Councillor ready to be 'Devil's Disciple' over Green Belt (From Bradford Telegraph and Argus)

Bradford is full up. Indeed, the country is full up.

It seems to me that quality of life is, more or less, inversely proportional to population density.

Building houses of questionable quality, shoehorned into crowded new estates on green belt land is not the answer.

Well Ms Slater, there are approximately 400 empty new build or converted properties lying empty in Bingley... why don't you talk to these developers and get them to make these properties "affordable" before you build more properties that no-one can get a mortgage for?

How naive and short-sighted this woman must be! - It has nothing to do with 'class'. Everyone deserves to have access to good housing, but that shouldn't be at the cost of greenbelt land. What gives this woman and her cronies the right to deny access to the countryside and to the greenbelt to future generations; once it has gone it can never be regained.

There is plenty of Brownfield in the Bradford area and its environs - what we seem to lack however are the people to come up with sustainable, imaginative developments that will attract residents both private and from the rental sector. At this rate we're going to be blighted with 'executive' homes all over the place - yet there are still unsold new properties in Bingley, in Thornton and no doubt all over the region. If we need all these new properties why haven't these homes been snapped up?

Is there some motive behind giving permission to all these prospective developers to build at will and spoil our environment which isn't being made public?

Will Val tell us how infrastructure will be improved to cope with these houses? Every story like this is pointless whilst the councillors ignore the infrastructure that needs to be put in place to support it. Not one has even tried to address the matter.

We must expand into the green belt - Human beings, like animals, are greatly influenced by the conditions amidst which they exist. If we crowd animals together, limit their supply of air and sunlight, they become weak and irritable, they mope, sicken, and die. Man differs from animals in his greater impressionability and consequent greater capacity for enjoyment, as well as in his tendency to deteriorate under adverse conditions.
In nearly all our most populous districts it will be found that the people are surrounded by circumstances which are directly opposed to their comfort, health, and general well-being. What is most of all important is that women and children, those most susceptive to the action of deteriorative influences, are those who are most exposed. Take the case of the mothers of families in these localities. Restricted within the limits of small confined dwellings; the air heavy with impurities; a life of care and anxiety; wearied by the monotonous aspect of all around them, worn by nursing and by toil, fretted by narrow means, is it surprising that they lose their health, elasticity, good looks, cheery smiles, and interest in themselves and their families? Lets get Bradford moving and some decent homes buit

“Unless their needs can be met they will move out to Craven or Harrogate possibly trebling the level of unsustainable travel.”

Carry out the building on the greenfield sites and those that can afford it will be upping sticks and moving to Craven & Harrogate. Bradford is a cesspit and if the council wants to ruin the last remaining areas with a better standard of living and reduce everyone to the same levels of traffic, shortage of school places etc then don't be surprised when folk with money who are also the target market for the mythical Westfield Centre move to pastures new. Another case of bad management from Bradford Council and another case in point for independance for the Aire Valley to split from Bradford Council.

"Coun Slater was responding to comments by planners and house builders at the meeting that one of the main obstacles to new housing schemes was the reluctance of ward councillors to stand up against campaigners for electoral reasons"

Aren't councillors supposed to represent the wishes of the electorate then?

What we actually need is a restriction on population growth rather than covering every blade of grass with concrete. Where will it end? We can't just keep breeding, consuming and building with no thought for the environmental impacts. I'm not a tree hugging green lefty, it's just stating the obvious.

Who put a camel in charge of housing??

This is from the Deputy Lord Mayor too. Here's her details http://www.bradford.
gov.uk/asp/councillo
rs/details.asp?id=23
8

Doesn't surprise me that she doesn't live in her ward she represents.

Doesn't surprise me that she doesn't live in her ward she represents.

I met Cllr Slater on Monday, and found her to be very uncompromising in her approach. To hear that she has dismissed legitimate concerns and views in this way comes as no surprise to me.

I only hope that voters at the next local election hold her party to account for it, and remind them that they HAVE to listen to their electors, whom they are supposed to represent.

