Nearly 100 jobs could be created at new business units - but design of building deemed 'uninspiring'

Bradford Telegraph and Argus: Back in 2011, Tim Yeardley, of Baildon Residents Against Inappropriate Development (BRAID) , looks out over the land adjacent to Buck Lane in Baildon earmarked for development. Back in 2011, Tim Yeardley, of Baildon Residents Against Inappropriate Development (BRAID) , looks out over the land adjacent to Buck Lane in Baildon earmarked for development.

TWO new units planned for a controversial business park could create nearly 100 jobs, according to its developers.

But planners aren't bowled over with what they see as a "rather disappointing" design of the building which would house both units.

A firm which manufactures surgical equipment is already lined up for one-half of the building, at the flagship Council-backed Baildon Business Park.

Portsmouth Surgical Group Holdings is set to relocate its Anetic Aid high-tech maintenance, sales and distribution teams from a site in Guiseley, to the park, creating 25 jobs.

A report to planners, on behalf of the developers Pendle Russells, says while the second unit did not have a tenant lined up, it was estimated that both units would create a combined total of 97 jobs, which "will be particularly beneficial when the country is emerging from recession".

But planners have given a less-than enthusiastic response to their design.

A report going before the Regulatory and Appeals Committee meeting on Thursday says: "Bearing in mind the original visions and objectives for the site, the detailed design and landscaping proposals are considered to be rather disappointing - being conventional and uninspiring - with multiple cargo bay doors which do not indicate an exemplar commercial development or demonstrate the setting of a high standard of appearance."

But Eddisons, the agent marketing the site, has said while there was a lot of interest in the site, there appeared to be a ceiling price which tenants were willing to pay, and a more expensive design would render the scheme unviable.

Planners have accepted this argument and recommended the application for approval at the committee meeting.

Ed Butterworth, of pressure group Baildon Residents Against Inappropriate Development, said locals had been given a string of broken promises, over hundreds of new jobs, high-tech design and good landscaping.

He said: "Baildon, and Bradford, have been let down badly."

He said the three tenants confirmed so far were bringing just 62 jobs between them, which he said were "mostly, if not all, existing jobs".

Six people have written in to object to the plan, including Shipley MP Philip Davies, who also raised concerns about the difference between "what is now suggested and what was originally agreed".

Comments (19)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:14pm Thu 26 Jun 14

bluebluerobin says...

I remember the Labour Group making some very clear promises about Buck Lane in order to obtain planning permission and, more importantly, to sell its case to people who were understandably worried about the loss of so many greenfields. The Council have gone back on all the major promises and, particular the number of new jobs. The original promise was for 700 plus.

This is incompetence of a very high order. Unless the ploy was deliberate, in which case City Hall has been exceptionally dishonest.
I remember the Labour Group making some very clear promises about Buck Lane in order to obtain planning permission and, more importantly, to sell its case to people who were understandably worried about the loss of so many greenfields. The Council have gone back on all the major promises and, particular the number of new jobs. The original promise was for 700 plus. This is incompetence of a very high order. Unless the ploy was deliberate, in which case City Hall has been exceptionally dishonest. bluebluerobin
  • Score: 28

10:26pm Thu 26 Jun 14

BaildonGuy says...

The Council sold us one thing and cynically went ahead with another.

The 700 brand new jobs, the hi-tech R&D cluster, the help for Bradford companies, the community amenities (shop, hotel, restaurant), the quality buildings, have all been abandoned in favour of a bog-standard industrial estate filled with tin sheds housing mid-tech manufacturers and distributors that bears no resemblance to the original proposal.

The Council are still hiding the truth. Jobs are not being created, they are simply being transferred in. All the companies are headquartered in Leeds, so City Hall is not even helping Bradford firms.
The Council sold us one thing and cynically went ahead with another. The 700 brand new jobs, the hi-tech R&D cluster, the help for Bradford companies, the community amenities (shop, hotel, restaurant), the quality buildings, have all been abandoned in favour of a bog-standard industrial estate filled with tin sheds housing mid-tech manufacturers and distributors that bears no resemblance to the original proposal. The Council are still hiding the truth. Jobs are not being created, they are simply being transferred in. All the companies are headquartered in Leeds, so City Hall is not even helping Bradford firms. BaildonGuy
  • Score: 22

10:47pm Thu 26 Jun 14

bachtothefuture says...

