Protesters blockade digger at Baildon development site

Bradford Telegraph and Argus: Anti-Buck Lane protesters block a digger Anti-Buck Lane protesters block a digger

Placard-waving protesters barred the way of a digger and stopped improvement works to a Baildon footpath yesterday, claiming Bradford Council was showing a “contempt for democracy” with the timing of the project.

Baildon Residents Against Inappropriate Development (Braid) believes that work on footpaths around Buck Lane will “activate” planning permission for an industrial estate on the site ahead of a meeting to discuss the proposed industrial estate.

But the Council insisted that carrying out the improvements to the path off Otley Road does not mean the site’s future is already decided.

Plans for the estate have been permitted but earlier this month Braid presented the Council with a 1,700-name petition, enough names to force a debate on the issue to a meeting of the full Council on Tuesday, December 11.

Members of Braid thought nothing would go ahead before that date, but last week they learned that the path improvements had been started three weeks ahead of it.

“I think this is sleight of hand, a pre-emptive strike by the Council,” said Braid secretary Edmund Butterworth.

“This sort of work is usually done in summer – why start it now? There’s a very uncomfortable feeling to all this.”

He and other campaigners formed a human wall to prevent a digger being driven from the site during one stage of their protest yesterday morning.

Former Bradford councillor John Hall said he felt the Council was trying to steal an advantage before the full debate. He said: “It’s clearly out of order to begin any work here until after the formal discussion.”

Baildon parish councillor Ian Lyons said: “It’s a condition that they improve this path before the planning permission can be activated.

Chris Eaton, the Council’s development services manager, said: “The work on the footpaths on that land will improve the surface for all users whether or not any development does go ahead. Work carried out to improve footpaths for the benefit of the whole community does not preclude a meaningful debate on the future of the area.”

Comments (27)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:56am Tue 20 Nov 12

futurethinking says...

Dear BRAID

I hate to bring this to your attention, but there was a time when the house you live in was 'Green Fields'. Shocking isn't it? But it's true.

So really your campaign is just hypocracy.

Yours Faithfully

Common Sense
Dear BRAID I hate to bring this to your attention, but there was a time when the house you live in was 'Green Fields'. Shocking isn't it? But it's true. So really your campaign is just hypocracy. Yours Faithfully Common Sense futurethinking

8:23am Tue 20 Nov 12

Shipleyvegas says...

Dear Futurethinking,

Is it hypocritical to realise past mistakes and try to change them for the future?

Is it hypocritical to want to develop derelict and brownfield sites over new sites that don't need to be destroyed?

By your rationale the whole country might as well be concreted over.

"Think of what you want to do with your life, and what you want your children to do with theirs. They can't do it if they can't drink the water or breathe the air"

Not exactly thinking of the future there are you? Maybe a change of username required...

Yours sincerely,

Someone who wants our children to have a planet to live on.
Dear Futurethinking, Is it hypocritical to realise past mistakes and try to change them for the future? Is it hypocritical to want to develop derelict and brownfield sites over new sites that don't need to be destroyed? By your rationale the whole country might as well be concreted over. "Think of what you want to do with your life, and what you want your children to do with theirs. They can't do it if they can't drink the water or breathe the air" Not exactly thinking of the future there are you? Maybe a change of username required... Yours sincerely, Someone who wants our children to have a planet to live on. Shipleyvegas

8:27am Tue 20 Nov 12

Desmin says...