Bradford Builder wrote:
We must expand into the green belt - Human beings, like animals, are greatly influenced by the conditions amidst which they exist. If we crowd animals together, limit their supply of air and sunlight, they become weak and irritable, they mope, sicken, and die. Man differs from animals in his greater impressionability and consequent greater capacity for enjoyment, as well as in his tendency to deteriorate under adverse conditions.
In nearly all our most populous districts it will be found that the people are surrounded by circumstances which are directly opposed to their comfort, health, and general well-being. What is most of all important is that women and children, those most susceptive to the action of deteriorative influences, are those who are most exposed. Take the case of the mothers of families in these localities. Restricted within the limits of small confined dwellings; the air heavy with impurities; a life of care and anxiety; wearied by the monotonous aspect of all around them, worn by nursing and by toil, fretted by narrow means, is it surprising that they lose their health, elasticity, good looks, cheery smiles, and interest in themselves and their families? Lets get Bradford moving and some decent homes buit

Ahem, we are living in 2011, not 1811.

markjoe wrote:
This is from the Deputy Lord Mayor too. Here's her details http://www.bradford. gov.uk/asp/councillo rs/details.asp?id=23 8

I get the feeling that Bingley won't suddenly have thousands of houses thrust upon it after reading that.

fiverise wrote:

Bradford Builder wrote:
We must expand into the green belt - Human beings, like animals, are greatly influenced by the conditions amidst which they exist. If we crowd animals together, limit their supply of air and sunlight, they become weak and irritable, they mope, sicken, and die. Man differs from animals in his greater impressionability and consequent greater capacity for enjoyment, as well as in his tendency to deteriorate under adverse conditions.
In nearly all our most populous districts it will be found that the people are surrounded by circumstances which are directly opposed to their comfort, health, and general well-being. What is most of all important is that women and children, those most susceptive to the action of deteriorative influences, are those who are most exposed. Take the case of the mothers of families in these localities. Restricted within the limits of small confined dwellings; the air heavy with impurities; a life of care and anxiety; wearied by the monotonous aspect of all around them, worn by nursing and by toil, fretted by narrow means, is it surprising that they lose their health, elasticity, good looks, cheery smiles, and interest in themselves and their families? Lets get Bradford moving and some decent homes buit

Ahem, we are living in 2011, not 1811.

..or even 2012, not 1812!

fiverise wrote:

fiverise wrote:

Bradford Builder wrote: We must expand into the green belt - Human beings, like animals, are greatly influenced by the conditions amidst which they exist. If we crowd animals together, limit their supply of air and sunlight, they become weak and irritable, they mope, sicken, and die. Man differs from animals in his greater impressionability and consequent greater capacity for enjoyment, as well as in his tendency to deteriorate under adverse conditions. In nearly all our most populous districts it will be found that the people are surrounded by circumstances which are directly opposed to their comfort, health, and general well-being. What is most of all important is that women and children, those most susceptive to the action of deteriorative influences, are those who are most exposed. Take the case of the mothers of families in these localities. Restricted within the limits of small confined dwellings; the air heavy with impurities; a life of care and anxiety; wearied by the monotonous aspect of all around them, worn by nursing and by toil, fretted by narrow means, is it surprising that they lose their health, elasticity, good looks, cheery smiles, and interest in themselves and their families? Lets get Bradford moving and some decent homes buit

Ahem, we are living in 2011, not 1811.

..or even 2012, not 1812!

It looks like it's been copied and pasted apart from the badly spelled last line.

Here is Val trying to appeal to the population of BD4 which is a labour stronghold. And the spin is that "We Bradford Council are not going to listen to the voices of the majority who did not support developing onto the greenbelt. Because they are all a bunch of middle class NIMBYs"

I live in Holme Wood, I am working class and a Labour Voter and active in the Union movement. I VOTED AGAINST THIS!

Stop trying to pull the wool over our eyes Val. Don’t insult our intelligence!

You have ridden roughshod over the opinions of the people in Holme Wood and you have used your influence to see that this is fast tracked. You are set on building in this area for your own reasons.

