Recently I was challenged that I might be overly critical of Bradford Council, in particular, its leadership. Criticism is welcome and few of us have anywhere near all the answers in a complex world. That said, I am a born and bred Bradfordian into his seventh decade. Nothing would give me more pleasure to live in a city on the front foot, envied by others; nothing hurts more than our seemingly unstoppable decline over the last few decades. Not all the fault lies with the council leader, Cllr Hinchcliffe, and yet when a football team is in freefall, they don’t usually sack the tea lady. In business life, the buck stops somewhere and is not a game of pass the parcel. Hinchcliffe’s single biggest problem is that she attaches no personal responsibility to Bradford’s problems despite being the leader of the council since 2016. Ever since she came to power she has bleated about the effects of austerity, introduced by George Osborne in 2010, six years before she became leader, surely enough time to form some kind of strategy. However, it is always somebody else's fault suggesting that she is bereft of any ideas of her own. True, councils have been squeezed by central government and many will argue with good reason when you see how they splurge our money; governments do this well too! However, few are anywhere near such a perilous position as Bradford and yet “it wasn’t me!” is the constant wail from the great leader. Well, somebody presided over the collapse of children's services costing tens of millions; somebody went almost three times over budget on Bradford Live; somebody insisted on a pent-up demand for Grade A office space leaving us with a half-empty glass block; somebody went running to the Tory government she so despised for a £220m bailout only to complain recently that it attracted interest; and somebody still cannot give an opening date (or a final cost) for another expensive folly, Darley Street Market. There are many more examples of dreadful decision making, the consequences of which will be felt for years. And, you cannot seek to blame all and sundry when you have overseen the wiping out of some £270m of reserves in little over three years. This year Bradford is UK City of Culture (CoC), an award many locals find ridiculous. It looks like a life raft for the woeful leader, the council itself lumping in £10m of cash they don't have and the city centre getting tarted up whilst the outlying areas continue to see zip. Pinning her down is not easy - witness her ducking and diving on opening night of the CoC year. When she does consent to give her valuable time to the media her appearances are of car crash material. Recently she would only grant the local paper a telephone interview, a sure sign her ego is now running the show. Ambassadorial she is not. So here we are now with her last desperate throw of the dice, a 15% increase in council tax which will only plug some of the gap. Double it and she would blow it. Typically, she attempted to hoodwink us claiming it would only be an extra £8-9 a month; which was true only of the lowest band. In the middle ground the rise is circa £30 a month - see below. Now consider her timing with no local elections this year - a simple coincidence? That she survived a vote of no confidence at the start of the year demonstrated the abject lack of any quality or ambition waiting in the wings. One look at her so-called Executive and you suspect the local comprehensive would have a deeper talent pool. Nationally, apathy and mistrust towards politics has never been higher; on a local level most would rather chew their toenails than read about local politics. However, this is going to cost generations of hard-working people for many years to come and all to preserve the career ambitions of a single hopeless local councillor. There are no miracle cures for Bradford but one thing is certain. If Cllr Hinchcliffe cannot be persuaded to quietly step aside, things are only going to get a lot worse.

