Hundreds of protesters join double demo outside City Hall

Bradford Telegraph and Argus: Students protest outside City Hall over cuts to youth services Students protest outside City Hall over cuts to youth services

Protesters visited City Hall in their hundreds last night to hand in petitions on two thorny issues – cuts and housebuilding.

Both matters were discussed at a heated meeting of the full Council yesterday.

Before the meeting, two separate public demonstrations were held on opposite sides of the building.

On the Hall Ings side were people fighting the loss of green belt land as part of the Council’s Local Plan – a blueprint which sets out where homes and jobs will go between now and 2030.

And in Centenary Square, Bradford College students and trade unions protested against proposed cuts to the Council’s youth service.

In the meeting, Bradford College Student Union president Piers Telemaque took to verse, saying it was unfair for young people to be punished for an economic situation which wasn’t their fault.

He said: “I’ll tell you what’s a shame. You are not old enough to vote, but you are old enough to blame.”

Councillor Ralph Berry (Lab), executive member for children’s services, said: “Is this what we came in to local government to do? This is not.”

Some councillors also spoke about the positive effect the youth service had had on their own lives.

Councillor Jackie Whiteley (Con, Wharfedale), said a local youth club had had a huge influence on her.

She said: “Who would have thought that Jackie Longfield, who was a foster child until she left home, would end up in this venerable place?”

The petition was accepted as part of the public consultation.

The Council’s Local Plan also provoked heated debate. Councillors were discussing whether to proceed with its Core Strategy, which does not yet earmark specific sites for development but sets out the overall aims and the number of homes to be built.

Protesters handed in petitions calling for the Council to think again before signing up to a plan which included releasing green belt land for development.

The Rev Canon Gordon Dey, of the Tong and Fulneck Valley Association, said green belt land should be sacrosanct.

The Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats also voiced their opposition.

Councillor Simon Cooke (Con) said: “Suffice it to say, I don’t believe we need to build 42,100 homes between now and 2030.”

He said he predicted only around half of these would be built by 2030, and developers would have chosen the leafier sites to build them in.

Coun Cooke called for protesters to be listened to, saying the Labour administration was “dismissing their concerns with a flick of the hand”.

But Councillor Val Slater (Lab), executive member for planning, said the district needed a Local Plan because without one, developers would be free to build where they liked.

She said: “There just isn’t enough brownfield sites to meet the projected need.”

The Labour group won the vote and the plan will now go out for a further consultation.

Comments (7)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:49am Wed 11 Dec 13

angry bradfordian says...

He said: “I’ll tell you what’s a shame. You are not old enough to vote, but you are old enough to blame.”
If that's his idea of "verse" he should probably be spending more time in the lecture theatre!
It's a bit of a silly argument to suggest that just because you can't vote then cuts can't be made.
You could offer the opposite argument that if you're not old enough to vote, then money shouldn't be given to new classrooms, increases in free school meals or all the other benefits kids are given when times are good.


And I'd love to know what Cllr Berry did actually enter local government for. Presumably so he could exchange childish party political points with the equally childish opposition....
He said: “I’ll tell you what’s a shame. You are not old enough to vote, but you are old enough to blame.” If that's his idea of "verse" he should probably be spending more time in the lecture theatre! It's a bit of a silly argument to suggest that just because you can't vote then cuts can't be made. You could offer the opposite argument that if you're not old enough to vote, then money shouldn't be given to new classrooms, increases in free school meals or all the other benefits kids are given when times are good. And I'd love to know what Cllr Berry did actually enter local government for. Presumably so he could exchange childish party political points with the equally childish opposition.... angry bradfordian

11:55am Wed 11 Dec 13

Not so simple says...

Fifty odd years ago the protesting parties would join voices and be heard. Nowadays too many small groups shouting their own chants of change in their own corner....divide and rule is the British way of breaking up a united people; seems to have worked as too many organisations disgruntled about far too many issues. Just look at what happened to the power of the unions...silenced and forced to work with tyranny.