Bodica BD4 wrote:
Here is Val trying to appeal to the population of BD4 which is a labour stronghold. And the spin is that "We Bradford Council are not going to listen to the voices of the majority who did not support developing onto the greenbelt. Because they are all a bunch of middle class NIMBYs"

I live in Holme Wood, I am working class and a Labour Voter and active in the Union movement. I VOTED AGAINST THIS!

Stop trying to pull the wool over our eyes Val. Don’t insult our intelligence!

You have ridden roughshod over the opinions of the people in Holme Wood and you have used your influence to see that this is fast tracked. You are set on building in this area for your own reasons.

That is exactly what is happening using the term of "middle class" objections thus causing a rift with the "working class" to cover their own panic when something should have been done years ago. I notice that although Val Slater is the deputy Lord Mayor and is associated with the Royds district (i.e Buttershaw and Woodside), according to the web site she actually lives in Bingley. Exactly which "class is" Val Slater from? You see despite the council thinking they can ride rough shod over other peoples' lives, there are people in the community who are very worried and not as "thick" as some Councillors would like to believe. Incidentally Ms Slater is Labour and obviously should be asking the question "why didn't we do something about this from 1997 - 2009 during the boom years".

The area she represents is in Buttershaw and Wibsey. Living in Bingley, she's not exactly on the ball being on the other side of the City. Still when you get your expenses paid whats travel got to do with anything.
.
Maybe she'll drag Barra out to fight her corner about representing an area where they don't live, the same Barra who commutes to Bradford from Sheffield, no wonder he doesn't care if a shopping center is built as he has one on his doorstep anyhow. He's happy drawing a massive salary knowing he can leave the failure he's precided over at the end of the day.

what about all the empty house now ? why dont they fix them up instead of leaving them to fall to pieces ?
.
Wheres all the extra traffic going to go too ??? the roads around Bradford are full emough and bad enough as they are.

Paul Local Lad wrote:
what about all the empty house now ? why dont they fix them up instead of leaving them to fall to pieces ? . Wheres all the extra traffic going to go too ??? the roads around Bradford are full emough and bad enough as they are.

I wonder if Val has left her house during the rush hour, and tried to get to the place she "represents" and then done the reverse during the evening rush hour.
.
Wonder what she would think of the road system and if the roads as they are would be adequate to take on more cars. No I doubt she's even given it a second thought.

Sounds like this ridiculous woman is out for class war- I find this sort of comment verging on the offensive. Is she suggesting that the planning laws are only for certain people to resist?

Can you imagine if a Tory councillor had said that she was trying to stop the working classes from having their say? Greenwood and his cronies would be up in arms.
Don't suppose there's any chance of an apology from her or an official rebuke from Greenwood?

Every time there's a planning decision (the Odeon springs to mind) we hear that the councillors are only upholding the advice the planners are giving them.
Surely this woman has demonstrated that she isn't independent when planning matters for housing developments are discussed in future.
Anybody know of somewhere to make an official complaint? She clearly isn't fit to serve if this story is true.

The flight from Bradford is the main reason the Aire Valley is becoming a target from the escapees.
Addressing the problem of the city which is on its knees may help but are the councillors up to the task?

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

Paul Local Lad wrote:
what about all the empty house now ? why dont they fix them up instead of leaving them to fall to pieces ? . Wheres all the extra traffic going to go too ??? the roads around Bradford are full emough and bad enough as they are.

I wonder if Val has left her house during the rush hour, and tried to get to the place she "represents" and then done the reverse during the evening rush hour.
.
Wonder what she would think of the road system and if the roads as they are would be adequate to take on more cars. No I doubt she's even given it a second thought.

Maybe that's why all of these hotels are going up in the City. The Councillors who can't get home when the City is grid-locked (already is in rush hours) can book in for the week (at the taxpayers expense, of course).

