Sunday, 22 June 2014

Case 1 Theft of Play Ground and Endangerment

Constituency    Royds BD6 .

Background To History of The Site

TWO current competing planning permissions are extant on the site and a significant FUNDING DESPARITY alledgely we believe  relating to Funding Applications from Central Government  and Ward acquired Budget

1. The First an Application for a Play Area which occurred in 2011 and was used to instigate a total of 43K to develop the site as a Play Area . 11/00397/REG. It has a history of extant applications not referrred to

2. The second relates to an Application for HOUSING on the same Land  Footprint 14/02654/OUT which has existing use and extant planning for a Play Area and BMX track and basketball  court. The matter of Grant of Planning Permission was made on Land owned by the COUNCIL and made through ASSETT MANAGEMENT and through which no COU was applied 

3. Matters of FUNDING from WARD fund and PLAYBUILDER SCHEMES

 We are investigating three aspects of this Site and of Course why the three Ward Councilors AT  VS  did not represent their constituents because they held Executive Port Folio and would have a conflict of interest !!! What Non Sense the Conflict remains with the Councillor to declare not the Community to endure  


We are looking at a small Play area that is owned by the Authority . The Bradford Planning Directorate has now been asked to determine an appplication relating to Assett managements application to Develop 7 Houses on the Public Open Space in  / on the area 

(1) The Devious planning Application to put Houses on this Public Open Space and Play Area contray to Unitary Development Process and Duties Requisite  14/02654/OUT ( Comments and Objections have been removed by the Council n = 29  )

(1b) It was drawn to the attention of the council that legal processes needed to occur regarding POS re apropriation ss122 of the LGA ACT . The council where minded to ignore this
A FOI has been lofged to determine the material fact that no advertisement to apropraite was ever made . No response to date FOI Material Facts Apropriation

(2) The Failure to maintain a Childrens Play Area to a requisite Standard  causing Endangerment 
This Site had an investment of 43 K On Play Builder Funding see if you can spot it  ??
The EN 116 and EN 117 Play Ground  standards are lacking

Want to know MORE  click on the FOI Request. Check out the Mythical SS106 agreement and adjacent site that neither had Planning permission expired Feb 2014, and never fulminated because no SS106 was signed. Since the appraisal and information had significant material bearing on acquiring  financial grant monies and was contrary to fact there exists concern particularly that which was to be spent on site and does not appear evident see ( Internal review ) for requested Costs on Work and equipment

(3) Identify concerns about CBMDC spending on SS106 Inducement Monies That remain unidentified and lack  audit 

(4) In doing so we will identify Council Officers Negligent in their Duty

The on site BMX Track was not a casual affair  LINK  96/02912/COU It is clear this defined use was clearly ignored by the case officer and described as Vacant with no existing use. The BMX track is therefore part of the designated Play Area

Public Interest Test and Risk Assessment

The unallocated site which is part of a woodland complex has traditionally and formally been used as a play area and represents one of the few areas on Meadway where children can safely Cycle off Road . 

Because the City Failed to Adopt Designated Housing Sites as part of the Statutory UDP procedures and Duties inherent the authority in particular circumstances place themselves in jeopardy

This effectively means for this unallocated Site no member of the Public or resident has had a lawful say in the determination of the environment they live in , in Legal Terms the Right to Modification or Representation has been prejudiced 

Here is where it gets ugly , the Planning Panel , approved the Application which was made by Assett management with a view to selling the land to a developer , along comes a developer and builds on our playground ( although its worth reading the objections which merit rejection in their own right ) Along comes a Judicial Review , which now means the only person that was wrong was the Council and if pursued by the developer alone could result in thousands of pounds of Public Monies being needlessly wasted BECAUSE the City Soliictor was not minded or did not act despite being made acutely aware

Here is where it gets even more ugly as if it could not get ungly enough. The UDP Process a statutory process requires two  key elements to be undertaken - if you like a big Duty of Care

(i) EIA - Environement Impact Assessmet  - This does not mean hug a tree , it means ensuring the infra-structure of this post war estate is fit for purpose eg SewersWater Run Off and Road Infra Structure 