futurethinking wrote:
Dear BRAID I hate to bring this to your attention, but there was a time when the house you live in was 'Green Fields'. Shocking isn't it? But it's true. So really your campaign is just hypocracy. Yours Faithfully Common Sense
I too live in Baildon and have done for the last 15yrs and in that time I've seen the 'green fields' slowly get eroded away. At the moment I am on a green field site (Baildon moor is my back yard) and they (the powers that be) keep assuring us it will never be built on, but then they did just above the top of Springfield rd. The problem, as always, is not with the dwellings they want to build but the immediate impact it has on the infrastructure. Not only will we need more schools, bigger hospitals, more dainage/sewers but every single house adds a potential 2 more cars (maybe 3) on the road that will all want to hit the local road network between 7.30 & 8.30am and the same again in the evening and, lets face it, the roads can't cope now. So, it's not just about green fields and NIMBYS but it's about the bigger picture. For someone who goes under the name of 'futurethinking' I think you need to get your future thinking cap on.
[quote][p][bold]futurethinking[/bold] wrote: Dear BRAID I hate to bring this to your attention, but there was a time when the house you live in was 'Green Fields'. Shocking isn't it? But it's true. So really your campaign is just hypocracy. Yours Faithfully Common Sense[/p][/quote]I too live in Baildon and have done for the last 15yrs and in that time I've seen the 'green fields' slowly get eroded away. At the moment I am on a green field site (Baildon moor is my back yard) and they (the powers that be) keep assuring us it will never be built on, but then they did just above the top of Springfield rd. The problem, as always, is not with the dwellings they want to build but the immediate impact it has on the infrastructure. Not only will we need more schools, bigger hospitals, more dainage/sewers but every single house adds a potential 2 more cars (maybe 3) on the road that will all want to hit the local road network between 7.30 & 8.30am and the same again in the evening and, lets face it, the roads can't cope now. So, it's not just about green fields and NIMBYS but it's about the bigger picture. For someone who goes under the name of 'futurethinking' I think you need to get your future thinking cap on. Desmin

8:56am Tue 20 Nov 12

webess says...

Attitude of NIMBY's such as this is that their own home and workplace should be the very last place built.

Wonder how much they'd like it if I stopped them doing their job - if they have one.
Attitude of NIMBY's such as this is that their own home and workplace should be the very last place built. Wonder how much they'd like it if I stopped them doing their job - if they have one. webess

9:00am Tue 20 Nov 12

Mik_e says...

A 'Freedom of information' request to Bradmet, may prove interesting
A 'Freedom of information' request to Bradmet, may prove interesting Mik_e

9:34am Tue 20 Nov 12

angry bradfordian says...

The thing that baffles me most about this development is that there are acres of wasteland around the Dockfield Road area which must better for public transport links and general access
How can land in Baildon be cheaper or more attractive to developers than this, regardless of the additional fact it's around green belt land?
The thing that baffles me most about this development is that there are acres of wasteland around the Dockfield Road area which must better for public transport links and general access How can land in Baildon be cheaper or more attractive to developers than this, regardless of the additional fact it's around green belt land? angry bradfordian

9:40am Tue 20 Nov 12

webess says...

Desmin wrote:
futurethinking wrote:
Dear BRAID I hate to bring this to your attention, but there was a time when the house you live in was 'Green Fields'. Shocking isn't it? But it's true. So really your campaign is just hypocracy. Yours Faithfully Common Sense
I too live in Baildon and have done for the last 15yrs and in that time I've seen the 'green fields' slowly get eroded away. At the moment I am on a green field site (Baildon moor is my back yard) and they (the powers that be) keep assuring us it will never be built on, but then they did just above the top of Springfield rd. The problem, as always, is not with the dwellings they want to build but the immediate impact it has on the infrastructure. Not only will we need more schools, bigger hospitals, more dainage/sewers but every single house adds a potential 2 more cars (maybe 3) on the road that will all want to hit the local road network between 7.30 & 8.30am and the same again in the evening and, lets face it, the roads can't cope now. So, it's not just about green fields and NIMBYS but it's about the bigger picture. For someone who goes under the name of 'futurethinking' I think you need to get your future thinking cap on.
The council may have said "no intention to build on..." and the locals have interpreted this as "never built on...".