Forseti wrote:
The flight from Bradford is the main reason the Aire Valley is becoming a target from the escapees.
Addressing the problem of the city which is on its knees may help but are the councillors up to the task?

one word can answer that question- NO

Councillor Val Slater, if I may, you comment that councillors need broad shoulders, is somewhat pathetic, councillors need to listen to it's electors, what i mean by this, and it is my view, a vast majority of projects that are coming out of town hall are receiving negative comments, a large number of council run stories are receiving negative comments, what you need is big ears, you need to stop this rolling over the public, Bradford doesn't need new houeses on green land, what it does need is new homes building on the derelict land within the boundaries of Bradford, at the moment Bradford is like a cancer, getting bigger but slowly dieing in the middle, now i'n sure that there are planners who can creat new streeting, housing, complexes within the limits of the boundaries.

Do you not think that the public should have a voice that is not only listened to, but is taken into consideration, i do.

I can find plenty of area's that need new houses to keep afloat districts.

Surely it cannot be either right or legal, if the news item is accurate, as the councillor has already made up her mind regarding some proposals, without having possession of the full facts from both parties.

Yorkshire Lass wrote:

Bodica BD4 wrote:
Here is Val trying to appeal to the population of BD4 which is a labour stronghold. And the spin is that "We Bradford Council are not going to listen to the voices of the majority who did not support developing onto the greenbelt. Because they are all a bunch of middle class NIMBYs"

I live in Holme Wood, I am working class and a Labour Voter and active in the Union movement. I VOTED AGAINST THIS!

Stop trying to pull the wool over our eyes Val. Don’t insult our intelligence!

You have ridden roughshod over the opinions of the people in Holme Wood and you have used your influence to see that this is fast tracked. You are set on building in this area for your own reasons.

That is exactly what is happening using the term of "middle class" objections thus causing a rift with the "working class" to cover their own panic when something should have been done years ago. I notice that although Val Slater is the deputy Lord Mayor and is associated with the Royds district (i.e Buttershaw and Woodside), according to the web site she actually lives in Bingley. Exactly which "class is" Val Slater from? You see despite the council thinking they can ride rough shod over other peoples' lives, there are people in the community who are very worried and not as "thick" as some Councillors would like to believe. Incidentally Ms Slater is Labour and obviously should be asking the question "why didn't we do something about this from 1997 - 2009 during the boom years".

The nimbys are not worried about the green belt but about their house prices, maybe not in holme wood but the pompous middle class residents of Micklethwaite and Menston are good examples. just read some of the objection comments regarding planning applications and you will realise that they are thick!
You can not buy a view!!

FiT0598 wrote:

Yorkshire Lass wrote:

Bodica BD4 wrote:
Here is Val trying to appeal to the population of BD4 which is a labour stronghold. And the spin is that "We Bradford Council are not going to listen to the voices of the majority who did not support developing onto the greenbelt. Because they are all a bunch of middle class NIMBYs"

I live in Holme Wood, I am working class and a Labour Voter and active in the Union movement. I VOTED AGAINST THIS!

Stop trying to pull the wool over our eyes Val. Don’t insult our intelligence!

You have ridden roughshod over the opinions of the people in Holme Wood and you have used your influence to see that this is fast tracked. You are set on building in this area for your own reasons.

That is exactly what is happening using the term of "middle class" objections thus causing a rift with the "working class" to cover their own panic when something should have been done years ago. I notice that although Val Slater is the deputy Lord Mayor and is associated with the Royds district (i.e Buttershaw and Woodside), according to the web site she actually lives in Bingley. Exactly which "class is" Val Slater from? You see despite the council thinking they can ride rough shod over other peoples' lives, there are people in the community who are very worried and not as "thick" as some Councillors would like to believe. Incidentally Ms Slater is Labour and obviously should be asking the question "why didn't we do something about this from 1997 - 2009 during the boom years".

The nimbys are not worried about the green belt but about their house prices, maybe not in holme wood but the pompous middle class residents of Micklethwaite and Menston are good examples. just read some of the objection comments regarding planning applications and you will realise that they are thick!
You can not buy a view!!

I see one of the main concerns they have is the lack of infrastructure to cope and i have not seen one councillor address this.

