Homes on green land suggestion rubbished by Bradford campaigners and councillors

Bradford Telegraph and Argus: Terry Brown Terry Brown

Planning minister Nick Boles has been blasted by campaigners – and even a councillor from his own party – after suggesting that a third more of the countryside should be built on.

Mr Boles’s claim, that the only way out of the housing crisis was to build many more homes on open land, has been called “absolute madness” by Councillor John Pennington, planning spokesman for the Conservative group at Bradford Council.

In an interview on BBC’s Newsnight, Mr Boles said: “In the UK and England at the moment we’ve got about nine per cent of land developed. All we need to do is build on another two to three per cent of land and we’ll have solved a housing problem.”

Mr Boles said he did not want “lazy” builders to build “pig ugly” houses, and urged them to work with local communities.

He said: “The built environment can be more beautiful than nature and we shouldn’t obsess about the fact that the only landscapes that are beautiful are open – sometimes buildings are better.”

But Coun Pennington (Con, Bingley) said: “In my view this is absolute madness.

“I think there are two angles to this. Firstly, we should develop the brownfield sites we already have and we shouldn’t dig up a single square metre of virgin grassland.

“Secondly, it’s all right saying build all these new houses, but who is going to afford to buy them? Because people can’t get mortgages. The housing market is absolutely on its knees.”

Councillor Val Slater, the executive member for housing on the Labour-run Council, said Mr Boles’s idea was too simplistic.

She said: “I do acknowledge the need for more homes, given the increasing population in Bradford and recent figures showing how many people we have got on the waiting lists for affordable homes.

“However, we need to offer the right homes in the right place at the right price.”

Coun Slater said Bradford Council was working hard to get more brownfield sites developed and more empty homes brought back into use, but she added that there were not enough previously-developed sites to meet demand.

A campaigner fighting development on green fields near Bingley also called for any new homes to be built on brownfield sites first.

Terry Brown is chairman of the Greenhill Action Group, which is opposing plans by developers Bellway and Redrow to build up to 440 homes on canalside land in Sty Lane, Micklethwaite.

The plans have been rejected by Local Government and Communities Secretary Eric Pickles but the developers have signalled their intent to mount a legal challenge to it.

Mr Brown said: “We really believe brownfield sites should be developed before any greenfield sites, let alone green belt land.”

He said the Government had also acknowledged the importance of green spaces to people’s health and happiness.

One developer which wants to build homes on brownfield land is Town Centre Securities Limited, which is working on plans to build about 82 homes on part of the Barratts shoes site in Apperley Bridge.

David Woolman, the company’s asset manager, said about 15 per cent of the homes would be classed as affordable housing.

He said it was the kind of development that should be encouraged.

He said: “It’s run down and disused really, so this is the kind of site the I would have thought the politicians would like to see houses built on.”

He said they were aiming to apply for outline planning permission before Christmas.

Comments (18)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:37am Thu 29 Nov 12

White-Wrose says...

Exactly the response expected from the people who don't have to live in the towns and cities where people are crammed in like sardines and can barely see the sky let alone green fields! They are only interested in maintaining their own little countryside havens and to hell with anyone else.
Exactly the response expected from the people who don't have to live in the towns and cities where people are crammed in like sardines and can barely see the sky let alone green fields! They are only interested in maintaining their own little countryside havens and to hell with anyone else. White-Wrose

8:02am Thu 29 Nov 12

monobrow man says...

White-Wrose wrote:
Exactly the response expected from the people who don't have to live in the towns and cities where people are crammed in like sardines and can barely see the sky let alone green fields! They are only interested in maintaining their own little countryside havens and to hell with anyone else.
We won't be making any more land anytime soon, so how's about building on the disused factory sites and tidying updisued houses.
[quote][p][bold]White-Wrose[/bold] wrote: Exactly the response expected from the people who don't have to live in the towns and cities where people are crammed in like sardines and can barely see the sky let alone green fields! They are only interested in maintaining their own little countryside havens and to hell with anyone else.[/p][/quote]We won't be making any more land anytime soon, so how's about building on the disused factory sites and tidying updisued houses. monobrow man

8:38am Thu 29 Nov 12

BertSanders says...

The population of the country is just too large and methods of regulating it should be considered.
The population of the country is just too large and methods of regulating it should be considered. BertSanders

8:59am Thu 29 Nov 12

allannicho says...

Why not cure the cause? the Elephant
in the room is un- fettered Immigration into the country.
250,000 a year still, did,nt "Call me Dave" state he would bring it down?
Why not cure the cause? the Elephant in the room is un- fettered Immigration into the country. 250,000 a year still, did,nt "Call me Dave" state he would bring it down? allannicho

10:32am Thu 29 Nov 12

Albion. says...