(ii) Urban capacity Study - UCS - makes sure that sites like this precious Greenfield Site adjacent to one of Bradfords Green Lungs - Judy Woods - is not compromised when other Brownfield Sites are available  elsewhere 

(iii) CBMDC hsve beem constanntly advised  Regina versus City of Hull MDC Developing cojoined applications outside Unitary Development Process . I refer to the cummulate and adjacent applications not declared on UDP re Royds Master Plan and the adjacent site of N=300+ Houses one of at least for major developments on the failing pre-war estate infrastructure

" By Failing to prepare , You are Preparing to fail " Benjamin Franklin

The quality of legal advice is highly concerning and the resulting action of the authority being Ultra vires  , meaning acting beyond their legal powers concerning . No one is above the law 

Just to shoot themselves  in the foot along comes a resident who asks to Speak at planning panel registers accordingly , turns up at 10:00 am waits to 12:42 to present his lawful concerns on the application including overt legal warning to members that they are responsible for their acts and ommission . Yes you guessed the Chair allocated the 5 minutes to one other and refused to give the Resident Due process 

Traffic Assessment

How an earth a Traffic Officer failed to report on the following key facts is nothing short of imcompetent. The following are all material factors of significant relevance to the site . Meadway Width 5 m , Two Vehicles parked Adjacent will obstruct the Highway

(i) Deems it necessary for a pavement for a developement but can not see the Children who are crossing a busy main road have no paving nor for that matter a cut verge in compliance of the Highway Act 

(ii) The Existing Traffic Order  Access Only due to existing  traffic problems of cars using the route as a rat run , and substantial traffic redulting from the School Academy Fenwick Drive is Bounded by 2 traffic control signs Access Only 

(iii) An outstanding SS106 from the early 80's stating the Highway was not fit for purpose and to which the Authority failed to implement

Notifiable Weeds and Poor Site maintainance because the Council and In Communities dont kknow which community their in 

Steps with eroded rises a Trip hazard

Rubbish Glass and other maintainance 

Algae and urine on slide - Boulders good for Head Injuries 

Greater 2 m and no soft landing 

Fires on site Poor Community Policing

3 mats insufficient not coveing a throw zone 

Glass on site 

Bins Not Empties 

The Bmx and tarmacced area used for Cycling

Weeds Projecting Nails and Glass

Highwaymen and  The Section 106

Rumour has it that SS106 money has been moved around wards and Constituencies often at points some substantial distance from the principal developments needs . SS106 are not rigorously auditted There is no doubt 106 funding should be examined in detail, hoe many times can a Park acquire SS106 investment when a road Crossing is needed elsewhere

The Localism Act

The Localism Act makes for provision for local people to register an expression of interest on the site and there is clear implications for the local authority in changing the Use and Status of this site by assigning a notional Hosuing Allocation to the existing use outside of statutory process pre-cluding the community from determining its future

Now we Have Your Attention  - The Town Hall Door 

Whilst members where significantly misled . it seems to me that the only way forward with Planning in Bradford is to Have it "televised"  by Internet Streaming  to Bradfordians so they can Scrutinise the Quality of Decisions , this is not a difficult technical feat . I am certain that when the quality of decision making is watched it will substantially improve.  In this City of Shame , it is one of the Few Town halls where ordinary Bradfordians can not walk through the Front door of City Hall . Instead we have a series of masons tunnels and a sheep fold for members of the Public . Its time the wool was stopped being pulled over our eyes .
The measure of a good City hall is seen by who walks in and out of that front door , and whether you be a Bradfordian Councillor or MP the Town Hall Door Should be Open , not a haven for the intellectually impaired 

Procedural Anomolies

1. Failure to Notify . The application was withdrawn circa 03/14 it was resubmitted 07/14 under a New Planning Folio . N = 12 residents did not see the notice for the secondary application placed on site . Whether debatable or not what is Clear ( Witnessed and Recorded )  - was that the Old Planning Notice Remained on Site stating that Objection deadlne 27 Feb 2014 has been met . This is sufficient to prejudice notification alone

2.Adjoining g Property the Council state that they notified near neighbours  Re Adjoining Properties The only principle adjoinment is the Highway at Meadway only propereties to the East of Site where notified . Neighbours equi-distant to the West where not , despite in one instance after the first application requesting to be duly notified 

