the local Co-op, or better still Aldi, as the Sainsbury's fiasco in Bingley has left the town without any sustainably-reached decent supermarket.
Maybe true, maybe not.

But isn't the locality of shops an issue for folk who buy houses on this development rather than yours?
Actually it is the concern of the whole town. You obviously don't live in the town or you would be concerned as well and as for it being a problem all across the district these comments are about an article relating to Bingley not the rest of the district!
If you go down that line, you could say you don't own the fields in question and it's none of your business either...
[quote][p][bold]Angela Richardson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]linebacker2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fiverise[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]linebacker2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angela Richardson[/bold] wrote: So sad, what I want to know is where are all the children from these family homes going to go to school, after all the schools in Bingley are already over subscribed. Is the council going to build new schools. Where are all these people going to shop? Sainsbury's has stitched up the town. What about doctors, it takes nearly 3 weeks to get an appointment as it is. Answers please Bradford council answers please!![/p][/quote]Take it you didn't read the article earlier this week that schools right across the district are over subscribed? As for shopping, do you really think people in Bingley will struggle to spend their money?[/p][/quote]You fail to miss the point being made ie. as there isn't even a convenience store designed into this development, the 440 households are all going to have to get into their cars to visit the local Co-op, or better still Aldi, as the Sainsbury's fiasco in Bingley has left the town without any sustainably-reached decent supermarket.[/p][/quote]Maybe true, maybe not. But isn't the locality of shops an issue for folk who buy houses on this development rather than yours?[/p][/quote]Actually it is the concern of the whole town. You obviously don't live in the town or you would be concerned as well and as for it being a problem all across the district these comments are about an article relating to Bingley not the rest of the district![/p][/quote]If you go down that line, you could say you don't own the fields in question and it's none of your business either... linebacker2
  • Score: 0

5:28pm Fri 20 Jun 14

Angela Richardson says...

linebacker2 wrote:
Angela Richardson wrote:
linebacker2 wrote:
fiverise wrote:
linebacker2 wrote:
Angela Richardson wrote:
So sad, what I want to know is where are all the children from these family homes going to go to school, after all the schools in Bingley are already over subscribed. Is the council going to build new schools. Where are all these people going to shop? Sainsbury's has stitched up the town. What about doctors, it takes nearly 3 weeks to get an appointment as it is. Answers please Bradford council answers please!!
Take it you didn't read the article earlier this week that schools right across the district are over subscribed?

As for shopping, do you really think people in Bingley will struggle to spend their money?
You fail to miss the point being made ie. as there isn't even a convenience store designed into this development, the 440 households are all going to have to get into their cars to visit the local Co-op, or better still Aldi, as the Sainsbury's fiasco in Bingley has left the town without any sustainably-reached decent supermarket.
Maybe true, maybe not.

But isn't the locality of shops an issue for folk who buy houses on this development rather than yours?
Actually it is the concern of the whole town. You obviously don't live in the town or you would be concerned as well and as for it being a problem all across the district these comments are about an article relating to Bingley not the rest of the district!
If you go down that line, you could say you don't own the fields in question and it's none of your business either...
It is my business and every person that lives in the town. My point is there is no shortage of 1/2 million pound homes for sale in Bingley, these developers are carpetbaggers who want to take advantage of cheap greenbelt land and to hell with the impact on local infrastructure. Do you actually know the area in question? because if you did you wouldn't be making such ridiculous comments. come on 440 houses get real!!!!!
[quote][p][bold]linebacker2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angela Richardson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]linebacker2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fiverise[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]linebacker2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angela Richardson[/bold] wrote: So sad, what I want to know is where are all the children from these family homes going to go to school, after all the schools in Bingley are already over subscribed. Is the council going to build new schools. Where are all these people going to shop? Sainsbury's has stitched up the town. What about doctors, it takes nearly 3 weeks to get an appointment as it is. Answers please Bradford council answers please!![/p][/quote]Take it you didn't read the article earlier this week that schools right across the district are over subscribed? As for shopping, do you really think people in Bingley will struggle to spend their money?[/p][/quote]You fail to miss the point being made ie. as there isn't even a convenience store designed into this development, the 440 households are all going to have to get into their cars to visit the local Co-op, or better still Aldi, as the Sainsbury's fiasco in Bingley has left the town without any sustainably-reached decent supermarket.[/p][/quote]Maybe true, maybe not. But isn't the locality of shops an issue for folk who buy houses on this development rather than yours?[/p][/quote]Actually it is the concern of the whole town. You obviously don't live in the town or you would be concerned as well and as for it being a problem all across the district these comments are about an article relating to Bingley not the rest of the district![/p][/quote]If you go down that line, you could say you don't own the fields in question and it's none of your business either...[/p][/quote]It is my business and every person that lives in the town. My point is there is no shortage of 1/2 million pound homes for sale in Bingley, these developers are carpetbaggers who want to take advantage of cheap greenbelt land and to hell with the impact on local infrastructure. Do you actually know the area in question? because if you did you wouldn't be making such ridiculous comments. come on 440 houses get real!!!!! Angela Richardson
  • Score: 2