I supported Buck Lane. It was a unique opportunity to establish Bradford’s future hi-tech base. This is a complete let down. The Council have said one thing and done another. Bradford is the poorer. Cllr Hinchcliffe believed her own hype and that is an unforgivable sin.

I’ve had a look at the Councils documents. There are three companies involved all based in Guisley or Otley. Produmax employ about 25, Anetic Aid 26, and GSM 6, making around 60 jobs. All these are pre existing and not new. I guess there might be some expansion, but realistically we must be talking about ones and twos, certainly not tens.

This is a far cry from the 700 plus new jobs promised by City Hall when they first started. These are all middle of the road companies, and none the worse for that, but they are a long way from the R&D based science park that we were promised.
I supported Buck Lane. It was a unique opportunity to establish Bradford’s future hi-tech base. This is a complete let down. The Council have said one thing and done another. Bradford is the poorer. Cllr Hinchcliffe believed her own hype and that is an unforgivable sin. I’ve had a look at the Councils documents. There are three companies involved all based in Guisley or Otley. Produmax employ about 25, Anetic Aid 26, and GSM 6, making around 60 jobs. All these are pre existing and not new. I guess there might be some expansion, but realistically we must be talking about ones and twos, certainly not tens. This is a far cry from the 700 plus new jobs promised by City Hall when they first started. These are all middle of the road companies, and none the worse for that, but they are a long way from the R&D based science park that we were promised. bachtothefuture
  • Score: 25

8:02am Fri 27 Jun 14

sorrow&anger says...

The failure to generate anywhere near the promised number of jobs is a total disaster and should be investigated. Put bluntly, City Hall have been lying. This can’t have come as a surprise.

This was one of Cllr Green’s and Cllr Hinchcliffe’s pet projects. Everything they touch falls apart. Bradford would be better without them.
The failure to generate anywhere near the promised number of jobs is a total disaster and should be investigated. Put bluntly, City Hall have been lying. This can’t have come as a surprise. This was one of Cllr Green’s and Cllr Hinchcliffe’s pet projects. Everything they touch falls apart. Bradford would be better without them. sorrow&anger
  • Score: 26

8:10am Fri 27 Jun 14

Grumpygirl says...

Where's linebacker moaning on about Nimbys and bffc and the other Council employees saying how totally wonderful this scheme is?
Where's linebacker moaning on about Nimbys and bffc and the other Council employees saying how totally wonderful this scheme is? Grumpygirl
  • Score: 5

8:27am Fri 27 Jun 14

gouldengirl says...

bachtothefuture wrote:
I supported Buck Lane. It was a unique opportunity to establish Bradford’s future hi-tech base. This is a complete let down. The Council have said one thing and done another. Bradford is the poorer. Cllr Hinchcliffe believed her own hype and that is an unforgivable sin.

I’ve had a look at the Councils documents. There are three companies involved all based in Guisley or Otley. Produmax employ about 25, Anetic Aid 26, and GSM 6, making around 60 jobs. All these are pre existing and not new. I guess there might be some expansion, but realistically we must be talking about ones and twos, certainly not tens.

This is a far cry from the 700 plus new jobs promised by City Hall when they first started. These are all middle of the road companies, and none the worse for that, but they are a long way from the R&D based science park that we were promised.
I live in Menston. The owners of Produmax, one of the companies on the Buck Lane site, also live in Menston. Like most of us, they are actively opposed to the development of the green fields at Derry Hill and Bingley Road.

Their building on the green fields at Buck Lane is completely and unacceptably hypocritical. This is nimbyism at its very worst. A charge we are constantly fighting. Their action undermines the work the rest of us are trying to do.

