Campaigners 'very disappointed' after major Bradford housing plan is approved

The site of the approved development in Allerton

The site of the approved development in Allerton

First published in News

CAMPAIGNERS have spoken of their disappointment after a major housing development was given the all-clear by planners.

Skipton Properties was today granted permission to build 104 homes, including 16 affordable homes, on green fields off Ryedale Way, Allerton, Bradford.

The decision was taken at Bradford Council's Regulatory and Appeals Committee today, which had deferred a decision on the matter twice at previous meetings.

The committee discussed concerns over drainage, sustainability, highways safety, the new homes overlooking other properties, the type of housing, potential contamination of the site and whether the developer could fund a footpath upgrade.

Agent John Steel said Skipton Properties was offering community contributions worth £1.354 million, under Section 106 agreements, for local schools, open spaces and affordable homes.

The committee eventually approved the application, with committee member Councillor Doreen Lee saying: "We have looked at this long and hard. I think we have done everything the petitioners have asked us to."

Afterwards, objector Josiah Sulc said he was "very disappointed" with the result.

He said: "There are derelict sites within half a mile that would take five times the housing that has been approved.

"This is an ancient field that has now been permanently removed."

The committee also granted outline planning consent for a plan for around 14 homes on pasture land off Wilsden Road, Sandy Lane, Bradford.

Councillor Malcolm Sykes raised concerns about a nearby pond, which he said was "more like a lake".

He said in recent years this had flooded, with residents having to evacuate their homes.

But Melissa Wilson, agent for Springfield Land Limited, said while the applicant did not own the land the pond was in, she agreed to pass on a request for them to look into the issue.

And Bradford Council itself was granted permission for a new complex for the elderly in Saltaire.

The scheme will be built on the site of the now-demolished Ferncliffe Court care home and Neville Grange day centre.

It includes 45 apartments for the elderly, as well as 20 en-suite bedrooms to provide short-term care for those recovering from an illness or crisis.

Cllr Lee said: "We need this facility."

But fellow committee member, Councillor Malcolm Sykes, said he had concerns over the use of red brick, which English Heritage was not keen on so close to Saltaire village, and called for the designers to look again at this.

Comments (19)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:39pm Wed 16 Jul 14

bobbyo says...

Planners got it wrong yet again !
Planners got it wrong yet again ! bobbyo
  • Score: 6

5:00pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Thee Voice of Reason says...

Does the council not like green land?

Peoples children will end up playing in the road as there will be no green areas left to kick a football or ride a bike.
Does the council not like green land? Peoples children will end up playing in the road as there will be no green areas left to kick a football or ride a bike. Thee Voice of Reason
  • Score: 11

5:13pm Wed 16 Jul 14

linebacker2 says...

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
Does the council not like green land?

Peoples children will end up playing in the road as there will be no green areas left to kick a football or ride a bike.
As is quite evident from the photo, this land is being used a dog toilet and thus not suitable for children to play on. There's also the small matter of trespassing.

You mention play areas for children - what about homes for when they grow up?
[quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: Does the council not like green land? Peoples children will end up playing in the road as there will be no green areas left to kick a football or ride a bike.[/p][/quote]As is quite evident from the photo, this land is being used a dog toilet and thus not suitable for children to play on. There's also the small matter of trespassing. You mention play areas for children - what about homes for when they grow up? linebacker2
  • Score: 2

5:27pm Wed 16 Jul 14

ConcernedOne says...

linebacker2 wrote:
Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
Does the council not like green land?

Peoples children will end up playing in the road as there will be no green areas left to kick a football or ride a bike.
As is quite evident from the photo, this land is being used a dog toilet and thus not suitable for children to play on. There's also the small matter of trespassing.

You mention play areas for children - what about homes for when they grow up?
Got news for you....ALL fields have had a dog on them more than once.....
[quote][p][bold]linebacker2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: Does the council not like green land? Peoples children will end up playing in the road as there will be no green areas left to kick a football or ride a bike.[/p][/quote]As is quite evident from the photo, this land is being used a dog toilet and thus not suitable for children to play on. There's also the small matter of trespassing. You mention play areas for children - what about homes for when they grow up?[/p][/quote]Got news for you....ALL fields have had a dog on them more than once..... ConcernedOne
  • Score: 8

6:10pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Thee Voice of Reason says...

linebacker2 wrote:
Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
Does the council not like green land?