I think the "one third" comment was a huge exaggeration.
I think the "one third" comment was a huge exaggeration. Albion.

11:10am Thu 29 Nov 12

MontyLeMar says...

I think Pennington's got it right, the price of houses is already way too high and people are finding it near impossible to get mortgages. Potential first time buyers are stuck in expensive rented property and can't save for a deposit. Who's going to buy all these new houses?
I think Pennington's got it right, the price of houses is already way too high and people are finding it near impossible to get mortgages. Potential first time buyers are stuck in expensive rented property and can't save for a deposit. Who's going to buy all these new houses? MontyLeMar

12:19pm Thu 29 Nov 12

Bone_idle18 says...

allannicho wrote:
Why not cure the cause? the Elephant
in the room is un- fettered Immigration into the country.
250,000 a year still, did,nt "Call me Dave" state he would bring it down?
Latest figures show a drop of 25% in Net Migration.

The population growth in Bradford isn't just migration though, here's a lot of large families.
[quote][p][bold]allannicho[/bold] wrote: Why not cure the cause? the Elephant in the room is un- fettered Immigration into the country. 250,000 a year still, did,nt "Call me Dave" state he would bring it down?[/p][/quote]Latest figures show a drop of 25% in Net Migration. The population growth in Bradford isn't just migration though, here's a lot of large families. Bone_idle18

2:01pm Thu 29 Nov 12

markjoe says...

MontyLeMar wrote:
I think Pennington's got it right, the price of houses is already way too high and people are finding it near impossible to get mortgages. Potential first time buyers are stuck in expensive rented property and can't save for a deposit. Who's going to buy all these new houses?
I agree with what Penningtons saying but its a bit of a catch 22 situation, if there aren't enough house then prices are higher as there are more buyers then sellers so would building more houses bring the prices down? but on the other side the buyers are being priced out of the market before they start with the huge deposits.

What has not been considered or even mentioned is that the council are saying we need all these houses but have never mentioned where the children are going to school as there full, how the adults are going to get to work the road network is over congested and the public transport prices increasing. By all means plan for where to build the house but we need to plan the infrastructure first.
[quote][p][bold]MontyLeMar[/bold] wrote: I think Pennington's got it right, the price of houses is already way too high and people are finding it near impossible to get mortgages. Potential first time buyers are stuck in expensive rented property and can't save for a deposit. Who's going to buy all these new houses?[/p][/quote]I agree with what Penningtons saying but its a bit of a catch 22 situation, if there aren't enough house then prices are higher as there are more buyers then sellers so would building more houses bring the prices down? but on the other side the buyers are being priced out of the market before they start with the huge deposits. What has not been considered or even mentioned is that the council are saying we need all these houses but have never mentioned where the children are going to school as there full, how the adults are going to get to work the road network is over congested and the public transport prices increasing. By all means plan for where to build the house but we need to plan the infrastructure first. markjoe

2:24pm Thu 29 Nov 12

webess says...

monobrow man wrote:
White-Wrose wrote:
Exactly the response expected from the people who don't have to live in the towns and cities where people are crammed in like sardines and can barely see the sky let alone green fields! They are only interested in maintaining their own little countryside havens and to hell with anyone else.
We won't be making any more land anytime soon, so how's about building on the disused factory sites and tidying updisued houses.
Do you live on a brownfield site yourself or just expect others to do so?
[quote][p][bold]monobrow man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]White-Wrose[/bold] wrote: Exactly the response expected from the people who don't have to live in the towns and cities where people are crammed in like sardines and can barely see the sky let alone green fields! They are only interested in maintaining their own little countryside havens and to hell with anyone else.[/p][/quote]We won't be making any more land anytime soon, so how's about building on the disused factory sites and tidying updisued houses.[/p][/quote]Do you live on a brownfield site yourself or just expect others to do so? webess

2:35pm Thu 29 Nov 12

Jackie Thompson says...

Hi (particularly White-Wrose).

You've misunderstood the strategy of the volume housebuilders (eg Taylor Wimpey, Barratt, Redrow & Persimmon) They want to land bank and drip feed development on highly desirable geen field sites to sustain property prices . That is how, during an economic downturn they intend to bump up their profits. Don't be fooled. They've no interest whatsoever in building houses so the poorer members of society (or even the average Jo) can buy or even rent them. If they had, they would be building new houses in central Bradford & Keighley. And they've no interest in building lots and lots of houses so prices fall dramatically.This stupid NPPF will help the major developers to drive out smaller competitors and acquire landbanks which will enable them to manipulate the housing market to maintain high prices for the foreseeable future.

