Councillor criticises ‘cynical’ builders for overlooking less profitable housing sites

Bradford Telegraph and Argus: Developers spurn Bradford's inner-city areas Developers spurn Bradford's inner-city areas

Private developers have been blasted as “cynical” for overlooking inner-city sites in favour of more lucrative schemes when building new homes.

A Council-owned plot of scrubland in Bowling was marketed as a potential housing site, but failed to attract any interest from private developers.

So the Council has now submitted its own plan, for 36 homes, which would all be rented out as social housing.

Ward councillor Alyas Karmani (Ind, Little Horton) welcomed the idea of new social housing, saying it was badly needed. But he accused developers of being short-sighted by overlooking such sites, as Bradford was a great place to invest because housing was in such short supply.

He said: “It’s very cynical. Private developers don’t want to develop things they know they won’t get a premium for.”

Coun Karmani acknowledged the land, south of Ripley Street by the railway tracks, would not attract high house prices.

He said: “It’s not the most glamorous area in the world, however, anyone who does develop housing there knows there will be people taking up that housing.”

Councillor Sher Khan (Lab, Little Horton) took a different view, saying he was less concerned that private developers had overlooked the site because affordable housing was so badly needed.

Coun Naveeda Ikram (Lab, Little Horton) acknowledged the site had not proved appealing to developers, but she thought this was because it was in an industrial area and wasn’t a symptom of a wider problem.

She said in the circumstances it was good news that affordable housing was being considered as an alternative.

The planning application was also discussed at a recent meeting of the Regulatory and Appeals Committee, where members heard from the Council’s agent, Paul Glover.

He said: “We actually took the scheme to the private market to determine any interest and got no response from that.”

The meeting heard recent house sales in the vicinity had been as low as £32,000.

Some members were concerned to hear that because the scheme was 100 per cent social housing, planners were not expecting there to be any financial contribution to local schools. The application was deferred to see whether there was any way an education contribution could be incorporated.

Comments (20)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:01am Mon 2 Dec 13

Albion. says...

"So the Council has now submitted its own plan, for 36 homes, which would all be rented out as social housing."

That's the only hope for such land, nobody with the ability to buy is going to buy in a central Bradford location, with the possible exception of those who need to launder large amounts of money.
"So the Council has now submitted its own plan, for 36 homes, which would all be rented out as social housing." That's the only hope for such land, nobody with the ability to buy is going to buy in a central Bradford location, with the possible exception of those who need to launder large amounts of money. Albion.

8:05am Mon 2 Dec 13

food_for_thought says...

“It’s very cynical. Private developers don’t want to develop things they know they won’t get a premium for.” - Duh! It's called 'business' Cllr Karmani - you don't set out to make a loss or you go bust and people lose their jobs, and the council loses rates income, and the government loses tax income and has to pay benefits for those laid off workers, etc. etc. etc.

It used to be the job of local councils to provide social housing...I for one would rather see BMDC doing useful things like this with my money rather than pouring it down the drain of PC projects, diversity officers, and translating everything they attempt into 72 different languages to make their dross 'accessible' for those who think that learning the language of the country they live in is not a necessity.
“It’s very cynical. Private developers don’t want to develop things they know they won’t get a premium for.” - Duh! It's called 'business' Cllr Karmani - you don't set out to make a loss or you go bust and people lose their jobs, and the council loses rates income, and the government loses tax income and has to pay benefits for those laid off workers, etc. etc. etc. It used to be the job of local councils to provide social housing...I for one would rather see BMDC doing useful things like this with my money rather than pouring it down the drain of PC projects, diversity officers, and translating everything they attempt into 72 different languages to make their dross 'accessible' for those who think that learning the language of the country they live in is not a necessity. food_for_thought

9:43am Mon 2 Dec 13

alive and awake says...

This is Bradford, wake up and smell the problem.
This is Bradford, wake up and smell the problem. alive and awake

10:14am Mon 2 Dec 13

Dennis Mann says...