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

FiT0598 wrote:

Yorkshire Lass wrote:

Bodica BD4 wrote:
Here is Val trying to appeal to the population of BD4 which is a labour stronghold. And the spin is that "We Bradford Council are not going to listen to the voices of the majority who did not support developing onto the greenbelt. Because they are all a bunch of middle class NIMBYs"

I live in Holme Wood, I am working class and a Labour Voter and active in the Union movement. I VOTED AGAINST THIS!

Stop trying to pull the wool over our eyes Val. Don’t insult our intelligence!

You have ridden roughshod over the opinions of the people in Holme Wood and you have used your influence to see that this is fast tracked. You are set on building in this area for your own reasons.

That is exactly what is happening using the term of "middle class" objections thus causing a rift with the "working class" to cover their own panic when something should have been done years ago. I notice that although Val Slater is the deputy Lord Mayor and is associated with the Royds district (i.e Buttershaw and Woodside), according to the web site she actually lives in Bingley. Exactly which "class is" Val Slater from? You see despite the council thinking they can ride rough shod over other peoples' lives, there are people in the community who are very worried and not as "thick" as some Councillors would like to believe. Incidentally Ms Slater is Labour and obviously should be asking the question "why didn't we do something about this from 1997 - 2009 during the boom years".

The nimbys are not worried about the green belt but about their house prices, maybe not in holme wood but the pompous middle class residents of Micklethwaite and Menston are good examples. just read some of the objection comments regarding planning applications and you will realise that they are thick!
You can not buy a view!!

I see one of the main concerns they have is the lack of infrastructure to cope and i have not seen one councillor address this.

Infrastructure is put in place after developments not before.

When we finally run out of greenbelt, just what are all these people going to eat. How many farms and farming families are we going to destroy. I dont want my children growing up in a place where you have to drive for hours to find a place for a picnic nor do i want the picnic in the park that is over run with out of control teenagers. Do any of the council think of the long term, I mean real long term not just the next 10 years but what about 50 years. Or is that 'I won't be here so I dont care?'

FiT0598 wrote:

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

FiT0598 wrote:

Yorkshire Lass wrote:

Bodica BD4 wrote:
Here is Val trying to appeal to the population of BD4 which is a labour stronghold. And the spin is that "We Bradford Council are not going to listen to the voices of the majority who did not support developing onto the greenbelt. Because they are all a bunch of middle class NIMBYs"

I live in Holme Wood, I am working class and a Labour Voter and active in the Union movement. I VOTED AGAINST THIS!

Stop trying to pull the wool over our eyes Val. Don’t insult our intelligence!

You have ridden roughshod over the opinions of the people in Holme Wood and you have used your influence to see that this is fast tracked. You are set on building in this area for your own reasons.

That is exactly what is happening using the term of "middle class" objections thus causing a rift with the "working class" to cover their own panic when something should have been done years ago. I notice that although Val Slater is the deputy Lord Mayor and is associated with the Royds district (i.e Buttershaw and Woodside), according to the web site she actually lives in Bingley. Exactly which "class is" Val Slater from? You see despite the council thinking they can ride rough shod over other peoples' lives, there are people in the community who are very worried and not as "thick" as some Councillors would like to believe. Incidentally Ms Slater is Labour and obviously should be asking the question "why didn't we do something about this from 1997 - 2009 during the boom years".

The nimbys are not worried about the green belt but about their house prices, maybe not in holme wood but the pompous middle class residents of Micklethwaite and Menston are good examples. just read some of the objection comments regarding planning applications and you will realise that they are thick!
You can not buy a view!!

I see one of the main concerns they have is the lack of infrastructure to cope and i have not seen one councillor address this.

Infrastructure is put in place after developments not before.

Exactly. No infrastructure is put in place 'just in case' more people move there. its not economically viable to run trains, schools doctors etc at half capacity on the off chance a new housing development will pop up.

Farsley Bantam wrote:

FiT0598 wrote:

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

FiT0598 wrote:

Yorkshire Lass wrote:

Bodica BD4 wrote:
Here is Val trying to appeal to the population of BD4 which is a labour stronghold. And the spin is that "We Bradford Council are not going to listen to the voices of the majority who did not support developing onto the greenbelt. Because they are all a bunch of middle class NIMBYs"

I live in Holme Wood, I am working class and a Labour Voter and active in the Union movement. I VOTED AGAINST THIS!