New Title

A Tribute To The Late Jeff Potter

Smoke and Wing Mirrors

Our Mission is to increase access to opportunity and to the arts for working-class communities…creating original professional verbatim theatre pieces that explore working-class narratives. www.Bloominbuds.co.uk Chewing the fat with fellow old-Hansonian Mick in his Idle Greetings shop, I chanced upon a promotional leaflet on the counter entitled Idle Is Bloomin’. Deposited a few days earlier, two of the “engagement events” it was advertising had already passed; the next was imminent. You might think that this was along the lines of many villages to enhance their visual appeal during the coming months with a bit of help from Mother Nature; my greenfingers were twitching. Sadly not; the body chosen to deliver this “project” is a theatre company focusing on a term that resonates from the seventies – working-class communities. I felt for my cloth cap. This is from their website: Bloomin Buds is an organisation that encapsulates what it means to be working class while not letting negative stereotypes define you, which is an inspiring ethos. What? If this was to promote the village, I was happy to see if The Trumpit could help so emailed them asking a few simple questions. I also copied in the local hierarchy, the three wise councillors. But first, more waffle: ….we have been commissioned as part of the Spring Back campaign to create some artwork in and around Idle Village…to celebrate what a great place Idle village is…attract more people to come and spend time in the local businesses. We want these designs to be informed by the residents of Idle. I duly replied asking how local people could get involved, reminding our chosen artists that Idle is a conservation area and not one seeking a makeover reflecting a downmarket Bronx? Parts of it may look like Blackpool beach, others are superb. There was an obvious problem; the money had to be spent by the end of March; only now were they “consulting”, a term favoured in local government meaning “ we have not got a clue .” The project is funded by the government £56m Welcome Back Fund; Bradford received £477k announced last August, the same amount it received in August 2020 as part of the £50m Reopening High Streets Safely Fund. The aims of the fund are to boost the look and feel of high streets by investing in street planting, parks, green spaces, and seating areas…to hold events that will boost footfall…supporting local businesses. Install and refresh signage and communications on how people can stay safe. Improve green spaces on high streets and town centres by planting flowers or removing graffiti. The next event was at the Idle Beerhouse, buzzing with locals, albeit not there for the event. I was the only member of the public there – what a saddo! Had I known there would be a lavish publicly funded supper of Boris’s favourite party food, I would not have eaten first and invited the lads too. As people queued in the rain in Bradford centre for food, platefuls would be going in the bin untouched. Square that one? I was seeking simple enough answers to the following: – Who determined the need for this project given the wide remit available? – What was the budget? (An equal share per ward of £477k would be approx. £16k) – What was the selection process re the chosen providers? Nobody could answer, including long-served Cllr Sunderland nor the Labour candidate for the forthcoming local elections. The councillor had sent me her own shopping list which would, at first sight, require most of Bradford’s allocation. The money had to be spent quickly but nothing had been agreed; the main idea - ironically - centred on plastering the village in graffiti. So how could they have conducted a competitive tender as they claimed?  With all due respect to the young kids from Bloomin Buds, what do they know about economic regeneration? Woefully out of their depth, I felt sorry for them but at least they got a free feed. Of the events preceding this, one was at a Wellbeing Cafe, the other at the Idle Bakery. Whoever heard of a hungry artist? The real blame lies with the Council; money that was granted last August is now being chucked around like confetti with a process clouded in secrecy with even elected councillors clueless. How many business people have been consulted? It is not an enormous sum I accept; however, managed well, it could have made a real difference to the village. The problem is those in control simply do not have the skill set. Frittered away in this manner will have no lasting value unless David Hockney turns up with a brush. And what of the near million pounds granted to Bradford since August 2020? It is an opportunity wasted.