Do you really think any landowner/council etc will ever say that land will never ever be built on???
[quote][p][bold]Desmin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]futurethinking[/bold] wrote: Dear BRAID I hate to bring this to your attention, but there was a time when the house you live in was 'Green Fields'. Shocking isn't it? But it's true. So really your campaign is just hypocracy. Yours Faithfully Common Sense[/p][/quote]I too live in Baildon and have done for the last 15yrs and in that time I've seen the 'green fields' slowly get eroded away. At the moment I am on a green field site (Baildon moor is my back yard) and they (the powers that be) keep assuring us it will never be built on, but then they did just above the top of Springfield rd. The problem, as always, is not with the dwellings they want to build but the immediate impact it has on the infrastructure. Not only will we need more schools, bigger hospitals, more dainage/sewers but every single house adds a potential 2 more cars (maybe 3) on the road that will all want to hit the local road network between 7.30 & 8.30am and the same again in the evening and, lets face it, the roads can't cope now. So, it's not just about green fields and NIMBYS but it's about the bigger picture. For someone who goes under the name of 'futurethinking' I think you need to get your future thinking cap on.[/p][/quote]The council may have said "no intention to build on..." and the locals have interpreted this as "never built on...". Do you really think any landowner/council etc will ever say that land will never ever be built on??? webess

10:03am Tue 20 Nov 12

BaildonGuy says...

webess wrote:
Attitude of NIMBY's such as this is that their own home and workplace should be the very last place built.

Wonder how much they'd like it if I stopped them doing their job - if they have one.
Ah Webess, trolling again. All you ever come out with is NIMBY, I don't think I've ever seen a serious argument from you yet.

At its heart this is debate about whether we should recycle derelict land or continue to eat into our diminishing stock of green fields. The way this is decided will govern Bradford's future for years to come.
[quote][p][bold]webess[/bold] wrote: Attitude of NIMBY's such as this is that their own home and workplace should be the very last place built. Wonder how much they'd like it if I stopped them doing their job - if they have one.[/p][/quote]Ah Webess, trolling again. All you ever come out with is NIMBY, I don't think I've ever seen a serious argument from you yet. At its heart this is debate about whether we should recycle derelict land or continue to eat into our diminishing stock of green fields. The way this is decided will govern Bradford's future for years to come. BaildonGuy

10:31am Tue 20 Nov 12

webess says...

BaildonGuy wrote:
webess wrote:
Attitude of NIMBY's such as this is that their own home and workplace should be the very last place built.

Wonder how much they'd like it if I stopped them doing their job - if they have one.
Ah Webess, trolling again. All you ever come out with is NIMBY, I don't think I've ever seen a serious argument from you yet.

At its heart this is debate about whether we should recycle derelict land or continue to eat into our diminishing stock of green fields. The way this is decided will govern Bradford's future for years to come.
Building on brownfield land is easier than on greenfields in general. Planning permission is easier, services are already in place etc etc.

However there's far less demand for brownfield developments - that's the reason there's so many derelict sites around.

Until we adopt a communist system, we should build where demand is, subject to sites being of genuine historic or environmental significance - the fact some locals like to empty their dogs in a field doesn't necessarily make it a pristine wilderness never to be built on.
[quote][p][bold]BaildonGuy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]webess[/bold] wrote: Attitude of NIMBY's such as this is that their own home and workplace should be the very last place built. Wonder how much they'd like it if I stopped them doing their job - if they have one.[/p][/quote]Ah Webess, trolling again. All you ever come out with is NIMBY, I don't think I've ever seen a serious argument from you yet. At its heart this is debate about whether we should recycle derelict land or continue to eat into our diminishing stock of green fields. The way this is decided will govern Bradford's future for years to come.[/p][/quote]Building on brownfield land is easier than on greenfields in general. Planning permission is easier, services are already in place etc etc. However there's far less demand for brownfield developments - that's the reason there's so many derelict sites around. Until we adopt a communist system, we should build where demand is, subject to sites being of genuine historic or environmental significance - the fact some locals like to empty their dogs in a field doesn't necessarily make it a pristine wilderness never to be built on. webess

10:34am Tue 20 Nov 12

fish'n'chips says...

The mentality of the council is astounding. Dockfield road is crying out to be used again since they bulldozed the old pace building and all the land next to metaltreat over the other side of canal is empty. Are Bradford council so desperate to make a few quid selling or renting the land that they are risking building a great white elephant. Leave it alone any fool can see it's just not suitable......
The mentality of the council is astounding. Dockfield road is crying out to be used again since they bulldozed the old pace building and all the land next to metaltreat over the other side of canal is empty. Are Bradford council so desperate to make a few quid selling or renting the land that they are risking building a great white elephant. Leave it alone any fool can see it's just not suitable...... fish'n'chips

11:27am Tue 20 Nov 12

Albion. says...

