96 replies to this topic

[appropriatebridge]

greenhowleadman, on 28 December 2011 - 10:07 PM, said:

I admired your Stone preservation campaign greatly SOS
You saw a common sense solution to a local problem
whereas others had been fundraising for a sledge hammer
to crack a nut
for many years.

This village needs someone like you to fight this threat
our elected officials sit on the fence
whilst forgone decisions are brought to a conclusion.

What I like about 'Save our stones' everyone
is that he isn't into self promotion
everything he has done which is a great deal
has been done under a cloak of anonymity
whilst others have blown their own trumpets
whilst selling us down the river.

Have you ever considered running as Councillor?
Had you done so we might have much needed sanity
instead of unwanted safety.

Many thanks for your kind words - although a pound to a penny there are those who would not agree!

My theory on The Stones was that if the arguments were legitimate, the identity of who first handled the baton was not important. The Parish Council took up the baton and really the credit for having got to where we are really lies with Jo Griffiths the Parish Clerk who has been pursuing Bradford MDC. Where we are should mean that as soon as we have some decent weather and low water levels, Bradford can put in place the replacement and retrieved stones.

Funnily enough, I had though about standing as a Parish Councillor, especially when it looked as though they were desperate! However, I would find the red tape and resulting delays unbearably frustrating and would end up falling out with people. If you take The Stones as an example, you could not get a more simple "project" than replacing a few worn out bits of rock yet after two years, although it looks as though we are nearly there, they are still not in place.

May I take this opportunity to wish all Forum members best wishes for 2012.

[weirdmusic]

Back to topic:

Interesting article in the Ilkley Gusset on 22nd Dec - the views of independent councillor Chris Greaves.
http://www.ilkleygaz...lopment/?ref=mr

[appropriatebridge]

Some interesting stuff in today’s Ilkley Gazette.

1) On Page 2 is an article asking everyone to complete a survey about housing. The Councillor responsible has asked for everyone to complete because it “promises to provide a very useful insight”– but the closing date is next Tuesday! I regard myself as reasonably well informed but I had never heard of this until today and such a close closing date hardly gives much time for responses. Now I may be suspicious but the timing of this survey and the ongoing Local Development Framework (LDF) issues seems remarkable. Quite how the two issues could impact I am unsure but some examples of the questions ask for views on:

• Cheaper house prices
  
• Higher house prices
  
• Build more private housing
  
• Cheaper private rents

I dare say one could weave a conspiracy theory around this.

2) Page 6 is devoted to LDF issues. We have:

• “Councillor’s concerns over urban sprawl” – in relation to Chris Greaves and Menston;
  
• “Civic Society calls for a strong response to plan – in relation to Addingham;
  
• “Get old houses in order is the call from social landlord” – in relation to Ilkley.

I was interested to see Councillor Smith say “Although the LDF is a list of developers’ wishes…..”. Readers will recall this was exactly the point I made in my post of 11 December.

Councillor Smith also says “In housing terms, we have recently had 6000 homes unoccupied in Bradford, the focus should be to get these habitable by compulsory purchase and refurbishment before we seek new sites”. Clearly he sees a link between empty homes and the LDF as I did in my 11 December post (although weirdmusic disagreed).

There seemed to be no views from any Councillor(s) representing Burley.

Clearly all the communities in Bradford (Wharfedale) are opposed to the LDF proposals – except Burley may be in doubt at least until the public meeting. On the assumption that Burley comes out against also (either at the meeting or by referendum or some other means) I make the following observations:

• The best focal point with the loudest voice to oppose the LDF would be the Parish Council or probably a sub-committee of it, with whoever has the best expertise in this area as its head. Maybe other residents with relevant skills could be co-opted if the rules allow. This would be better than a mere residents group as Bradford MDC would listen more to a Parish Council.
  
• If all the conurbations in the valley are against the proposal, a formal liaison group should be established to share ideas and plan cohesively. Menston especially have lots of experience. This could be important in another way in that if each goes it alone and (say) Ilkley succeed in getting their quota reduced or abolished but Bradford insist on pressing ahead on the overall numbers, then other locations could end up with increased development.
  