Peoples children will end up playing in the road as there will be no green areas left to kick a football or ride a bike.
As is quite evident from the photo, this land is being used a dog toilet and thus not suitable for children to play on. There's also the small matter of trespassing.

You mention play areas for children - what about homes for when they grow up?
Why not build on the brownfield sites availible as mentioned in the article?
[quote][p][bold]linebacker2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: Does the council not like green land? Peoples children will end up playing in the road as there will be no green areas left to kick a football or ride a bike.[/p][/quote]As is quite evident from the photo, this land is being used a dog toilet and thus not suitable for children to play on. There's also the small matter of trespassing. You mention play areas for children - what about homes for when they grow up?[/p][/quote]Why not build on the brownfield sites availible as mentioned in the article? Thee Voice of Reason
  • Score: 9

7:36pm Wed 16 Jul 14

linebacker2 says...

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
linebacker2 wrote:
Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
Does the council not like green land?

Peoples children will end up playing in the road as there will be no green areas left to kick a football or ride a bike.
As is quite evident from the photo, this land is being used a dog toilet and thus not suitable for children to play on. There's also the small matter of trespassing.

You mention play areas for children - what about homes for when they grow up?
Why not build on the brownfield sites availible as mentioned in the article?
Two reasons spring to mind.

(1) Developing on brownfield sites can be risky. For example contaminated land costs a fortune to clean up.

(2) Very few people want to live on brownfield sites - that's often the very reason they're available in the first place. On the other hand it's usually quite easy to offload new builds in greenfields.

Would you yourself move to a brownfield site, or just expect others to?
[quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]linebacker2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: Does the council not like green land? Peoples children will end up playing in the road as there will be no green areas left to kick a football or ride a bike.[/p][/quote]As is quite evident from the photo, this land is being used a dog toilet and thus not suitable for children to play on. There's also the small matter of trespassing. You mention play areas for children - what about homes for when they grow up?[/p][/quote]Why not build on the brownfield sites availible as mentioned in the article?[/p][/quote]Two reasons spring to mind. (1) Developing on brownfield sites can be risky. For example contaminated land costs a fortune to clean up. (2) Very few people want to live on brownfield sites - that's often the very reason they're available in the first place. On the other hand it's usually quite easy to offload new builds in greenfields. Would you yourself move to a brownfield site, or just expect others to? linebacker2
  • Score: 1

7:51pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Albion. says...

Interesting that councillor Sykes should have doubts about red bricks for the Saltaire development, when the two buildings that it replaces were both red brick.
Interesting that councillor Sykes should have doubts about red bricks for the Saltaire development, when the two buildings that it replaces were both red brick. Albion.
  • Score: 10

8:38pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Thee Voice of Reason says...

linebacker2 wrote:
Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
linebacker2 wrote:
Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
Does the council not like green land?

Peoples children will end up playing in the road as there will be no green areas left to kick a football or ride a bike.
As is quite evident from the photo, this land is being used a dog toilet and thus not suitable for children to play on. There's also the small matter of trespassing.

You mention play areas for children - what about homes for when they grow up?
Why not build on the brownfield sites availible as mentioned in the article?
Two reasons spring to mind.

(1) Developing on brownfield sites can be risky. For example contaminated land costs a fortune to clean up.

(2) Very few people want to live on brownfield sites - that's often the very reason they're available in the first place. On the other hand it's usually quite easy to offload new builds in greenfields.

Would you yourself move to a brownfield site, or just expect others to?
I live on a Brownfield site.
[quote][p][bold]linebacker2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]linebacker2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: Does the council not like green land? Peoples children will end up playing in the road as there will be no green areas left to kick a football or ride a bike.[/p][/quote]As is quite evident from the photo, this land is being used a dog toilet and thus not suitable for children to play on. There's also the small matter of trespassing. You mention play areas for children - what about homes for when they grow up?[/p][/quote]Why not build on the brownfield sites availible as mentioned in the article?[/p][/quote]Two reasons spring to mind. (1) Developing on brownfield sites can be risky. For example contaminated land costs a fortune to clean up. (2) Very few people want to live on brownfield sites - that's often the very reason they're available in the first place. On the other hand it's usually quite easy to offload new builds in greenfields. Would you yourself move to a brownfield site, or just expect others to?[/p][/quote]I live on a Brownfield site. Thee Voice of Reason
  • Score: 8

10:31pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Its Granola - Granola says...