This is actually about the repairing of footpaths, the footpath in question certainly needs some attention, in particular the stretch from Buck Lane to the footbridge and from the footbridge to the canal towpath.
This is actually about the repairing of footpaths, the footpath in question certainly needs some attention, in particular the stretch from Buck Lane to the footbridge and from the footbridge to the canal towpath. Albion.

12:16pm Tue 20 Nov 12

scottie dog says...

The parish councillor is quoted as saying that it is a condition that this path be improved before planning pemission can be activated, if this is the case then the residents have a legitimate reason to suspect the council of trying to pre-empt a challenge to the development.
The parish councillor is quoted as saying that it is a condition that this path be improved before planning pemission can be activated, if this is the case then the residents have a legitimate reason to suspect the council of trying to pre-empt a challenge to the development. scottie dog

12:28pm Tue 20 Nov 12

Albion. says...

scottie dog wrote:
The parish councillor is quoted as saying that it is a condition that this path be improved before planning pemission can be activated, if this is the case then the residents have a legitimate reason to suspect the council of trying to pre-empt a challenge to the development.
It WILL go ahead.
[quote][p][bold]scottie dog[/bold] wrote: The parish councillor is quoted as saying that it is a condition that this path be improved before planning pemission can be activated, if this is the case then the residents have a legitimate reason to suspect the council of trying to pre-empt a challenge to the development.[/p][/quote]It WILL go ahead. Albion.

12:37pm Tue 20 Nov 12

scottie dog says...

Albion. wrote:
scottie dog wrote:
The parish councillor is quoted as saying that it is a condition that this path be improved before planning pemission can be activated, if this is the case then the residents have a legitimate reason to suspect the council of trying to pre-empt a challenge to the development.
It WILL go ahead.
Have you got a crystal ball, or some insider knowledge on this development, or just a heavy dose of cynicism re our beloved and much maligned council.
[quote][p][bold]Albion.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scottie dog[/bold] wrote: The parish councillor is quoted as saying that it is a condition that this path be improved before planning pemission can be activated, if this is the case then the residents have a legitimate reason to suspect the council of trying to pre-empt a challenge to the development.[/p][/quote]It WILL go ahead.[/p][/quote]Have you got a crystal ball, or some insider knowledge on this development, or just a heavy dose of cynicism re our beloved and much maligned council. scottie dog

12:45pm Tue 20 Nov 12

Albion. says...

scottie dog wrote:
Albion. wrote:
scottie dog wrote:
The parish councillor is quoted as saying that it is a condition that this path be improved before planning pemission can be activated, if this is the case then the residents have a legitimate reason to suspect the council of trying to pre-empt a challenge to the development.
It WILL go ahead.
Have you got a crystal ball, or some insider knowledge on this development, or just a heavy dose of cynicism re our beloved and much maligned council.
No, but there is no other practical use for this boggy stretch of land, and I think the arguments about traffic etc won't sway things against it.
As my earlier post about the footpath proves, I do know the area well and it matters not to me personally whether it happens or not.
[quote][p][bold]scottie dog[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Albion.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scottie dog[/bold] wrote: The parish councillor is quoted as saying that it is a condition that this path be improved before planning pemission can be activated, if this is the case then the residents have a legitimate reason to suspect the council of trying to pre-empt a challenge to the development.[/p][/quote]It WILL go ahead.[/p][/quote]Have you got a crystal ball, or some insider knowledge on this development, or just a heavy dose of cynicism re our beloved and much maligned council.[/p][/quote]No, but there is no other practical use for this boggy stretch of land, and I think the arguments about traffic etc won't sway things against it. As my earlier post about the footpath proves, I do know the area well and it matters not to me personally whether it happens or not. Albion.

1:21pm Tue 20 Nov 12

Dragon Saddle says...