I just hope they are reading this and will favour us with a post explaining their hypocrisy. Or maybe even a letter to the T&A.
[quote][p][bold]bachtothefuture[/bold] wrote: I supported Buck Lane. It was a unique opportunity to establish Bradford’s future hi-tech base. This is a complete let down. The Council have said one thing and done another. Bradford is the poorer. Cllr Hinchcliffe believed her own hype and that is an unforgivable sin. I’ve had a look at the Councils documents. There are three companies involved all based in Guisley or Otley. Produmax employ about 25, Anetic Aid 26, and GSM 6, making around 60 jobs. All these are pre existing and not new. I guess there might be some expansion, but realistically we must be talking about ones and twos, certainly not tens. This is a far cry from the 700 plus new jobs promised by City Hall when they first started. These are all middle of the road companies, and none the worse for that, but they are a long way from the R&D based science park that we were promised.[/p][/quote]I live in Menston. The owners of Produmax, one of the companies on the Buck Lane site, also live in Menston. Like most of us, they are actively opposed to the development of the green fields at Derry Hill and Bingley Road. Their building on the green fields at Buck Lane is completely and unacceptably hypocritical. This is nimbyism at its very worst. A charge we are constantly fighting. Their action undermines the work the rest of us are trying to do. I just hope they are reading this and will favour us with a post explaining their hypocrisy. Or maybe even a letter to the T&A. gouldengirl
  • Score: 24

8:44am Fri 27 Jun 14

piltdownman says...

I think Cllr. Hinchcliffe should tell us exactly how many new jobs will be created and how many of these will be going to the Bradford unemployed. If a scheme like this does not help our jobless total then it’s pointless. The T&A is full of stories about fresh redundancies.
I think Cllr. Hinchcliffe should tell us exactly how many new jobs will be created and how many of these will be going to the Bradford unemployed. If a scheme like this does not help our jobless total then it’s pointless. The T&A is full of stories about fresh redundancies. piltdownman
  • Score: 21

8:49am Fri 27 Jun 14

sunnysidedown says...

Even if it is 100 rather than 60, the Council are not creating jobs. That is just more of their spin. The jobs are just transfers in.

All the companies moving onto the site are presently located just over the border in Leeds. There is no need for their workforce to move house; and if these people continue to live, shop and pay their Council Tax where they always did, how does Bradford benefit?

In fact Bradford loses, because there will be more traffic on Otley Road making life more difficult for existing businesses and pushing the maintenance bill up.
Even if it is 100 rather than 60, the Council are not creating jobs. That is just more of their spin. The jobs are just transfers in. All the companies moving onto the site are presently located just over the border in Leeds. There is no need for their workforce to move house; and if these people continue to live, shop and pay their Council Tax where they always did, how does Bradford benefit? In fact Bradford loses, because there will be more traffic on Otley Road making life more difficult for existing businesses and pushing the maintenance bill up. sunnysidedown
  • Score: 19

8:55am Fri 27 Jun 14

izzystillbreathing says...

This is a sorry mess. City Hall needs to do some serious thinking about how it does its planning and what it is going to do about regeneration. Buck Lane shows that nobody at City Hall is up to the job.
This is a sorry mess. City Hall needs to do some serious thinking about how it does its planning and what it is going to do about regeneration. Buck Lane shows that nobody at City Hall is up to the job. izzystillbreathing
  • Score: 19

9:05am Fri 27 Jun 14

SurprisedByJoyce says...

Only the developer will be profiting from this scheme.

I don’t see why these companies could not have gone onto a brownfield. There are plenty about. Green fields should only be sacrificed if there is a very good reason.
Only the developer will be profiting from this scheme. I don’t see why these companies could not have gone onto a brownfield. There are plenty about. Green fields should only be sacrificed if there is a very good reason. SurprisedByJoyce
  • Score: 18

9:09am Fri 27 Jun 14

Grumpygirl says...

One expects a bit of spin from politicians, but not outright falsehoods. If the Council had stuck to its original plan then the site would still be empty. Also what about the Officers involved? Honesty and integrity are supposed to be part of their professional competences. What is going on a City Hall?
One expects a bit of spin from politicians, but not outright falsehoods. If the Council had stuck to its original plan then the site would still be empty. Also what about the Officers involved? Honesty and integrity are supposed to be part of their professional competences. What is going on a City Hall? Grumpygirl
  • Score: 16

9:26am Fri 27 Jun 14

baildongreen says...

Everywhere you look the Council is trading green fields for cash. Where did this mandate come from? I don't remember voting for it.
Everywhere you look the Council is trading green fields for cash. Where did this mandate come from? I don't remember voting for it. baildongreen
  • Score: 10

9:45am Fri 27 Jun 14

FinlandStation says...

gouldengirl wrote:
bachtothefuture wrote:
I supported Buck Lane. It was a unique opportunity to establish Bradford’s future hi-tech base. This is a complete let down. The Council have said one thing and done another. Bradford is the poorer. Cllr Hinchcliffe believed her own hype and that is an unforgivable sin.

