New green belt plans ‘diabolical’ (From Bradford Telegraph and Argus)
Get involved: send your pictures, video, news and views by texting TANEWS to 80360, or email
Campaigners voice fears that Chancellor’s proposals are a threat to the ‘lungs of a town’
7:00am Tuesday 4th September 2012 in Bradford
By Anika Bourley
Protesters in Micklethwaite celebrate as plans for building work are thrown out by a government inspector
Bradford countryside campaigners say green spaces are the “lungs of a town” and branded new development threats to concrete over them “diabolical”.
As part of its strategy to encourage growth, the Government is expected to re-write planning rules and slash red tape. But it is feared the move will make it easier to build on the green belt.
In turn Chancellor George Osborne will encourage councils to allow buildings on such land as long an equivalent space elsewhere is brought into the green belt.
But green campaigners say once the land was gone, it was highly unlikely other land would be reclassified.
Terry Brown, chairman of Greenhill Action Group, said: “We have serious concerns about this and I believe most people will have. We have land designated as green belt and encouraging people to build on it rather than brownfield or derelict space, is wrong. Once it is gone it would never be given back. The Government should not be doing this, green belt should be sacrosanct.”
His fears were echoed by Elizabeth Hellmich, chairman of Heaton Township Association, who said Government must listen to the people who elected them.
She added: “It is diabolical. When green belt was set up many years ago it was said to be the lungs of the town providing clean air for the town. More than ever now this is needed as towns are getting bigger.
“Given how many people are up in arms about building on green belt land the Government should take more notice. Start building on brown field sites and bring back old properties into use.”
Mr Osborne said it was “absolutely ludicrous” that planning applications took so long to be processed.
The planned shake-up is also believed to include curbs on residents’ rights to oppose development in their area.
Bradford Council’s executive member responsible for planning, Councillor Val Slater , said: “This is something that will cause great consternation locally. There are very good local campaigners trying to protect the green belt.
“As a Council we are working hard to identify other alternate sites as we draw up the next stage of our local plan and doing everything we can to protect our highly-valued sites but this may pull the rug from under our feet.”
Shipley MP Philip Davies said: “I am all for simplifying planning procedures for things as such as developments in inner city sites, but I am wholly opposed to anything that makes it easier to build on green belt. That is utterly unacceptable and I think it is already too easy. I spent a lot of my time making sure the Shipley constituency is not concreted over. I will not support anything that makes it easier for this to happen.”
Comments(23)
Thee Voice of Reason
says...
9:13am Tue 4 Sep 12
She probably expects everyone to have fogotten this,
The councillor in charge of Bradford’s housing policy has admitted she will be seen as the “devil’s disciple” to campaigners trying to save green field sites from new homes’ development.
And Councillor Val Slater conceded she and other councillors will be locking horns with “middle class” protesters as the battles rage over where to build the 45,500 homes said to be needed by 2028.
angry bradfordian
says...
9:27am Tue 4 Sep 12
It's only a couple of months since people who campaigned were middle class do-gooders. Now the Tories are agreeing with her ridiculous stance it's all wrong.
I disagree with a lot of Phillip Davies' views, but at least he's sticking to his principles- something our councillors would do well to follow.
webess
says...
9:41am Tue 4 Sep 12
Surely it's not the case that their using emotive language in an attempt to keep others out of their back yard...
collos25
says...
9:50am Tue 4 Sep 12
birday
says...
9:58am Tue 4 Sep 12
.
Rather then using green belt land for new houses to try and stoke the economy how about using it to grow food? It doesn't make sense to buy so much food from so many far away places.
.
There are plenty of brown field sites in and around the district for new houses and lots of trashed properties that could be brought up to date/made liveable. A bit of birth and immigration control won't go a miss either - time people learned you can't have what you can't afford including large families. Large families = child abuse plain and simple, as does children giving birth to children.
.
Deal with the people problems in these areas and these place would be very desirable places to live because they have all the services on the door steps - supermarkets, shops, doctors surgeries, dentists, regular buses, community/youth centres, take aways, restaurants etc etc. What more could people wish for?
birday
says...
10:02am Tue 4 Sep 12
collos25 wrote:Yep, time to address the problem but sadly there's no government our there brave enough to do it.
The problem is too many people and until you address that problem the land grab will never stop.
ertnec
says...
10:38am Tue 4 Sep 12
birday
says...
11:03am Tue 4 Sep 12
ertnec wrote:Someone who cares about children and the conditions they're growing up in!
Yes I agree with some of the comments about large families, what I don't agree with is Large Families = Child Abuse who does this person think he is passing this comment. We need more homes on Brown or Greenbelt so these people who keep on about NO more homes want to get a life.
.
Too many homes = not enough land to grow food on = expensive food = people going hungry!
webess
says...
12:41pm Tue 4 Sep 12
birday wrote:You can't grow enough food in a British garden to feed a rabbit, never mind a family.
The views in this article make so much sense.
.
Rather then using green belt land for new houses to try and stoke the economy how about using it to grow food? It doesn't make sense to buy so much food from so many far away places.
.
There are plenty of brown field sites in and around the district for new houses and lots of trashed properties that could be brought up to date/made liveable. A bit of birth and immigration control won't go a miss either - time people learned you can't have what you can't afford including large families. Large families = child abuse plain and simple, as does children giving birth to children.
.
Deal with the people problems in these areas and these place would be very desirable places to live because they have all the services on the door steps - supermarkets, shops, doctors surgeries, dentists, regular buses, community/youth centres, take aways, restaurants etc etc. What more could people wish for?
You paint an idealised version of a Brownfield site - why do you think nobody wants to live in them?
mad matt
says...
12:46pm Tue 4 Sep 12
If this requires government grant support, OK.
yorkshiredude
says...
12:58pm Tue 4 Sep 12
The population is growing, but in theory this growth should be able to accommodated in high density inner city developments.
Thee Voice of Reason
says...
3:53pm Tue 4 Sep 12
In Bradford there are so many houses with boarded up windows that the window cleaner takes a belt sander round with him.
webess
says...
5:11pm Tue 4 Sep 12
Thee Voice of Reason wrote:We keep hearing that line ad nauseam...from people who wouldn't live in such places themselves.
There are plenty of brownfield sites that need redeveloping, and with redeveloping they would become better places to live for everyone round there.
In Bradford there are so many houses with boarded up windows that the window cleaner takes a belt sander round with him.
Thee Voice of Reason
says...
5:14pm Tue 4 Sep 12
webess wrote:People are unlikely to want to move to areas which have large empty board up buildings or houses, but would be kore likely to want to live there is it was regenerated.
Thee Voice of Reason wrote:We keep hearing that line ad nauseam...from people who wouldn't live in such places themselves.
There are plenty of brownfield sites that need redeveloping, and with redeveloping they would become better places to live for everyone round there.
In Bradford there are so many houses with boarded up windows that the window cleaner takes a belt sander round with him.
yorkshiredude
says...
6:50pm Tue 4 Sep 12
Thee Voice of Reason
says...
6:58pm Tue 4 Sep 12
yorkshiredude wrote:If they weren't given the easy option of building over greenfields maybe they would have too.
There are loads of brownfield sites, yes - but are there any developers who'd choose to invest in them?
mad matt
says...
8:16pm Tue 4 Sep 12
webess wrote:Well I live in Manningham, which was little better that a brownfield area when I chose to move here over 30 years ago.
Thee Voice of Reason wrote:We keep hearing that line ad nauseam...from people who wouldn't live in such places themselves.
There are plenty of brownfield sites that need redeveloping, and with redeveloping they would become better places to live for everyone round there.
In Bradford there are so many houses with boarded up windows that the window cleaner takes a belt sander round with him.
The Boy from the Green
says...
8:28am Wed 5 Sep 12
Albion.
says...
11:29am Wed 5 Sep 12
The Boy from the Green wrote:It was elected, they won the most seats, they took up the option of forming a coalition after Labour had tried and failed to do the same.
This Tory Government was not elected, it needs the support of the LibDems. Now we will see see the true colour of Nick Clegg. Will it be Blue?
Bone_idle18
says...
12:23pm Wed 5 Sep 12
This is why traffic concerns are a mute argument against Rural developments.
.
Also, where do people propose all the extra pupils will fit in the inner-city schools? Far more room for expansion in rural areas.
.
Unfortunately, the only answer to the housing issues (apart from sterilisation) is to build on Green spaces in areas that are desirable, this then frees up more affordable housing.
Jackie Thompson
says...
7:05pm Wed 5 Sep 12
There's also another point that needs making. If you build all over the green belt it stops being green and becomes just another bit of urban sprawl. Its a self defeating proposition.
Daftaperth
says...
10:40pm Thu 6 Sep 12
Bone_idle18 wrote:The comment about inner city schools is a nonsense. Villages are expanding alarmingly and the schools are not expanding with them. We had to appeal to get into our village school just over a quarter of a mile away because it was full. The council representative at the appeal hearing said that besides the school we had been offered over three and a half miles away, the next nearest school with places left was an inner city school Over six miles away. Developers don't want to build on brownfield because it is more expensive. People in rural locations don't want more houses built because the infrastructure is already under immense pressure and proper consideration is not given to this when granting planning applications. It is not just extra traffic, public transport in rural areas is inadequate, doctors surgeries etc cannot cope and policing is poor, due to needs in the inner city areas. The council have proved time and again that they will not provide extra space in village schools when new houses are built, preferring to send children out of their communities to other schools. This is the start of the demise of village communities when children are excluded from them right fom the start.
If you think Greenfield sites present traffic and infrastructure issues, then Brownfield are 100 times as problematic. they are generally already in over-congested areas, so adding extra housing is far worse.
This is why traffic concerns are a mute argument against Rural developments.
.
Also, where do people propose all the extra pupils will fit in the inner-city schools? Far more room for expansion in rural areas.
.
Unfortunately, the only answer to the housing issues (apart from sterilisation) is to build on Green spaces in areas that are desirable, this then frees up more affordable housing.
saywhat12 says...
8:34am Tue 4 Sep 12
But what good are greenspaces if filthy extremists can raid our city centre at will and only receive light sentancing like football bans.