Though our brother is upon the rack, as long as we ourselves are at our ease, our senses will never inform us of what he suffers. Adam Smith
Local people are working tirelessly to try to stop yet more destruction of our dwindling open, green spaces. Here I try to highlight issues from the raft of legal documents attached to the formal planning application re Idle Moor.
Many are lengthy and highly technical; all, strangely, are wholly supportive of this application. Now…why would that be?
It is easy to object and will take you less than two minutes. Simply click on this link
A petition organised before the application was lodged on the council site hit over 600 signatures; to date comments submitted formally are over 540. Help us get past 600 whether you live here or not; the principles are universal. You have until October 20th now.
The Consultation Process – Let’s Be Friends!
Whilst we knew something was coming – I’d been writing about it in The Trumpit as far back as the middle of last year – it all began 2/9 with a leaflet distributed, it was claimed, to 987 houses.
This request for feedback from the builder’s (Gleesons) consultants was sent out by Leeds based firm called Peacock & Smith. It was tantamount to doing their homework for them pre-application.
As they say on their website As part of the planning process, our clients often seek the opinions of key local stakeholders and residents before submitting their planning applications.
The website STILL does not contain the proposals at this stage; so much for transparency and openness.
Consider this too from the leaflet: Public open space will be provided on-site. It sounds like a prisoner of war camp and seems to override the fact that 1.6ha of existing open space will be lost. Remember a year or so ago how we valued open spaces?
Bizarrely, the documents submitted were dated 10/9 leaving people barely a week to respond. Unusually too, they omitted many local streets to the proposed destruction site.
The hired guns claimed there were 55 emailed responses and 3 phone calls…a modest response rate of just over 5%. They claimed 987 leaflets were posted but their own map showed that many local streets were excluded.
This is Banana Republic stuff.
One Week On
As the consultants lodged their report claiming only limited objections, I posted on Facebook that we had only 80 odd signatures so far.
It may be that people don’t care about losing another green space but consider:
– the council plan to 2038 has enough provision already for housing in BD10 without this
– there are almost 8,000 empty homes in Bradford, which is roughly a quarter of the total target to 2038
– the total new builds are more than one for every increase in the projected population
Since then the response rate has been staggering and egg in the face of the glib claims of the consultants.
More From The Fiction Dept
Every development has to have a Transport Assessment, another report, paid for by the developers. This one is a 61-page beast but basically says that there will be no traffic issues from another 45 homes perched high up on the moor.
To satisfy Government guidelines it is intimated that people are more likely to walk, cycle or use the bus – yes, it really does. Idle is apparently only a ten-minute walk to the doctors and dentists you probably won’t be able to get in.
Perhaps Amazon will be delivering via drones?
Cycling…would represent an attractive travel option. You could not make this up. And it is only 40 minutes WALK to the train station.
Finally, they attempt to justify navigating Kenstone by claiming that only 25 two-way trips and 24 at night would take place at peak time. It would be laughable were the stakes not so high for ordinary people.
You’re All Going To Be Better Off!
The developer’s submission by Gleeson Regeneration (or Degeneration depending on your take) poses a question; how can you term destroying open green space regeneration? They cite health and well-being benefits which are largely extra council tax and a one-off new homes payment to the council.
They ignore the same benefits that open space affords us.
They pitch themselves as a low-cost, affordable developer but 55% of the development (above the council’s own recommended target of 45%) are 3 or 4 bed detached. Who do they think they are kidding?
They also claim to engage with local schools but the council’s own document confirms local primaries are full. Remember the last development generated a paltry £300k for education; can you tell me where the new classrooms are or where the money was spent, if it actually has been?
The biggest growth in Bradford’s residents will be in older people in the next 20 years; this ignores them. As it does the needs of a community that has endured more than its share of new housing in the last five years. If you have not done so, please support us.
Footnote
I researched several Council documents; here are some key points so far as the plan for Bradford’s housing needs to 2028.
Strategic Housing Market Assessment 2019 (SHMA)
To view click here
Some key points:
P12-this isthe latest available evidence to help to shape the future planning and housing policies of the area.
P13-There are an estimated 9,6234 properties (4.4%) which are not occupied, the majority of which are vacant. According to the 2016-based population projections, the population of Bradford District is projected to increase by 2.4% over the period 2019-2037 to around 549,540 in 2037. Currently it is estimated around 537k. There will be a marked increase in the number and proportion of older residents. The population aged 65+ years is expected to increase by 39.5% from 80,960 in 2019 to 112,950 in 2038 .
P14-the minimum local housing need figure for Bradford District is 1,703 dwellings each year. Current target is over 2,300.
P15-over the period 2019 to 2037, the number of older person households is going to increase by around 32,000 and there will be a 39.5% increase in older people living in the district.
Leave a Reply