Seems the sales of large brown envelopes are extremely high in the Bradford area at the moment !!!!!!.
What a set of TO$$ERS this council are ,greedy ,ignorant to the public's views , and a dont give a SH!T attitude.
And before i called a NIMBY i dont live in Bradford anymore but i do take an interest in whats going on in my old place .
Seems the sales of large brown envelopes are extremely high in the Bradford area at the moment !!!!!!. What a set of TO$$ERS this council are ,greedy ,ignorant to the public's views , and a dont give a SH!T attitude. And before i called a NIMBY i dont live in Bradford anymore but i do take an interest in whats going on in my old place . Its Granola - Granola
  • Score: 2

7:44am Thu 17 Jul 14

linebacker2 says...

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
linebacker2 wrote:
Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
linebacker2 wrote:
Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
Does the council not like green land?

Peoples children will end up playing in the road as there will be no green areas left to kick a football or ride a bike.
As is quite evident from the photo, this land is being used a dog toilet and thus not suitable for children to play on. There's also the small matter of trespassing.

You mention play areas for children - what about homes for when they grow up?
Why not build on the brownfield sites availible as mentioned in the article?
Two reasons spring to mind.

(1) Developing on brownfield sites can be risky. For example contaminated land costs a fortune to clean up.

(2) Very few people want to live on brownfield sites - that's often the very reason they're available in the first place. On the other hand it's usually quite easy to offload new builds in greenfields.

Would you yourself move to a brownfield site, or just expect others to?
I live on a Brownfield site.
And unless your home's a cave, it was once a greenfield site.
[quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]linebacker2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]linebacker2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: Does the council not like green land? Peoples children will end up playing in the road as there will be no green areas left to kick a football or ride a bike.[/p][/quote]As is quite evident from the photo, this land is being used a dog toilet and thus not suitable for children to play on. There's also the small matter of trespassing. You mention play areas for children - what about homes for when they grow up?[/p][/quote]Why not build on the brownfield sites availible as mentioned in the article?[/p][/quote]Two reasons spring to mind. (1) Developing on brownfield sites can be risky. For example contaminated land costs a fortune to clean up. (2) Very few people want to live on brownfield sites - that's often the very reason they're available in the first place. On the other hand it's usually quite easy to offload new builds in greenfields. Would you yourself move to a brownfield site, or just expect others to?[/p][/quote]I live on a Brownfield site.[/p][/quote]And unless your home's a cave, it was once a greenfield site. linebacker2
  • Score: 0

10:38am Thu 17 Jul 14

heroutdoors says...

Funny you should mention that linebacker - there is a cave in the quarry next to where these houses are now going to be built. When homes which are 40+ years old were built, there wasn't an issue with greenfield/brownfiel
d sites; there was land aplenty. Now, with virgin land being build upon, we're seeing flooding where flooding wasn't before. Since the Persimmon homes at the top of Allerton Lane were built, there is now a constant stream of water lower down on Allerton Lane; coincidence?
Funny you should mention that linebacker - there is a cave in the quarry next to where these houses are now going to be built. When homes which are 40+ years old were built, there wasn't an issue with greenfield/brownfiel d sites; there was land aplenty. Now, with virgin land being build upon, we're seeing flooding where flooding wasn't before. Since the Persimmon homes at the top of Allerton Lane were built, there is now a constant stream of water lower down on Allerton Lane; coincidence? heroutdoors
  • Score: 0

1:20pm Thu 17 Jul 14

Bradford15 says...

It's not 'used as a dog toilet'. It's an open field with non-gated access at several points that the landowner has allowed local residents access to for many years. The users aren't trespassing at all. Can't help wondering about the access arrangements for this new development as this piece of land is already hemmed in by housing. And a well used playing field.

The arguments about this piece of land have been going on for decades, but applications were blocked previously on account of concerns about access, drainage provision etc. Makes you wonder what's changed (except for envelopes of cash under the table of course).
It's not 'used as a dog toilet'. It's an open field with non-gated access at several points that the landowner has allowed local residents access to for many years. The users aren't trespassing at all. Can't help wondering about the access arrangements for this new development as this piece of land is already hemmed in by housing. And a well used playing field. The arguments about this piece of land have been going on for decades, but applications were blocked previously on account of concerns about access, drainage provision etc. Makes you wonder what's changed (except for envelopes of cash under the table of course). Bradford15
  • Score: -1

1:31pm Thu 17 Jul 14

idf fanclub says...