About time more people got together and had a common voice for change for the betterment of all. This would shake those cowardly **** footing politicians and executives right out of their rotten trees
Fifty odd years ago the protesting parties would join voices and be heard. Nowadays too many small groups shouting their own chants of change in their own corner....divide and rule is the British way of breaking up a united people; seems to have worked as too many organisations disgruntled about far too many issues. Just look at what happened to the power of the unions...silenced and forced to work with tyranny. About time more people got together and had a common voice for change for the betterment of all. This would shake those cowardly **** footing politicians and executives right out of their rotten trees Not so simple

11:58am Wed 11 Dec 13

Albion. says...

Maybe we should protest outside the T&A after they "cut" our comments from the Kings school thread?
Maybe we should protest outside the T&A after they "cut" our comments from the Kings school thread? Albion.

12:27pm Wed 11 Dec 13

BertSanders says...

Albion. wrote:
Maybe we should protest outside the T&A after they "cut" our comments from the Kings school thread?
Forget it Albion - it too difficult to tackle without causing offence as usual.
[quote][p][bold]Albion.[/bold] wrote: Maybe we should protest outside the T&A after they "cut" our comments from the Kings school thread?[/p][/quote]Forget it Albion - it too difficult to tackle without causing offence as usual. BertSanders

2:05pm Wed 11 Dec 13

sorrow&anger says...

As usual Cllr Slater isn't making sense. Saying that there aren't enough brownfields to go round isn't a reason for allowing greedy developers to build just on our greenfields which is what is happening at the moment.

She must insist that no more greenfields will be built on until all the brownfields and sites currently with planning permission have been developed.
As usual Cllr Slater isn't making sense. Saying that there aren't enough brownfields to go round isn't a reason for allowing greedy developers to build just on our greenfields which is what is happening at the moment. She must insist that no more greenfields will be built on until all the brownfields and sites currently with planning permission have been developed. sorrow&anger

2:37pm Wed 11 Dec 13

Referemdum says...

MCA Chairman
Cllr Slater can not say what sorrow and anger points out until all the brownfield sites are built on" Bown before Green unless in Extreme"
The developers have the Goverment in their back pockets just look at the lobbyist and to cap it all Boles the builder is a total liability. He will single handedly lose the next election for the Tories . The NPPF IS A DISASTER FOR THIS COUNRTY, go back to the old one. You can not build you way out of a recession but you certainly can loose an election!!!!
MCA Chairman Cllr Slater can not say what sorrow and anger points out until all the brownfield sites are built on" Bown before Green unless in Extreme" The developers have the Goverment in their back pockets just look at the lobbyist and to cap it all Boles the builder is a total liability. He will single handedly lose the next election for the Tories . The NPPF IS A DISASTER FOR THIS COUNRTY, go back to the old one. You can not build you way out of a recession but you certainly can loose an election!!!! Referemdum

6:16pm Wed 11 Dec 13

linebacker2 says...

sorrow&anger wrote:
As usual Cllr Slater isn't making sense. Saying that there aren't enough brownfields to go round isn't a reason for allowing greedy developers to build just on our greenfields which is what is happening at the moment.

She must insist that no more greenfields will be built on until all the brownfields and sites currently with planning permission have been developed.
Why do the NIMBY's always use the phrase "greedy developers"? Developers are just like any other business be it supermarkets, breweries or hairdressers - it's called capitalism - businesses exist to make a profit.

If you don't like it try North Korea.
[quote][p][bold]sorrow&anger[/bold] wrote: As usual Cllr Slater isn't making sense. Saying that there aren't enough brownfields to go round isn't a reason for allowing greedy developers to build just on our greenfields which is what is happening at the moment. She must insist that no more greenfields will be built on until all the brownfields and sites currently with planning permission have been developed.[/p][/quote]Why do the NIMBY's always use the phrase "greedy developers"? Developers are just like any other business be it supermarkets, breweries or hairdressers - it's called capitalism - businesses exist to make a profit. If you don't like it try North Korea. linebacker2

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