• Accumulation of a properly managed fighting fund should be started as soon as the Burley committee is set up. It is likely that sooner or later we will be talking about an appeals process. This may require legal representation which is inordinately expensive. Better to start soon and build up the fund over a period than suddenly be asking for large amounts further down the line. The fund needs to be properly managed and accounted for which is another good reason why it should be under the control of the Parish Council. Funds could be accumulated through voluntary donations, profits(?) from the annual Burley Festival, local raffles – whatever. I am sure t’Committee will be able to come up with ideas. In the event funds are not needed, they could be donated to Burley Community Trust or used on specific Burley projects. No doubt this proviso would need to be built in to the terms of the fund up front.

[ex-user]

Go "Appropriate Bridge"!!!
Meanwhile
how does one go about calling for a
vote of no confidence in our Councilors?
If the Aire ran through Burley
I would say 'we have been sold down the river'.

[Harveybos]

Here's an interesting article from the BBC website.
Leeds City Council are objecting to Bradford's LDF plans - read more here
http://www.bbc.co.uk...-leeds-16395040

I've been attempting to read through the many pages of documentation relating to the LDF.
As regards transport infrastructure improvements, we all know that the majority of commuter road traffic from Wharfedale is in the Leeds direction, via the A65 and A660. Bradford Council are proposing no road improvements themselves for Wharfedale, but instead are relying on 'cross border co-operation' with Leeds - doesn't sound very likely!

[appropriatebridge]

Came across this article in the Yorkshire Post today. It says that currently a village green can be created if residents can demonstrate to councils that local people have enjoyed informal recreation for 20 years, without being stopped or given permission. The fields between Burley and Menston have a myriad of very well used footpaths and I have seen people flying kites and throwing balls for dogs, all of which could be said to constitute "recreation". Might be stretching things a bit bout I wondered if we could get village green status for these fields (either Menston or Burley village greens depending on where the boundary lies? This would protect them from development. Needs to be done before planning consent is agreed.

[Harveybos]

appropriatebridge, on 07 January 2012 - 01:04 PM, said:

Came across this article in the Yorkshire Post today. It says that currently a village green can be created if residents can demonstrate to councils that local people have enjoyed informal recreation for 20 years, without being stopped or given permission.

I believe this is the status we now have for Burley House Field, through the sterling efforts of the late John Gundry. It did take many years and 3 public enquiries though!

One of my main concerns is the way that the potential development sites have been selected. There seems to be no systematic selection process and no methodology behind it. Of the 8 sites proposed around Burley, 6 have been selected by a call for sites process i.e. asking land owners if they would like to offer their greenbelt land for building on. Surprise ,surprise - quite a few do!

Other than the old resource centre site on Moor Lane, the only other site, the field to the east of the Church has been selected though a mysterious 'Urban capacity study' which isn't in the public domain apparently. This last site is both greenbelt and in the conservation area - the Conservation Area Assessment (produced by Bradford Council!) goes to great lengths to stress the importance of this site to maintaining the setting of the listed buildings and the views into, and out of, the conservation area. Seems to be a lack of joined up thinking here!

Finally, why no mention of Greenholme Mills, this was sold a couple of years back as a mixed use residential/commercial site (by recommendation of Bradford Council!) - or is this area going to be the 10 hectare industrial development site that is mentioned in passing in the LDF consultation?

[Sebastian-Smythe]

Again Burley Mill is brought up. Perhaps a member of your Parish Council could ask why it appears to have been overlooked.

[Malcolm]

"The best focal point with the loudest voice to oppose the LDF would be the Parish Council or probably a sub-committee of it, with whoever has the best expertise in this area as its head. Maybe other residents with relevant skills could be co-opted if the rules allow. This would be better than a mere residents group as Bradford MDC would listen more to a Parish Council."

The Parish Council's response to the LDF proposal can be viewed in full on the village website here.

[Sebastian-Smythe]

This might interest you and also give Bradford something to think about too.

http://www.preservat...ding-reuse.html

Ok, it's not in this country but it does show a way forward and there must be plenty of old buildings waiting for a new lease of life.

