Anger as Keighley houses bid set for approval

9:00am Friday 15th February 2013 in News Photograph of the Author By Chris Young, T&A Reporter

Noel Manning stands in his garden, which overlooks the field that could soon become a 135-house estate Noel Manning stands in his garden, which overlooks the field that could soon become a 135-house estate

Objectors to a major housing scheme on the edge of Keighley have reacted angrily to news that Bradford Council is likely to approve it next Thursday.

News that the Trustees of the Chatsworth Settlement wanted to build 135 houses off Shann Lane angered neighbouring residents so much when it was announced last year they collected a petition of 178 names.

But despite Keighley Town Council also objecting to the scheme, Bradford Council’s planning officers deem it “an appropriate development of the site” and have advised the regulatory and appeals committee to approve it.

One objector says approving the application would fly in the face of democracy and ignore local knowledge, Town council members said the application “failed in just about everything” before refusing it because of poor access and lack of infrastructure but they can only make recommendations – it is ultimately up to Bradford Council to make the final decision.

Objectors say there is no need for new houses, as there are more than 250 empty properties in Keighley, and argue the new estate would cause flooding and traffic problems on an already dangerous network of roads.

But a report by planning officer Julian Jackson points out that the land is already allocated for housing and adds: “The development of this site is considered an appropriate development that gives the opportunity to develop a sustainable pattern of development at the edge of the urban fabric of Keighley.”

Eric Mangam, whose Greenacres home backs on to the site, said: “It is disgusting it’s down for approval. It is going to devalue all our houses by about £50,000, the area is going to become a slum.

“There is no way they can get all that extra traffic on Shann Lane. It is really busy anyway. It can’t take any more cars. I am going to have a block of houses out the back of my home.”

Noel Manning, who lives in another property that backs onto the field, said: “It’s terrible isn’t it? It is crazy to think that they might bypass the local council. It won’t be Bradford Council that has to live with this estate. It is ridiculous, Keighley council knows the area and rejected this, how can Bradford Council override that? This decision has been made by someone who doesn’t know the area - it’s so unfair. Whatever happened to democracy?”

They plan to speak against the application at the planning meeting on Thursday at City Hall at 10am.

Comments(14)

Joedavid says...
9:14am Fri 15 Feb 13

I hope Noel Manning as no selfish reasons in his objection and they not because of his outlook and he is genuine with the traffic reasons etc.

Report this post »

Albion. says...
10:10am Fri 15 Feb 13

"Eric Mangam, whose Greenacres home backs on to the site, said: “It is disgusting it’s down for approval. It is going to devalue all our houses by about £50,000, the area is going to become a slum."
Really? Or is that just a touch of snobbery?

Report this post »

ertnec says...
10:11am Fri 15 Feb 13

Homes again, we need new homes and again its not in my back yard attitude that hits the headlines. We need to look forward to the next generations. If we dont act know it will be to late, build and build as long as you also put in other facilities shops, doctors, playparks and most of all better transportation links. ACT KNOW.

Report this post »

ever the optimist says...
11:21am Fri 15 Feb 13

Why will it become a slum? Not wanting to stereotype but are the proposed houses going to be council houses? (Not all council estates are slums or houses, some are before anyone has a go).

Report this post »

Outraged English Subject says...
11:45am Fri 15 Feb 13

Surely some of the 135 new homes shall have views over fields.

Report this post »

Bone_idle18 says...
12:00pm Fri 15 Feb 13

Traffic will be negligible, people should stop using that as a reason to object.

135 houses, even if they have 2 cars each that's only 270 cars, then add in one journey in morning, one in evening, you'll get 540 extra cars. If the road is already really busy, I's guess there's 1000's of cars on it, so the impact (worst case scenario as I showed) will b negligible.

More likely not all will have 2 cars, not all will work and the impact will be a lot less.

At least the chap is honest about his objection, money, makes a refreshing change. I'm not sure a view adds £50k onto a house though?

Slum comment is a bit odd? Why would new houses become a slum, most new housing developments are far from it.

Report this post »

Bone_idle18 says...
12:05pm Fri 15 Feb 13

Checked out Shann lane on google Street view, not a single car in sight! :)

you'd think on a really busy road that the google Camera car might have encountered at least one other car?

Site looks ideal for development, houses at bottom of fields, houses at top, I can see why top houses would object, as they have a nice view. I suppose when they were built, the people further up objected too.

Report this post »

Outraged English Subject says...
12:13pm Fri 15 Feb 13

Agree.

Report this post »

sorrow&anger says...
1:35pm Fri 15 Feb 13

Bone_idle18 wrote:
Traffic will be negligible, people should stop using that as a reason to object.

135 houses, even if they have 2 cars each that's only 270 cars, then add in one journey in morning, one in evening, you'll get 540 extra cars. If the road is already really busy, I's guess there's 1000's of cars on it, so the impact (worst case scenario as I showed) will b negligible.

More likely not all will have 2 cars, not all will work and the impact will be a lot less.

At least the chap is honest about his objection, money, makes a refreshing change. I'm not sure a view adds £50k onto a house though?

Slum comment is a bit odd? Why would new houses become a slum, most new housing developments are far from it.
I agree the slum crack is more emotion than reason. The Council rely on the unfocussed anger of protest groups to stop them making a coherent argument.

The Council's own figures show that, on average, every new home generates 8.48 vehicle journeys per day. (Think about it, these houses will be expensive so both parents will work, there will be delivery vans, school runs etc.) So there will be close to an extra 1200 journeys most of them durng peak hours.

I would advise the objectors to have a really close at the Transport Assessment before the meeting next Thursday. Bradford Council, and Planning in particular, are notorious for underestimating traffic so that they can push through their pet schemes on behalf of their favourite developers. They've just pulled this stunt at Menston and Buck Lane.

Infra structure is a dirty concept at City Hall.

Report this post »

Smell the coffee says...
1:45pm Fri 15 Feb 13

There are lots of people who have lost green scenic spaces to housing developments in and around the Bradford area, why do these people think they should be exempt. Welcome to our world mate.

Report this post »

BaildonGuy says...
2:21pm Fri 15 Feb 13

Smell the coffee wrote:
There are lots of people who have lost green scenic spaces to housing developments in and around the Bradford area, why do these people think they should be exempt. Welcome to our world mate.
Welcome to everybodies' world. City Hall is as centralised and undemocratic as Stalinist Russia.

This development, and lots of other green field grabs, wouldn't have happened if BMDC was split in two, Bradford City and Airdale. Time for a referendum?

Report this post »

nicz21 says...
2:43pm Fri 15 Feb 13

Objecting at the planning meeting wont make anounce of differnce they will do it anyway.
did the same to us last year built house on a field at the top of a small cul de sac and made traffic up the cul de sac terrible.
No places in the local schools or doctors etc bu they still plowed ahead.

And yes it has devalued the proerties as not the 50 or so private properties back on to 100 social housing properties.
Anti social behavior has risen and the housing associatio doesnt want to know.

good luck with the objection bu I feel you will be wasting your breath.
These things are already decided and you all now why!!!!

Report this post »

Bone_idle18 says...
2:43pm Fri 15 Feb 13

I guess if the houses are going to be expensive, then it's certainly not going to be a slum :)

Report this post »

ANY WHERE BUT HERE says...
12:40am Sat 16 Feb 13

How can Kate Batty possibly defend Khalid Mahmood,I'm confused who is the worst? Even when there so far from the incident, you can associate them with the good of a family member! No I think u make them all look bad, with them not Condeming it. For £50.000 A year, Kate your pretty f*****g cheap?

Report this post »

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