It's absolute stupidity to assume that the developers will basically give away these houses they want to build on the prime greenfield sites in the District to the huddled masses who can't even afford to get on the housing ladder in places where houses cost £70K.

If you don't believe me just google some of the housing & construction industry trade magazines that are on line.

Start with 'Inside Housing' & be sure to trace back through their back copies. You can get their updates too:

updates@e.insidehous
ing.co.uk
Hi (particularly White-Wrose). You've misunderstood the strategy of the volume housebuilders (eg Taylor Wimpey, Barratt, Redrow & Persimmon) They want to land bank and drip feed development on highly desirable geen field sites to sustain property prices . That is how, during an economic downturn they intend to bump up their profits. Don't be fooled. They've no interest whatsoever in building houses so the poorer members of society (or even the average Jo) can buy or even rent them. If they had, they would be building new houses in central Bradford & Keighley. And they've no interest in building lots and lots of houses so prices fall dramatically.This stupid NPPF will help the major developers to drive out smaller competitors and acquire landbanks which will enable them to manipulate the housing market to maintain high prices for the foreseeable future. It's absolute stupidity to assume that the developers will basically give away these houses they want to build on the prime greenfield sites in the District to the huddled masses who can't even afford to get on the housing ladder in places where houses cost £70K. If you don't believe me just google some of the housing & construction industry trade magazines that are on line. Start with 'Inside Housing' & be sure to trace back through their back copies. You can get their updates too: updates@e.insidehous ing.co.uk Jackie Thompson

3:30pm Thu 29 Nov 12

webess says...

Jackie Thompson wrote:
Hi (particularly White-Wrose).

You've misunderstood the strategy of the volume housebuilders (eg Taylor Wimpey, Barratt, Redrow & Persimmon) They want to land bank and drip feed development on highly desirable geen field sites to sustain property prices . That is how, during an economic downturn they intend to bump up their profits. Don't be fooled. They've no interest whatsoever in building houses so the poorer members of society (or even the average Jo) can buy or even rent them. If they had, they would be building new houses in central Bradford & Keighley. And they've no interest in building lots and lots of houses so prices fall dramatically.This stupid NPPF will help the major developers to drive out smaller competitors and acquire landbanks which will enable them to manipulate the housing market to maintain high prices for the foreseeable future.

It's absolute stupidity to assume that the developers will basically give away these houses they want to build on the prime greenfield sites in the District to the huddled masses who can't even afford to get on the housing ladder in places where houses cost £70K.

If you don't believe me just google some of the housing & construction industry trade magazines that are on line.

Start with 'Inside Housing' & be sure to trace back through their back copies. You can get their updates too:

updates@e.insidehous

ing.co.uk
The gist of what you're saying seems to be that developers are there to make a profit.
I think we all realise that, the whole capitalist system and our living standards work on this basis.
If you owned a business, would you operate it for profit or for charity?
[quote][p][bold]Jackie Thompson[/bold] wrote: Hi (particularly White-Wrose). You've misunderstood the strategy of the volume housebuilders (eg Taylor Wimpey, Barratt, Redrow & Persimmon) They want to land bank and drip feed development on highly desirable geen field sites to sustain property prices . That is how, during an economic downturn they intend to bump up their profits. Don't be fooled. They've no interest whatsoever in building houses so the poorer members of society (or even the average Jo) can buy or even rent them. If they had, they would be building new houses in central Bradford & Keighley. And they've no interest in building lots and lots of houses so prices fall dramatically.This stupid NPPF will help the major developers to drive out smaller competitors and acquire landbanks which will enable them to manipulate the housing market to maintain high prices for the foreseeable future. It's absolute stupidity to assume that the developers will basically give away these houses they want to build on the prime greenfield sites in the District to the huddled masses who can't even afford to get on the housing ladder in places where houses cost £70K. If you don't believe me just google some of the housing & construction industry trade magazines that are on line. Start with 'Inside Housing' & be sure to trace back through their back copies. You can get their updates too: updates@e.insidehous ing.co.uk[/p][/quote]The gist of what you're saying seems to be that developers are there to make a profit. I think we all realise that, the whole capitalist system and our living standards work on this basis. If you owned a business, would you operate it for profit or for charity? webess

3:40pm Thu 29 Nov 12

White-Wrose says...