Burley Mill for instance.

[weirdmusic]

Malcolm, on 26 January 2012 - 09:23 AM, said:

The Parish Council's response to the LDF proposal can be viewed in full on the village website here.

Its a very well written response - contains everything one might expect, from an area that doesn't want any more housing development.

Only problem, the previous one - also very well written, containing everything one might expect etc etc....., done in 2008, was completely ignored by Bradford Council.

What are the odds on this one meeting the same fate?

So what happens next? Perhaps our Bradford councillor could enlighten us..............

[Harveybos]

For those who thought about submitting comments on the Core Strategy Draft but didn't get round to it, the deadline of submissions has been extended to 4pm on Wednesday 29th February 2012. The Parish Council submission is a good source of information - you can access it from the front page of the village website here
There's more info on the Bradford Council website here

It is important that as many people as possible submit comments as possible and it is not a requirement to use the standardised form from the Council website. Any written comments have to be considered.

[Harveybos]

weirdmusic, on 29 January 2012 - 08:56 PM, said:

So what happens next?

The next stage is summarised in the Bradford Council leaflet here
To quote the Council
'Once all comments have been received, the Council will transpose these into a ‘Summary of Representations’ document which will be published on the Councils website.
The Council will then consider all the comments and providing no significant changes are required following this consultation, work will begin on producing the Draft Submission document. This document will set out the draft Core Strategy for Bradford which will be available for public consultation prior to being submitted to the Secretary of State for Independent Examination.'

Looks like it all hinges on the definition of 'significant change'....

[Matt]

Hi all,

In response to a request for my views, they are the same as Chris Greaves and Dale Smith.

The proposals are flawed in many ways and we are looking at how we minimise development planned for both Burley and Menston. There is a lot of complexity in this. The essentials of it however are that 1) it's too many houses, 2) 100 new houses would be too many in my view, but it's not up to me to decide, 3) the locations under discussion are unasuitable green field sites, when brown field sites are available, 4) the population growth is in Bradford but the houses are in Wharfedale, which is the effect of an arbitary target that is being badly implemented, and 5) there's a limit to how much influence we have and therefore we have to exercise it carefully. For that reason, I'm being careful to remember that even local councillors were given two ears, but only one mouth .

Sometimes politically it's wise to be noisy, but for everyone's benefit it's wise to be cautious and considered. This is one of those times, and that's why I'm not jumping up and down and shouting at everyone - it just wouldn't help.

The coverage in the local paper is very good, as was the discussion at the public meeting faciliated by the Parish Council, and I'd encourage everyone to read about it, understand it, and submit comments by the end of Feb.

Beyond the emotional argument, there are real issues about public infrastructure (schools in particular) and transport. Then of course there are the brownfield sites such as Geenholme Mills, which should surely be developed first...

Matt

[weirdmusic]

Harveybos, on 02 February 2012 - 11:18 AM, said:

The next stage is summarised in the Bradford Council leaflet here
To quote the Council
'Once all comments have been received, the Council will transpose these into a ‘Summary of Representations’ document which will be published on the Councils website.
The Council will then consider all the comments and providing no significant changes are required following this consultation, work will begin on producing the Draft Submission document. This document will set out the draft Core Strategy for Bradford which will be available for public consultation prior to being submitted to the Secretary of State for Independent Examination.'

Looks like it all hinges on the definition of 'significant change'....

If you turn to page 3 the right hand column, of the document linked to in this post it is quite revealing:
"The vision for Bradford 2028 - A key element of the
Core Strategy is a spatial vision for the Bradford District. The following sets out what Bradford should be like by 2028
........................
The growth of the City of Bradford and the towns along Airedale and Wharfedale has been supported by a significant increase in the delivery of new houses, both market and affordable. This growth has driven the economic and social transformation of the district. Sustainable development and management has been at heart of this growth and prosperity over the last 20 years. The District’s unique landscapes, heritage and biodiversity assets have played a vital role in making great places that encapsulates what makes Bradford so special.
........................"