I’ve had a look at the Councils documents. There are three companies involved all based in Guisley or Otley. Produmax employ about 25, Anetic Aid 26, and GSM 6, making around 60 jobs. All these are pre existing and not new. I guess there might be some expansion, but realistically we must be talking about ones and twos, certainly not tens.

This is a far cry from the 700 plus new jobs promised by City Hall when they first started. These are all middle of the road companies, and none the worse for that, but they are a long way from the R&D based science park that we were promised.
I live in Menston. The owners of Produmax, one of the companies on the Buck Lane site, also live in Menston. Like most of us, they are actively opposed to the development of the green fields at Derry Hill and Bingley Road.

Their building on the green fields at Buck Lane is completely and unacceptably hypocritical. This is nimbyism at its very worst. A charge we are constantly fighting. Their action undermines the work the rest of us are trying to do.

I just hope they are reading this and will favour us with a post explaining their hypocrisy. Or maybe even a letter to the T&A.
If this is true then these people really are the lowest of the low. Apart from their own demeaning behaviour they are devaluing the work of all those protest groups with genuine grievances.

I think the least they should do is explain and apologise.
[quote][p][bold]gouldengirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bachtothefuture[/bold] wrote: I supported Buck Lane. It was a unique opportunity to establish Bradford’s future hi-tech base. This is a complete let down. The Council have said one thing and done another. Bradford is the poorer. Cllr Hinchcliffe believed her own hype and that is an unforgivable sin. I’ve had a look at the Councils documents. There are three companies involved all based in Guisley or Otley. Produmax employ about 25, Anetic Aid 26, and GSM 6, making around 60 jobs. All these are pre existing and not new. I guess there might be some expansion, but realistically we must be talking about ones and twos, certainly not tens. This is a far cry from the 700 plus new jobs promised by City Hall when they first started. These are all middle of the road companies, and none the worse for that, but they are a long way from the R&D based science park that we were promised.[/p][/quote]I live in Menston. The owners of Produmax, one of the companies on the Buck Lane site, also live in Menston. Like most of us, they are actively opposed to the development of the green fields at Derry Hill and Bingley Road. Their building on the green fields at Buck Lane is completely and unacceptably hypocritical. This is nimbyism at its very worst. A charge we are constantly fighting. Their action undermines the work the rest of us are trying to do. I just hope they are reading this and will favour us with a post explaining their hypocrisy. Or maybe even a letter to the T&A.[/p][/quote]If this is true then these people really are the lowest of the low. Apart from their own demeaning behaviour they are devaluing the work of all those protest groups with genuine grievances. I think the least they should do is explain and apologise. FinlandStation
  • Score: 9

10:56am Fri 27 Jun 14

David Shaw says...

about a mile down the road, towards Shipley there are several units up for let, that are very similar to these, and have been for a while. Surely before building any more, the empty ones should be filled first.
about a mile down the road, towards Shipley there are several units up for let, that are very similar to these, and have been for a while. Surely before building any more, the empty ones should be filled first. David Shaw
  • Score: 15

3:06pm Fri 27 Jun 14

Bone_idle18 says...

What exactly are peoples objections. the site has been a mess for years, it's far better not they've just done the path, it was always a horrible, scraggy piece of land!

A well maintained technology park would be an improvement,.

Luckily there won't be 700 jobs, so local traffic shouldn't be affected too much either :)
What exactly are peoples objections. the site has been a mess for years, it's far better not they've just done the path, it was always a horrible, scraggy piece of land! A well maintained technology park would be an improvement,. Luckily there won't be 700 jobs, so local traffic shouldn't be affected too much either :) Bone_idle18
  • Score: -8

7:24pm Fri 27 Jun 14

piltdownman says...

Bone_idle18 wrote:
What exactly are peoples objections. the site has been a mess for years, it's far better not they've just done the path, it was always a horrible, scraggy piece of land!

A well maintained technology park would be an improvement,.

Luckily there won't be 700 jobs, so local traffic shouldn't be affected too much either :)
Basically people are objecting this time because the Council lied through its teeth.
[quote][p][bold]Bone_idle18[/bold] wrote: What exactly are peoples objections. the site has been a mess for years, it's far better not they've just done the path, it was always a horrible, scraggy piece of land! A well maintained technology park would be an improvement,. Luckily there won't be 700 jobs, so local traffic shouldn't be affected too much either :)[/p][/quote]Basically people are objecting this time because the Council lied through its teeth. piltdownman
  • Score: 8

9:20pm Fri 27 Jun 14

BaildonGuy says...