Stop trying to pull the wool over our eyes Val. Don’t insult our intelligence!

You have ridden roughshod over the opinions of the people in Holme Wood and you have used your influence to see that this is fast tracked. You are set on building in this area for your own reasons.

That is exactly what is happening using the term of "middle class" objections thus causing a rift with the "working class" to cover their own panic when something should have been done years ago. I notice that although Val Slater is the deputy Lord Mayor and is associated with the Royds district (i.e Buttershaw and Woodside), according to the web site she actually lives in Bingley. Exactly which "class is" Val Slater from? You see despite the council thinking they can ride rough shod over other peoples' lives, there are people in the community who are very worried and not as "thick" as some Councillors would like to believe. Incidentally Ms Slater is Labour and obviously should be asking the question "why didn't we do something about this from 1997 - 2009 during the boom years".

The nimbys are not worried about the green belt but about their house prices, maybe not in holme wood but the pompous middle class residents of Micklethwaite and Menston are good examples. just read some of the objection comments regarding planning applications and you will realise that they are thick!
You can not buy a view!!

I see one of the main concerns they have is the lack of infrastructure to cope and i have not seen one councillor address this.

Infrastructure is put in place after developments not before.

Exactly. No infrastructure is put in place 'just in case' more people move there. its not economically viable to run trains, schools doctors etc at half capacity on the off chance a new housing development will pop up.

But not a word has been mentioned about it regardless. We will build these houses then provide an extra school once its done.
.
Do you not agree the whole picture needs painting to put the public in the picture rather than houses here houses there, nothing else given a second thought.
.
When Bingley Grammar is already over subscribed can the counillors explain where 200 new families in that area would go once built?
.
If they said they would expand the school at least that would acknowledge they are thinking beyond just the extra council tax.

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

Farsley Bantam wrote:

FiT0598 wrote:

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

FiT0598 wrote:

Yorkshire Lass wrote:

Bodica BD4 wrote:
Here is Val trying to appeal to the population of BD4 which is a labour stronghold. And the spin is that "We Bradford Council are not going to listen to the voices of the majority who did not support developing onto the greenbelt. Because they are all a bunch of middle class NIMBYs"

I live in Holme Wood, I am working class and a Labour Voter and active in the Union movement. I VOTED AGAINST THIS!

Stop trying to pull the wool over our eyes Val. Don’t insult our intelligence!

You have ridden roughshod over the opinions of the people in Holme Wood and you have used your influence to see that this is fast tracked. You are set on building in this area for your own reasons.

That is exactly what is happening using the term of "middle class" objections thus causing a rift with the "working class" to cover their own panic when something should have been done years ago. I notice that although Val Slater is the deputy Lord Mayor and is associated with the Royds district (i.e Buttershaw and Woodside), according to the web site she actually lives in Bingley. Exactly which "class is" Val Slater from? You see despite the council thinking they can ride rough shod over other peoples' lives, there are people in the community who are very worried and not as "thick" as some Councillors would like to believe. Incidentally Ms Slater is Labour and obviously should be asking the question "why didn't we do something about this from 1997 - 2009 during the boom years".

The nimbys are not worried about the green belt but about their house prices, maybe not in holme wood but the pompous middle class residents of Micklethwaite and Menston are good examples. just read some of the objection comments regarding planning applications and you will realise that they are thick!
You can not buy a view!!

I see one of the main concerns they have is the lack of infrastructure to cope and i have not seen one councillor address this.

Infrastructure is put in place after developments not before.

Exactly. No infrastructure is put in place 'just in case' more people move there. its not economically viable to run trains, schools doctors etc at half capacity on the off chance a new housing development will pop up.

But not a word has been mentioned about it regardless. We will build these houses then provide an extra school once its done.
.
Do you not agree the whole picture needs painting to put the public in the picture rather than houses here houses there, nothing else given a second thought.
.
When Bingley Grammar is already over subscribed can the counillors explain where 200 new families in that area would go once built?
.
If they said they would expand the school at least that would acknowledge they are thinking beyond just the extra council tax.

