Angry communities face fresh assaults on their green spaces

Bradford Telegraph and Argus: Councillor David Heseltine opposes to the proposed housing development at a field off Primrose Lane, Bingley Councillor David Heseltine opposes to the proposed housing development at a field off Primrose Lane, Bingley

ANGRY communities across the district are facing a series of fresh assaults on their green spaces.

After residents in Sandy Lane, Bradford, last week spoke of their determination to battle plans to build homes on pasture land off Wilsden Road, three other neighbourhoods are now mounting fights against yet more housing planned for fields or open spaces.

In Bingley, a landowner wants to build 61 houses on the green belt.

The Hartley Property Trust has applied to build 50 family homes for private sale and 11 affordable homes at Milner Fields, Primrose Lane, Gilstead.

Building on the green belt is usually strictly off-limits, but Bradford Council is looking to release some green belt land for housing under its Local Plan, and has said this site would be 'potentially suitable' for development.

The Trust's application says the site "has potential for redevelopment to add to the stock of new build family housing for the Aire Valley in an established residential area".

But so far nine locals have sent in strong objections to Council planners.

And ward councillor David Heseltine (Con, Bingley) was furious at the idea of losing another patch of countryside.

He said: "We can't just carry on concreting everything over.

"It's a beautiful valley but it gets to a point where you spoil it, particularly when there's regeneration sites which have lain dormant for years."

Meanwhile in Oakworth, Keighley, residents are fighting plans by Persimmon Homes to build 140 houses on farmland at Occupation Lane.

So far, eight people have written in with concerns at the loss of valuable green fields when brownfield sites are available, and concerns over traffic and overloaded local facilities.

Persimmon's application said the plan included an area of public open space, "which will now be available for the public, rather than owned privately".

And in Manningham, Firebird Homes, a subsidiary of Manningham Housing, wants to build eight socially-rented homes on a patch of green space in Heaton Road.

Although the site is theoretically previously-developed land because a housing estate once stood there, locals say it is one of the few green areas where youngsters can play.

One objector, Abdul Rashid, said: "My grandchildren play on the field, as well as other children from the local community.

"There is no other greenery in this area other than on Heaton Road, therefore it is important that this area is kept as it is for the local community to use."

Philip Davies MP has pledged his support to those opposing the Milner Fields development in Gilstead and blasted Bradford Council, claiming they have a "ridiculous policy" of earmarking green belt land on the outskirts of the city for redevelopment.

He said: "I will do everything I can to oppose these plans.

"There is a rising population in inner city Bradford. The only way to help this is to redevelop the centre of Bradford.

"I spend most of my time opposing developments like this.

"Bradford Council's solution to dealing with rising population in the centre of Bradford, is to build lots of houses in the Shipley constituency.

"It's a complete and utterly ridiculous policy.

"Once again, Bradford Council have not listened to the concerns from the people of Bingley and Gilstead."

Comments (37)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:59am Mon 14 Jul 14

bingleybantam says...

Independence for the Aire, Wharfe & Worth valleys from Bradford council is the only answer.
Independence for the Aire, Wharfe & Worth valleys from Bradford council is the only answer. bingleybantam
  • Score: 12

8:16am Mon 14 Jul 14

collos25 says...

You have to remember BMDC is void of any proper policy on anything and if there is under the table money swilling about like pigs they are at the trough irrespective of what's right and wrong.
You have to remember BMDC is void of any proper policy on anything and if there is under the table money swilling about like pigs they are at the trough irrespective of what's right and wrong. collos25
  • Score: 18

8:19am Mon 14 Jul 14

sorrow&anger says...

This story confirms what many of us have suspected for some time, that, in order to shore up its finances, City Hall is deliberately trading green spaces for Council Tax revenue and Section 106 windfalls.

City Hall's bad politics and worse planning destroyed our city, it will now destroy our what's left of countryside.
This story confirms what many of us have suspected for some time, that, in order to shore up its finances, City Hall is deliberately trading green spaces for Council Tax revenue and Section 106 windfalls. City Hall's bad politics and worse planning destroyed our city, it will now destroy our what's left of countryside. sorrow&anger
  • Score: 46

8:25am Mon 14 Jul 14

pcmanners says...

This country needs more homes and the Government has put in place laws to ensure that this happens. This story simply shows that the laws have been properly drafted and are working.

If a developer is prepared to risk his capital then he should be allowed to build anywhere he likes.
This country needs more homes and the Government has put in place laws to ensure that this happens. This story simply shows that the laws have been properly drafted and are working. If a developer is prepared to risk his capital then he should be allowed to build anywhere he likes. pcmanners
  • Score: -52

8:34am Mon 14 Jul 14

bluebluerobin says...