I haven't driven around Bradford for some time but did so last week when visiting friends. I was shocked at the state of the city especially inside the ring road. It appeared run-down, impoverished and scruffy and not the place I'd want to invest or raise a family. In contrast to many other northern industrial towns and cities, it currently has very little going for it. It is in a state of unmanaged decline and I suspect has been now for decades. Bradford councillors who don't also see this need to open their eyes a little wider and to take responsibility for the poor state of the city around them.
I haven't driven around Bradford for some time but did so last week when visiting friends. I was shocked at the state of the city especially inside the ring road. It appeared run-down, impoverished and scruffy and not the place I'd want to invest or raise a family. In contrast to many other northern industrial towns and cities, it currently has very little going for it. It is in a state of unmanaged decline and I suspect has been now for decades. Bradford councillors who don't also see this need to open their eyes a little wider and to take responsibility for the poor state of the city around them. Dennis Mann

10:48am Mon 2 Dec 13

angry bradfordian says...

Do our councillors not understand how business works?

A private company's main objective is to make as much money as possible for their shareholders in a sustainable way. If a company can make more money by building in an affluent area and not breaking any laws I don't see why it's 'cynical' and if our councillors think otherwise they're extremely naive.
Do our councillors not understand how business works? A private company's main objective is to make as much money as possible for their shareholders in a sustainable way. If a company can make more money by building in an affluent area and not breaking any laws I don't see why it's 'cynical' and if our councillors think otherwise they're extremely naive. angry bradfordian

11:00am Mon 2 Dec 13

bcfc1903 says...

The council should be building more council houses, the tory sell off was a disgrace. The site of the old Hilmore House , Girlington should also have council houses built on it. Shame our crap government won't back such an idea...too busy selling the silver to their rich mates.
The council should be building more council houses, the tory sell off was a disgrace. The site of the old Hilmore House , Girlington should also have council houses built on it. Shame our crap government won't back such an idea...too busy selling the silver to their rich mates. bcfc1903

11:17am Mon 2 Dec 13

BertSanders says...

angry bradfordian wrote:
Do our councillors not understand how business works?

A private company's main objective is to make as much money as possible for their shareholders in a sustainable way. If a company can make more money by building in an affluent area and not breaking any laws I don't see why it's 'cynical' and if our councillors think otherwise they're extremely naive.
They do - and use their knowkedge to their own advantage They only direct public monety into white elephants.
[quote][p][bold]angry bradfordian[/bold] wrote: Do our councillors not understand how business works? A private company's main objective is to make as much money as possible for their shareholders in a sustainable way. If a company can make more money by building in an affluent area and not breaking any laws I don't see why it's 'cynical' and if our councillors think otherwise they're extremely naive.[/p][/quote]They do - and use their knowkedge to their own advantage They only direct public monety into white elephants. BertSanders

11:22am Mon 2 Dec 13

Baildon girl says...

Sure some people will be grateful for the new social housing since its in such demand but id be in no rush to live there
Sure some people will be grateful for the new social housing since its in such demand but id be in no rush to live there Baildon girl

11:42am Mon 2 Dec 13

angry bradfordian says...

bcfc1903 wrote:
The council should be building more council houses, the tory sell off was a disgrace. The site of the old Hilmore House , Girlington should also have council houses built on it. Shame our crap government won't back such an idea...too busy selling the silver to their rich mates.
Why is everything always the"Posh Tories" fault?