Infrastructure or lack of it was the main objection during the last consultation on this.The coalition have but something in place called the New Homes Bonus that was supposed to be a "carrot" to help communities accept extra houses and could be used to put in place better roads, schools,flooding measures etc. Unfortunately, for reasons best known to themselves, the did not "ringfence" the money to the area the houses would be built in or put any restrictions on it's use.
So we won't get any new inrfrastructure because Bradford have decided to put the money into the rates pot, funnily enough the 4M this year is about the increase in Bradfords contribution to it's employees pensions.
I am still not convinced by the number of homes needed as despite the council arguing, when the figure came out of the RSS that this was in excess of their own projections, the current incumbents seem bent on using this(less homes built since). This is despite the current economic situation and the demise of the regional agencies in April.
If I were being cyncical I might wonder if this is because of the 9k that they will get for each house, NHB. Also if they can push this through with other new regulations of "presumed consent" it will be almost impossible to stop building on a site that has been allocated to housing in the "Core Strategy". Be warned!!!

TruthTold wrote:

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

Farsley Bantam wrote:

FiT0598 wrote:

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

FiT0598 wrote:

Yorkshire Lass wrote:

Bodica BD4 wrote:
Here is Val trying to appeal to the population of BD4 which is a labour stronghold. And the spin is that "We Bradford Council are not going to listen to the voices of the majority who did not support developing onto the greenbelt. Because they are all a bunch of middle class NIMBYs"

I live in Holme Wood, I am working class and a Labour Voter and active in the Union movement. I VOTED AGAINST THIS!

Stop trying to pull the wool over our eyes Val. Don’t insult our intelligence!

You have ridden roughshod over the opinions of the people in Holme Wood and you have used your influence to see that this is fast tracked. You are set on building in this area for your own reasons.

That is exactly what is happening using the term of "middle class" objections thus causing a rift with the "working class" to cover their own panic when something should have been done years ago. I notice that although Val Slater is the deputy Lord Mayor and is associated with the Royds district (i.e Buttershaw and Woodside), according to the web site she actually lives in Bingley. Exactly which "class is" Val Slater from? You see despite the council thinking they can ride rough shod over other peoples' lives, there are people in the community who are very worried and not as "thick" as some Councillors would like to believe. Incidentally Ms Slater is Labour and obviously should be asking the question "why didn't we do something about this from 1997 - 2009 during the boom years".

The nimbys are not worried about the green belt but about their house prices, maybe not in holme wood but the pompous middle class residents of Micklethwaite and Menston are good examples. just read some of the objection comments regarding planning applications and you will realise that they are thick!
You can not buy a view!!

I see one of the main concerns they have is the lack of infrastructure to cope and i have not seen one councillor address this.

Infrastructure is put in place after developments not before.

Exactly. No infrastructure is put in place 'just in case' more people move there. its not economically viable to run trains, schools doctors etc at half capacity on the off chance a new housing development will pop up.

But not a word has been mentioned about it regardless. We will build these houses then provide an extra school once its done.
.
Do you not agree the whole picture needs painting to put the public in the picture rather than houses here houses there, nothing else given a second thought.
.
When Bingley Grammar is already over subscribed can the counillors explain where 200 new families in that area would go once built?
.
If they said they would expand the school at least that would acknowledge they are thinking beyond just the extra council tax.

Infrastructure or lack of it was the main objection during the last consultation on this.The coalition have but something in place called the New Homes Bonus that was supposed to be a "carrot" to help communities accept extra houses and could be used to put in place better roads, schools,flooding measures etc. Unfortunately, for reasons best known to themselves, the did not "ringfence" the money to the area the houses would be built in or put any restrictions on it's use.
So we won't get any new inrfrastructure because Bradford have decided to put the money into the rates pot, funnily enough the 4M this year is about the increase in Bradfords contribution to it's employees pensions.
I am still not convinced by the number of homes needed as despite the council arguing, when the figure came out of the RSS that this was in excess of their own projections, the current incumbents seem bent on using this(less homes built since). This is despite the current economic situation and the demise of the regional agencies in April.
If I were being cyncical I might wonder if this is because of the 9k that they will get for each house, NHB. Also if they can push this through with other new regulations of "presumed consent" it will be almost impossible to stop building on a site that has been allocated to housing in the "Core Strategy". Be warned!!!