Jackie, I am not concerned with the profits being made by the large building companies such as the ones you have named, I am more annoyed at the usual cries by the countryside dwellers who don't like the idea of expansion in to their little kingdoms. Instead of filling up every inch of inner city space and cramming more and more people in to ever smaller houses why not give the families who have to live there some small amount of greenery/scenery and expand outside the city boundaries for much needed housing. To other contributors to this discussion, my opinions have absolutely nothing to do with immigration and everything to do with quality of life.
Jackie, I am not concerned with the profits being made by the large building companies such as the ones you have named, I am more annoyed at the usual cries by the countryside dwellers who don't like the idea of expansion in to their little kingdoms. Instead of filling up every inch of inner city space and cramming more and more people in to ever smaller houses why not give the families who have to live there some small amount of greenery/scenery and expand outside the city boundaries for much needed housing. To other contributors to this discussion, my opinions have absolutely nothing to do with immigration and everything to do with quality of life. White-Wrose

4:17pm Thu 29 Nov 12

White-Wrose says...

I should add that I personally am not a city dweller so I'm not talking out of some sense of personal injustice.
I should add that I personally am not a city dweller so I'm not talking out of some sense of personal injustice. White-Wrose

5:04pm Thu 29 Nov 12

Jackie Thompson says...

Webess

If the handful of major developers continue to land bank and focus on increasing margins as their primary business strategy rather than increasing turnover then they will artificially be limiting the number of houses they build in order to maximise their profits. The danger is that they will function almost like a cartel which fixes prices and the 'free' market in new housing will cease to exist.

By the way, which property company/developer do you work for?
Webess If the handful of major developers continue to land bank and focus on increasing margins as their primary business strategy rather than increasing turnover then they will artificially be limiting the number of houses they build in order to maximise their profits. The danger is that they will function almost like a cartel which fixes prices and the 'free' market in new housing will cease to exist. By the way, which property company/developer do you work for? Jackie Thompson

5:56pm Thu 29 Nov 12

thruth9211 says...

Thers no justice in this country

How can a SAS man holding an illegal fire arm, be freed

Of course because he is an SAS

So does that mean police can hold an illegal fire arm

Who will justife when death is caused by the fire arm


Once upon a time, england was green, so let their be homes built any where

You people are wasting valuable time
Thers no justice in this country How can a SAS man holding an illegal fire arm, be freed Of course because he is an SAS So does that mean police can hold an illegal fire arm Who will justife when death is caused by the fire arm Once upon a time, england was green, so let their be homes built any where You people are wasting valuable time thruth9211

6:19pm Thu 29 Nov 12

TirNaNog says...

allannicho wrote:
Why not cure the cause? the Elephant in the room is un- fettered Immigration into the country. 250,000 a year still, did,nt "Call me Dave" state he would bring it down?
Here it comes, right on cue! Did one of them steal your place at school or something? YAWN!
[quote][p][bold]allannicho[/bold] wrote: Why not cure the cause? the Elephant in the room is un- fettered Immigration into the country. 250,000 a year still, did,nt "Call me Dave" state he would bring it down?[/p][/quote]Here it comes, right on cue! Did one of them steal your place at school or something? YAWN! TirNaNog

9:21pm Thu 29 Nov 12

flogem says...

thruth9211 wrote:
Thers no justice in this country How can a SAS man holding an illegal fire arm, be freed Of course because he is an SAS So does that mean police can hold an illegal fire arm Who will justife when death is caused by the fire arm Once upon a time, england was green, so let their be homes built any where You people are wasting valuable time
Thers no justice in this country How can a SAS man holding an illegal fire arm, be freed Of course because he is an SAS So does that mean police can hold an illegal fire arm Who will justife when death is caused by the fire arm

You should be ashamed of yourself for the above comment
[quote][p][bold]thruth9211[/bold] wrote: Thers no justice in this country How can a SAS man holding an illegal fire arm, be freed Of course because he is an SAS So does that mean police can hold an illegal fire arm Who will justife when death is caused by the fire arm Once upon a time, england was green, so let their be homes built any where You people are wasting valuable time[/p][/quote]Thers no justice in this country How can a SAS man holding an illegal fire arm, be freed Of course because he is an SAS So does that mean police can hold an illegal fire arm Who will justife when death is caused by the fire arm You should be ashamed of yourself for the above comment flogem

12:35am Fri 30 Nov 12

davidh66 says...

thruth9211 wrote:
Thers no justice in this country

How can a SAS man holding an illegal fire arm, be freed

Of course because he is an SAS

So does that mean police can hold an illegal fire arm

Who will justife when death is caused by the fire arm


Once upon a time, england was green, so let their be homes built any where

You people are wasting valuable time
Read the facts on Danny Nightingale before you try to be clever. ****
[quote][p][bold]thruth9211[/bold] wrote: Thers no justice in this country How can a SAS man holding an illegal fire arm, be freed Of course because he is an SAS So does that mean police can hold an illegal fire arm Who will justife when death is caused by the fire arm Once upon a time, england was green, so let their be homes built any where You people are wasting valuable time[/p][/quote]Read the facts on Danny Nightingale before you try to be clever. **** davidh66

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