3. Failure of The Planning Panel to allow an objector to duly speak because the Chair had mis allocation time thereby making the Authorities action challengible 

Traffic Matters Address To Highway Officer s Report (Placed on Planning File )

In regard to Highway Consultation I am minded to comment on the same and request that this is fully considerred at planning Panel given the Consultation was not placed on file till late August not giving residents and objectors significant of timely background to the matter 

1. The Highway Officer makes limitted reference to the overall impact of traffic in this area and to the fact the locality is located on a bend and in proxity to two junctions 

(a) That no overall EIA - Environmental Impact Assessment has been made by the Coucil as a consequence of expanding the 1950's estate from restricted and limited infrastructure. To include the enhanced vehicular activity being caused and promoted by the near by Academy School and from nearby retail park and to which Meadway is and has been used as a shortcut from Hudds Rd to Halifax 

(b) That an existing S106 Agreement to Widen Meadway as part of a development in the 1980's because the road was notfit for purpose  has not been implemented

(c) That the existing housing structure is confined  to the North of the site traffic enterring or exitting the site would direct impact with headlights other resident privacy , and impact on access and egress from existing driveways

(d) That the siting of any main road on or near ( 5 m ) a play area is a material factor 

(e) That the measures indicated by the Highway Officer in no way guarantees that traffic would remain of the Highway or that levels of visting traffic could be accomodated at busy tiimes. The resultant width of Meadway is such that if two vehicles park either side of the road it remains or becomes blocked 

(f) With reference to a similar application to derive acess to the highway from a garden there is a marked contradiciction in Planning Procedure ( declined due to TM2 in identical circumstances)

(g) I find concern that the Traffic Officer in question can find grounds for a pavement for a development and not provide one to enhance safety at the nearby Childrens Pay Area . It is my belief , that , the Council is negligent

I am minded to conlude that the traffic Officers overall conclusion is neither consistent or considerred and in the event of an accident would contribute vicariously to any liability the Council may have incurred 

For avoidance of doubt I formally make record that the Highway Officer was requested to discuss and provide further facts to the  matter and to confirm he had visitted the site in person as of 09:00Hrs   Wednesday 3rd September 2014. Did Not Respond

For avoidance of doubt ( witnessed ) these matters where raised a Neighbourhood meeting with Clr VS and that meeting was curtailed when she was confronted with questions relating to traffic matters (  Transcript available) . I am also given to believe from personal communication Clrs AT  and VS will not take on constituency  matters for residents on matters  planning and realted traffic issues because quote They Hold port Folio Positions within the Council and residents are directed elsewhere . 

Two key points in the limitted circumstances where that occurs Clr Slater and Thornton are required to represent their consituents , and in any event the conflict of interest and obligation remains with them to withdraw , declare an interest , and assist their consituents to whom duly elected them not with residents whose children are endangered by acts and omissions of agents of the council

It is allegedly my belief that this application is significantly prejudiced with the local Authority attempting to sell land at conflict with good planning practice and decisions

The Site Objections

To Case planning Officer or Whom It may concern

I the undersigned formally object to City of Bradford Metropolitan Council regarding Application 14/02654/OUT Construction of two blocks of three dwellings and one detached dwelling (amended description 15.07.2014) | Land To East Of 41 Meadway Bradford West Yorkshire BD6 2SP

Matters of Objection

(i) Meadway – The Road is not sufficient by virtue of its width to allow two adjacent vehicles to park side by side least alone the significant volume of traffic generated at peak times . as a consequence of expanded infrastructure Academy School and housingnumbers on the Woodside Estate . That as pointed out in resident comments , the acessto the site is located on a Blind bend and within the proximity of two road junctions

a That neither City of Bradford Metropolitan Council or West Yorkshire Police haveundertake any regular enforcement of the Access only

b City Bradford Metropolitan Council have failed to implement a Historic S106agreement to widen the road when Loweswater , Ullswater and estate components to the rear of Woodside where built

c City Bradford Metropolitan Council have not undertaken an EIA – EnvironmentImpact Assessment