I saw the story about new housing in Silsden the other week, not one mention of improved roads, extra doctors or schools was in there but there was details of where all the houses would be crammed in, and some of these houses were clearly marked in flood plains.
.
It seems the council are making such a mess of the city center and the business rates they are hoping to fill the gap with council tax from "richer" areas. Infrastructure is probably not mentioned as they have their eye on the money to fill the every growing pension bill.

I know of a big derelict space where they could build - the City Centre, even got a nice little park for the residents to play in! Daft idea? no more stupid than the idiotic Councillors who have destroyed our once fine City over the past 30 years.

FiT0598 wrote:

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

FiT0598 wrote:

Yorkshire Lass wrote:

Bodica BD4 wrote: Here is Val trying to appeal to the population of BD4 which is a labour stronghold. And the spin is that "We Bradford Council are not going to listen to the voices of the majority who did not support developing onto the greenbelt. Because they are all a bunch of middle class NIMBYs" I live in Holme Wood, I am working class and a Labour Voter and active in the Union movement. I VOTED AGAINST THIS! Stop trying to pull the wool over our eyes Val. Don’t insult our intelligence! You have ridden roughshod over the opinions of the people in Holme Wood and you have used your influence to see that this is fast tracked. You are set on building in this area for your own reasons.

That is exactly what is happening using the term of "middle class" objections thus causing a rift with the "working class" to cover their own panic when something should have been done years ago. I notice that although Val Slater is the deputy Lord Mayor and is associated with the Royds district (i.e Buttershaw and Woodside), according to the web site she actually lives in Bingley. Exactly which "class is" Val Slater from? You see despite the council thinking they can ride rough shod over other peoples' lives, there are people in the community who are very worried and not as "thick" as some Councillors would like to believe. Incidentally Ms Slater is Labour and obviously should be asking the question "why didn't we do something about this from 1997 - 2009 during the boom years".

The nimbys are not worried about the green belt but about their house prices, maybe not in holme wood but the pompous middle class residents of Micklethwaite and Menston are good examples. just read some of the objection comments regarding planning applications and you will realise that they are thick! You can not buy a view!!

I see one of the main concerns they have is the lack of infrastructure to cope and i have not seen one councillor address this.

Infrastructure is put in place after developments not before.

When the infrastructure is already stretched to breaking point with current usage you have to plan for prior to heaping more strain onto motorists, commuters, schools and doctors.

The Editorial 26th January thankfully restores some balance against the idiotic rantings of Cllr Slater - where do we find these people - but what you fail to do is expand on this subject to give a greater understanding. Firstly, I agree that the aspiration of 45,500 new homes is ridiculous. Bradford is not a city of choice these days and if there are population pressures then these have to be identified whatever the implications. Trends in birth rates are easily accessible sufficient for planners to plot areas of pressure.

In a Parliamentary debate (8/11/11) involving local MPs Sutcliffe and Ward it was acknowledged there is pressure on secondary schools in Bradford which also goes against the national trend. What our sensitive politicians are loathe to admit is that over the last decade and more there has been a flight from inner Bradford. Concreting the outlying areas will not solve any inner city population increase simply because these areas are premium areas to move into. Rightly or wrongly few families can simply up and move from the inner city to the likes of Ilkley and Addingham unless Cllr Slater is going to erect a few tower blocks on Ilkley Moor presumably because she admires those in her native Bingley.

Far better for the Council to surprise us all and show initiative and look at the debate prompted by the excellent Channel Four “The Great British Property Scandal” and seek to reevaluate the housing stock we have already. According to their website the city has 11,329 empty properties and 20,800 people on the council waiting list. So what do we need the other 34,000 houses for...or are the Council about to tell us Harvey Nicholls are the flagship for Westfield?

Dumb councillors, dumber policies, doomed city.