Brownfield Green Belt: A glimpse of the stupidity of England's planning system

Those of you who watched the Tour de Yorkshire might have caught a glimpse of Denholme as the cyclists swished through the little South Pennine village. It's not going to win any prizes for prettiness but nevertheless its a great little community. Now what you won't have spotted is this:



This, you'll agree, is a bit of an eyesore. A few years ago is was a stone mill owned an operated under the name Denholme Velvets but that business finished and the mill has gone - another footnote in the decline of traditional manufacturing employment up here in the South Pennine hills. Here's what it looked like.



The reason the site was cleared was because its owners had applied for and obtained planning permission for housing. This permission wasn't obtained in the teeth of NIMBY opposition but was welcomed as a good use of a site that wasn't going back to being a textile mill any time soon. One other thing - the mill (and subsequently the cleared site) are wholly in Bradford's precious 'Green Belt'. The problem is that Bradford's sluggish development market, the location and the site's size meant that the housing permission didn't get developed. Like a lot of undeveloped planning permissions in these sorts of place, this is about viability and demand rather than the evils of 'landbanking'.

Zooming forwards in time we get to the stage where a developer is now interested in the site to build forty or so affordable homes for rent and shared ownership. Just the sort of development that we're told we desperately need in a place where there isn't (unless I'm very mistaken) going to be any but the mildest of local objection. But there's a problem. The planning permission has expired and the now cleared site is in that precious 'Green Belt'. So the initial planning response goes like this:

The site is previously developed land; however the existing development is a cleared site (albeit with some relic structures including a hardstanding and parts of walls). Now that the old mill has been demolished any new houses on the site would have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purpose of including land within it than the existing development.

I'm not criticising the planner who wrote this - he is just presenting what the rules say. As a cleared site in the 'Green Belt' you can't build on it without very special circumstances - but:

Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. This is a very high bar to pass and it does not seem plausible that it could be passed in relation to the proposed development/ site.

We've a housing shortage (or so we're told all the time). We're urged to use previously-developed ('brownfield') sites rather than undeveloped ('greenfield') sites. And we hold a special love for affordable housing. Yet an unloved, unattractive site on the main A629 from Keighley to Denholme can't be developed despite ten years ago having a huge stone mill on it.

This may all get sorted out (we get to occult planning things like 'five year land supply' and 'SHLAA' considerations as well as the emerging local plan 'Allocations Development Plan Document') but it does remind us that our planning system is, at times, utterly and completely stupid.

....

The two referendum campaigns.

****

I got a call from the woman who runs Denholme Elders, a support group for older people in this village perched on top of the South Pennines. They'd been discussing what they wanted to do and had decided they wanted someone to talk to them about the forthcoming EU referendum - could I oblige.

I obliged and set out to give as balanced a presentation about the issues, for and against, as I could. I think I did a passing fair job and I got a little confirmation after about three-quarters of an hour when one gentleman said something like "OK Simon but how are you going to vote?"

It was an interesting hour where some, shall we say, pretty robust views were expressed in that 'do you really think I give a damn' manner that anyone working with the elderly will know. What was striking was that these old people weren't thinking selfishly about their circumstances but rather were asking questions about the sort of country their children and grandchildren would live in. They asked about jobs, welfare benefits, crime and immigration. And they were pretty universally appalled by the lack of seriousness and substance in the rhetoric of the two national campaigns.

Anyone whose sole appraisal of this referendum campaign is through the slogans of Vote Leave or Stronger In - as well as the writings of a host of media experts, bloggers and pundits - would despair at what has become of British politics. An avalanche of half-truths, insults, personal attacks and patronising condescension - plus a sort of proxy war over who succeeds David Cameron as leader of the Conservative Party - has buried the real debate. And, as I saw in Denholme, there is a real debate.

During the first (and slightly quieter) part of the campaign, we had local elections here in Bradford. This meant that we spoke with perhaps a thousand people. A good number of these pushed aside our plea to talk about why they needed a Conservative councillor to ask about the referendum. Some had made their mind up but most hadn't and wanted to explore the issues. This wasn't from a 'please tell me how to vote' perspective but rather a conversation, the sort of engagement you'd have with friends or colleagues.