I don't remember much mass building in the inner cities of Bradford during the 13 years of Labour being in charge, and those that do lie mainly empty or rented out.
It's got nothing to do with the incumbent government and everything to do with no-one wanting to live in inner city Bradford.
[quote][p][bold]bcfc1903[/bold] wrote: The council should be building more council houses, the tory sell off was a disgrace. The site of the old Hilmore House , Girlington should also have council houses built on it. Shame our crap government won't back such an idea...too busy selling the silver to their rich mates.[/p][/quote]Why is everything always the"Posh Tories" fault? I don't remember much mass building in the inner cities of Bradford during the 13 years of Labour being in charge, and those that do lie mainly empty or rented out. It's got nothing to do with the incumbent government and everything to do with no-one wanting to live in inner city Bradford. angry bradfordian

11:51am Mon 2 Dec 13

sorrow&anger says...

bcfc1903 wrote:
The council should be building more council houses, the tory sell off was a disgrace. The site of the old Hilmore House , Girlington should also have council houses built on it. Shame our crap government won't back such an idea...too busy selling the silver to their rich mates.
The Council should go ahead and build the houses. Even City Hall must know by now that greedy private developers are not going to regenerate Bradford. We either shift for ourselves or go under.
[quote][p][bold]bcfc1903[/bold] wrote: The council should be building more council houses, the tory sell off was a disgrace. The site of the old Hilmore House , Girlington should also have council houses built on it. Shame our crap government won't back such an idea...too busy selling the silver to their rich mates.[/p][/quote]The Council should go ahead and build the houses. Even City Hall must know by now that greedy private developers are not going to regenerate Bradford. We either shift for ourselves or go under. sorrow&anger

11:57am Mon 2 Dec 13

Grumpygirl says...

bcfc1903 wrote:
The council should be building more council houses, the tory sell off was a disgrace. The site of the old Hilmore House , Girlington should also have council houses built on it. Shame our crap government won't back such an idea...too busy selling the silver to their rich mates.
No, the actual sell-off wasn't a disgrace. It was the refusal to let Councils reinvest the proceeds in more houses. This was Thatcherite social engineering at its most cynical. We were all to be part of their property owning democracy, saddled with enough mortgage debt to make us docile employees for the Tory bosses to kick around. And look where it all landed us.
[quote][p][bold]bcfc1903[/bold] wrote: The council should be building more council houses, the tory sell off was a disgrace. The site of the old Hilmore House , Girlington should also have council houses built on it. Shame our crap government won't back such an idea...too busy selling the silver to their rich mates.[/p][/quote]No, the actual sell-off wasn't a disgrace. It was the refusal to let Councils reinvest the proceeds in more houses. This was Thatcherite social engineering at its most cynical. We were all to be part of their property owning democracy, saddled with enough mortgage debt to make us docile employees for the Tory bosses to kick around. And look where it all landed us. Grumpygirl

1:04pm Mon 2 Dec 13

scottie dog says...

Grumpygirl wrote:
bcfc1903 wrote:
The council should be building more council houses, the tory sell off was a disgrace. The site of the old Hilmore House , Girlington should also have council houses built on it. Shame our crap government won't back such an idea...too busy selling the silver to their rich mates.
No, the actual sell-off wasn't a disgrace. It was the refusal to let Councils reinvest the proceeds in more houses. This was Thatcherite social engineering at its most cynical. We were all to be part of their property owning democracy, saddled with enough mortgage debt to make us docile employees for the Tory bosses to kick around. And look where it all landed us.
Absolutely spot on.
[quote][p][bold]Grumpygirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bcfc1903[/bold] wrote: The council should be building more council houses, the tory sell off was a disgrace. The site of the old Hilmore House , Girlington should also have council houses built on it. Shame our crap government won't back such an idea...too busy selling the silver to their rich mates.[/p][/quote]No, the actual sell-off wasn't a disgrace. It was the refusal to let Councils reinvest the proceeds in more houses. This was Thatcherite social engineering at its most cynical. We were all to be part of their property owning democracy, saddled with enough mortgage debt to make us docile employees for the Tory bosses to kick around. And look where it all landed us.[/p][/quote]Absolutely spot on. scottie dog

1:07pm Mon 2 Dec 13

bcfc1903 says...

angry bradfordian wrote:
bcfc1903 wrote:
The council should be building more council houses, the tory sell off was a disgrace. The site of the old Hilmore House , Girlington should also have council houses built on it. Shame our crap government won't back such an idea...too busy selling the silver to their rich mates.
Why is everything always the"Posh Tories" fault?

