Green Belt housing.
I think most people are aware of the work I did several years ago at Sun Lane, opposing the development on behalf of the local community. I equally supported efforts to oppose green belt release with Steve Ellams and Professor David Rhodes.
Today, I’m approached almost weekly to comment on green belt release across the Bradford district. Most recently, Menston residents had asked me to review housing proposals at Ellar Ghyll, suffice to say that having taken a closer look at the application, there are issues and misstatements from Bradford Council, principal amongst which was that the highway at the location was to be upgraded using a section 106 agreement from Sun Lane. This is patently untrue, the section 106 agreement referred to work at the intersection of Bradford Road and Bingley Road. The devil as they say, “is in the detail.”
I’ll continue to oppose green belt developoment; where proposals do not adhere to planning policy, whether that’s:
- The National Planning Policy Framework, although a revision to policy is currently under consultation.
- The Town and Country Planning Act 1990
- Bradford’s Supplementary Planning Documentation and the Core Strategy. At the time of writing, Regulation 19, better known as the Local Plan is incomplete for Bradford.
The policy for development is brownfield first, then greenfield and last of all green belt, and I’ll continue to advocate for precisely this approach.
Grey belt – what is it?
The first thing to note is that the use of the word ‘belt’ may be something of a misnomer. Unlike the green belt, which has been designed to encircle settlements to prevent urban sprawl, encroachment on the countryside and to keep settlements separate, the grey belt does not actually wrap around anything. Instead, the government refers to it as ‘targeted release’ from green belt, more akin to infill development or proportionate urban extensions.
Prior to the election, when campaigning, the Labour party referred to:
- poor quality land, car parks and wastelands
- poor quality scrubland, mothballed on the outskirts of town
- a car park or similar land which does not affect the beauty of the countryside
- a disused petrol station
The newly introduced grey belt definition contained within the NPPF states, and this is markedly different from Labour’s original proposals, states:
For the purposes of plan-making and decision-making, ‘grey belt’ is defined as land in the Green Belt comprising previously developed land and/or any other land that, in either case, does not strongly contribute to any of purposes (a), (b), or (d) in paragraph 143. ‘Grey belt’ excludes land where the application of the policies relating to the areas or assets in footnote 7 (other than Green Belt) would provide a strong reason for refusing or restricting development.
Environment.
I fail to see how we can protect the green environment in Burley, Menston and Ben Rhydding given the above extract from the new NPPF. This situation was raised in the adjacent authority of Leeds, where 90% of all new housing, according to briefings by planning officers (See: https://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/politics/alarming-to-the-people-of-leeds-claims-90-percent-of-city-green-belt-could-be-lost-5400552)
It remains to be seen how this will affect the Bradford district who are currently working on Regulation 19.
What is Regulation 19?
This stage allows the public and stakeholders to submit formal representations regarding the plan’s legal compliance and soundness.