I've enjoyed this aspect of the referendum because most people know they've been entrusted with a very significant decision and are taking that responsibility seriously. Even last night one person was saying 'I'm voting out but I really want to hear the in case one more time to be sure.' This sort of engagement is in marked contrast to the scaremongering, divisive national campaigns - no-one's falling out, they're just trying to decide what they'll do on Thursday.

For me, after a lifetime in politics - I joined the Conservative Party in 1976 - it is affirmation of two things. Firstly that, given the responsiblity, people can and do take political decision-making seriously and can be trusted. And secondly that our current system, dominated by a London-based media and London-based politicians, does not deserve those people's trust and support. It's not just the familiar 'Westminster bubble' line but something more profound, it's a complete disconnection from the real lives, worries, loves and concerns of those people. Except when they can patronise them as some sort of victim, as vulnerable, or as people these caring politicians can do things do - most often in the form of telling them to stop something (eating burgers, vaping, smoking, drinking, telling jokes).

I saw a tweet - I think is was from the writer and journalist, Gaby Hinsliff - talking about the bitterness of the referendum campaign and the likely bitterness of the aftermath. And this is true, if your world is the world of the London media and London politics. Out here in the sticks people will simply get up on Friday morning and go to work, take the dog for a walk, look after the grandchildren, pop to the shops - do the sort of things they'd do on any other Friday morning. There might be a little disappointment if their vote was for the losing side or pleasure if for the winning option. But there'll be no bitterness - except maybe a sense that our national politics was shown to be nasty, selfish, short-term and consescendingly righteous.

....

All over bar the voting...thoughts on an election campaign

A Denholme doorstep...

It rained today. I mean really rained. Torrents of cold water pouring down onto the Pennine village of Denholme. And we got wet - "I've never know rain like it" was one slightly exaggerated comment. We plodded on from house to house, talking about the main road through the village, the housing development just starting in the derelict (and unsightly) former mill site, and the work of the library that the community saved when Bradford Council wanted to close it down.

We heard about national politics too, about immigration and jobs, about the NHS and about the lack of trust in politicians. As always we listened, tried to get the message across about an improving economy and how we'd protected the health service from the worst of the cuts. Nowhere did we find antipathy - one man abruptly told us he wasn't voting indeed that he'd never voted and would never vote again. And there was the usual smattering, unsurprising in such dire weather, of people too busy or too tired to engage with a damp canvasser on the doorstep - "not interested", "not now I'm on my way out".

There were worries. The woman who invited me in to shelter in her porch so she could tell me how terrified she was at the prospect of a Labour government. Or the ambulanceman who, putting aside his worry about cuts to his service, said that we couldn't risk the economic recovery so he'd be voting Conservative. Time and time again the message came back - "we can't risk it", "Labour might tip the economy back", "I don't know what will happen if we get Miliband in charge".

And there were the waverers, the don't knows. the not sures and those not voting. Each one with a different concern - maybe immigration and Europe, perhaps something personal about social care but most often a real bemusement about the pitch being made to them. I know I can't change someone's mind on their front step in the pouring rain but I make the points - economic recovery, referendum on EU membership, investment in health - and hope that my little contribution (and the fact I've turned up on their doorstep) might tip them from don't know or not sure into voting Conservative.

Many of you will have watched this election through the prism of the media - debates, interviews, stunts, gimmicks, more manifesto launches than ever before (there seems to be one for every minority and every special interest these days), and the constant bickering of talking heads. You'll have laughed at the gaffes, spluttered in righteous indignation, argued with the TV and the radio. Some might have stepped a little further - attended a local hustings, rung a phone in, clicked on one of the avalanche of petitions that pointlessly clutter up our email in-boxes.

Out there on the doorstep it feels very different. For sure we meet the engaged and involved, the questioning, and the angry. But mostly we meet people who make clear that, however important the election might be to us politicians, they have things in their lives that are much more important. Like the man in Cottingley who said, "yes I'll be voting but I've not had time to think about it yet". Next to running his business, ferrying children around and fixing the cracked pane of glass in the conservatory, my plea for his vote is unimportant.