6:15pm Fri 20 Jun 14

COATSFORGOALPOSTS says...

Having recently moved in to the small development on the opposite side of the canal and in fear of being accused of hypocrisy and or nimbyism I think it is a travesty that the open greenfield land is going to become a concrete jungle without the necessary infrastructure to support it, however that being said I always believed it was just a matter of time when, not if the application would be passed once a big enough brown envelope was pushed across the table!!! .......what completely beleaguers me as a layperson (ie not a planning expert or bridge architect) is, if the swing bridge has been one of the main reasons for previous failed applications and still causing an issue in regard to delays or breakdown why can't a solid 2 lane up and over bridge be built???.......there is spare land to the right hand side at either side of the canal where the current one is (in an upward direction), surely that would alleviate any traffic hold ups and negate technicalities such as CCTV and messaging systems, making it one less problem and making the pill of inevitable defeat a little easier to swallow.........perh
aps the answer will be Planning Officers flexing their muscles & baulking at a pragmatic solution???
Having recently moved in to the small development on the opposite side of the canal and in fear of being accused of hypocrisy and or nimbyism I think it is a travesty that the open greenfield land is going to become a concrete jungle without the necessary infrastructure to support it, however that being said I always believed it was just a matter of time when, not if the application would be passed once a big enough brown envelope was pushed across the table!!! .......what completely beleaguers me as a layperson (ie not a planning expert or bridge architect) is, if the swing bridge has been one of the main reasons for previous failed applications and still causing an issue in regard to delays or breakdown why can't a solid 2 lane up and over bridge be built???.......there is spare land to the right hand side at either side of the canal where the current one is (in an upward direction), surely that would alleviate any traffic hold ups and negate technicalities such as CCTV and messaging systems, making it one less problem and making the pill of inevitable defeat a little easier to swallow.........perh aps the answer will be Planning Officers flexing their muscles & baulking at a pragmatic solution??? COATSFORGOALPOSTS
  • Score: -1

2:49am Sat 21 Jun 14

G_Firth says...

In a way you have to laugh as people did have the chance not to give Labour the upper hand in May as the very party I belong to did state that this is what they would do.
There is so much brown field sites in the Bradford are that has enough space to build over 5000 new homes yet they still go for the greenbelt because it looks nicer and the houses will sell better.
This isn't about the need for new homes, if it was they would build like crazy on the brown belt.
Nope this is pure and simple all about the mighty buck nothing more nothing less.
Lib/Lab/Con/Green give me a break they are all one in the same and the sooner people wake up to that fact the better
In a way you have to laugh as people did have the chance not to give Labour the upper hand in May as the very party I belong to did state that this is what they would do. There is so much brown field sites in the Bradford are that has enough space to build over 5000 new homes yet they still go for the greenbelt because it looks nicer and the houses will sell better. This isn't about the need for new homes, if it was they would build like crazy on the brown belt. Nope this is pure and simple all about the mighty buck nothing more nothing less. Lib/Lab/Con/Green give me a break they are all one in the same and the sooner people wake up to that fact the better G_Firth
  • Score: 5

8:24am Sat 21 Jun 14

Viwinner says...

Don't blame me you should have voted UKIP. You had a chance and you guys blew it
Don't blame me you should have voted UKIP. You had a chance and you guys blew it Viwinner
  • Score: 0

1:16pm Sat 21 Jun 14

BingleyMen says...

its a simple matter of conflicting agendas. Having seen both sides of the argument I totally don't agree with the new development argument. I have owned a home in Bingley for 14 years and invested in many. If I was looking at it from an investor's standpoint then I would agree with the development but then I would have to dismiss my sense of concern and for the impact on the community, infrastructure, services, schools and even the wildlife that occupy those fields etc which I would never do for the sake of a profit.