Anyone can see the only motivation for improving this path is to satisfy the planning permission.

Take a look around, there are hundreds of roads and paths falling apart all over the place!

The Labour Kremlin need chucking out of Bradford Council. Then we'll get some common sense policies instead of crackpot schemes at the taxpayers expense.

Don't forget, millions of your money is being wasted trying to get private companies to occupy this site. Do you really trust them to deliver? And who will really benefit?
Anyone can see the only motivation for improving this path is to satisfy the planning permission. Take a look around, there are hundreds of roads and paths falling apart all over the place! The Labour Kremlin need chucking out of Bradford Council. Then we'll get some common sense policies instead of crackpot schemes at the taxpayers expense. Don't forget, millions of your money is being wasted trying to get private companies to occupy this site. Do you really trust them to deliver? And who will really benefit? Dragon Saddle

1:50pm Tue 20 Nov 12

Another Landless Peasant says...

Meanwhile, a much-used public footpath that was badly damaged by freak weather at the beginning of August has STILL not been repaired despite numerous complaints to Bradford Council and local Councilors.
Meanwhile, a much-used public footpath that was badly damaged by freak weather at the beginning of August has STILL not been repaired despite numerous complaints to Bradford Council and local Councilors. Another Landless Peasant

1:51pm Tue 20 Nov 12

Another Landless Peasant says...

I.E. a much-used public footpath in Manningham.
I.E. a much-used public footpath in Manningham. Another Landless Peasant

1:53pm Tue 20 Nov 12

FiT1958 says...

Dragon Saddle wrote:
Anyone can see the only motivation for improving this path is to satisfy the planning permission.

Take a look around, there are hundreds of roads and paths falling apart all over the place!

The Labour Kremlin need chucking out of Bradford Council. Then we'll get some common sense policies instead of crackpot schemes at the taxpayers expense.

Don't forget, millions of your money is being wasted trying to get private companies to occupy this site. Do you really trust them to deliver? And who will really benefit?
No, the crackpot schemes are the village green scams and judicial reviews that are costing the taxpayer millions of our money.
[quote][p][bold]Dragon Saddle[/bold] wrote: Anyone can see the only motivation for improving this path is to satisfy the planning permission. Take a look around, there are hundreds of roads and paths falling apart all over the place! The Labour Kremlin need chucking out of Bradford Council. Then we'll get some common sense policies instead of crackpot schemes at the taxpayers expense. Don't forget, millions of your money is being wasted trying to get private companies to occupy this site. Do you really trust them to deliver? And who will really benefit?[/p][/quote]No, the crackpot schemes are the village green scams and judicial reviews that are costing the taxpayer millions of our money. FiT1958

2:19pm Tue 20 Nov 12

Dragon Saddle says...

FiT1958 wrote:
Dragon Saddle wrote:
Anyone can see the only motivation for improving this path is to satisfy the planning permission.

Take a look around, there are hundreds of roads and paths falling apart all over the place!

The Labour Kremlin need chucking out of Bradford Council. Then we'll get some common sense policies instead of crackpot schemes at the taxpayers expense.

Don't forget, millions of your money is being wasted trying to get private companies to occupy this site. Do you really trust them to deliver? And who will really benefit?
No, the crackpot schemes are the village green scams and judicial reviews that are costing the taxpayer millions of our money.
Some people know the price of everything, and the value of nothing.

I recommend they apply for Chinese citizenship, they have a very efficient, and cost effective, non-democratic system there. They wouldn't have to bother voting either, that's very expensive too. All at the bargain price of your human rights.
[quote][p][bold]FiT1958[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dragon Saddle[/bold] wrote: Anyone can see the only motivation for improving this path is to satisfy the planning permission. Take a look around, there are hundreds of roads and paths falling apart all over the place! The Labour Kremlin need chucking out of Bradford Council. Then we'll get some common sense policies instead of crackpot schemes at the taxpayers expense. Don't forget, millions of your money is being wasted trying to get private companies to occupy this site. Do you really trust them to deliver? And who will really benefit?[/p][/quote]No, the crackpot schemes are the village green scams and judicial reviews that are costing the taxpayer millions of our money.[/p][/quote]Some people know the price of everything, and the value of nothing. I recommend they apply for Chinese citizenship, they have a very efficient, and cost effective, non-democratic system there. They wouldn't have to bother voting either, that's very expensive too. All at the bargain price of your human rights. Dragon Saddle

2:37pm Tue 20 Nov 12

Joedavid says...