There is a group of local people working all hours to try to stop yet more destruction of our dwindling open, green spaces. In my small way I have tried to highlight issues from the raft of legal documents attached to the formal planning application; it is like swimming through treacle. Many are lengthy, highly technical but all - strangely - are wholly supportive of this application. Now...why would that be? I have used Facebook as the mass medium but have been asked by people who avoid Facebook to summarise my posts and add in anything else. Now, before I lose you, it is easy to object to this vandalism and will take you less than it will to brew a cuppa. SOME COMMENTS ARE ADDED IN CAPITALS. Simply click on this link - https://planning.bradford.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=makeComment&keyVal=QX9RE9DHIX200 It is that easy but time is short because the application was lodged - without public notices nor with our local councillors being aware - on 10/9. We understand that objections must be lodged by 8/10 but we have almost 300 to date. The petition organised before the application hit over 600 signatures - help us please. A SUMMARY OF FACEBOOK POSTS ON THE TRUMPIT FACEBOOK PAGE 2/9 News of the inevitable with a proposed planning application for 45 new homes on Idle Moor. What I find strangest of all, is the request for feedback from the builder's (Gleesons) consultants, a Leeds based firm called Peacock & Smith. It's like doing their homework for them. As they say on their website "As part of the planning process, our clients often seek the opinions of key local stakeholders and residents before submitting their planning applications." TROUBLE WAS THEIR OWN DOCUMENT SHOWING WHERE THESE LEAFLETS LANDED EXCLUDES MANY LOCAL STREETS - HOW BIZARRE? The website does not contain the proposals at this stage. Consider this from the consultant’s leaflet sent to residents. “Public open space will be provided on site.” It sounds like a prisoner of war camp and seems to override the fact that 1.6ha of existing open space will be lost. Remember a year or so ago how we valued open spaces? 10/9 One week on and only 80 odd signatures so far. It may be that people don't care about losing another green space but consider: - the council plan to 2038 has enough provision already for housing in BD10 without this - there are almost 8,000 empty homes in Bradford, which is roughly a quarter of the total target to 2038 - the total new builds are more than one for every increase in the projected population 28/9 COMMUNITY CONSULTATION Part of the process is for a bunch of consultants, working for the developers, to produce a report. They are always, would you believe it, supportive. Amongst the guff written is this: 4.2. There were 55 emailed responses and 3 phone calls...a modest response rate of just over 5%. They claim 987 leaflets were posted but their own map shows that many local streets were excluded. This is Banana Republic stuff. Remember over 600 of us signed the petition so please take two minutes. Do not let them roll us over with a pack of lies. 29/9 Idle Moor - Transport Assessment This is another report, paid for by the developers, written in fantasy land. It is a 61-page beast but basically says that there will be no traffic issues from another 45 homes perched high up on the moor. To satisfy Government guidelines it is intimated that people are more likely to walk, cycle or use the bus - honestly, it really does. Idle is only a ten-minute walk to the doctors and dentists you probably won't be able to get in. "Cycling...would represent an attractive travel option." You could not make this up...except they have...for the usual fee. And it is only 40 minutes WALK to the train station. Finally, they attempt to justify navigating Kenstone by claiming that only 25 two-way trips and 24 at night would take place at peak time. 30/9 Today's extracts are from the developer's submission - Gleeson Regeneration - how can you term destroying open green space regeneration? They cite "health and well-being benefits" which are largely extra council tax and a one-off new homes bung to the council. They pitch themselves as a low-cost, affordable developer but 55% of the development (above the council's own recommended target of 45%) are 3 or 4 bed detached; the market will set the price in time. They claim to engage with local schools but the council's own document confirms local primaries are full. Remember the last development generated a paltry £300k for education; can you tell me where the new classrooms are? The biggest growth in Bradford's residents will be in older people in the next 20 years; this ignores them. STILL AWAKE? As many who know me will testify, because I have nothing better to do, I researched several Council documents to support articles in The Trumpit. Here are some key points so far as the plan for Bradford's housing needs to 2028. Strategic Housing Market Assessment 2019 (SHMA) To view click here - https://www.bradford.gov.uk/Documents/planningStrategy/Core%20Strategy%20Partial%20Review/Preferred%20Options%20Report/evidence//Bradford%20Strategic%20Housing%20Market%20Assessment%20(SHMA)%202019.pdf Some key points: P12-The City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (CBMDC) Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) 2019 provides the latest available evidence to help to shape the future planning and housing policies of the area. P13-This 2019 study assumes a total of 217,930 dwellings3 . There are an estimated 9,6234 properties (4.4%) which are not occupied, the majority of which are vacant. The latest 2017 Valuation Office Agency data reports that: • 18.9% are 1- or 2-bedroom houses, 43.7% are 3-bedroom houses, 14.1% are 4 or more bedroom houses; • 8.3% are 1-bedroom flats, 7.4% are 2 or more-bedroom flats; • 5.0% are 1- or 2-bedroom bungalows and 2.6% are 3 or more-bedroom bungalows. Stock condition is a particular issue for the district and associated with terraced houses and older properties. Bradford District is home to around 10% of the Yorkshire and the Humber’s population and in 2018 the population was estimated to be 537,1736 . According to the 2016-based population projections, the population of Bradford District is projected to increase by 2.4% over the period 2019-2037 to around 549,540 in 2037. There will be a marked increase in the number and proportion of older residents. The population aged 65+ years is expected to increase by 39.5% from 80,960 in 2019 to 112,950 in 2038 . This compares with an increase of 35.1% across Yorkshire and the Humber and 40.1% across England over the period 2019-2037. P14-This SHMA report considers future housing need based on the standard methodology outlined in February 2019 Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). Using 2014-based household projections and latest (2018) affordability indicators, the minimum local housing need figure for Bradford District is 1,703 dwellings each year. Detailed analysis concludes that the following sizes of dwelling are needed: 25.1% one bedroom, 30.6% two bedroom, 28.3% three bedroom and 16% four or more bedroom. A tenure split of 65% rented and 35% intermediate tenure is also recommended. P15-Over the period 2019 to 2037, the number of older person households is going to increase by around 32,000 and there will be a 39.5% increase in older people living in the district. Given the ageing population in the district and the identified levels of disability amongst the population, it is recommended that a policy to provide new homes built to accessibility standards is included in the Local Plan. P42- Dwelling completions 2003/04 to 2017/18-tabular This is worth a look because it demonstrates how far behind target the Council have been historically. On the flip-side it means that they are desperate for developers to commit. And they then hold all the cards. P70-The 2019 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (Paragraph 60) states ‘to determine the minimum number of homes needed, strategic policies should be informed by a local housing need assessment, conducted using the standard method in national planning guidance’. P71-For Bradford District, over the period 2019-2029, the total number of households under the 2014-based household projections is set to increase from 210,547 to 226,381, a total change of 15,834 households or 1,583 each year (Table 5.1). P73-Based on the MHCLG standard methodology and 2018 affordability ratios, the minimum local housing need for Bradford District is 1,703 dwellings each year. P76-Edge Analytics comment that ‘in the face of a net outflow of domestic migrants, net international migration has maintained Bradford’s relatively youthful population age profile. However, an estimated fall in long-term international migration, coupled with the continuation of the domestic migration outflow, could have an important impact on labour force groups. Bradford needs to retain its working age population to support economic growth.’ i.e. population is forecast to fall That's all for now as it is more than enough. Please help by spreading the message that local people have had enough of spin and fabrications designed only to enrich a few. Make your voice heard. Thank you.