I don't remember much mass building in the inner cities of Bradford during the 13 years of Labour being in charge, and those that do lie mainly empty or rented out.
It's got nothing to do with the incumbent government and everything to do with no-one wanting to live in inner city Bradford.
That isn't actually true is it, i'd say more claptrap.....the houses refurbished near westgate went very quickly. New Labour bought into the Tory claptrap....which was a shame. Regarding social housing, much more building is needed on Brownfield sites in all major cities including Bradford.
[quote][p][bold]angry bradfordian[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bcfc1903[/bold] wrote: The council should be building more council houses, the tory sell off was a disgrace. The site of the old Hilmore House , Girlington should also have council houses built on it. Shame our crap government won't back such an idea...too busy selling the silver to their rich mates.[/p][/quote]Why is everything always the"Posh Tories" fault? I don't remember much mass building in the inner cities of Bradford during the 13 years of Labour being in charge, and those that do lie mainly empty or rented out. It's got nothing to do with the incumbent government and everything to do with no-one wanting to live in inner city Bradford.[/p][/quote]That isn't actually true is it, i'd say more claptrap.....the houses refurbished near westgate went very quickly. New Labour bought into the Tory claptrap....which was a shame. Regarding social housing, much more building is needed on Brownfield sites in all major cities including Bradford. bcfc1903

1:07pm Mon 2 Dec 13

bcfc1903 says...

angry bradfordian wrote:
bcfc1903 wrote:
The council should be building more council houses, the tory sell off was a disgrace. The site of the old Hilmore House , Girlington should also have council houses built on it. Shame our crap government won't back such an idea...too busy selling the silver to their rich mates.
Why is everything always the"Posh Tories" fault?

I don't remember much mass building in the inner cities of Bradford during the 13 years of Labour being in charge, and those that do lie mainly empty or rented out.
It's got nothing to do with the incumbent government and everything to do with no-one wanting to live in inner city Bradford.
That isn't actually true is it, i'd say more claptrap.....the houses refurbished near westgate went very quickly. New Labour bought into the Tory claptrap....which was a shame. Regarding social housing, much more building is needed on Brownfield sites in all major cities including Bradford.
[quote][p][bold]angry bradfordian[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bcfc1903[/bold] wrote: The council should be building more council houses, the tory sell off was a disgrace. The site of the old Hilmore House , Girlington should also have council houses built on it. Shame our crap government won't back such an idea...too busy selling the silver to their rich mates.[/p][/quote]Why is everything always the"Posh Tories" fault? I don't remember much mass building in the inner cities of Bradford during the 13 years of Labour being in charge, and those that do lie mainly empty or rented out. It's got nothing to do with the incumbent government and everything to do with no-one wanting to live in inner city Bradford.[/p][/quote]That isn't actually true is it, i'd say more claptrap.....the houses refurbished near westgate went very quickly. New Labour bought into the Tory claptrap....which was a shame. Regarding social housing, much more building is needed on Brownfield sites in all major cities including Bradford. bcfc1903

1:10pm Mon 2 Dec 13

bcfc1903 says...

