In this neck of the woods, many of us are aghast at plans seemingly designed to concrete over every remaining green space.
If Mugabe has a land grab policy in Zimbabwe then the big developers seem to be copying suit here, encouraged by a stated need to build thousands of new homes nationally, egged on by central government and waved through by a desperate local council.
Politics on a local and a national level obviously play a big part here. Nationally we have a Conservative led coalition, Bradford Council is now Labour controlled and locally we are represented by the Lib Dems. So what hope for a consistent approach?
Hand on heart I am no fan of Nick Clegg, Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the Lib Dems; however, on a local basis the Lib Dems are visible, vocal and hard working so they get my vote.
Unfamiliar with the dark doings in the corridors at City Hall, I wanted to find out a bit more about what was behind this raft of planning applications locally and so sought out the views of Cllr Jeanette Sunderland.
A Councillor for many years, Cllr Sunderland and her husband’s families have roots going back in the area hundreds of years.
She states “…there is a failure by the Council to progress a five year housing supply. This failure to produce a plan both enables developers to suggest sites that are not in policy terms available as land to meet the housing supply, such as Cote Farm and Idle Moor; it also removes the rights of local people to comment on the formal land use plan.
As a consequence of this then there is uncontrolled development which does feel like having your neighbourhood concreted over.”
Having a bit of time on my hands (no wicket to cut today? Ed) I did a bit more digging before Mr Persimmon rolls up with his.
Last year the Council commissioned a report by G V A Grimley; “Bradford District Housing Requirements Study – February 2013″.
It is a weighty document and was followed by the Council’s own report – “A Place To Call Home” – which covers the period 2014-19.
First though an attempt at a summary of the external report which covered the period 2011-28. There is length analysis on population trends and predicted growth for the metropolitan area, which is as culturally diverse as any part of Britain.
Broadly, the district’s population in the period covered is estimated to grow by around 70-74,000 from a current level of just over 520,000.
The components of that growth are far more revealing in that, net migration out almost mirrors net international inward migration. Clearly, the ethnic and social mix of the area are changing annually.
The Council’s own weighty document offers some telling figures on the mix of properties in the district, numbering some 220,000. Almost 70% are privately owned but only 15% are social housing which is stated as low in a national context.
Now, given that Bradford is broadly a low wage district there is clearly a mismatch. Add that to future population trends and there is a clue here as to the districts real housing issues.
You could also go further and explore the predicted areas of population growth which may be contentious for some. However, the fact is that birth rates are higher in the minority populations and that, on current trends, Bradford could have a 50/50 population mix in a few decades.
So who are we building houses for and where are they really needed? Answering that one would help shape a sustainable housing policy for the future.
One final and telling statistic is the disparity between average house prices ranging from leafy Ilkley (£333k) to inner Bradford (£68k). Somewhere in between sits this bit of North Bradford.
I saw this on Facebook recently and it illustrated that if we continue to imitate all that is American (Big Macs, Coke, obesity…) then our housing policy could follow suit. But look at the Swiss example; is this dreamland for our tiny island?
Back to Cllr Sunderland. “The failure to produce a five year housing supply leads to predatory behaviour by developers who hope that the Council will cave into their pressure and threats that they will appeal direct to Government if the Council does not agree to the plans.
I am hopeful that the Regulatory Committee will not cave into such pressure and recognise that their policy in terms of keeping the area as major urban green space is correct.”
Remember that two-thirds of the district is green space that we should both enjoy and protect.
“They can and should, in my opinion, resist this pressure. If not then there are dozens of other very compelling arguments such as highway impact and lack of school places…risk of flooding, loss of ancient field systems, bridleways and walling, impact on the setting of listed buildings, the lack of visual amenity from across the valley and contribution to the urban landscape…”
“Idle Moor has been rejected twice on land use policy terms. It can and should be rejected again on the same grounds.”
Cllr Sunderland is bang on the money here but then again she is local and knows plus cares about the area she represents. The major shareholders of the big developers could not give a stuff.
She makes one more telling point that should be blindly obvious even to those at City Hall.
“This…does not help meet local housing need. It provides homes for people who move from Leeds. It will not help at all to solve Idle and Thackley housing needs which are for older single householders or indeed the Districts needs which is for more affordable homes.”
“The failure of the Council to produce the plan is leading to development for greed and we shall all be the poorer for it, including the people who move in and find they have nowhere for their children to go to school, can’t get a doctor or a dentist and spend a couple of hours a day trying to get back into Leeds.”
We wait and see what comes from down in the valley.
Leave a Reply