I've not watched much of the TV campaign and my consumption of the newspaper campaign comes courtesy of Twitter so I can't say who did well and who didn't. But I think that the two main parties have adopted very different strategies - Labour segmenting like mad and targeting bespoke messages to target groups of voters and the Conservatives preferring the bash, bash, bash of a repeated message. The marketer in me is curious as to which will be more effective - my direct marketing bias tells me Labour's approach, cynical and exploitative, owes more to Readers' Digest than David Ogilvie. And I know this works.

But I also know that the repeated message and the bestseller syndrome works as well - some of you are now bored with 'hard-working families', 'long term economic plan' and 'don't let Labour ruin it again' but these messages are just starting to get through to people like the man in Cottingley I mentioned above.

Back on those doorsteps what we get fed back to us are the messages that have filtered through - the real 'cut through' not the belief that getting something trending on Twitter is any sort of engagement with that electorate. So we hear those concerns that have reached people - immigration, health, the economy, the competence of Miliband and the threat to our unity from having separatists dictating government policy. No-one mentioned Miliband's 'pledge slab' or Cameron's slip up, no-one talked about bacon sarnies or Bullingdon boys, and no-one said a thing about the inundation of opinion polling that we've seen during this election.

I don't know what will happen tomorrow - other than that millions of men and women will exercise their franchise. I know what I hope for and I see those polls and their accompanying analysis - your guess is probably as good as mine so I won't be making any predictions. But on the dozens of occasions when people have asked me what's going to happen - usually in the context of not wanting a Miliband/SNP cuddle-up - I've answered along these lines:

"All I can do is put my cross in the right box and tell everyone I meet to do likewise."

That right box - for a load of reasons - is the Conservative box. Some of those reasons are negative - not wanting Labour to ruin the economy yet again while screwing us over for a load more taxes being a really important one. But most are positive - offering lower taxes, better managed services, the sort of real compassion we need rather than Labour's 'hug the poor but do nothing much to help them' attitude, and a chance to have a substantive debate and a real say on the UK's most important relationship, that with our European friends and neighbours.

There are lots of things that I don't like about the last five years - the nannying fussbucketry, the creeping erosion of civil liberties and the enthusiasm for grand projects like HS2 stand out - but anyone who thinks a Labour-led government would be any better in this regard needs their head examining. Add in the fascism of the SNP with their named person laws, minimum unit pricing and banning of songs and you get the recipe for the most illiberal government in the UK's history.

So put your cross in the right box tomorrow. Vote Conservative.

....

A little point about housing and the 'green belt'

There you have it - a little piece of Bradford's 'green belt'. In this case it's Hewenden Reservoir looking from the Great Northern Trail (the former railway line) towards East Manywells. And like much of the South Pennines it is beautiful in an everyday kind of way. Not spectacular but, when the sun shines and makes those shadows, cryingly gorgeous - one of the things that make this small part of Yorkshire unique and wonderful.

So when the debate about housing arises, it is this sort of landscape, this kind of place that we must protect from development. Or should we?

Today, it being that time of year, I was at Denholme Clough delivering election leaflets. Now up at the Clough -  the bit of Bingley Rural Ward that bumps into Calderdale - there used to be three farms. That was three (or maybe four) dwellings. One was the halal abattoir at Sunside Farm, the other two typical, slightly tatty hill farms. There were perhaps ten electors here (and half of them were Mr Hussein's family).

Today all this is gone or going - the abattoir closed a while back and where there was once just one farm house, we now find a conversion creating five homes. All now occupied. Across the road another farm has been developed - a further five homes. It is, I don't doubt, only a matter of time before the third of the farms turns into a collection of barn conversions, cottages and houses - maybe five or six more places to live.

From three or four homes - all in the 'green belt' - will have been created 15 or 16 dwellings. And the old abattoir buildings and several barns remain untouched - perhaps for another development, another creation of new homes.