T&A lead article is to bring business in then one reads this one.
T&A lead article is to bring business in then one reads this one. Joedavid

2:54pm Tue 20 Nov 12

Wanna Have says...

Dragon Saddle wrote:
FiT1958 wrote:
Dragon Saddle wrote: Anyone can see the only motivation for improving this path is to satisfy the planning permission. Take a look around, there are hundreds of roads and paths falling apart all over the place! The Labour Kremlin need chucking out of Bradford Council. Then we'll get some common sense policies instead of crackpot schemes at the taxpayers expense. Don't forget, millions of your money is being wasted trying to get private companies to occupy this site. Do you really trust them to deliver? And who will really benefit?
No, the crackpot schemes are the village green scams and judicial reviews that are costing the taxpayer millions of our money.
Some people know the price of everything, and the value of nothing. I recommend they apply for Chinese citizenship, they have a very efficient, and cost effective, non-democratic system there. They wouldn't have to bother voting either, that's very expensive too. All at the bargain price of your human rights.
Don't worry, you'll be serving them tea and coffee soon enough, such is the effectiveness of our current class based system.
[quote][p][bold]Dragon Saddle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FiT1958[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dragon Saddle[/bold] wrote: Anyone can see the only motivation for improving this path is to satisfy the planning permission. Take a look around, there are hundreds of roads and paths falling apart all over the place! The Labour Kremlin need chucking out of Bradford Council. Then we'll get some common sense policies instead of crackpot schemes at the taxpayers expense. Don't forget, millions of your money is being wasted trying to get private companies to occupy this site. Do you really trust them to deliver? And who will really benefit?[/p][/quote]No, the crackpot schemes are the village green scams and judicial reviews that are costing the taxpayer millions of our money.[/p][/quote]Some people know the price of everything, and the value of nothing. I recommend they apply for Chinese citizenship, they have a very efficient, and cost effective, non-democratic system there. They wouldn't have to bother voting either, that's very expensive too. All at the bargain price of your human rights.[/p][/quote]Don't worry, you'll be serving them tea and coffee soon enough, such is the effectiveness of our current class based system. Wanna Have

4:17pm Tue 20 Nov 12

BaildonGuy says...

webess wrote:
BaildonGuy wrote:
webess wrote:
Attitude of NIMBY's such as this is that their own home and workplace should be the very last place built.

Wonder how much they'd like it if I stopped them doing their job - if they have one.
Ah Webess, trolling again. All you ever come out with is NIMBY, I don't think I've ever seen a serious argument from you yet.

At its heart this is debate about whether we should recycle derelict land or continue to eat into our diminishing stock of green fields. The way this is decided will govern Bradford's future for years to come.
Building on brownfield land is easier than on greenfields in general. Planning permission is easier, services are already in place etc etc.

However there's far less demand for brownfield developments - that's the reason there's so many derelict sites around.

Until we adopt a communist system, we should build where demand is, subject to sites being of genuine historic or environmental significance - the fact some locals like to empty their dogs in a field doesn't necessarily make it a pristine wilderness never to be built on.
If you believe this, you've missed the point. Unfortunately brownfield sites tend to be a little bit more expensive to develop than green fields. Developers therefore like green fields because it enhances their profits.