It's a disgrace.
its a simple matter of conflicting agendas. Having seen both sides of the argument I totally don't agree with the new development argument. I have owned a home in Bingley for 14 years and invested in many. If I was looking at it from an investor's standpoint then I would agree with the development but then I would have to dismiss my sense of concern and for the impact on the community, infrastructure, services, schools and even the wildlife that occupy those fields etc which I would never do for the sake of a profit. It's a disgrace. BingleyMen
  • Score: 0

4:52pm Sat 21 Jun 14

linebacker2 says...

BingleyMen wrote:
its a simple matter of conflicting agendas. Having seen both sides of the argument I totally don't agree with the new development argument. I have owned a home in Bingley for 14 years and invested in many. If I was looking at it from an investor's standpoint then I would agree with the development but then I would have to dismiss my sense of concern and for the impact on the community, infrastructure, services, schools and even the wildlife that occupy those fields etc which I would never do for the sake of a profit.

It's a disgrace.
And by what magical process did your properties in Bingley appear? Didn't they impact the community, infrastructure, wildlife etc when they were built?
[quote][p][bold]BingleyMen[/bold] wrote: its a simple matter of conflicting agendas. Having seen both sides of the argument I totally don't agree with the new development argument. I have owned a home in Bingley for 14 years and invested in many. If I was looking at it from an investor's standpoint then I would agree with the development but then I would have to dismiss my sense of concern and for the impact on the community, infrastructure, services, schools and even the wildlife that occupy those fields etc which I would never do for the sake of a profit. It's a disgrace.[/p][/quote]And by what magical process did your properties in Bingley appear? Didn't they impact the community, infrastructure, wildlife etc when they were built? linebacker2
  • Score: 1

2:07pm Sun 22 Jun 14

fiverise says...

linebacker2 wrote:
BingleyMen wrote:
its a simple matter of conflicting agendas. Having seen both sides of the argument I totally don't agree with the new development argument. I have owned a home in Bingley for 14 years and invested in many. If I was looking at it from an investor's standpoint then I would agree with the development but then I would have to dismiss my sense of concern and for the impact on the community, infrastructure, services, schools and even the wildlife that occupy those fields etc which I would never do for the sake of a profit.

It's a disgrace.
And by what magical process did your properties in Bingley appear? Didn't they impact the community, infrastructure, wildlife etc when they were built?
Final words: Nobody is against development in this area per se – in fact there have been three new developments (two brownfield) of affordable family sized homes (not apartments) not more than a quarter mile radius away from this very site in the last two years. And that is quite apart from the scores of apartments that have been built in this area over the last ten or so years, a large number of which still remain vacant. No, what the majority of the community does want to see is responsibly-sited developments that are not vastly overscale in their surroundings and that are adequately served by the existing infrastructure or can, at the very least, be accommodated by reasonable and intelligently planned investment in roads, schools, healthcare and recreational amenities. This particular development ticks none of those boxes.

There are a number of alternative sites in the Bingley locality that could be used for the sympathetic and gradual integration of housing with associated services, if only the planners would take off their 'tunnel vision' goggles and relieve themselves of their obsession for pursuing this 440- house goal at all costs.
[quote][p][bold]linebacker2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BingleyMen[/bold] wrote: its a simple matter of conflicting agendas. Having seen both sides of the argument I totally don't agree with the new development argument. I have owned a home in Bingley for 14 years and invested in many. If I was looking at it from an investor's standpoint then I would agree with the development but then I would have to dismiss my sense of concern and for the impact on the community, infrastructure, services, schools and even the wildlife that occupy those fields etc which I would never do for the sake of a profit. It's a disgrace.[/p][/quote]And by what magical process did your properties in Bingley appear? Didn't they impact the community, infrastructure, wildlife etc when they were built?[/p][/quote]Final words: Nobody is against development in this area per se – in fact there have been three new developments (two brownfield) of affordable family sized homes (not apartments) not more than a quarter mile radius away from this very site in the last two years. And that is quite apart from the scores of apartments that have been built in this area over the last ten or so years, a large number of which still remain vacant. No, what the majority of the community does want to see is responsibly-sited developments that are not vastly overscale in their surroundings and that are adequately served by the existing infrastructure or can, at the very least, be accommodated by reasonable and intelligently planned investment in roads, schools, healthcare and recreational amenities. This particular development ticks none of those boxes. There are a number of alternative sites in the Bingley locality that could be used for the sympathetic and gradual integration of housing with associated services, if only the planners would take off their 'tunnel vision' goggles and relieve themselves of their obsession for pursuing this 440- house goal at all costs. fiverise
  • Score: 3