This picture is repeated again and again across the area - former farm buildings now redundant as farms consolidate and tenancies end are turned into homes. All within the 'green belt'. At Denholme House Farm and The Flappit there's been new build as well - a dozen or so nice new houses built were once there were tatty barns and corrugated steel cowsheds.

And none of these developments - in the 'green belt' - meet with objections except, on occasion, from planners upset that their precious "open-ness of the green belt" might be threatened by building on these farmyards and by converting these barns. There are maybe 50 such places in Bingley Rural - that's over 200 homes that can be developed without the need to take a single inch of green field.

Imagine the creative planner who said "maybe with a little new build at each of these places we could double that number" - we'd have approaching 500 new homes without any encroachment on those green fields. Spread that across the rural area of Bradford and we might get 3000 new homes - maybe even more. All without a threat to the green belt. All without petitions, protest groups and the endless paper war between the planners and the public - a war in which the planners get a phyrric victory. For sure they permissions granted and houses built but this is at the cost of public perception of planners - the firm view held 'out there' that planners do what developers want.

It's important to see this because Bradford Council want about 1500 homes built in Bingley Rural's villages over the next 15 years. There are already permissions for around 600 houses - with the 500 that developing existing rural sites brings we get most of the way towards the 'target'. There really isn't any need at all to 'release' tracts of land from the current 'green belt' for future development.

But all this requires planners to get out from their closed box, to stop believing the commercial propaganda of the house building companies and to think for themselves how we can meet Bradford's housing needs without any large land take from the 'green belt'.

....

Buck Park Landfill - Denholme wins!

****

One of the very first letters I wrote as a councillor back in 1995 related to the quarry at Buck Park in Denholme. At that time it seemed that the Council viewed landfill as a "solution" to the problem of over-quarrying at Buck Park. And so, a year or two later along came a planning application for the further extension of the quarry followed by landfilling with domestic waste.

At a meeting in Denholme Mechanics Institute it all seemed very calm as the plans were explained, lots of promises were made to the village and I sat there bemused as to the lack of opposition. It needed a spark and that came from a man called Dominic Clark who lived at Buck Park Farm right next to the proposed tip. From the back of the full hall his voice of opposition cut through the previous sense of acquiescence and we had a campaign.

Some twelve years later, it seems we might have finally got to the end of this story. After a planning refusal, an inspector granting permission, a judicial review and a high court case there arrived another planning application for landfill. Bradford Council refused this application and yesterday the Inspector published her findings from the appeal:

However, in a decision report published yesterday, the inspector said there was “no need” for a landfill site in the Bradford district, particularly in such a “sensitive location” as Buck Park.

There wasn't really a need twelve years ago but I know that, had Dominic not stood up and objected at the meeting all those years ago, we would have a landfill in Denholme. I know that without the campaigners - Sharon, Brian, Frances, Graham and many, many others - we would have a landfill in Denholme. And I know that without the villagers of Denholme raising thousands of pounds to pay for lawyers, expert witnesses and consultants we would have a land fill in Denholme.

I am thrilled for all those ordinary folk, none of them rich, none of them planning experts, whose efforts have stopped this landfill. Stopped it so the nesting peregrines can hover over the village, stopped it so the ravens, badgers and stoats have an undisturbed home. Stopped it so the village doesn't have hundreds of tip wagons thundering through every day.

Brilliant!

...

"One Million Pound A Vote" isn't quite enough for Labour to buy Green support....

****

Windmills! Not sure about what I personally feel about them (although I'm unconvinced at their value as a solution to England's energy supply challenges - fracking and nuclear power look much better bets) but I do know that plenty of people aren't so keen on having them plonked in their back yard. Including a whole bunch in Denholme.

Right now Bradford Council is consulting on its 'Local Development Framework Core Strategy' which includes proposals for loads more windmills. Which will be sited (assuming the Council avoid the massive row that would come from putting them on Ilkley Moor) in Denholme and Queensbury where there's loads of wind. And residents in these places want to challenge these proposals.

However, it seems we needn't bother complaining since the Labour Councillor responsible for planning has already decided:

Councillor Val Slater, Bradford Council's executive member for planning, said: “Renewable energy ultimately means a cleaner district and less pollution. Although there is an increase in applications for wind turbines we don't actually receive that many.”