Somehow I think just saying "NO" to any new developments isn't going to have any affect on the planners in Bradford. They've decided that new build in Wharfedale & Airedale (& for that matter the Tong Valley) is going to transform the prospects for the whole of Bradford. The planners have been hard at work since at least 2004/5. They ignored the BPC the first time around & will do so again.

Or put another way, if the planners in Bradford accepted everything that's in the BPC response (ditto Ilkley PC, Tong Valley etc), then that would amount to "significant change" & they would have to pretty much ditch their vision of Bradford in 2028.

[Matt]

weirdmusic, on 29 January 2012 - 08:56 PM, said:

Its a very well written response - contains everything one might expect, from an area that doesn't want any more housing development.

Only problem, the previous one - also very well written, containing everything one might expect etc etc....., done in 2008, was completely ignored by Bradford Council.

What are the odds on this one meeting the same fate?

So what happens next? Perhaps our Bradford councillor could enlighten us..............

High odds, unfortunately. We need to fight our corner confidently and factually, and try to make clear the flaws in the proposals. Some Bradford may take on board, most they won't. Everything they do listen to is a plus, so every effort counts.

It's not helped by the portfolio holder's apparent desire to build on everything she can: http://www.thetelegr...ver_Green_Belt/.

weirdmusic, on 06 February 2012 - 03:27 PM, said:

if the planners in Bradford accepted everything that's in the BPC response (ditto Ilkley PC, Tong Valley etc), then that would amount to "significant change" & they would have to pretty much ditch their vision of Bradford in 2028.

... which would be a good thing. Council vision statements are not so much visions as hallucinations. If we defined our own 'vision' for 2028 I'm sure it would look quite different. Planning is perhaps the clearest example, but not the only one.

[Sebastian-Smythe]

It mentions towns alongside Airedale and Wharfedale - are they aware there is only one town in Wharfedale under Bradford control?

[weirdmusic]

Matt, on 06 February 2012 - 10:38 PM, said:

High odds, unfortunately. We need to fight our corner confidently and factually, and try to make clear the flaws in the proposals. Some Bradford may take on board, most they won't. Everything they do listen to is a plus, so every effort counts.

It's not helped by the portfolio holder's apparent desire to build on everything she can: http://www.thetelegr...ver_Green_Belt/

With that in mind, I think we need to look at the role played by people such as "Dacres Commercial"
According to the article in the T&A:
"Planning expert Clive Brook, of Dacres Commercial, said Bradford needed 2,700 new homes a year to meet the shortfall for a growing population - and that would mean around one third of future developments being on green belt sites.

House builders would need to overcome resistance from ‘wealthy achievers’ in areas such as the Aire Valley and Wharfedale, according to Mr Brook".

Dacres Commercial are part of Dacre Son & Hartley - Estate Agents (amongst other things). So one part of the business is trying to sell houses to "wealthy achievers" in the Aire Valley & Wharfedale whilst another is going to denigrate them. That makes sound business sense!!

Then there's the house builders/ developers themselves. It concerns me that
"David Shepherd, the Council's assistant director of regeneration and culture, ......... said: “We are very keen to work with developers and provide a one team approach to meeting the housing needs of the district."

Where's the community input, in that statement?

[appropriatebridge]

See the Lessons From Menston thread where I have suggested an on line petition.

[weirdmusic]

"A65 group says it is attracting support of politicians as it battles new homes" - story in the T&A Jan 25th 2012 - http://www.thetelegr...tles_new_homes/
"A leading green space pressure group says it is in a stronger position than ever after winning the backing of a number of politicians.
Dr David Ingham says Wharfedale and Airedale Review Development (Ward) has the backing of six Yorkshire MPs and is expecting a seventh to sign up soon as well as parish and town councils along the A65 corridor through the likes of Horsforth, Rawdon, Yeadon, Guiseley, Menston and Ilkley, right up towards Skipton."

Their website makes for interesting reading (the bits of it that aren't under construction):
http://w-a-r-d.org/aims.html - have a look at their aims & objectives.

Are any organisations / individuals in Burley members of it?