8:09pm Mon 23 Jun 14

saintsrlfc says...

thousands of people continue to pour into this country week after week ......vote for a political party that will stop immigration if you want to save your green fields from being concreted over....turkeys voting for Christmas ?
thousands of people continue to pour into this country week after week ......vote for a political party that will stop immigration if you want to save your green fields from being concreted over....turkeys voting for Christmas ? saintsrlfc
  • Score: 1

11:44pm Mon 23 Jun 14

Reality001 says...

Viwinner wrote:
Don't blame me you should have voted UKIP. You had a chance and you guys blew it
Your seriously missing the point. Planning decisions have to be made upon the planning laws which are set by Government.

Planning decisions currently cannot be made by local referendum without a change in the law. So voting UKIP would not have prevented this decision.

If the Council decided to turn down a planning application, which was within the law, then they could be taken to Court, and they would lose.
[quote][p][bold]Viwinner[/bold] wrote: Don't blame me you should have voted UKIP. You had a chance and you guys blew it[/p][/quote]Your seriously missing the point. Planning decisions have to be made upon the planning laws which are set by Government. Planning decisions currently cannot be made by local referendum without a change in the law. So voting UKIP would not have prevented this decision. If the Council decided to turn down a planning application, which was within the law, then they could be taken to Court, and they would lose. Reality001
  • Score: 2

11:48pm Mon 23 Jun 14

Reality001 says...

saintsrlfc wrote:
thousands of people continue to pour into this country week after week ......vote for a political party that will stop immigration if you want to save your green fields from being concreted over....turkeys voting for Christmas ?
Your totally wrong on this issue. First there are not 1,000s of immigrants entering this country week after week.

The shortage of housing is not something new, it's a crisis that has been building up for decades, and nothing to do with immigration, but the fact people want to live in particular places.

The market dictates where houses are needed.
[quote][p][bold]saintsrlfc[/bold] wrote: thousands of people continue to pour into this country week after week ......vote for a political party that will stop immigration if you want to save your green fields from being concreted over....turkeys voting for Christmas ?[/p][/quote]Your totally wrong on this issue. First there are not 1,000s of immigrants entering this country week after week. The shortage of housing is not something new, it's a crisis that has been building up for decades, and nothing to do with immigration, but the fact people want to live in particular places. The market dictates where houses are needed. Reality001
  • Score: -3

9:54am Wed 25 Jun 14

Tinybantam says...

I lived in Bingley for twelve years and loved it, but I foresaw all this coming five years ago and left, because I knew, above all else, money talks. It was obvious then when the first application was rejected that at some point, there would be enough money in the big brown envelope to persuade the planning committee to change their minds. The inner city of Bradford was already a toilet when I left Bingley, and since then it has only gotten worse. The whole of the country is fast going downhill, and that is why I left it........there is nothing to make me want to come back to England, my home city of Bradford or indeed Yorkshire......I feel really sorry for those people who are trapped in the mire and have no way of getting out.
I lived in Bingley for twelve years and loved it, but I foresaw all this coming five years ago and left, because I knew, above all else, money talks. It was obvious then when the first application was rejected that at some point, there would be enough money in the big brown envelope to persuade the planning committee to change their minds. The inner city of Bradford was already a toilet when I left Bingley, and since then it has only gotten worse. The whole of the country is fast going downhill, and that is why I left it........there is nothing to make me want to come back to England, my home city of Bradford or indeed Yorkshire......I feel really sorry for those people who are trapped in the mire and have no way of getting out. Tinybantam
  • Score: 2

2:33pm Wed 25 Jun 14

Wanna Have says...

Whilst having seen the London type congestion in Inner City Bradford I am pretty much against any further developments in there on "brownfield" and support "greenfield" developments.

That said 400 odd houses is excessive in any area in one go.
Whilst having seen the London type congestion in Inner City Bradford I am pretty much against any further developments in there on "brownfield" and support "greenfield" developments. That said 400 odd houses is excessive in any area in one go. Wanna Have
  • Score: 1

2:35pm Wed 25 Jun 14

carolyne74 says...

