Archive - Thursday, 5 November 2009


Never miss anything again. Sign up for our RSS news feeds and Newsletters.

Developers make new bid for 400 green belt homes

Developers have revealed they are to submit a controversial plan to build hundreds of homes on a green field site which won a reprieve from development five years ago.

Judy Pinchbeck at the development site in Micklethwaite Julie Pinchbeck at the development site in Micklethwaite

Bellway and Redrow will seek outline planning permission from Bradford Council to build on the land in Greenhill and Sty Lane, Micklethwaite.

The company held a public consultation with residents last month which sparked widespread opposition.

The building companies are acting upon the decision of an Inspector overseeing Bradford Council’s unitary development plan in 2003.

He ruled that there should be a five-year moratorium on building on the site. That period is now over.

A spokesman for Bellway and Redrow said: “Following a public consultation exercise and a number of meetings with the planning and highways departments in the Council, the developers Bellway and Redrow will be lodging an outline planning application with Bradford Council next week.

“The application for the land at Micklethwaite reflects the site’s allocation in Bradford’s Development Plan and proposes circa 400 homes.

“The site will provide a comprehensive range of house types to meet demand from all quarters of the market including affordable homes.”

Joining the ranks of opponents is constituency MP Philip Davies (Con, Shipley), who last week in Parliament voiced his opposition to development of open land, citing Micklethwaite as an example where the Government was allowing the countryside to be concreted over.

He has called on people to register their opposition so the Council is aware of the strength of opposition.

He said: “I will do all I can to support local residents wishing to prevent a development from taking place here, although we start from a difficult position due to an appalling decision back in the 1990s to include this land in the UDP.

“Scrapping the regional house building targets imposed by the Government on local authorities would be an extremely helpful start.

“We have housing targets imposed on councils, in Bradford they have to build 50,000 houses by 2020.

“What is even more galling is that by the Government’s own admission one third of housing will be needed for future immigration. If Government got a grip of immigration this would not be needed.”

The Inspector in his 2003 decision said the single-lane swing bridge across the canal in Micklethwaite Lane was not adequate to take the extra traffic and said a fixed bridge would be better but it would need a short canal diversion British Waterways was against building a two-lane swing bridge because of the cost and longer time to operate.

Julie Pinchbeck, of Bridge Cottage, Micklethwaite Lane, said “We must preserve our green space.

“Should planning permission be granted, we will be pushing for a fixed bridge with supporting transport links to the development site.”

Pauline Wood, of Micklethwaite, a member of Greenhill Action Group, said she was not in a position to comment on the new plans until she had seen them.

John Eyles, the Council’s major development manager, said: “There have been ongoing negotiations between planning officers and developers for some time over the Greenhill, Sty Lane site, with a view to an outline planning application being submitted.”

e.mail:clive.white @telegraphandargus.co.uk


Comments (19)

05/11/09

Welcome To The New World Order says...

There should be absolutely NO development whatsoever on Green Belt land, it should not even be given consideration as it is clearly illegal!

05/11/09

Welcome To The New World Order says...

There should be absolutely NO development whatsoever on Green Belt land, it should not even be given consideration as it is clearly illegal!

05/11/09

Welcome To The New World Order says...

There should be absolutely NO development whatsoever on Green Belt land, it should not even be given consideration as it is clearly illegal!

05/11/09

Welcome To The New World Order says...

There should be absolutely NO development whatsoever on Green Belt land, it should not even be given consideration as it is clearly illegal!

05/11/09

bingleybantam says...

No way should this happen.

However, look at the overdevelopment in Eldwick to see the results of folk complaining to the council. Nothing, No body listens.

05/11/09

Windyass says...

"Judy Pinchbeck, of Bridge Cottage, Micklethwaite Lane, said “We must preserve our green space. "

And preserve ridiculous house prices of course.

05/11/09

caribouk says...

Great.... put me down on the waiting list... I reckon I've just about make the 40% deposit required for a decent mortgage!

05/11/09

albion says...

bingleybantam wrote:
No way should this happen.