Developers are getting a free ride because City Hall and the Labour Group have failed to put in place a plan that demonstrates that sufficient building land will be available over the next five years. Local communities are suffering because of City Hall's incompetence.
Developers are getting a free ride because City Hall and the Labour Group have failed to put in place a plan that demonstrates that sufficient building land will be available over the next five years. Local communities are suffering because of City Hall's incompetence. bluebluerobin
  • Score: 31

8:49am Mon 14 Jul 14

linebacker2 says...

The headline proclaims "Angry communities face fresh assaults on their green spaces."

Leaving aside the emotive use of the word assault, not sure why the words "their green spaces" are being used. The land belongs to the landowner and they're in favour of theses schemes.

Also worth pointing at that "Green belt" is not a designation of the quality of the land. Green belt was put in place in the 1930's to curb expansion of cities, it now acts more of a tourniquet and no other country in the world uses them.
The headline proclaims "Angry communities face fresh assaults on their green spaces." Leaving aside the emotive use of the word assault, not sure why the words "their green spaces" are being used. The land belongs to the landowner and they're in favour of theses schemes. Also worth pointing at that "Green belt" is not a designation of the quality of the land. Green belt was put in place in the 1930's to curb expansion of cities, it now acts more of a tourniquet and no other country in the world uses them. linebacker2
  • Score: -13

9:11am Mon 14 Jul 14

purdey28 says...

collos25 wrote:
You have to remember BMDC is void of any proper policy on anything and if there is under the table money swilling about like pigs they are at the trough irrespective of what's right and wrong.
Here, here. Perhaps if some of these clowns actually lived in the area it would be different. I wonder just how many of them live in Bradford at all.
[quote][p][bold]collos25[/bold] wrote: You have to remember BMDC is void of any proper policy on anything and if there is under the table money swilling about like pigs they are at the trough irrespective of what's right and wrong.[/p][/quote]Here, here. Perhaps if some of these clowns actually lived in the area it would be different. I wonder just how many of them live in Bradford at all. purdey28
  • Score: 17

9:11am Mon 14 Jul 14

SurprisedByJoyce says...

sorrow&anger wrote:
This story confirms what many of us have suspected for some time, that, in order to shore up its finances, City Hall is deliberately trading green spaces for Council Tax revenue and Section 106 windfalls.

City Hall's bad politics and worse planning destroyed our city, it will now destroy our what's left of countryside.
Whilst it is true that the Council is short of cash they need to remember that whilst Governments and funding models are always temporary, loss of greenspace is permanent. There needs to be some serious long term thinking going on at City Hall.
[quote][p][bold]sorrow&anger[/bold] wrote: This story confirms what many of us have suspected for some time, that, in order to shore up its finances, City Hall is deliberately trading green spaces for Council Tax revenue and Section 106 windfalls. City Hall's bad politics and worse planning destroyed our city, it will now destroy our what's left of countryside.[/p][/quote]Whilst it is true that the Council is short of cash they need to remember that whilst Governments and funding models are always temporary, loss of greenspace is permanent. There needs to be some serious long term thinking going on at City Hall. SurprisedByJoyce
  • Score: 16

9:15am Mon 14 Jul 14

pcmanners says...

linebacker2 wrote:
The headline proclaims "Angry communities face fresh assaults on their green spaces."

Leaving aside the emotive use of the word assault, not sure why the words "their green spaces" are being used. The land belongs to the landowner and they're in favour of theses schemes.

Also worth pointing at that "Green belt" is not a designation of the quality of the land. Green belt was put in place in the 1930's to curb expansion of cities, it now acts more of a tourniquet and no other country in the world uses them.
The green belt should be abolished so that property owners and developers and developers such as yourself linebacker can get on with making this Country prosperous once again.
[quote][p][bold]linebacker2[/bold] wrote: The headline proclaims "Angry communities face fresh assaults on their green spaces." Leaving aside the emotive use of the word assault, not sure why the words "their green spaces" are being used. The land belongs to the landowner and they're in favour of theses schemes. Also worth pointing at that "Green belt" is not a designation of the quality of the land. Green belt was put in place in the 1930's to curb expansion of cities, it now acts more of a tourniquet and no other country in the world uses them.[/p][/quote]The green belt should be abolished so that property owners and developers and developers such as yourself linebacker can get on with making this Country prosperous once again. pcmanners
  • Score: -24

9:45am Mon 14 Jul 14

idf fanclub says...

"The green belt should be abolished so that property owners and developers and developers such as yourself linebacker can get on with making this Country prosperous once again."

and more...

"If a developer is prepared to risk his capital then he should be allowed to build anywhere he likes."

Wow. No kidding?

Spoken like a true loony. Or maybe an ironic comment on the state of planning.