Yet again - and again and again and again...

Bradford's Regen and Planning Nazis ignore the people.

They always grant permission to developers, apart from the odd token objection to someone putting up a minor extension to their garden shed.

It's not more houses we need in this city. It's less people. Whatever happened to birth and population control?

Barfdord has the second fastest growing population in the UK. Which our useless Council senior management think is a good thing. Why?
Why is more people good for us?

This fast growing population is putting an overload on the infrastructure and facilities.

Not forgetting the high percentage of congenital mental and physical kids being born - that are "God's will."

Welcome to the future folks. A massive population of dumbos all standing shoulder to shoulder on what used to be free open space.

Enjoy.
Yet again - and again and again and again... Bradford's Regen and Planning Nazis ignore the people. They always grant permission to developers, apart from the odd token objection to someone putting up a minor extension to their garden shed. It's not more houses we need in this city. It's less people. Whatever happened to birth and population control? Barfdord has the second fastest growing population in the UK. Which our useless Council senior management think is a good thing. Why? Why is more people good for us? This fast growing population is putting an overload on the infrastructure and facilities. Not forgetting the high percentage of congenital mental and physical kids being born - that are "God's will." Welcome to the future folks. A massive population of dumbos all standing shoulder to shoulder on what used to be free open space. Enjoy. idf fanclub
  • Score: 0

1:35pm Thu 17 Jul 14

linebacker2 says...

heroutdoors wrote:
Funny you should mention that linebacker - there is a cave in the quarry next to where these houses are now going to be built. When homes which are 40+ years old were built, there wasn't an issue with greenfield/brownfiel

d sites; there was land aplenty. Now, with virgin land being build upon, we're seeing flooding where flooding wasn't before. Since the Persimmon homes at the top of Allerton Lane were built, there is now a constant stream of water lower down on Allerton Lane; coincidence?
Your history's quite at odds with reality.

These arguments over developments are nothing new, they've been going on for decades. Chances are your house being built would have been the target of local NIMBY's at the time

The "Council for the protection of rural England" was formed in 1926 and the first "green belt" was introduced around London in 1580.
[quote][p][bold]heroutdoors[/bold] wrote: Funny you should mention that linebacker - there is a cave in the quarry next to where these houses are now going to be built. When homes which are 40+ years old were built, there wasn't an issue with greenfield/brownfiel d sites; there was land aplenty. Now, with virgin land being build upon, we're seeing flooding where flooding wasn't before. Since the Persimmon homes at the top of Allerton Lane were built, there is now a constant stream of water lower down on Allerton Lane; coincidence?[/p][/quote]Your history's quite at odds with reality. These arguments over developments are nothing new, they've been going on for decades. Chances are your house being built would have been the target of local NIMBY's at the time The "Council for the protection of rural England" was formed in 1926 and the first "green belt" was introduced around London in 1580. linebacker2
  • Score: 2

12:13pm Fri 18 Jul 14

heroutdoors says...

Time to get off your high horse my dear and use a different mode of transport to visit six brown field sites adjacent to established housing: AIS building in Cemetery Road, Woolcomber's building in Thornton Road, Seabrook's Crisps (not razed to the ground yet but derelict for many years), Grattan building in Ingleby Road, United States Metallic Packing Company in Allerton Road and Field's Printers in Lidget Green.
Time to get off your high horse my dear and use a different mode of transport to visit six brown field sites adjacent to established housing: AIS building in Cemetery Road, Woolcomber's building in Thornton Road, Seabrook's Crisps (not razed to the ground yet but derelict for many years), Grattan building in Ingleby Road, United States Metallic Packing Company in Allerton Road and Field's Printers in Lidget Green. heroutdoors
  • Score: 0

2:45am Mon 4 Aug 14

steeton stallion says...