If brownfields were cheaper, then developers would build on them out of choice every time. But they aren't, which is why we have to come together as a community to protect our heritage. But I suppose that you would think that getting developers to do the right thing instead of enriching themselves is communism.
[quote][p][bold]webess[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BaildonGuy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]webess[/bold] wrote: Attitude of NIMBY's such as this is that their own home and workplace should be the very last place built. Wonder how much they'd like it if I stopped them doing their job - if they have one.[/p][/quote]Ah Webess, trolling again. All you ever come out with is NIMBY, I don't think I've ever seen a serious argument from you yet. At its heart this is debate about whether we should recycle derelict land or continue to eat into our diminishing stock of green fields. The way this is decided will govern Bradford's future for years to come.[/p][/quote]Building on brownfield land is easier than on greenfields in general. Planning permission is easier, services are already in place etc etc. However there's far less demand for brownfield developments - that's the reason there's so many derelict sites around. Until we adopt a communist system, we should build where demand is, subject to sites being of genuine historic or environmental significance - the fact some locals like to empty their dogs in a field doesn't necessarily make it a pristine wilderness never to be built on.[/p][/quote]If you believe this, you've missed the point. Unfortunately brownfield sites tend to be a little bit more expensive to develop than green fields. Developers therefore like green fields because it enhances their profits. If brownfields were cheaper, then developers would build on them out of choice every time. But they aren't, which is why we have to come together as a community to protect our heritage. But I suppose that you would think that getting developers to do the right thing instead of enriching themselves is communism. BaildonGuy

4:54pm Tue 20 Nov 12

Paul Marfell says...

So do Bradford actually own brownfield sites that are not already earmarked for some other project (road building etc.) and that have already been approved for development? The Otley Road corridor has been on the "approved" list for a number of years, and probably is again as part of the LDF. To raise objections when work is finally planned makes the whole process inefficient.

Some suggest Dockfield Lane, what do you think would happen to traffic through Baildon Rd/Otley Road junction in that case compared to Buck Lane development?
So do Bradford actually own brownfield sites that are not already earmarked for some other project (road building etc.) and that have already been approved for development? The Otley Road corridor has been on the "approved" list for a number of years, and probably is again as part of the LDF. To raise objections when work is finally planned makes the whole process inefficient. Some suggest Dockfield Lane, what do you think would happen to traffic through Baildon Rd/Otley Road junction in that case compared to Buck Lane development? Paul Marfell

5:26pm Tue 20 Nov 12

sorrow&anger says...

Paul Marfell wrote:
So do Bradford actually own brownfield sites that are not already earmarked for some other project (road building etc.) and that have already been approved for development? The Otley Road corridor has been on the "approved" list for a number of years, and probably is again as part of the LDF. To raise objections when work is finally planned makes the whole process inefficient.

Some suggest Dockfield Lane, what do you think would happen to traffic through Baildon Rd/Otley Road junction in that case compared to Buck Lane development?
Just because something is on the approved list and part of a 'corridor' doesn't automatically make it the right choice.

The last time the UDP was revised was over 7 years ago. Normal business hygene says that out-of-date plans should be reassessed at least every 12 months, something the Council conspicuosly failed to do. They just went blindly ahead without stopping for thought.

If, as the Council claim, there is pent up demand for industrial estates then the existing ones would be full and have waiting lists. The private sector would respond to this demand and start building without any help from the Council.

It is going to costs millions to get Buck Lane into a fit state for development. However the Council has not asked itself if this money would not be better spent buying up and developing derelict sites where they are most needed, in the areas of high unemployment.
[quote][p][bold]Paul Marfell[/bold] wrote: So do Bradford actually own brownfield sites that are not already earmarked for some other project (road building etc.) and that have already been approved for development? The Otley Road corridor has been on the "approved" list for a number of years, and probably is again as part of the LDF. To raise objections when work is finally planned makes the whole process inefficient. Some suggest Dockfield Lane, what do you think would happen to traffic through Baildon Rd/Otley Road junction in that case compared to Buck Lane development?[/p][/quote]Just because something is on the approved list and part of a 'corridor' doesn't automatically make it the right choice. The last time the UDP was revised was over 7 years ago. Normal business hygene says that out-of-date plans should be reassessed at least every 12 months, something the Council conspicuosly failed to do. They just went blindly ahead without stopping for thought. If, as the Council claim, there is pent up demand for industrial estates then the existing ones would be full and have waiting lists. The private sector would respond to this demand and start building without any help from the Council. It is going to costs millions to get Buck Lane into a fit state for development. However the Council has not asked itself if this money would not be better spent buying up and developing derelict sites where they are most needed, in the areas of high unemployment. sorrow&anger

8:53pm Tue 20 Nov 12

FiT1958 says...