Bone_idle18 wrote:
What exactly are peoples objections. the site has been a mess for years, it's far better not they've just done the path, it was always a horrible, scraggy piece of land!

A well maintained technology park would be an improvement,.

Luckily there won't be 700 jobs, so local traffic shouldn't be affected too much either :)
Relax. You'll get your industrial estate. It's been well recognised since the beginning that the Council hold all the cards and that protest was futile. Buck lane is also very close to the heart of Cllrs Green and Hinchcliffe so it was always going to be forced through whatever happened

And, true enough, under the Council's stewardship Buck Lane did start to go back to nature. Some of us liked that, and some didn't.

However the point here is that the Council have made a total, and I do mean total, mess of the project. None of the original objectives are going to met, they have all been missed by a mile.

It really does raise questions about the Council's fundamental competence. If the Council was a private company somebody's head would be on the block.
[quote][p][bold]Bone_idle18[/bold] wrote: What exactly are peoples objections. the site has been a mess for years, it's far better not they've just done the path, it was always a horrible, scraggy piece of land! A well maintained technology park would be an improvement,. Luckily there won't be 700 jobs, so local traffic shouldn't be affected too much either :)[/p][/quote]Relax. You'll get your industrial estate. It's been well recognised since the beginning that the Council hold all the cards and that protest was futile. Buck lane is also very close to the heart of Cllrs Green and Hinchcliffe so it was always going to be forced through whatever happened And, true enough, under the Council's stewardship Buck Lane did start to go back to nature. Some of us liked that, and some didn't. However the point here is that the Council have made a total, and I do mean total, mess of the project. None of the original objectives are going to met, they have all been missed by a mile. It really does raise questions about the Council's fundamental competence. If the Council was a private company somebody's head would be on the block. BaildonGuy
  • Score: 5

9:54pm Fri 27 Jun 14

Izzy Eckerslike says...

Having read all the above posts it seems so-ooooo clear that our Bradford City Council is completely "unfit for purpose" and all should be kicked out immediately. Sadly, the voters/ratepayers failed to take the opportunity to do that in May and we will now be paying the price for years to come, since they simply handed over the whole thing on a platter to this incompetent ragbag of Labour councillors now in complete charge of our money.
The disgraceful way in which almost every Planning decision they touch smacks of underhand dealings behind closed doors and it is high time that the Government sent in a team of people to find out what is really going on in this city. The developers run the whole thing in Bradford and until this Council learns to stand up to them and make them do what WE want, not what THEY want, the public will never be listened to.
Having read all the above posts it seems so-ooooo clear that our Bradford City Council is completely "unfit for purpose" and all should be kicked out immediately. Sadly, the voters/ratepayers failed to take the opportunity to do that in May and we will now be paying the price for years to come, since they simply handed over the whole thing on a platter to this incompetent ragbag of Labour councillors now in complete charge of our money. The disgraceful way in which almost every Planning decision they touch smacks of underhand dealings behind closed doors and it is high time that the Government sent in a team of people to find out what is really going on in this city. The developers run the whole thing in Bradford and until this Council learns to stand up to them and make them do what WE want, not what THEY want, the public will never be listened to. Izzy Eckerslike
  • Score: 4

3:03pm Mon 30 Jun 14

David Shaw says...

I believe the Shipley area planning committee (which approved the scheme) is a cross party committee. Reading the minutes our Conservative District Councillor (Who was present at the time of the meeting) didn't object to the scheme either. So not just a Labour decision.
If we were getting a state of the art Hi tech business park, then most now wouldn't object as we have resigned ourselves to that, however what we are getting is what is already available further down the road, which are nothing short of production sheds.
I believe the Shipley area planning committee (which approved the scheme) is a cross party committee. Reading the minutes our Conservative District Councillor (Who was present at the time of the meeting) didn't object to the scheme either. So not just a Labour decision. If we were getting a state of the art Hi tech business park, then most now wouldn't object as we have resigned ourselves to that, however what we are getting is what is already available further down the road, which are nothing short of production sheds. David Shaw
  • Score: 1

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