Either way - it shows the depths to which our beloved Barfdord Kouncil
has sunk. They NEVER listen to the people. Don't call 'em the Regen Nazis for nothing. They run this city as a private kingdom. Unaccountable. Unstoppable.

Follow the money trail, folks.
"The green belt should be abolished so that property owners and developers and developers such as yourself linebacker can get on with making this Country prosperous once again." and more... "If a developer is prepared to risk his capital then he should be allowed to build anywhere he likes." Wow. No kidding? Spoken like a true loony. Or maybe an ironic comment on the state of planning. Either way - it shows the depths to which our beloved Barfdord Kouncil has sunk. They NEVER listen to the people. Don't call 'em the Regen Nazis for nothing. They run this city as a private kingdom. Unaccountable. Unstoppable. Follow the money trail, folks. idf fanclub
  • Score: 15

9:52am Mon 14 Jul 14

ChanningCross says...

I can understand why people are upset, but our dedicated Council are working very hard to minimise the impact of these new laws from Central Government. Without the devotion and skill of people like Councillors Slater, Hinchcliffe and Green things would be very much worse. We should be extremely grateful that they are in position and fighting hard to preserve the Bradford they love.
I can understand why people are upset, but our dedicated Council are working very hard to minimise the impact of these new laws from Central Government. Without the devotion and skill of people like Councillors Slater, Hinchcliffe and Green things would be very much worse. We should be extremely grateful that they are in position and fighting hard to preserve the Bradford they love. ChanningCross
  • Score: -14

10:00am Mon 14 Jul 14

Tyrelleon says...

idf fanclub wrote:
"The green belt should be abolished so that property owners and developers and developers such as yourself linebacker can get on with making this Country prosperous once again."

and more...

"If a developer is prepared to risk his capital then he should be allowed to build anywhere he likes."

Wow. No kidding?

Spoken like a true loony. Or maybe an ironic comment on the state of planning.

Either way - it shows the depths to which our beloved Barfdord Kouncil
has sunk. They NEVER listen to the people. Don't call 'em the Regen Nazis for nothing. They run this city as a private kingdom. Unaccountable. Unstoppable.

Follow the money trail, folks.
It is so unfair to keep accusing our hard working and honest councillors of corruption. These are people that freely give up their own time to make the world a better place. They are to be praised for doing a very difficult and often thankless job extremely well. The long awaited regeneration of our city centre is testament to their unstinting hard work and tireless devotion to this city.
[quote][p][bold]idf fanclub[/bold] wrote: "The green belt should be abolished so that property owners and developers and developers such as yourself linebacker can get on with making this Country prosperous once again." and more... "If a developer is prepared to risk his capital then he should be allowed to build anywhere he likes." Wow. No kidding? Spoken like a true loony. Or maybe an ironic comment on the state of planning. Either way - it shows the depths to which our beloved Barfdord Kouncil has sunk. They NEVER listen to the people. Don't call 'em the Regen Nazis for nothing. They run this city as a private kingdom. Unaccountable. Unstoppable. Follow the money trail, folks.[/p][/quote]It is so unfair to keep accusing our hard working and honest councillors of corruption. These are people that freely give up their own time to make the world a better place. They are to be praised for doing a very difficult and often thankless job extremely well. The long awaited regeneration of our city centre is testament to their unstinting hard work and tireless devotion to this city. Tyrelleon
  • Score: -16

10:34am Mon 14 Jul 14

bachtothefuture says...

Even if they wanted to the Council are in no position to resist these applications. Legally. because the local plan has been badly bungled and is now recognised as one of the worst in England; and, morally, because the Council’s Buck Lane farce exchanged acres of green fields for the business rates and no gain in jobs. City Hall hasn’t a leg to stand on.
Even if they wanted to the Council are in no position to resist these applications. Legally. because the local plan has been badly bungled and is now recognised as one of the worst in England; and, morally, because the Council’s Buck Lane farce exchanged acres of green fields for the business rates and no gain in jobs. City Hall hasn’t a leg to stand on. bachtothefuture
  • Score: 10

10:44am Mon 14 Jul 14

Albion. says...