Dragon Saddle wrote:
FiT1958 wrote:
Dragon Saddle wrote:
Anyone can see the only motivation for improving this path is to satisfy the planning permission.

Take a look around, there are hundreds of roads and paths falling apart all over the place!

The Labour Kremlin need chucking out of Bradford Council. Then we'll get some common sense policies instead of crackpot schemes at the taxpayers expense.

Don't forget, millions of your money is being wasted trying to get private companies to occupy this site. Do you really trust them to deliver? And who will really benefit?
No, the crackpot schemes are the village green scams and judicial reviews that are costing the taxpayer millions of our money.
Some people know the price of everything, and the value of nothing.

I recommend they apply for Chinese citizenship, they have a very efficient, and cost effective, non-democratic system there. They wouldn't have to bother voting either, that's very expensive too. All at the bargain price of your human rights.
So your idea of democracy is to make the tax payer of this country fund the activities/judicial reviews, village green scams of a minority group of nimby/non development activists who say this is what we want regardless of the opinions of the majority who do not care about the localism/revolution being inflicted upon us. In reality you are no better than the reference you made to China. I suggest you join the Ma Jun enviromental campaigners in China.
[quote][p][bold]Dragon Saddle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FiT1958[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dragon Saddle[/bold] wrote: Anyone can see the only motivation for improving this path is to satisfy the planning permission. Take a look around, there are hundreds of roads and paths falling apart all over the place! The Labour Kremlin need chucking out of Bradford Council. Then we'll get some common sense policies instead of crackpot schemes at the taxpayers expense. Don't forget, millions of your money is being wasted trying to get private companies to occupy this site. Do you really trust them to deliver? And who will really benefit?[/p][/quote]No, the crackpot schemes are the village green scams and judicial reviews that are costing the taxpayer millions of our money.[/p][/quote]Some people know the price of everything, and the value of nothing. I recommend they apply for Chinese citizenship, they have a very efficient, and cost effective, non-democratic system there. They wouldn't have to bother voting either, that's very expensive too. All at the bargain price of your human rights.[/p][/quote]So your idea of democracy is to make the tax payer of this country fund the activities/judicial reviews, village green scams of a minority group of nimby/non development activists who say this is what we want regardless of the opinions of the majority who do not care about the localism/revolution being inflicted upon us. In reality you are no better than the reference you made to China. I suggest you join the Ma Jun enviromental campaigners in China. FiT1958

11:21pm Tue 20 Nov 12

Reality001 says...

Dragon Saddle wrote:
Anyone can see the only motivation for improving this path is to satisfy the planning permission. Take a look around, there are hundreds of roads and paths falling apart all over the place! The Labour Kremlin need chucking out of Bradford Council. Then we'll get some common sense policies instead of crackpot schemes at the taxpayers expense. Don't forget, millions of your money is being wasted trying to get private companies to occupy this site. Do you really trust them to deliver? And who will really benefit?
Excuse me but wasnt it the facist Conservative Party that knocked down Broadway in Bradford to build a shopping centre, and signed up Bradford to City Park.

Some people need to get a grip of reality.
[quote][p][bold]Dragon Saddle[/bold] wrote: Anyone can see the only motivation for improving this path is to satisfy the planning permission. Take a look around, there are hundreds of roads and paths falling apart all over the place! The Labour Kremlin need chucking out of Bradford Council. Then we'll get some common sense policies instead of crackpot schemes at the taxpayers expense. Don't forget, millions of your money is being wasted trying to get private companies to occupy this site. Do you really trust them to deliver? And who will really benefit?[/p][/quote]Excuse me but wasnt it the facist Conservative Party that knocked down Broadway in Bradford to build a shopping centre, and signed up Bradford to City Park. Some people need to get a grip of reality. Reality001

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