(ii) That the Land to the North of the Site Properly Constitutes a Highway Verge under therelevant Section Of The Highways Act and would be wholly inappropriate to develop itin accordance with TP

(iii) Proximity (20m) to adjacent Mine Shafts located to the East of the planning Site . In any other circumstances it is wholly the responsibility of the Developer to undertakecompliance with relevant legislation. It is not in the Public Interest for the LocalAuthority to Act as Developer and Applicant failing any consequential tests in the eventof Liability Issues Arising . The area is sited in proximity to mine and coal seam 

(iv) Contamination – It was know that when the old Youth Club was demolished it contained
Asbestos this was not removed from site but in fact buried in crude embankments around the site . In the event that Gardens are dug or used for food sources this constitutes a significant risk with an inherent duty of care placed upon the Local Authority

(v) Material Facts : That the basis of Material facts give in the applicaton where incorrect or

That the Public land subject of Application has a designated Public Use as Amenity Land and Play Area both now and Historically and not as described Vacant (evidenced ) That the Land not Allocated on the UDP would be Presumptive to Development is fallacious , that the Council failed to Adopt Designated Housing Sites , does not in any way bias a site with an existing use (evidenced) to Residential Development .
That any Lawful Right in the Public Interest , inherent in the Unitary Development Process would be wholly prejudicised Section 7 of the Application Declaration Clarification on the employment status of the Applicant Local Authority declaration Not as Stated

(vi)  That Part or all of the the Site properly falls within Covenants originally set out in the1920 acquistion of Woodland for Recreational  and  Amenity, to which Brow Woods.

(vii) That the Local Authority in accordance with ROW Legislation failed to document the ROW located to the rear easterly Corner of the Site in Accordance with the requirement to place it on the definitive Map

(viii) The development of this site will affect the character of the surrounding Woodland area
with Light Pollution impacting on wildlife and impediment to Bats feeding on adjacent tree lines and field boundaries The site will detrimental to local amenity such as theplay area and Public Open Space and encroach on a designated Wildlife Area BWA 26 inthe Cities UDP and RUDP

(ix) Furtherance of Objection to Yorkshire water that the existing Public Sewarage system is  over capacitated and prone to overflow

(x) That subject to confirmation the relevant planning fee has been paid in view of theamended number of Housing Structures, given this is a resubmission not necessarily ofthe same nature , in different circumstances or in the alternative material facts such asnumber , layout or structure had changed during the course of the application

(xi) That no notice indicating the fact that the Application had been re-submitted or the schedules thereto was duly placed on site other than that relating to 14/00570/OUT. The Authority failed to duly notify

(xii) That any alleged designation on the Local Development Plan given evidenced and confirmed use of the Land as Recreational and Amenity should have involved a Due process regarding Change of use . The land is not Vacant

Please acknowledge receipt of application to the above address.

I remain

General Comment

Group think - There is clearly an inherant (i) belief that the council can do as they please in any circumstannce (ii) That Assett Management are not accountable to Process or People that Own the Land - the Public (iii) that Senior management in the council propagate  Group Think by failing in their management roles (iv) that the   quality of legal Advise is  Poor and substantially lacking in areas of challenge contrary to the Public Interest ie We who Live Their and We who pay our taxes and in the ultimate interest of the functioning of the City of Bradford 


Playground Officer Did Not Respond       Date of communication          Requisite Duty identified
City Solicitor Did Not Respond   Date of communication          Requisite Duty identified
Assistant City Solicitor Did Not Act on Breech of process  Date of communication   Requisite Duty identified
Head of Planning Did Not Respond    Date of communication          Requisite Duty identified
Head of sport & Recreation Did Not Respond     Date of communication          Requisite Duty identified


Existing permissions
Planning Brief

Table of Lawful Duties 

To be Annotated  

Town & Country Planning Act 1990  SS
Health & Safety at Work Act  SS
Highways Act SS
Childrens Act SS 

Update What was Achieved

An additional item of playground equipment was added
Surfaces around one piece of equipment where resurfaced and now loose mats gone

The Application was approved - A representation was made at local planning panel in person that Hussain the Chair refused to take despite being present , booked and put clearly in writing We will shorrtly be posting the Video of the events which would make the councils actions unlawful