scottie dog wrote:
Grumpygirl wrote:
bcfc1903 wrote:
The council should be building more council houses, the tory sell off was a disgrace. The site of the old Hilmore House , Girlington should also have council houses built on it. Shame our crap government won't back such an idea...too busy selling the silver to their rich mates.
No, the actual sell-off wasn't a disgrace. It was the refusal to let Councils reinvest the proceeds in more houses. This was Thatcherite social engineering at its most cynical. We were all to be part of their property owning democracy, saddled with enough mortgage debt to make us docile employees for the Tory bosses to kick around. And look where it all landed us.
Absolutely spot on.
I don't actually agree with the idea of selling council houses... which is the point i was making.
[quote][p][bold]scottie dog[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Grumpygirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bcfc1903[/bold] wrote: The council should be building more council houses, the tory sell off was a disgrace. The site of the old Hilmore House , Girlington should also have council houses built on it. Shame our crap government won't back such an idea...too busy selling the silver to their rich mates.[/p][/quote]No, the actual sell-off wasn't a disgrace. It was the refusal to let Councils reinvest the proceeds in more houses. This was Thatcherite social engineering at its most cynical. We were all to be part of their property owning democracy, saddled with enough mortgage debt to make us docile employees for the Tory bosses to kick around. And look where it all landed us.[/p][/quote]Absolutely spot on.[/p][/quote]I don't actually agree with the idea of selling council houses... which is the point i was making. bcfc1903

1:29pm Mon 2 Dec 13

scottie dog says...

bcfc1903 wrote:
scottie dog wrote:
Grumpygirl wrote:
bcfc1903 wrote:
The council should be building more council houses, the tory sell off was a disgrace. The site of the old Hilmore House , Girlington should also have council houses built on it. Shame our crap government won't back such an idea...too busy selling the silver to their rich mates.
No, the actual sell-off wasn't a disgrace. It was the refusal to let Councils reinvest the proceeds in more houses. This was Thatcherite social engineering at its most cynical. We were all to be part of their property owning democracy, saddled with enough mortgage debt to make us docile employees for the Tory bosses to kick around. And look where it all landed us.
Absolutely spot on.
I don't actually agree with the idea of selling council houses... which is the point i was making.
I actually understood that, no more did I agree with the sell off of the social housing stock.
[quote][p][bold]bcfc1903[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scottie dog[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Grumpygirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bcfc1903[/bold] wrote: The council should be building more council houses, the tory sell off was a disgrace. The site of the old Hilmore House , Girlington should also have council houses built on it. Shame our crap government won't back such an idea...too busy selling the silver to their rich mates.[/p][/quote]No, the actual sell-off wasn't a disgrace. It was the refusal to let Councils reinvest the proceeds in more houses. This was Thatcherite social engineering at its most cynical. We were all to be part of their property owning democracy, saddled with enough mortgage debt to make us docile employees for the Tory bosses to kick around. And look where it all landed us.[/p][/quote]Absolutely spot on.[/p][/quote]I don't actually agree with the idea of selling council houses... which is the point i was making.[/p][/quote]I actually understood that, no more did I agree with the sell off of the social housing stock. scottie dog

2:29pm Mon 2 Dec 13

mad matt says...

The decision by the council to build affordable housing is the first bit of common sense that's come out of City Hall in a long time.
There are plenty of other sites near to the city centre that should get the same priority for affordable homes.
(Just don't let Westfield anywhere near!)
The decision by the council to build affordable housing is the first bit of common sense that's come out of City Hall in a long time. There are plenty of other sites near to the city centre that should get the same priority for affordable homes. (Just don't let Westfield anywhere near!) mad matt

4:07pm Mon 2 Dec 13

alive and awake says...

Who's going to live in these "new affordable homes" Eastern Europeans on housing benefit? How does that help anything? More deterioration of Bradford.
Who's going to live in these "new affordable homes" Eastern Europeans on housing benefit? How does that help anything? More deterioration of Bradford. alive and awake

6:16pm Mon 2 Dec 13

Makollig Jezvahted says...

Private developers have been blasted as “cynical” for overlooking inner-city sites in favour of more lucrative schemes when building new homes.
.
.
No Sh!t!
Private developers have been blasted as “cynical” for overlooking inner-city sites in favour of more lucrative schemes when building new homes. . . No Sh!t! Makollig Jezvahted

7:11am Tue 3 Dec 13

allannicho says...

Social housing paid for with public money and public money will be paying the rents!
Social housing paid for with public money and public money will be paying the rents! allannicho

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