From some of the above comments, it would seem that the go-ahead has been given and the council are doing the building! Neither is yet true but one thing is certain and that is that more housing will be built in out of town areas as the race to escape the inner city horrors continues apace and even more enter this gravy-train of a country.
From some of the above comments, it would seem that the go-ahead has been given and the council are doing the building! Neither is yet true but one thing is certain and that is that more housing will be built in out of town areas as the race to escape the inner city horrors continues apace and even more enter this gravy-train of a country. Albion.
  • Score: 10

10:53am Mon 14 Jul 14

FinlandStation says...

bachtothefuture wrote:
Even if they wanted to the Council are in no position to resist these applications. Legally. because the local plan has been badly bungled and is now recognised as one of the worst in England; and, morally, because the Council’s Buck Lane farce exchanged acres of green fields for the business rates and no gain in jobs. City Hall hasn’t a leg to stand on.
Yes. The total mess that the local plan is in does seem to be a bit of an unreported scandal. The Council would have been well advised to bring in outside help, like many other authorities, rather than assume they had the expertise to do it themselves. We are all paying the price for this arrogance.
[quote][p][bold]bachtothefuture[/bold] wrote: Even if they wanted to the Council are in no position to resist these applications. Legally. because the local plan has been badly bungled and is now recognised as one of the worst in England; and, morally, because the Council’s Buck Lane farce exchanged acres of green fields for the business rates and no gain in jobs. City Hall hasn’t a leg to stand on.[/p][/quote]Yes. The total mess that the local plan is in does seem to be a bit of an unreported scandal. The Council would have been well advised to bring in outside help, like many other authorities, rather than assume they had the expertise to do it themselves. We are all paying the price for this arrogance. FinlandStation
  • Score: 8

11:16am Mon 14 Jul 14

Count Jim Moriarty says...

collos25 wrote:
You have to remember BMDC is void of any proper policy on anything and if there is under the table money swilling about like pigs they are at the trough irrespective of what's right and wrong.
Do you have any actual evidence of the corruption you are alleging? If so, I hope you have informed the police. If not, please keep your uninformed ranting to yourself.
[quote][p][bold]collos25[/bold] wrote: You have to remember BMDC is void of any proper policy on anything and if there is under the table money swilling about like pigs they are at the trough irrespective of what's right and wrong.[/p][/quote]Do you have any actual evidence of the corruption you are alleging? If so, I hope you have informed the police. If not, please keep your uninformed ranting to yourself. Count Jim Moriarty
  • Score: -8

11:23am Mon 14 Jul 14

Albion. says...

Count Jim Moriarty wrote:
collos25 wrote:
You have to remember BMDC is void of any proper policy on anything and if there is under the table money swilling about like pigs they are at the trough irrespective of what's right and wrong.
Do you have any actual evidence of the corruption you are alleging? If so, I hope you have informed the police. If not, please keep your uninformed ranting to yourself.
He say's much the same thing about the police.
[quote][p][bold]Count Jim Moriarty[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]collos25[/bold] wrote: You have to remember BMDC is void of any proper policy on anything and if there is under the table money swilling about like pigs they are at the trough irrespective of what's right and wrong.[/p][/quote]Do you have any actual evidence of the corruption you are alleging? If so, I hope you have informed the police. If not, please keep your uninformed ranting to yourself.[/p][/quote]He say's much the same thing about the police. Albion.
  • Score: 5

12:02pm Mon 14 Jul 14

Andy2010 says...

I'd be more concerned about about the schools etc rather than where the houses are built. In these areas the schools are vastly over subscribed.

Are the council or the developers going to stump up money for extra school places?
I'd be more concerned about about the schools etc rather than where the houses are built. In these areas the schools are vastly over subscribed. Are the council or the developers going to stump up money for extra school places? Andy2010
  • Score: 9

12:04pm Mon 14 Jul 14

Albion. says...

Andy2010 wrote:
I'd be more concerned about about the schools etc rather than where the houses are built. In these areas the schools are vastly over subscribed.

Are the council or the developers going to stump up money for extra school places?
At least one of the schools in question has expansion plans.
[quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: I'd be more concerned about about the schools etc rather than where the houses are built. In these areas the schools are vastly over subscribed. Are the council or the developers going to stump up money for extra school places?[/p][/quote]At least one of the schools in question has expansion plans. Albion.
  • Score: 3

12:29pm Mon 14 Jul 14

More of the same.. says...

Slightly off topic .. but perhaps relevant none the less..

Look at what is happing with the Shipley college proposed development too.

The 'Tokenism' presented by the World Heritage Officer; Helen Thornton, in support of the new build. Disgraceful!! that Officer holding those views should not be 'in post'.

She is Living in principle; Nav Cohen's pocket.

That 'garden' / 'green space' is within a 'conservation area' also.

'Conservation' does not seem to mean much to BDMC, sadly.
Slightly off topic .. but perhaps relevant none the less.. Look at what is happing with the Shipley college proposed development too. The 'Tokenism' presented by the World Heritage Officer; Helen Thornton, in support of the new build. Disgraceful!! that Officer holding those views should not be 'in post'. She is Living in principle; Nav Cohen's pocket. That 'garden' / 'green space' is within a 'conservation area' also. 'Conservation' does not seem to mean much to BDMC, sadly. More of the same..
  • Score: 9

12:31pm Mon 14 Jul 14

Thee Voice of Reason says...