I guess this is part of the price that Bradford people will be paying for the backroom deal that led our three-strong Green group on Council to back almost everything the Labour Party propose! It seems that the "One Million Pounds A Vote" deal on renewable energy we saw at the budget council was only part of the payback for the Greens' support. They love windmills and the bigger the better!!

Councillor Martin Love, one of Shipley’s ward representatives and a member of the Green Party, said: “Any increase in renewable energy generation is to be welcomed.

“Something Bradford has got a lot of is hills and wind. We should utilise them for energy generation wherever we can. However, for Wind turbines to be effective we need bigger ones."

I will point out that the hills and wind aren't in Cllr Love's ward, of course!

...

Decision-making, planning and the purposelessness of council strategies

****

Yesterday evening was spent at Shipley Area Committee. Now while this sounds to be in the same category as Vogon poetry, it is quite often an interesting occasion and not just because I’m a masochist.

Last night showed the contrast – and the problems councils have with this – between specific decision-making and the making of plans or strategies. Put simply, we’re pretty good at the former and really rather bad at the latter.

And the meeting allowed me to speak of two great but flawed marketing geniuses...

The first hour and a half of the meeting was taken up with two hotly contested decisions – whether to put speed bumps all over Nab Wood and whether to take the zip wire and bucket swing out from Claremont Fields at Wrose.

In both cases supporters and opponents attended the meeting. As is our practice the chairman allowed each of them some time to express their concerns. In addition to this, time is given to SCAPAG members (representatives of the parishes and neighbourhood forums across the Shipley constituency).

The resulting discussion would, I feel, give a buzz to fans of good local government. Residents were involved, every member of the committee contributed their thoughts and solutions were sought that aimed (if not quite reaching) consensus. People may not like the decisions we took but they couldn’t argue that they weren’t taken with thought and care by councillors.

The remainder of the meeting – another hour – was mostly taken up receiving reports “to note” accompanied by short officer presentations. Two items were linked – headlines from the “state of the district” survey and the Council’s sustainable communities strategy.

Now without going into the details of these things, it struck me that these two reports told a great deal about how the council plans and strategises. Reading through a document littered with words like “overarching”, “transformational priorities” and “journey”, I realised that we haven’t got this process right – or even nearly right.

The problem is that these grand plans simply aren’t working documents. No council officer starts his or her day with getting down the “sustainable community strategy” as a guide to what to do. Nor does any council officer get out our “2020 Vision” to check on our progress.

Published with great fanfares and with exciting talk of partnership, mission and vision, these are little better than glossies produced to give the impression of strategy and planning. Can we take seriously a plan that has nine or ten “transformational priorities”?

Surely, we should have just one priority?

Last night, one Town Councillor (from Denholme as it happens) showed us up by saying in one sentence what priority we should set. It was some along the lines of:

“After years involved in the District, I think we should concentrate on prevention and early intervention.”

A statement of priority and an indication of strategy. That is how business sets priorities, defines strategies and prepares plans. Councils should learn.

....

Planners, Big Society and how grazing horses isn't allowed in the 'green belt'

I have a soft spot for planners. Partly through a continuing love affair with maps and plans and partly because planners get a raw deal – they don’t set the rules (although at times they implement them with unwarranted gusto) after all.

Despite this I know that the Director of Planning at the Department for Communities and Local Government is shouting at the deaf when she says:

The profession had "a big role in the Big Society", she said. "You already know the communities - you already have an 'in'," she said.  "Central government is devolving an enormous amount to you. We are less concerned than ever about processes and more concerned about making things happen".

I recall sitting – right back at the early days of the localism debate – in a meeting discussing rural development and hearing the comments of a Director of Planning from a large rural authority:

“Giving Communities rights to influence planning is the thin end of the wedge.”