I don't know much about the safety aspect, as I live on the other side of Bingley, but where the heck are these people going to send their children to school? Presumably many of these houses will be bought by families, and the primary schools are already full. Trinity's just been doubled in size to cope with the children they already have! And we can forget same day appointments at Springfield Surgery.

Thing is, people want to move to small towns, so developers buy up loads of land, build massive housing estates, and suddenly it's not a "small town" any more. So they move on to the next small town that everyone wants to go and live in. It's like flipping Independence Day!
I don't know much about the safety aspect, as I live on the other side of Bingley, but where the heck are these people going to send their children to school? Presumably many of these houses will be bought by families, and the primary schools are already full. Trinity's just been doubled in size to cope with the children they already have! And we can forget same day appointments at Springfield Surgery. Thing is, people want to move to small towns, so developers buy up loads of land, build massive housing estates, and suddenly it's not a "small town" any more. So they move on to the next small town that everyone wants to go and live in. It's like flipping Independence Day! carolyne74
  • Score: 6

2:47pm Wed 25 Jun 14

carolyne74 says...

pcmanners wrote:
linebacker2 wrote:
pcmanners wrote:
Good decision. In a free market developers should be free to build anywhere they like in order to make a profit. The Government removed all of the socialist red tape from the planning laws in order that more houses could be built. This shows that the new laws are working.
You are of course quite correct.

Britains planning laws are among the most complex and arcane in the world and allow nimby's to delay much needed development.

In most countries, even socialist ones it's possible to build a new factory/housing development/airport etc from scratch before we even get past the planning stage.

Also many of these greenfields aren't particularly attractive anyway - many are covered in chemicals for heavily subsidised farming or are just used as convenient places for locals to walk and empty their dogs.
Thank you. A man after my own heart.

In a proper market economy everything, including the countryside, has a price. The Government has very sensibly removed the socialist restrictions on building on green fields so that these assets can be use to generate the maximum return for those developers willing to risk their capital.

Now Sty Lane has shown the way, this process will be repeated all over Bradford. Except for the inevitable whingeing lefties everybody will benefit.
The people whinging will be the hundreds of people stuck on a small lane in rush hour traffic, trying to get out of their nice new housing estate. The people trying to get a doctor's appointment within four weeks. The people who suddenly realise that they'll have to send their child miles to primary school, probably in the opposite direction to where they work. I'm on the opposite end of the political spectum to the "whingeing lefties", but I live in this town and the only people who will massively benefit from this development are the developers. Even if they were building on an ugly brownstone site hidden from view, this development would be a very bad idea for Bingley in terms of size and placement.
[quote][p][bold]pcmanners[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]linebacker2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pcmanners[/bold] wrote: Good decision. In a free market developers should be free to build anywhere they like in order to make a profit. The Government removed all of the socialist red tape from the planning laws in order that more houses could be built. This shows that the new laws are working.[/p][/quote]You are of course quite correct. Britains planning laws are among the most complex and arcane in the world and allow nimby's to delay much needed development. In most countries, even socialist ones it's possible to build a new factory/housing development/airport etc from scratch before we even get past the planning stage. Also many of these greenfields aren't particularly attractive anyway - many are covered in chemicals for heavily subsidised farming or are just used as convenient places for locals to walk and empty their dogs.[/p][/quote]Thank you. A man after my own heart. In a proper market economy everything, including the countryside, has a price. The Government has very sensibly removed the socialist restrictions on building on green fields so that these assets can be use to generate the maximum return for those developers willing to risk their capital. Now Sty Lane has shown the way, this process will be repeated all over Bradford. Except for the inevitable whingeing lefties everybody will benefit.[/p][/quote]The people whinging will be the hundreds of people stuck on a small lane in rush hour traffic, trying to get out of their nice new housing estate. The people trying to get a doctor's appointment within four weeks. The people who suddenly realise that they'll have to send their child miles to primary school, probably in the opposite direction to where they work. I'm on the opposite end of the political spectum to the "whingeing [sic] lefties", but I live in this town and the only people who will massively benefit from this development are the developers. Even if they were building on an ugly brownstone site hidden from view, this development would be a very bad idea for Bingley in terms of size and placement. carolyne74
  • Score: 4

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree