96 replies to this topic

[Matt]

AB has a good idea: http://www.wharfedal..._7913#entry7913

[appropriatebridge]

Just been reading the Bradford MDC SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENT: HOUSE EXTENSIONS & ALTERATIONS SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL SCOPING REPORT May 2008.

Here are some of the Objectives:

Make full and effective use of land and buildings in urban areas
Protect and enhance existing areas of open space.
Protect and enhance designated areas, enhance general landscape quality, retain countryside and open land.

These objectives clash somewhat with the proposed housing.

[Harveybos]

Bradford Council do seem good at contradicting themselves.
If you look at the last Conservation Area Appraisal for Burley link here the field between the Church and the Bypass they are proposing for 50+ new homes, is described as a 'Key Open Space' with 4 Key Views or Vistas into and out of the conservation area. Hard to see how 50 new houses here would 'enhance and preserve the character of the conservation area', or the settings of the surrounding listed buildings....

[appropriatebridge]

"Open email to Burley Parish Council (reproduced on Burley Forum)

Many people in Burley are very concerned about the proposals for house building contained in the Bradford MDC Local Development Framework as they affect Wharedale as a whole but particularly the green fields area between Burley and Menston. These currently serve a valuable amenity need as a leisure walking area due to the various footpaths which cross them and they act as a green belt buffer between Burley and Menston so helping to preserve village identity and mitigating the urban sprawl outwards from Leeds.

The overall increase in housing in Burley and along the valley will lead to unsustainable pressures on already deficient infrastructure and facilities.

The case has been well put by Burley Parish Council in their response to Bradford on 24 January 2012.

However, there can be no doubt that it is not just Burley which will be affected. The proposed increase in housing from Addingham to Menston (not to mention the excessive house building in Guiseley) is also going to severely impact all along Airedale in particular as the majority of commuting will be into Leeds.

It is noted that an organisation Wharfedale and Airedale Review Development (WARD) has been set up. The first paragraph of its mission statement reads:

WARD is dedicated to the preservation of the natural beauty of Wharfedale and Airedale in Yorkshire and protection of the rural communities in these valleys from excessive development.

I am sure this embraces the sentiments many of us feel.

A well co-ordinated campaign involving all the communities along the valley is likely to have a greater success than each fighting alone. Perhaps Burley Parish Council have already approached (or been approached) by WARD but if not it is respectfully suggested that contact be made urgently to establish whether the forging of bonds can increase potential to resist the excessive development proposed.

Bradford MDC’s overall proposals for the District as a whole should be rigorously scrutinised to ensure that brownfield sites are developed first. The PC response of 24 January 2012 already points to a pretty glaring omission in respect of Greenholme Mills in Burley but it also raises the distinct probability that brownfield sites in Bradford have been similarly neglected in favour of the “soft” options which developers prefer. If these were to be properly utilised, it would reduce the pressure on greenfield sites everywhere.

It is suggested that it would be appropriate to consider forging links with WARD at the Parish Council at the meeting on 8 March 2012.

Regards

John"

[weirdmusic]

appropriatebridge, on 10 February 2012 - 05:45 PM, said:

A well co-ordinated campaign involving all the communities along the valley is likely to have a greater success than each fighting alone.

I would suggest approaching the people behind the following campaign: http://savetongvalley.org.uk/ - they have exactly the same concerns about over development of their area, as we do here.

[appropriatebridge]

A thought in relation to brownfield sites. Greenholme has been mentioned but what about the remains of the old hospital site at Moor Lane? This also should be developed before green fields are gobbled up.

[weirdmusic]

appropriatebridge, on 15 February 2012 - 06:12 PM, said:

A thought in relation to brownfield sites. Greenholme has been mentioned but what about the remains of the old hospital site at Moor Lane? This also should be developed before green fields are gobbled up.

I presume you mean where the Mental Health place was - if so, that was put up for sale a while ago & I think sold. (There maybe an outstanding planning application on it).

There was some issue about the footpath that runs through the site, connecting the back of the main Scalebor development with Moor Lane. When the site is developed this footpath is set to disappear - maybe it already has.........

[weirdmusic]

appropriatebridge, on 10 February 2012 - 05:45 PM, said:

Bradford MDC’s overall proposals for the District as a whole should be rigorously scrutinised to ensure that brownfield sites are developed first. The PC response of 24 January 2012 already points to a pretty glaring omission in respect of Greenholme Mills ...........

I'm a bit puzzled by the constant reference to "Greenholme Mills" as being a brownfield site.
What part of Greenholme Mills is "brownfield"?

 Greenholme_Mills.JPG   36.32K   0 downloads

[appropriatebridge]

weirdmusic, on 15 February 2012 - 07:24 PM, said:

I'm a bit puzzled by the constant reference to "Greenholme Mills" as being a brownfield site.
What part of Greenholme Mills is "brownfield"?

Greenholme_Mills.JPG

I don't know exactly but it was mentioned in the Burley Parish Council response to Bradford - see final para on page 3. response to Bradford on 24 January 2012.

Regarding the footpath through the former mental health grounds, there is no public right of way on the Ordnance Survey map. Maybe something was created when Scalebor was developed and the residents have rights. No knowledge of this.

[Harveybos]

weirdmusic, on 15 February 2012 - 07:24 PM, said:

I'm a bit puzzled by the constant reference to "Greenholme Mills" as being a brownfield site.
What part of Greenholme Mills is "brownfield"?

The Governments terminology is actually 'previously developed land', defined as follows -
previously developed land is that which is or was occupied by a permanent structure (excluding agricultural or forestry buildings), and associated fixed surface infrastructure. The definition covers the curtilage of the development . Previously developed land may occur in both built-up and rural settings.

Greenholme Mills was offered for sale a couple of years back as a mixed residential & commercial development - 7.2 acre site with 157,000 sq ft of floor space in the existing buildings. A further 4 acres was also offered by separate negotiation

[weirdmusic]

I've been doing some research on "Section 106 agreements"

- http://www.idea.gov....do?pageId=71631
"Section 106 (S106) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 allows a local planning authority (LPA) to enter into a legally-binding agreement or planning obligation with a landowner in association with the granting of planning permission. The obligation is termed a Section 106 Agreement.
These agreements are a way of delivering or addressing matters that are necessary to make a development acceptable in planning terms. They are increasingly used to support the provision of services and infrastructure, such as highways, recreational facilities, education, health and affordable housing."

In the course of my research I came across "Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)" (Active since April 2010)

- http://www.pas.gov.u...o?pageId=122677
"The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) is a new levy that local authorities can choose to charge on new developments in their area. The money can be used to support development by funding infrastructure that the council, local community and neighbourhoods want."

Can anyone tell me whether the Community Infrastructure Levy is a replacement for Section 106 agreements or is it in addition to them?

[Harveybos]

weirdmusic, on 19 February 2012 - 11:16 AM, said:

Can anyone tell me whether the Community Infrastructure Levy is a replacement for Section 106 agreements or is it in addition to them?

Yes, the CIL is the replacement - more from the Yorkshire Post here
Section 106 agreements have not been particularly successful however, even more from the Yorkshire Post here . The typical senario appears to be of Developers promising to do great deeds that, once planning permission has been granted, fail to materialise.....

[weirdmusic]

The developments in Menston (see post: http://www.wharfedal..._8032#entry8032)
are expecting approximately £5000 per house as the developers contributions to infrastructure.

Seems to me to be a rather pathetic sum of money - as its just a one-off payment.

It can't possibly cover the actual cost of the infrastructure improvements necessary to make any kind of development "sustainable".

Perhaps if it was £5000 per house, per year, for 10 years, then it might actually be worth something.

[Sebastian-Smythe]

Have you any idea who will be doing the building? I only ask because I had this http://video.google....earch&plindex=0 sent through to me as a warning for what could happen if folk don't keep an eye on things.

[appropriatebridge]

Further to my post of 10 February 2012, I have had it confirmed by the Parish Council that they are aware of WARD and have sent a representative to their meetings.

[appropriatebridge]

I see the controversial housing plans for Menston have been approved on appeal. What is the betting the Burley plans (or even the library) will go the same way when the time comes. I believe planning inspectors are predisposed to approve when developers appeal either by natural inclination or direction from above. Locals' view do not really matter.

Does anyone know how corruption/backhanders etc are avoided?

[weirdmusic]

weirdmusic, on 23 February 2012 - 07:01 PM, said:

The developments in Menston (see post: http://www.wharfedal..._8032#entry8032)
are expecting approximately £5000 per house as the developers contributions to infrastructure.

£1.5 million pounds from the developers towards infrastructure - is this money going to be ring-fenced
i.e. it can only be spent in the Wharfedale Ward & specifically in Menston?

Or is it going to just disappear into the general coffers of Bradford Council?