The disused reservoirs on the back of Baildon Moor are up for planning for housin 😈

Please feel free to complete the attached form with your comments to Bradford Council

https://planning.bradford.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=makeComment&keyVal=O8SWURDHMOD00

Not sure the two houses planned would have that much environmental impact tbh. And I wouldn’t want to buy one with all those golf balls flying around 😉

We need more houses. Or less people. Take your pick.

Throw unwanted people in the reservoir – and that’ll be a sub-base for future building. Win. Win.

We need more houses. Or less people. Take your pick.

To clarify. We don’t need more houses. We need more affordable houses. We need less buy to let. We need less corporate investors buying property and leaving it empty. We need to stop digging up and concreting any bit of green space to stick a load of “executive” developments on it.

Coyote has it

We need more houses. Or less people. Take your pick.

Less people thanks.

We need more houses. Or less people. Take your pick.

There is plenty of un used space in Bradford, in fact some lovely empty mills that could be developed. But no let’s not do something sensible like that, let’s use up a bit more of the diminishing countryside, it’s only good for housing after all 🙄

OK, so how many people read the planning description before moaning about executive developments? Two eco houses are not acres of executive housing, and even if they were, developments at a certain size must include an affordable housing element.

On what grounds are you objecting? Isn’t it just a case of ‘not in my back yard’? With people prepared to complain about anything these days it’s no wonder it’s only the big boys building acres of uniform soul destroying brick boxes who have the finance and might to take on the objectors. An individual wanting to build something unique and different stands almost no chance these days. Result – a nation where it’s almost impossible to build your own home and if we want a new home we have to live in a Wimpy box!

On what grounds are you objecting?

That it is a beautiful bit of open moorland. The resevoirs themselves are in the process of being filled and the stone taken away, so in theory could be returned to a ‘natural’ state.

I’m not against thinly vailed Eco homes, just against encroaching in to countryside, let’s face it why stop at 2? You could get maybe a 100 Barratt Eco homes on that bit of moorland ?

They are planning to build these 2 houses inside the existing reservoirs with green/ponded roofs. The smallest reservoir will be kept as a pond. They really aren’t barrat houses in any sense. have a look at the drawings on the planning portal.

I really can’t see any reason they would impact on the aesthetics of the area at all. And it’d cost YW a lot to fill them in. I assume it’s YW that are selling or have sold them. To be honest i reckon once finished it’d look better than it does now.

Less people thanks.

Fewer people thanks.

I think they look quite interesting, though I notice a couple of the drawings have “Eco Holiday Village” in the title block? Shome Mishtake Shurely?

We at Friends of Baildon Moor have now submitted our detailed objections to this planning proposal for Acre Reservoirs. We believe this reflects the feeling of the public and wider friends as expressed over some time, to the effect that a housing development such as this is entirely inappropriate here.
The full text can seen on the BMDC planning web page.

Please make your voice heard too:
https://planning.bradford.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=O8SWURDHMOD00

Best regards,
David Sturge
Chair Friends of Baildon Moor

There is now an enforcement notice in place to cease this unauthorised work. This was a joint effort from the city council and Baildon town council.

http://baildontowncouncil.gov.uk/reservoir.php

We believe this reflects the feeling of the public and wider friends as expressed over some time, to the effect that a housing development such as this is entirely inappropriate here.

Did you submit the evidence you collected to prove this. (genuinely cynical about any group called friends of being representative of the population)

I thought planning could only be refused if it contravened particular parts of planning policy guidelines. No matter how many people put up valid arguments against it?

It’s a shame that Duck ‘n’ Dive never took their interest further two or three years ago and invested a few quid to make them into training pools (or whatever they are called!).

I live in the village (or should I say town!), drive past there dozens of times a week and always cringed when you saw all that broken bottle glass cemented into the top of the wall so nobody could climb over! Do YW own them? Rumour in the golf club bar is that the guy who owned them got bored of all the hassle and sold the land for a quid – probably to Yorkshire Water!

It’s situated in a big expanse of land and, personally speaking, don’t think having a couple of house’s there will be detrimental to the countryside/views. Plus, unless you are horrendous at golf or have the strength of The Hulk flying golf balls won’t be a problem!

http://m.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/14715544.Baildon_eco_homes_plan_rejected/

We need more houses. Or less people. Take your pick.

Fewer.

Grr.

Ha, that’s on our Dick’s/Fanny’s route. Some nice bits and bobs of riding round there.

(Do all developers think that putting the word ‘eco’ in front of whatever they want to build makes acceptance more likely?)

Interesting case this. The planners must be pretty certain of their position to have refused without submitting it to the committee. Which means the appeal is a direct challenge of their professional opinion (as opposed to a challenge on inexpert decisions of a committee of non planners).

To answer mos above, no, there is still a role for balanced judgement of merit and impacts. But inspectors have increasingly done what you’ve said at appeal – said it doesn’t break a ‘rule’ so gets the OK.

Petitions and objections don’t carry much weight really, they’re just a gauge of sentiment for the politicians who rely on votes.

But no let’s not do something sensible like that, let’s use up a bit more of the diminishing countryside

I’d expect the reservoirs will be viewed as brownfield, just like the mills, rather than countryside. They just happen to be brownfield sites in the countryside.

I’ve just bought a redundant reservoir myself (all be it an underground one) with a view to building on it at some point. Not to build a house though.

let’s face it why stop at 2?

The patches of water are ‘brownfield’ the surrounding landscape isn’t