You objectors were onto a loser from the start. In Steeton 300 objections to a large estate were all ignored by the planners as indeed was the findings of a public inquiry. This inquiry stated that there would be 2 access roads from this site and went into great detail about the layout of the road junctions but the agent for the developer a certain John Steel told the planners "there will be one access road from this site and that is non negotiable" Yes you've guessed right the planners did as they were told and there is just the one road to the site. By the way Doreen Lee chaired that planning panel as well.
You objectors were onto a loser from the start. In Steeton 300 objections to a large estate were all ignored by the planners as indeed was the findings of a public inquiry. This inquiry stated that there would be 2 access roads from this site and went into great detail about the layout of the road junctions but the agent for the developer a certain John Steel told the planners "there will be one access road from this site and that is non negotiable" Yes you've guessed right the planners did as they were told and there is just the one road to the site. By the way Doreen Lee chaired that planning panel as well. steeton stallion
  • Score: 0

10:14am Mon 4 Aug 14

heroutdoors says...

You are partly right steeton stallion. In the early 90s it was proposed to build houses on this site, but the access would have been down an unmade road; obviously the building company would have had to make this into a proper road. The entry to the proposed estate was just after a bend, opposite another road and not far from a fork in the road. VERY DANGEROUS. I printed out 250 letters of objection and with an envelope addressed to the council, I posted this through the letterboxes of residents who would have been adversely affected. The planned housing didn’t go ahead. BUT, now these planned houses will be built and guess where the access to these houses will be, ON MY ROAD. Sometimes it pays to keep one’s mouth shut!!
You are partly right steeton stallion. In the early 90s it was proposed to build houses on this site, but the access would have been down an unmade road; obviously the building company would have had to make this into a proper road. The entry to the proposed estate was just after a bend, opposite another road and not far from a fork in the road. VERY DANGEROUS. I printed out 250 letters of objection and with an envelope addressed to the council, I posted this through the letterboxes of residents who would have been adversely affected. The planned housing didn’t go ahead. BUT, now these planned houses will be built and guess where the access to these houses will be, ON MY ROAD. Sometimes it pays to keep one’s mouth shut!! heroutdoors
  • Score: 0

10:47am Mon 4 Aug 14

steeton stallion says...

I'm afraid it doesn't matter if you keep your mouth shut or object to any large building developments. You know, and it would appear so does the majority of the public, in the Bradford area that the planning panel will ignore all objections by the public and always give the developers whatever they want. In fact one ex councillor who sat on most planning panels actually admitted, at a meeting, that he ignored the views of objectors, fortunately he lost his seat at the last elections, but you know the old saying about one rotten apple in a barrel.
I'm afraid it doesn't matter if you keep your mouth shut or object to any large building developments. You know, and it would appear so does the majority of the public, in the Bradford area that the planning panel will ignore all objections by the public and always give the developers whatever they want. In fact one ex councillor who sat on most planning panels actually admitted, at a meeting, that he ignored the views of objectors, fortunately he lost his seat at the last elections, but you know the old saying about one rotten apple in a barrel. steeton stallion
  • Score: 0

1:07pm Mon 4 Aug 14

heroutdoors says...

You've hit the nail on the head. They (absolutely more often than not) ignore the public's objections. A few years ago a developer wanted to build houses on Pitty Beck, a beautiful area down Allerton Lane. Objections by the hundreds were lodged and the planning committee vetoed the plans. You'd think the objectors had won wouldn't you? No - the developer then submitted plans to build the houses about a quarter of a mile higher up Allerton Lane and I don't even need to tell you the outcome do I? The schools round here are almost full, the dentists aren't taking any more patients, the health centres are usually full when one visits them, and so on. When the school system went from three tier to two tier a few years ago, what did the council do? Sold off a heck of a lot of schools, which became housing developments. Forward thinking our councillors, aren't they?
You've hit the nail on the head. They (absolutely more often than not) ignore the public's objections. A few years ago a developer wanted to build houses on Pitty Beck, a beautiful area down Allerton Lane. Objections by the hundreds were lodged and the planning committee vetoed the plans. You'd think the objectors had won wouldn't you? No - the developer then submitted plans to build the houses about a quarter of a mile higher up Allerton Lane and I don't even need to tell you the outcome do I? The schools round here are almost full, the dentists aren't taking any more patients, the health centres are usually full when one visits them, and so on. When the school system went from three tier to two tier a few years ago, what did the council do? Sold off a heck of a lot of schools, which became housing developments. Forward thinking our councillors, aren't they? heroutdoors
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

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