This view more accurately characterises the approach of planners than does the exhortation of the DCLG’s planning boss. Here’s the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) on the subject of the ‘Community Right to Build’ a core element on the localism bill:

“Proper planning scrutiny has served us well whereas this proposal appears to disempower local authorities by removing their right to determine development proposals and may mean that new housing built as a result may conflict with existing wider community priorities, and will only have to meet nationally prescribed minimum standards, even if the local authority wishes to see higher design standards in its own area”

What they mean here is that local communities might actually decide for themselves what housing development that want to see and where. Without needing the scrutiny of the RTPI’s members!

Many planners see themselves as guardians of sacred texts – PPGs, PPSs, rUDPs and a legion of other documents drawn up, it seems, more to confuse the layman than to allow a genuine role for local communities in determining what developments happen on their patch. As a councillor, I take a pretty simple view, if there’s no substantive opposition to something it should be allowed. Planners, on the other hand, believe differently.

I’ve been to two planning meetings in recent weeks – on both occasions regarding developments in the ‘green belt’. Now, I’m not going to bore you about ‘green belt’ policies – if you want to know more it’s all in PPG2 – but suffice it to say they are ridiculous and contradictory. The first of my two visits to planning concerned the further development of an industrial rendering plant located in the ‘green belt’ between Denholme and Thornton (North West of Bradford).

The Committee – despite my eloquent arguments – voted to allow a huge trailer store at this plant, ostensibly to allow 24 hour operating while reducing the stench that comes off the rotting animal by-products that feed the plant. Maybe they were right but, and this is important, the whole plant (a significant industrial process) has been constructed in the ‘green belt’.

Go forward a couple of weeks to my second visit. This time I’m with a local resident who wants to build a modest hay store to support her grazing horses. Foolishly, this resident had believed it when a planning officer gave a verbal OK to the construction of the hay store with the result that, shortly following the commencement of building, enforcement notices were issued. Subsequently an initial planning application was refused and the resident submitted a second application – this time taking proper planning advice and providing support from horse nutrition specialists.

In contrast to the rendering plant – a stinking, noisy intrusion into the ‘green belt’ – this modest proposal (again despite my eloquence) was refused. One Councillor described the half complete building as an “abortion” while others clambered up onto high horses proclaiming the sanctity of the Council’s ‘green belt’ policies. A complete contrast to the discussion about the extension to the rendering plant where members – the same members – had fallen over each other to explain “more in sorrow than anger” how necessary a huge store for trucks was and that this justified a massive development in the ‘green belt’.

What I also know is that, had my local resident want the barn to store feed for sheep, pigs or cows, she would not have needed planning permission. After all, grazing horses isn’t an allowable land use in the ‘green belt’. Go figure!

....

Campaign Comment: Funding Unions

Yesterday afternoon I was delivering in Denholme - rushing a bit as I had a meeting to get to and wanted to finish the round before setting off to Bingley. Coming out of one gate I spotted a young (well younger than me) man clutching my leaflet. He came across the street - by this time the leaflet was tightly folded up and clutched in his hand. Not a happy fellow.

"Is it really true that the Council pays for all these full-time union officials? That's taxpayers' money isn't it?"

I explain that, yes, Bradford Council does spend over £300,000 paying the wages of full-time Union officials - a figure that shocked me and took some prizing out of officers.

"Well I don't pay taxes for that. And it's the same with the Government - they're giving millions to the Unions."

Now that was news to me! So I checked and the young man was right:

The Union Modernisation Fund (UMF) is a grant scheme, launched by the previous government, providing financial assistance to independent trade unions and their federations for a limited period. It was designed to support innovative modernisation projects which contribute to a transformational change in the organisational effectiveness of a trade union. The UMF sought to enhance the ability of trade unions to meet the needs of their members and to make an effective contribution to constructive employment relations and the economy as a whole.

An appalling misuse of public money. And not just a small amount of taxpayers' money either - the Unite union alone received over £4 million from the last government. No wonder that Union was such a generous supporter of Labour!


Update: The TPA published their review of taxpayer funding for trades unions - it's more than I thought: £85m including £67.5m in payments to the 2,493 full time equivalent public sector employees working for trade unions at the taxpayers’ expense in 2009-10.

....