The council appear to get the term brownfield and brown envelope mixed up. More building on brown envelope sites, polocy No1.
The council appear to get the term brownfield and brown envelope mixed up. More building on brown envelope sites, polocy No1. Thee Voice of Reason
  • Score: 10

12:33pm Mon 14 Jul 14

tinytoonster says...

Andy2010 wrote:
I'd be more concerned about about the schools etc rather than where the houses are built. In these areas the schools are vastly over subscribed.

Are the council or the developers going to stump up money for extra school places?
the housebuilders just give a small sum of money towards it and think that is ok!
[quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: I'd be more concerned about about the schools etc rather than where the houses are built. In these areas the schools are vastly over subscribed. Are the council or the developers going to stump up money for extra school places?[/p][/quote]the housebuilders just give a small sum of money towards it and think that is ok! tinytoonster
  • Score: 4

12:36pm Mon 14 Jul 14

tinytoonster says...

ChanningCross wrote:
I can understand why people are upset, but our dedicated Council are working very hard to minimise the impact of these new laws from Central Government. Without the devotion and skill of people like Councillors Slater, Hinchcliffe and Green things would be very much worse. We should be extremely grateful that they are in position and fighting hard to preserve the Bradford they love.
council employees should not be posting using council internet.
you have to be a councillor to make such a ridiculous comment.
skill and councillor do not belong in the same sentence.
[quote][p][bold]ChanningCross[/bold] wrote: I can understand why people are upset, but our dedicated Council are working very hard to minimise the impact of these new laws from Central Government. Without the devotion and skill of people like Councillors Slater, Hinchcliffe and Green things would be very much worse. We should be extremely grateful that they are in position and fighting hard to preserve the Bradford they love.[/p][/quote]council employees should not be posting using council internet. you have to be a councillor to make such a ridiculous comment. skill and councillor do not belong in the same sentence. tinytoonster
  • Score: 13

12:42pm Mon 14 Jul 14

Mixter says...

pcmanners wrote:
This country needs more homes and the Government has put in place laws to ensure that this happens. This story simply shows that the laws have been properly drafted and are working.

If a developer is prepared to risk his capital then he should be allowed to build anywhere he likes.
Provide an environment for folk to multiply, and they will take it. What happens when the offspring of the people who live in 'green belt' housing want to leave home - nay, get kicked out, as is now the norm amongst many families? Build on even more green belt? What happens when theres none left?
There should be incentives for brown-belt housing and living.
[quote][p][bold]pcmanners[/bold] wrote: This country needs more homes and the Government has put in place laws to ensure that this happens. This story simply shows that the laws have been properly drafted and are working. If a developer is prepared to risk his capital then he should be allowed to build anywhere he likes.[/p][/quote]Provide an environment for folk to multiply, and they will take it. What happens when the offspring of the people who live in 'green belt' housing want to leave home - nay, get kicked out, as is now the norm amongst many families? Build on even more green belt? What happens when theres none left? There should be incentives for brown-belt housing and living. Mixter
  • Score: 4

12:42pm Mon 14 Jul 14

Thee Voice of Reason says...

tinytoonster wrote:
ChanningCross wrote: I can understand why people are upset, but our dedicated Council are working very hard to minimise the impact of these new laws from Central Government. Without the devotion and skill of people like Councillors Slater, Hinchcliffe and Green things would be very much worse. We should be extremely grateful that they are in position and fighting hard to preserve the Bradford they love.
council employees should not be posting using council internet. you have to be a councillor to make such a ridiculous comment. skill and councillor do not belong in the same sentence.
The same Councillor Slater who will rage war on the middle classes and be the devil in their eyes to provide more green space for houses.

Sounds like helping save the green belt. Btw go look where she lives, plenty of green belt land near her house, non of which under threat from housing. Funny that.
[quote][p][bold]tinytoonster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChanningCross[/bold] wrote: I can understand why people are upset, but our dedicated Council are working very hard to minimise the impact of these new laws from Central Government. Without the devotion and skill of people like Councillors Slater, Hinchcliffe and Green things would be very much worse. We should be extremely grateful that they are in position and fighting hard to preserve the Bradford they love.[/p][/quote]council employees should not be posting using council internet. you have to be a councillor to make such a ridiculous comment. skill and councillor do not belong in the same sentence.[/p][/quote]The same Councillor Slater who will rage war on the middle classes and be the devil in their eyes to provide more green space for houses. Sounds like helping save the green belt. Btw go look where she lives, plenty of green belt land near her house, non of which under threat from housing. Funny that. Thee Voice of Reason
  • Score: 11

1:02pm Mon 14 Jul 14

Apollo says...