The Site was SOLD at AUCTION 4th Dec 2015 for 60,000. The consequence of this applicaton and failing due process would mean that the City Of Bradford would become immediately Judicially Reviewable and YOU the TAX payer would pick up the Bill as any developer can likely suite the Council. Asuming of course a grant of full permission is given . What is interesting is this is elementary LAW and why City Legal Advisors on alledgely we believe High Salariies fail to understand the consequential damages is bemusing . The legals aware of this matter is Suzanne Hemmingway and Dermott Pearson Solicitor and Asst City Solicitor respectfully . it is clear Members have not been fully briefed. Both are also aware of the position at Planning panel where thee chair refused to hear the represenation despite booking via email and arriving on the day . A full Video of the Refusal to be shortly uploaded

1.     11/00397/REG The Play Area at Brow WoodsLINK

1 The screen grab below shows clearly a history of Planning Application and use on the site which the planning  Officer advised Had NO use and clearly denied the same wrongly advised the Planning panel 

2011/02654/ PLANS APPROVED

The site includes a basket ball court with the extent of the old Youth Centre and has been clearly approved under the relevant Planning application, moreover a 43 k Playbuilder application to develop the site was made under the auspices of Cllr Val Slater and Cllr Andrew Thornton  to which the former was familiar with and opened as Deputy Lord Mayor. These members have held port folio positions which are likely to have influenced the outcome of such applications Children and Young People and S106 Commitees 

In regard to the justification NPFF direction given to panel members  The adjacent site did NOT have extant Planning permission for 300 Houses as stated elsewhere for the purpose of fiscal gain and as such permission had EXPIRED (matter of fact). The site was not a Designated Housng site or adopted as such and did achieve formal appraisal in accordance with Consultationh the lawful Direction placed on the Local Authority
The authorities justification - As such the Framework suggests local planning authorities should  under Unitary Development Planning and
approve development proposals that accord with statutory plans without delay

. Planning Panel where deliberately mis-led

Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 8

The application for Housing Below was made 14/02654/OUT In the same site Initially was advertised then WITHDRAWN and reapplied but no notice placed on the site with relevant date The application was not duly notified . Witnessed n = 10 with the old application notice remaining outdated on the site wrongly given the impression that residents could no loger object to the re-application

During the Planning Panel an objector was prevented from making objection by the Chair Councillor  Hussain and one other see Video evidence with consideration being made 10 mins before the hour and REFUSAL to accept submission of objection on a Point of Law which has been formerly booked and signed in to so do and submitted in accordance with due process Mr Dermott Pearson was also duly notified on the day with respect of the conduct of officers and members 

Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 8 

In this 96 Application there is a clear association with The Royds Community Association a Joint Venture Partner of the Council

The land was SOLD by Pughs AUCTION  4th Dec 2015 for Circa £60K at Elland Rd Leeds Abstract below of auction descriptor

Description Vacant land with planning consent for the construction of two blocks of three dwellings and one detached dwelling.

Planning Planning consent for the construction of two blocks of three dwellings and one detached dwelling was granted on 17th September 2014 (Application Number: 14/02654/OUT). Details of the proposed scheme can be viewed on the Local Authority Planning Portal. Interested parties should consult direct with the Local Planning Office, City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council, 3rd Floor, Jacobs Well, Bradford, BD1 5RW. Tel: 01274 434 605.


Theft of Playground -  Sticky Wicket

In the matter of a Play area at Woodside the council auctioned Land off without under taking the relevant process of Lawful Appropriation

The Council appear to have advised the LGO - Local Government Ombudsman, that this land has not yet been apropriated who in turn will not investigate because they believe the council have not completed the process and are in a position to  so do,  THIS is not lawfully correct   the Land in question has been auctioned off to a private developer and the Lawful Act and Ommision has occurred the land has been disposed of Unlawfully and the constituents right to object lawfully prejudicsed under s122 of the LGA (1972)  There is some irony here as Labour Clr chronies refused to represent constituents contrary to council constitution

Intention to mislead has been deliberate throughout there is no doubt as representation on the planning file alludes to the process which must be undertaken and was not

No comments:

Post a Comment