Campaigners' anger as planning inspector agrees Bradford's green belt must be built on

The leader of the council's opposition Conservative group, Councillor Simon Cooke, said he was massively disappointed by the decision to “concrete over the green belt”.

Government planning inspector Stephen Pratt has accepted Bradford Council’s argument that 42,100 new homes are needed by 2030 and that parts of the green belt will need to be released to accommodate around a quarter of them.

Earlier this year, Mr Pratt held a public inquiry into the Core Strategy of the Local Plan - a blueprint setting out where homes, industry and key infrastructure will go by 2030.

In his final report published yesterday, Mr Pratt said this strategy can be legally adopted, as long as various modifications are made.

Mr Pratt said at the hearings, many people had raised concerns about the loss of green belt land, particularly in north-east and south-west Bradford, the Tong Valley and Wharfedale.

But he said the precise location of green belt land to be built on would be decided at a later stage.

He said Bradford Council had demonstrated that the green belt would have to be built on, given the “availability and constraints on non-green belt land”.

He noted that Bradford Council aimed to put 50 per cent of any new housing on brownfield land.

He said: “However, not all the required development can be accommodated on brownfield sites, due to issues of suitability, availability, viability and deliverability, and some development will have to take place on greenfield sites, including green belt land, in order to fully meet the overall housing requirement figure.”

He said about 11,000 homes and “a significant proportion of new employment land” were likely to have to be placed in the green belt.

Mr Pratt has put forward proposed tweaks to the number of homes planned for specific areas, in particular saying protection measures restricting development around the South Pennine Moors were “unduly precautionary”.

Cllr Cooke said he and his Conservative colleagues were “massively disappointed” by the inspector’s report.

He said the district needed more affordable houses in urban areas, but this plan would instead provide “large homes in the leafy villages, for very financially comfortable people who wish to live there and commute into Leeds every day”.

He said: “I am absolutely confident that in ten years, due to these proposals, we will have a more acute need for housing for low income households, but a few more rich folk living in the outer towns and villages.

“To concrete over the Green Belt to achieve this is inexplicable.”

The Liberal Democrat group leader, Councillor Jeanette Sunderland, said nowhere in the Core Strategy were there plans for new schools.

She said it gave more consideration to “an owl on the Pennine Way than it does to a child in Bradford”.

She said she would also have liked to have seen more done to compel builders to supply smaller family homes in areas which already had lots of large, under-occupied ones.

But Labour’s Councillor Alex Ross-Shaw, the council’s executive member for regeneration, welcomed the planning inspector’s report.

He said: “This is a major milestone and it means we can press ahead with the detailed land allocations to give us more say in the future development of the district.

“We’re pleased the inspector has backed our approach to prioritise brownfield development but there will be some tough decisions to be made about green belt land, which is why we’re encouraging as many people as possible to take part in further consultations on the land allocations document.”

Plans are for area ‘size of the estate’

AN urban extension in Holme Wood consisting of thousands of homes has been confirmed by the planning inspector’s report into Bradford Council’s development blueprint for the district, much to local campaigners’ dismay.
Tong and Fulneck Valley Association has long opposed plans to sacrifice green belt land in the Tong Valley for homes, and had been hoping to persuade Government inspectors against the proposals.
Its chairman Canon Gordon Dey said he was deeply disappointed but not surprised at the outcome.
The report outlines that the evidence submitted by the council does endorse the general principle of a sustainable urban extension in the area, and confirms that the area around Holme Wood could be allocated “without undermining the key functions of the green belt”.
Canon Dey said: “We are talking about an area of land the size of the Holme Wood estate being released – this is not a slight change to the green belt in the area.
“It will create a new community in a location that is inappropriate to Bradford’s needs. There is also no indication in the plans of the infrastructure that will be required to achieve this.”
The core strategy section of the council’s Local Plan blueprint outlines the need for 6,000 homes in Bradford South East with the area having the potential to accommodate a significant amount of new development both on brownfield and greenfield sites.
Justification for the urban extension is provided in the 2012 Holme Wood and Tong Neighbourhood Development Plan which indicates space for up to 2,100 new homes.

‘Nowhere left here to build on’

THE Inspector’s report on the Council’s Core Strategy Development Plan ratifies plans to build 5,500 new homes in south-west Bradford by 2030.
Plans for south-west Bradford include the “redevelopment and intensification” of the urban area and a “comprehensive regeneration” of Buttershaw.
According to Councillor Ralph Berry (Lab, Wibsey), there is no room left in his council ward for new homes.
He said: “There is nowhere left in Wibsey to build.
“I’m aware we have a major shortage in housing in Bradford, but my concern is a lot of people are not going to be able to afford the homes being built, but we are a growing city and we need more development.
“But there’s nowhere in Wibsey to build them.”
Cllr Angela Tait (Lab, Royds) said there is some space in her ward for new housing, and some building projects are already underway.
She said: “There have been some complications, but some sites already have planning permission. With new homes comes the need for new school places, and expansion is ongoing.”
Cllr Sinead Engel (Lab, Clayton & Fairweather Green) said there are not currently enough school places, doctors surgeries’ or recreational spaces in her ward to support an influx of new homes.
She said: “We have to work in partnership with other bodies and hope there is a way to open more surgeries or increase school places; and we also have to think about whether there are sufficient transport links in the area.”

‘We need city centre housing’

IN North East Bradford, 4,700 new homes were originally planned in the Core Strategy Development Plan, but this proposal has been downsized by 300 in the inspector’s report.
Councillor Brendan Stubbs (Lib Dem, Eccleshill) said that there were already plans for hundreds of new homes in his ward.
He said: “There are sites such as the space next to Eccleshill swimming pool where homes are planned, but I can’t think of any other places to put new homes.
“We need to build at empty units in the city centre rather than cannibalise green spaces.”
Cllr Dominic Fear (Lib Dem, Idle & Thackley) said his main concern was how local amenities would cope with the extra homes.
He said: “We understand the need to build homes and had an idea of what was coming, but we are concerned how the roads, schools and doctors surgeries will cope with a thousand new homes being built in the area.”
Cllr Rachel Sunderland (Lib Dem, Bolton & Undercliffe) is worried about new homes making the area a “dormitory for Leeds”.
She said: “I’m worried new homes won’t benefit Bradford. What we need is to build on brownfield sites and at old mills in the city. Quality apartments in the city will increase footfall and provide housing where it is most needed.”

Concerns over infrastructure

AN extra 900 homes should be built in Wharfedale, according to the amended core strategy of Bradford Council’s development blueprint for the area.
This brings the total to 2,500 homes, with Ilkley and Menston being expected to accommodate an extra 200 each, and Burley-in-Wharfedale an extra 500.
The modifications have been endorsed by the planning inspector following an examination of the council’s proposals.
However, Councillor Adrian Naylor, leader of the Independent Group and ward councillor for Craven, believes this leaves major unanswered questions such as how is the necessary infrastructure to be paid for, by whom and when.
He added: “The need for additional secondary school capacity in Wharfedale has not been addressed, rather it has been left to a later stage.
“The issues of road improvements or bypasses such as the eastern bypass round Silsden - a requirement by the last planning inspector prior to any house building - is now something to be dealt with at the site allocations stage.
“Developers are not waiting for these additional plans to be made or funding to be found, they are building houses now and in some areas will have built the total requirement before the core strategy is voted on.”