Anger at U-turn over greenfield housing site

Coun Malcolm Sykes Coun Malcolm Sykes

Campaigners vowed to continue their fight against plans for 292 homes on greenfield land in Allerton after councillors made a shock u-turn and withdrew their objection to the scheme during an emergency meeting yesterday.

Members of Bradford Council’s Regulatory and Appeals Committee said their “hands were tied” as they agreed to withdraw their objections to the development at Pitty Beck after hearing the firm behind the plans had offered to increase its contribution towards education provision in the area.

Last month, the Telegraph & Argus reported how protesters believed they had scuppered a re-worked plan for the Allerton Lane scheme when Bradford councillors found there were still three major grounds to refuse the application – its low contribution to improving schools, only offering a small amount of affordable housing and no offer of Metro assistance to residents.

An original plan, which was rejected by Bradford Council, was due to go to a public inquiry in November.

But yesterday’s meeting heard developers Hallam Land Management had sent a letter to the Council offering to increase its contribution towards education – a week before the committee was to send its reasons for refusal to the Planning Inspectorate.

Four of the six members of the committee voted in favour of withdrawing its objection in light of the improved offer after hearing it could stave off the threat of a public inquiry.

But speaking after the meeting, Coun Malcolm Sykes (Con, Thornton and Allerton), who has campaigned against the scheme, said: “This fight is not over.And we will continue to fight for a transparent explanation of what has gone on.

“The fact is that after so much deliberation over nine months, the developers only made this offer on Friday when there was no time for the officers to do anything and now everything had to suddenly be rushed through. That meant people were not able to oppose this properly. It’s not right.

“I don’t think there was any intention of this going to appeal. Now all objections will be dropped and everyone will go home happy, except for all those local residents who opposed this throughout and thought they’d fought the good fight and won.”

A supplementary report, prepared for the committee, said Hallam Land Management would now give £1,050,000 towards education provision compared to the £237,833 it had initially offered, but would offer no affordable housing as part of the scheme.

It will also give around £462,167 towards highways improvements.

The document warned members if the application went to a public inquiry, either side could apply for costs and “experience has shown that awards of costs can result in the payment of substantial sums”.

Councillor Imran Khan (Lab, Bowling and Barkerend) said: “There’s a very good chance that when this goes to appeal we will not get any money and we will be in a position where Bradford taxpayers are having to find £1 million to put into education in the area.

“I think our hands are tied on this. We have gone through all the arguments and I don’t think we have a choice.”

But Coun Sykes urged the committee to continue with its objection, saying: “I find it a very distressing situation to find myself in, where you are being presented with a report that gives you no opposing views.”

David Hemsley, chairman of Friends of Pitty Beck, an action group against the plan, said he and its members were disgusted that planners had steamrollered the matter through at such speed.

“We only found out about this meeting the night before with no time to make arrangements to attend,” he said.

“That’s not democratic or even fair - it’s been a one-way street in favour of the developers.”

Coun Anne Hawkesworth said she would abstain from the vote, while Coun Valerie Binney voted against the deal.

Comments(20)

markjoe says...
10:11am Thu 11 Oct 12

Money talks! It got rejected on 3 grounds and it appears only one of those reasons has been met.

Surely its the council whole are supposed to run the district that are the ones who should say whether this can go ahead, and by saying their 'hands are tied' is a joke. Maybe if this council 'grew a pair' the city would not be in the state its in.

Enforce the developers to provided the money up front and if any building work to schools or improvements to the road network needs to be done and completed before the houses are finished.

Bacon Bantam says...
10:12am Thu 11 Oct 12

Councillor Imran Khan (Lab, Bowling and Barkerend) said: “There’s a very good chance that when this goes to appeal we will not get any money and we will be in a position where Bradford taxpayers are having to find £1 million to put into education in the area.

This quote which appears like blackmail is no suprise from a man who voted for planning permission for the Tradex bazaar.

Mike Strutter says...
12:21pm Thu 11 Oct 12

Obviously they don't care about the affordable housing then !!

Question to the councillors :

If as has been previously mentioned that all nearby schools are full, how will the £1m be utilised ?

It certainly won't fund a school so where will the influx of kids go to school and where will the money go ?