Thought this was going to be yet another story about gypos parking up wherever they want and trashing the area.

At least the Police know where to look for all the stolen goods - if they could be bothered or dare.
Thought this was going to be yet another story about gypos parking up wherever they want and trashing the area. At least the Police know where to look for all the stolen goods - if they could be bothered or dare. Apollo
  • Score: 6

1:28pm Mon 14 Jul 14

carolyne74 says...

Andy2010 wrote:
I'd be more concerned about about the schools etc rather than where the houses are built. In these areas the schools are vastly over subscribed.

Are the council or the developers going to stump up money for extra school places?
Exactly my concern Andy. Of the four primary schools closest to the Gilstead land, two have already been massively expanded, and two are on such small plots of land that there's no way they can be expanded. There are children from eight miles away at my daughter's already-expanded school due to a shortage of school places in other areas. Before we build any new houses in the Bradford area, we need more school places.
[quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: I'd be more concerned about about the schools etc rather than where the houses are built. In these areas the schools are vastly over subscribed. Are the council or the developers going to stump up money for extra school places?[/p][/quote]Exactly my concern Andy. Of the four primary schools closest to the Gilstead land, two have already been massively expanded, and two are on such small plots of land that there's no way they can be expanded. There are children from eight miles away at my daughter's already-expanded school due to a shortage of school places in other areas. Before we build any new houses in the Bradford area, we need more school places. carolyne74
  • Score: 3

2:13pm Mon 14 Jul 14

Thackleygirl says...

pcmanners wrote:
This country needs more homes and the Government has put in place laws to ensure that this happens. This story simply shows that the laws have been properly drafted and are working.

If a developer is prepared to risk his capital then he should be allowed to build anywhere he likes.
I think pcmanners you should get your facts correct before posting comments like this don't you??
[quote][p][bold]pcmanners[/bold] wrote: This country needs more homes and the Government has put in place laws to ensure that this happens. This story simply shows that the laws have been properly drafted and are working. If a developer is prepared to risk his capital then he should be allowed to build anywhere he likes.[/p][/quote]I think pcmanners you should get your facts correct before posting comments like this don't you?? Thackleygirl
  • Score: -4

2:22pm Mon 14 Jul 14

Papa Smurfs Wig says...

Apollo wrote:
Thought this was going to be yet another story about gypos parking up wherever they want and trashing the area.

At least the Police know where to look for all the stolen goods - if they could be bothered or dare.
So did l seeing as thry are plaguing the area again.

Also, how can you make Manningham look worse, this "community' as mentioned is the same community that made it a dog pile in the first place, it's a toyal wreck.
Bit l'm surprised they don't go for the brown fields for building, starting with Canal Road/Valley Road. And commercial property prices are suffering, buy them and develop those areas into housing.
[quote][p][bold]Apollo[/bold] wrote: Thought this was going to be yet another story about gypos parking up wherever they want and trashing the area. At least the Police know where to look for all the stolen goods - if they could be bothered or dare.[/p][/quote]So did l seeing as thry are plaguing the area again. Also, how can you make Manningham look worse, this "community' as mentioned is the same community that made it a dog pile in the first place, it's a toyal wreck. Bit l'm surprised they don't go for the brown fields for building, starting with Canal Road/Valley Road. And commercial property prices are suffering, buy them and develop those areas into housing. Papa Smurfs Wig
  • Score: 5

2:55pm Mon 14 Jul 14

Bone_idle18 says...

More of the same.. wrote:
Slightly off topic .. but perhaps relevant none the less..

Look at what is happing with the Shipley college proposed development too.

The 'Tokenism' presented by the World Heritage Officer; Helen Thornton, in support of the new build. Disgraceful!! that Officer holding those views should not be 'in post'.

She is Living in principle; Nav Cohen's pocket.

That 'garden' / 'green space' is within a 'conservation area' also.

'Conservation' does not seem to mean much to BDMC, sadly.
Because what is there are the moment must really be conserved eh?
[quote][p][bold]More of the same..[/bold] wrote: Slightly off topic .. but perhaps relevant none the less.. Look at what is happing with the Shipley college proposed development too. The 'Tokenism' presented by the World Heritage Officer; Helen Thornton, in support of the new build. Disgraceful!! that Officer holding those views should not be 'in post'. She is Living in principle; Nav Cohen's pocket. That 'garden' / 'green space' is within a 'conservation area' also. 'Conservation' does not seem to mean much to BDMC, sadly.[/p][/quote]Because what is there are the moment must really be conserved eh? Bone_idle18
  • Score: 0

5:50pm Mon 14 Jul 14

awasteoftime says...

pcmanners wrote:
This country needs more homes and the Government has put in place laws to ensure that this happens. This story simply shows that the laws have been properly drafted and are working.