Campaign Diary: Days Seven and Eight - white dots and chasing fairies

 

A quiet start to the week - took an evening off from the doorstep as Kathryn had driven to Milton Keynes and back therefore earning rest rather than doorbells. Still most of the delivery is out the door - got Wilsden to sort out but that should be done before the end of the week.

Took a wander up to Harecroft, a little hamlet between Cullingworth and Wilsden, where there were concerns about the sudden appearance of white dots on the cherished stone flagged footways. Residents - quite understandably - feared the worst and that the council were planning to rip them up and lay low maintenance tarmac instead!

Turns out the white dots were a precaution - there had been a couple of attempts to steal the flags while some general repairs were ongoing. Painting white dots on them is a disincentive to theft as it would mark then as stolen! We learn something every day!

Still chasing whoever's responsible for the Cottingley Beck area - want to get on with sorting out what is a pretty important site the management of which is causing local residents (who are, in this case, paying directly for the upkeep) a great deal of annoyance and irritation.

Back to Harden this evening for canvassing - sun's out so should be good.

....

Campaign Diary: Day Six - well it is Bingley RURAL!

Spent a really pleasant day exploring the rural in Bingley Rural. The picture above is the view looking back over Whiteshaw Estate towards Denholme.

Our journey started in the late morning with a circumlocation of Cullingworth. Chatted with walkers on the path to Sugden End Farm (weren't going to vote Tory but didn't live in my ward so who cares!) while waiting for half a dozen cyclists to struggle up the slope - rather them than me! Dropped in on Mrs Wood on Lees Moor - safely sat in her new bungalow (the one the planners didn't want to let her have - yours truly went to committee and helped secure the permission). Met some nice folk in the gorgeous little hamlet of Ryecroft - had a series of planning, water supply and environment issues there so they mostly knew me and appreciated the support. And then - via Leech Lane and a discussion about dog poo - to lunch in our own garden.

After lunch up to St Ives - absolutely heaving with families taking advantage of the free adventure playground, woodlands and walks. One of the best playgrounds you'll see and a facility we worked hard to get.  Here's a picture (taken on a much quieter week day!):

Great stuff - shows what Council's can do and fantastic to see so many people enjoying what we've put in. From St Ives - via the controversial barn at Beckfoot - to Hallas Bridge, one of the hidden wonders of the ward. A sweet little hamlet set down by Hallas Beck just along from Goit Stock waterfalls.

Up Bents Lane dropping in a farms, barn conversions, livery stables and cottages - ending up at Wheelrace Cottages where the lovely Mrs Lee gave us a cup of tea and we sat in her wonderful garden for half-an-hour. Then the final circle - round Denholme - Whiteshaw is all closed off now with big gates, codes and such making it a tricky place to deliver - shame but an illustration of how security conscious folk have become these days. Finished along Trough Lane - real mix between the conversions filled with well-off folk and the obvious struggle that is hill farming - you can see why farmers want to turn their fine stone homes and barns into posh living when it's evident that farming doesn't pay its way. It's a real shame that all of us who take advantage of the hard work these men put in looking after the hills and moors don't put a little back in - maybe stopping acting like we own it all would be a start.

Best day of the campaign so far - highlights including gatecrashing a house party, talking about campaigning in Clayton back in the 1960s and, of course, Mrs Lee's tea.

...

Campaign Diary: Day Four - Denholme, the AV referendum and curry!

Of the 40 delivery rounds in Bingley Rural, only 16 remain on my dining room floor - this is excellent. Took some down to my ward colleague, Baroness Eaton - had a bit of a giggle about being a "Lord" plus some ace gossip that I can't tell you about! Spent the morning in Denholme though - sad to see the way in which some folk are obviously struggling - evidence of aborted DIY projects, maintenance left undone and a depressing feel about parts. Sad that the good times passed so many folk by - hopefully the tax changes and such will help a little.

Also got a new deliverer - on the back of wanting to campaign against AV. Which was excellent news as the regular deliver for that patch can't do it any more! And reminded me that I've yet to encounter anyone on the doorstep who thinks changing to a new system of voting is a good idea - bear in mind that I'm not mentioning the referendum (selfishly I find my election to be more important).