However, look at the overdevelopment in Eldwick to see the results of folk complaining to the council. Nothing, No body listens.
Overdevelopment? yes, but the building hasnt encroached on to what was once designated "green belt" land......yet!

06/11/09

bingleybantam says...

What about the fields that were around the school that is now the "Swan Avenue Estate"??

06/11/09

albion says...

bingleybantam wrote:
What about the fields that were around the school that is now the "Swan Avenue Estate"??

The greenbelt was only on the other side of Sheriff Lane (Which is why they were not allowed to make vehicle access into it), The fields where the development has been, were considered for building on 50yrs ago.

06/11/09

bingleybantam says...

As was planning for another school in Bingley area, but it was quietly cancelled.

Okay building all these homes, but were are the 2.4 children x 400 homes going to school. Where are the 800 extra cars going to go?



06/11/09

albion says...

bingleybantam wrote:
As was planning for another school in Bingley area, but it was quietly cancelled.

Okay building all these homes, but were are the 2.4 children x 400 homes going to school. Where are the 800 extra cars going to go?



I know two couples who have moved there in their latter years, their children are adults and in one case they have given up driving in favour of the bus.

06/11/09

Helter Skelter says...

bingleybantam wrote:
What about the fields that were around the school that is now the "Swan Avenue Estate"??

What about the middle third of the pitch at Valley Parade? Ive heard they dont use that very much ! I reckon you woud get at least 2 fair sized 3 bedroom detached houses on there.

07/11/09

brownt53 says...

This number of houses is going to have a serious impact on the transport, schools and general infrastructure of the area let alone destroy this beautiful stretch of open countryside.

To keep up to date with developments or to offer help to the Greenhill Action Group please visit their website www.greenhill-action
-group.co.uk

08/11/09

brownt53 says...

To be advised of how you can help Greenhill Action Group subscribe to our mailing list at www.greenhill-action
-group.co.uk

09/11/09

Mr Gummage says...

Unfortunately chaps, Green Belt Land only remains as Green Belt land until an act of Paliament (usually as a result of local By-law amendments) changes it into Development Land - and lets face it, the Growing Population is going to need housing - what was the Prediction: 70 million by 2020? - that's not including illegal immigrants - the actual figure may be nearer 90 Million by then - it's not a prospect I am looking forward to and like many other professional and sensible English, as a result of this I am making my own plans to leave this sorry nation - this place will be unbearable by then.

09/11/09

Bazzabails says...

I'd like to see the planners taking time out to assess the surrounding narrow roads with virtually no footpaths and dangerous bad bends/poor visability. Access now is difficult so goodness knows what it will be like with c800 more vehicles trying to get through. Why do we need to build on this land when there are 100's of empty properties in Bingley? The recent recession has impacted on developers/builders and lenders don't want to lend money. Are all these new homes going to stand empty like all the rest. Come on Shipley Planning - leave this site alone.

10/11/09

bedfordmeadows says...

I find the prospect of this happening sickening. This is an area of such natural beauty, a place you can walk and forget all your worries for a while but yet again some cash hungry developers (hiding behind government housing figures) are wanting to concrete it over! the question you have to ask yourself is, why do they want to build here? are all the brownfield sites in Bradford / West Yorkshire now developed? No. So why pick a beautiful semi-rural retreat? money! All they are thinking about is the return they can get on selling houses in a much sought after area, well, if it has 400-600 houses dumped on it, it wont be sought after any more! But, at least the developers get their pockets lined and they can move onto destroying the next beautiful location. I think it is pretty obvious that the public are against this so why are the people in the council not listening? have they forgotten that they are public servants?!

25/11/09

BlackSwan says...

I second bedfordmeadows comments and would add that such a development will deprive a local farmer of his grazing land for sheep, cows and horses. The ducks, swans and geese that literally live in those fields will lose their home and anyone who appreciates the beauty of that landscape, with those animals on it, will instead be able to 'unwind' by surveying yet another beige-estate. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and that is a site I would not wish to see. There must be other, more appropriate brownfield backyards where these houses could be situated. Stop the madness!


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