If a developer is prepared to risk his capital then he should be allowed to build anywhere he likes.
One of the reasons that Bradford Council CAN permit building on Green Belt land is BECAUSE the current Government has re-written the Planning Rules and states that in "extreme circumstances" building on Green Belt is permissible. It is therefore rather odd that the local MP is to oppose these types of developments, if he really cares he needs to go and knock on the door of No 10 or maybe speak with Eric Pickles who did run Bradford Council at one stage.
Also ask yourself why we need all these new homes ?. Because we are not able to control immigration and hundreds of thousands on new people keep arriving in the UK, why because we are part of the EU and cannot control our own borders so they just keep coming. How will all the services manage, the NHS is struggling, schools are full roads are choked, to keep building is just not the answer otherwise all our green fields will be under concrete. Please note that the landowner in question is one of the richest men in the district so does not need the money !
[quote][p][bold]pcmanners[/bold] wrote: This country needs more homes and the Government has put in place laws to ensure that this happens. This story simply shows that the laws have been properly drafted and are working. If a developer is prepared to risk his capital then he should be allowed to build anywhere he likes.[/p][/quote]One of the reasons that Bradford Council CAN permit building on Green Belt land is BECAUSE the current Government has re-written the Planning Rules and states that in "extreme circumstances" building on Green Belt is permissible. It is therefore rather odd that the local MP is to oppose these types of developments, if he really cares he needs to go and knock on the door of No 10 or maybe speak with Eric Pickles who did run Bradford Council at one stage. Also ask yourself why we need all these new homes ?. Because we are not able to control immigration and hundreds of thousands on new people keep arriving in the UK, why because we are part of the EU and cannot control our own borders so they just keep coming. How will all the services manage, the NHS is struggling, schools are full roads are choked, to keep building is just not the answer otherwise all our green fields will be under concrete. Please note that the landowner in question is one of the richest men in the district so does not need the money ! awasteoftime
  • Score: 4

8:33pm Mon 14 Jul 14

linebacker2 says...

awasteoftime wrote:
pcmanners wrote:
This country needs more homes and the Government has put in place laws to ensure that this happens. This story simply shows that the laws have been properly drafted and are working.

If a developer is prepared to risk his capital then he should be allowed to build anywhere he likes.
One of the reasons that Bradford Council CAN permit building on Green Belt land is BECAUSE the current Government has re-written the Planning Rules and states that in "extreme circumstances" building on Green Belt is permissible. It is therefore rather odd that the local MP is to oppose these types of developments, if he really cares he needs to go and knock on the door of No 10 or maybe speak with Eric Pickles who did run Bradford Council at one stage.
Also ask yourself why we need all these new homes ?. Because we are not able to control immigration and hundreds of thousands on new people keep arriving in the UK, why because we are part of the EU and cannot control our own borders so they just keep coming. How will all the services manage, the NHS is struggling, schools are full roads are choked, to keep building is just not the answer otherwise all our green fields will be under concrete. Please note that the landowner in question is one of the richest men in the district so does not need the money !
What you say about population growth is true, but only part of the picture. Housebuilding has been below what's needed for years - we built more home in the 1920's when UK had half the population. It's now catch up time..
[quote][p][bold]awasteoftime[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pcmanners[/bold] wrote: This country needs more homes and the Government has put in place laws to ensure that this happens. This story simply shows that the laws have been properly drafted and are working. If a developer is prepared to risk his capital then he should be allowed to build anywhere he likes.[/p][/quote]One of the reasons that Bradford Council CAN permit building on Green Belt land is BECAUSE the current Government has re-written the Planning Rules and states that in "extreme circumstances" building on Green Belt is permissible. It is therefore rather odd that the local MP is to oppose these types of developments, if he really cares he needs to go and knock on the door of No 10 or maybe speak with Eric Pickles who did run Bradford Council at one stage. Also ask yourself why we need all these new homes ?. Because we are not able to control immigration and hundreds of thousands on new people keep arriving in the UK, why because we are part of the EU and cannot control our own borders so they just keep coming. How will all the services manage, the NHS is struggling, schools are full roads are choked, to keep building is just not the answer otherwise all our green fields will be under concrete. Please note that the landowner in question is one of the richest men in the district so does not need the money ![/p][/quote]What you say about population growth is true, but only part of the picture. Housebuilding has been below what's needed for years - we built more home in the 1920's when UK had half the population. It's now catch up time.. linebacker2
  • Score: 2

9:59pm Mon 14 Jul 14

Bantambhoy says...