Shipleyvegas says...
1:28pm Thu 11 Oct 12

This is a disgrace

One out of Three reasons has been met.

So what about the other TWO?

Bacon Bantam says...
1:40pm Thu 11 Oct 12

Councillor Imran Khan (Lab, Bowling and Barkerend) said: “There’s a very good chance that when this goes to appeal we will not get any money and we will be in a position where Bradford taxpayers are having to find £1 million to put into education in the area.

Yet in another story education in Bradford appears to have sufficient money to sponsor the Bulls, how the hell does that work?

BigFigure says...
2:32pm Thu 11 Oct 12

If the houses are not built, then the funding for road improvements and school places in the area wouldn't be needed...

BigFigure says...
2:32pm Thu 11 Oct 12

If the houses are not built, then the funding for road improvements and school places in the area wouldn't be needed...

t'oldun says...
3:16pm Thu 11 Oct 12

Once more the ELECTED Councilors on this commitee ride roughshod over the ELECTORS.
They have been put in that position by the people to reflect the views of the people.
Not to express their own views.
There are other good reasons why this application should have been rejected.
Once more Bradford Councillors are bending over backwards to court an International company to curry favour
Remember Serco's failure(Education Bradford) The Odean fiasco and not to mention Westfield
All these failures cost the ratepayers millions but the councilors are still in their positions claiming their large expences

Bacon Bantam says...
3:31pm Thu 11 Oct 12

A councillor for the area has compained on behalf of the people of the area against the houses, yet councillors from other wards and with nothing to do with the area are happy to wave it through.

Democracy in action.

ANY WHERE BUT HERE says...
3:48pm Thu 11 Oct 12

It seems the will of the people doesn't matter any more,Remember that when it comes round to voting.
Does Bradford need more homes no,Do we need to stop immigration yes.

mad matt says...
4:43pm Thu 11 Oct 12

So who is getting a nice big bribe for this shambles then?

TirNaNog says...
5:12pm Thu 11 Oct 12

Kerching - someone is going to have a nice Christmas. Nice work if you can get it Councillor!

collos25 says...
5:34pm Thu 11 Oct 12

Brown envelopes.

Qasim Khan says...
6:25pm Thu 11 Oct 12

Decisions are not made on merit and political partisanship has been very evident in this case and all parties are guilty of this.This is nothing new and it doesn't surprise me whatsoever..!

Mik_e says...
6:53pm Thu 11 Oct 12

Is this not a bribe ? Which is now illegal.

Apollo says...
8:07pm Thu 11 Oct 12

Once the Tradex fiasco was allowed that was the end of planning in Bradford. Next bang goes the Green Belt.

Well done Cllr Khan - I blame you.

tinytoonster says...
9:20pm Thu 11 Oct 12

cannot get the money from the town centre so lets do it from council tax income eh?!!
how many properties are sat empty anyway?
fill these 1st!!

Mike Strutter says...
6:06am Fri 12 Oct 12

Mik_e wrote:
Is this not a bribe ? Which is now illegal.
It's all above board and called a section 106, formerly known as a brown envelope

jozieme says...
8:23am Fri 12 Oct 12

At various neighbourhood meetings regarding this development,many points of logical issues against deveopment were aired, we were listened to, but all of us felt that it was a wasted excersize' .No-one on the planning committee side or Halam mangaement saw the area for what it is, natural beauty to be enjoyed by future generations.., When the only objections to the previous meeting were that there was not enough money on the table for schools improvements .(.that was the only stumbling block)..They didn't even consider the Woolcombers site in Thornton Road which has laid fallow for years and is equally as big as Allerton lane Site, no question of forcing brownfields sites to be taken up first..this decision is the same colour and smell as the sileaging that goes on in this valley.
Thanks Councillor Sykes for your many fights on our behalf to get this development f refused.. tap the matt!

t'oldun says...
5:40pm Sat 13 Oct 12

The reason Hallam will not consider the Woolcombers site or any other brownfield site is that it would cost Them money to clean the sites up as most of these sites have been contaminated with asbestos fibres and chemicals therefore they will not make enough profit for their stockholders. The fact that Allerton Lane is not a suitable road for the amount of new traffic generated by this development due to its width and steepness of incline was not considered

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