Addingham is getting the worst deal of anywhere!!!!! – An unjustified 26% increase in the number of Houses against a 16% average

Bradford’s Plan is not Legitimate, what can Addingham, Wharfedale and other green areas do next?

In the confusion about Consultation deadlines, the Society submitted a precautionary ”Holding” response to BMDC on the 28^th January. It was 3 days after the Formal close that BMDC issued comfort regarding equitable treatment of submissions. The work continues to produce a final challenge, with an eye on the next steps in the process.

The scores of personal reactions and comments from the Village are being analysed and collated into the best representation possible of village sentiment. Many of the comments contain valid challenges to the Legitimacy of the Plan, Policies, questionable data and irrational analyses.

It is important that the Village understands how Consultation responses are handled, Professionals advise that the “unpopularity” of a Planning Proposal carries no weight and is not even required to be considered in the formal process.

Where “unpopularity” and local views do carry weight is the concern of Elected Representatives-- our Parish and District Councillors and our Local Member of Parliament. After all –District Councillors approved the Draft!--and Parish Councillors have been consulted on more than one occasion.

The focus of the Society’s work is now shifting to a detailed challenge of the way that the BMDC sits in conflict with National and other Planning policies and guidelines. Already there is a growing list of errors, omissions and “non-sequiturs “. There is purpose behind the Society adopting this method—informed opinion says that the BMDC Plan will be challenged ultimately, in the Courts or in an Inquiry. It is vital that all “errors” of any nature are illustrated and recorded at this early stage.

The “Holding” response ran to 24 pages and a substantial Affordability Analysis on a set of spreadsheets. The analysis continues, the Society will publish the Final response on this Website simultaneously with delivering it to BMDC.

There are two aims

• to represent the thoughts and work done by Villagers
• to elicit corrections to the numerous defects in the Draft, and answers to specific challenges about the lack of compliance with, and adherence to, National Guidelines; the errors in simple mathematics, the inconsistences, the unjustified statements.

…The most disturbing feature of all these errors, omissions, distortions fudges, phoney arguments…. Is that they all bias the evidence in one direction!!.

.That is why we are comfortable in saying that the Draft is not Legitimate.

That is why the Village should ask ----

Elected Members “ Did you read it?—if so- how could you approve it?”

The follow-up is obvious ----