Is it the case that we need more social housing not more 4/5 bed executive type houses? This building on green spaces is purely profit driven not need driven.
There is a massive brown field site off Cemetery Road where AIS and Grattan used to be, are there any plans for that site which is ideal for social/affordable housing.
Is it the case that we need more social housing not more 4/5 bed executive type houses? This building on green spaces is purely profit driven not need driven. There is a massive brown field site off Cemetery Road where AIS and Grattan used to be, are there any plans for that site which is ideal for social/affordable housing. Bantambhoy
  • Score: 3

8:23am Tue 15 Jul 14

caledonia15 says...

Having seen our wonderful council and its incompetent officers in action at a public inquiry into building on our precious green fields, i have absolutely no faith in the planning department at Bradford Council. The developers are running roughshod over the planning laws, when they get permission to build, they do as they please flouting the regulations and conditions, and if they get caught out put in for retrospective planning applications. Its high time these folk at Bradford Council who are on very good salaries were made accountable for their actions, either do the job they are well paid for or get rid and get someone in who will do the job properly and serve the council tax payers- the general public of Bradford. I am sick of seeing our precious green fields desecrated for greed and profit when there are many acres of Brown field sites lying wasted and empty
Having seen our wonderful council and its incompetent officers in action at a public inquiry into building on our precious green fields, i have absolutely no faith in the planning department at Bradford Council. The developers are running roughshod over the planning laws, when they get permission to build, they do as they please flouting the regulations and conditions, and if they get caught out put in for retrospective planning applications. Its high time these folk at Bradford Council who are on very good salaries were made accountable for their actions, either do the job they are well paid for or get rid and get someone in who will do the job properly and serve the council tax payers- the general public of Bradford. I am sick of seeing our precious green fields desecrated for greed and profit when there are many acres of Brown field sites lying wasted and empty caledonia15
  • Score: 1

10:23am Tue 15 Jul 14

Bone_idle18 says...

caledonia15 wrote:
Having seen our wonderful council and its incompetent officers in action at a public inquiry into building on our precious green fields, i have absolutely no faith in the planning department at Bradford Council. The developers are running roughshod over the planning laws, when they get permission to build, they do as they please flouting the regulations and conditions, and if they get caught out put in for retrospective planning applications. Its high time these folk at Bradford Council who are on very good salaries were made accountable for their actions, either do the job they are well paid for or get rid and get someone in who will do the job properly and serve the council tax payers- the general public of Bradford. I am sick of seeing our precious green fields desecrated for greed and profit when there are many acres of Brown field sites lying wasted and empty
Are you expecting these developers to build houses for zero profit then? Out of the good of their hearts?
[quote][p][bold]caledonia15[/bold] wrote: Having seen our wonderful council and its incompetent officers in action at a public inquiry into building on our precious green fields, i have absolutely no faith in the planning department at Bradford Council. The developers are running roughshod over the planning laws, when they get permission to build, they do as they please flouting the regulations and conditions, and if they get caught out put in for retrospective planning applications. Its high time these folk at Bradford Council who are on very good salaries were made accountable for their actions, either do the job they are well paid for or get rid and get someone in who will do the job properly and serve the council tax payers- the general public of Bradford. I am sick of seeing our precious green fields desecrated for greed and profit when there are many acres of Brown field sites lying wasted and empty[/p][/quote]Are you expecting these developers to build houses for zero profit then? Out of the good of their hearts? Bone_idle18
  • Score: 1

6:35pm Tue 15 Jul 14

Wanna Have says...

I see the Tories are quick to drop their Market Lead principles when the outcomes adversley affect them.
I see the Tories are quick to drop their Market Lead principles when the outcomes adversley affect them. Wanna Have
  • Score: 1

6:39pm Tue 15 Jul 14

Wanna Have says...

Bantambhoy wrote:
Is it the case that we need more social housing not more 4/5 bed executive type houses? This building on green spaces is purely profit driven not need driven.
There is a massive brown field site off Cemetery Road where AIS and Grattan used to be, are there any plans for that site which is ideal for social/affordable housing.
I say Phillip Davies should stand by his principle's and take his family and go and live on one of the Brownfield developments he is extolling in Lidget Green for a year.
Come on Phil be a man of your word and lead by example.
[quote][p][bold]Bantambhoy[/bold] wrote: Is it the case that we need more social housing not more 4/5 bed executive type houses? This building on green spaces is purely profit driven not need driven. There is a massive brown field site off Cemetery Road where AIS and Grattan used to be, are there any plans for that site which is ideal for social/affordable housing.[/p][/quote]I say Phillip Davies should stand by his principle's and take his family and go and live on one of the Brownfield developments he is extolling in Lidget Green for a year. Come on Phil be a man of your word and lead by example. Wanna Have
  • Score: 2
Post a comment

Remember you are personally responsible for what you post on this site and must abide by our site terms. Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious. If you wish to complain, please use the ‘report this post’ link.

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