I've received a few e-mails and phones calls following delivery - shows people are reading the leaflet which is good. One or two of these are real issues with the Council while the others are more political - will respond appropriately!

Last part of the campaign day was canvassing on Long Lane in Harden - really good response, nothing like a bit of sunshine to get a smiley response on the doorstep! And plenty of Tories too so we rewarded ourselves with a curry - at the fabulous Moghul's in Keighley (where we did some actor spotting).

A good day!

....

Not the budget....

 

Hundreds of articles, blogposts, commentaries and critiques will be published in response to George Osborne's second budget. This isn't one of them.

It's not that I have nothing to say or that the budget is unimportant but that my tuppence worth of comment is of little matter. If I say I like this and hate that it will change nothing and serve little to advance those things I want to see done (or more often, not done).

Instead I want to remark on the important matter of philanthropy - hence the picture of the gates to Foster Park in Denholme. The park was a gift to Denholme from William Foster in 1912 - hence the name - and the gates and railings were given in the 1920s (to mark the coming of age for William's son). The Foster's were, of course, the dominant employer in the village and having gained so much from the place chose to put some of that back.

I suppose we could get all sniffy and say that the Foster family could afford all that generosity, that their riches were built on the back of workers in Denholme and that they really were obligated to "put something back". But that's really the point of it all - poor people may be generous with time and kindness but only the wealthy are able to be so generous with cash or land (or both).

Today, when we want parks, halls or playgrounds we turn to the modern patron of all that is good - the government. And the result of this new tradition is that old philanthropy is pushed aside. The developer is not minded to pass over part of his profit to local beneficiaries when the government - through "section 106 agreements" or other impositions - has already extracted large sums from his pockets. And the businessman is less likely to make the sort of gifts that William Foster made when he sees an ungrateful government taking vast taxes and imposing ever more onerous and expensive regulations.

Philanthopy died as a result of government not because the character of wealthy people changed. And that government with its "progressive" taxes and special imposts on the rich says to such people: "your riches offend us, you are not welcome, just leave your cash for us." So the rich don't give - not in the manner of enhancing their local place. There are a few real benefactors - Barrie Pettman in Patrington, for example - but mostly the rich have turned their back on such giving. Fed up with the sniffy response of government, annoyed by ever higher taxes, the wealthy no longer play the part they played in times past.

For philanthropy to work, we have to celebrate wealth and success - to recognise that the modern day Fosters are there and should be encouraged, supported and smiled upon. And their generosity encouraged rather than scorned.

For philanthropy to work we have to allow space for giving and, above all, treat the wealthy as a national treasure rather than a group to be enviously taxed until they depart to warmer, friendlier shores.

.....

When is a saving not a saving? A tale of some libraries

***

Readers will know that the Labour leadership of Bradford Council decided – with support from our local Liberal Democrats – that two libraries in Bingley Rural, at Wilsden and Denholme, should be closed as part of the budget “savings”. Along with three other libraries elsewhere, this action was to contribute £70,000 out of the £56,000,000 total saving.

Now, leaving aside the spiteful nature of such a cut, it appears that the saving is rather a fiction. Here’s part of the letter given to “users” of the library:

All the staff who currently work in these libraries will be redeployed to other libraries in the district.

In conjunction with this the Council will consult with local communities about how best to deliver their library service in the light of the reductions to the library service budget. The Council will also carry out a community needs assessment.

So let’s get this right – closing the libraries will not result in any savings in staff costs, there are unlikely to be any economies in the book budget as a result and the Council will also have to introduce new stops in its mobile service to pick up the reduction in service to these villages.

Three out of the five closing libraries are run from Council-owned premises (not specialist libraries but community centres) so there is no saving in rent and the impact on central overheads must be small given these are libraries mostly open just ten hours each week.

In truth – or at least as far I am able to ascertain – closing the two libraries in Bingley Rural will actually save Bradford Council the cost of the rent for space in Wilsden Village Hall (less that £2,000) and a minimal amount in heating and lighting.  It seems to me that closing these libraries merely realises make-believe savings in “full cost recovery” and central overheads that could, in truth, have be achieved without closing a single library.

...