ON BEHALF OF LOCAL RESIDENTS PLEASE SEE BELOW. YOU MAY REMEMBER MY POST FOLLOWING THE REQUEST BY CONSULTANTS FOR YOUR VIEWS ON THESE PLANS 2/9. A WEEK LATER THEY LODGED THE PLANNING APPLICATION, SO INTERESTED WERE THEY IN YOUR VIEWS. OVER 600 OF YOU SIGNED THE PETITION OBJECTING SO PLEASE TAKE TWO MINUTES TO LODGE YOUR OBJECTION ON THE COUNCIL SITE - IT IS EASY BUT IF YOU GET STUCK FEEL FREE TO CONTACT ME - 07771 508729 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ A planning application has been submitted by Gleeson to build 45 houses on Idle Moor. To object to this development, please log your comments/objections on Bradford Council's website BEFORE Friday 8th October 2021. You can do this by clicking on the following link which will take you straight to the application. https://planning.bradford.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=QX9RE9DHIX200 Alternatively, follow these instructions re p lanning application reference 21/04081/MAF. • https://www.bradford.gov.uk under ‘Planning and building control’, • Click ‘View or check the progress of planning applications’ • Input the planning application reference ‘21/04081/MAF’ or type in ‘kenstone’ - here you should see the Planning – Application Summary click ‘Make a comment’ • Suggested Start ‘I object to this proposed residential development for the following reasons…’ Include key points and what impact it will have on you, the community and the local area. Suggestions for you to consider putting in your comments/objections: Loss of urban green space – Huge impact to residents. Unable to exercise outside locally, loss of open area unable to walk my dog, fresh air helps clear the mind promotes good health and wellbeing, loss of contact with others social interaction away from the home and computer devices adults and children. Where will local bats roost? concern for insects, local birds and wildlife that are established in the shrubland, extensive biodiversity. Access to the proposed site – Via Green Lane, Sorrin Close & Kenstone Crescent. Narrow residential roads with tight bends and blind corners. Recent new builds impacting on yet more increases in volumes of traffic on the proposed access route. Pedestrian safety already challenged with limited views of oncoming traffic and minimal pavement for safe travel to schools and work. Near misses with traffic collisions due to residents parked cars. Increased risk of flooding - In the local and wider areas – groundworks to stabilise development site will reduce natural water drainage, exacerbate the flood risk in the valley and further afield in Leeds. Local residents already have natural surface water run off with heavy rain. Not in line with Bradford housing needs – proposed housing types mostly not affordable or low cost housing, there are alternative options in the area to meet housing targets eg. developments at Esholt, Westfield Lane, more accessible brownfield sites available offering lower cost builds. PLEASE INCLUDE PERSONAL IMPACT ON YOU. Safety of your child playing out/walking to school & school spaces. If you need guidance or any help submitting your comments on the proposed planning application please email: saveidlemoor@outlook.com Prepared and printed by local residents trying to save Idle Moor

Recently The Trumpit received an email from Bob R oberts in Kenya as follows. I run a brass band for disadvantaged kids in Kenya. My mate Dave Walker from All Brass and Woodwind in Leeds gave me an old tenor horn a while back. It is pretty battered but being of English make it is still playable. On the bell beneath the maker's name it says " I & T P B". After some digging I discovered that this stood for Idle and Thackley Public Band. I managed to unearth an old photo of the the band 'ont tinternet' taken around 1900 . I am convinced I can see that tenor horn in the photo! The chap playing it would of course never imagine his pride and joy being played in Kenya a hundred and twenty years later. The picture of the I&TPB shows them pre Great War in a park; the guy holding the tenor horn is in the centre. I wonder how many of the bandsmen returned from the war after service? This is a story of ordinary people who made your community what it is today. They deserve to be remembered. On digging a bit deeper I soon got a fascinating response from Gavin Holman who runs a website dedicated to brass bands: www.ibew.co.uk Attached is the photo. Sorry I don't have a better version of it. The horn player in question is on the back row, standing behind the bowler-hatted tuba player. Whether this is Robert's horn or not is debatable! There were several brass bands in Idle over the years. • Idle Airedale Brass Band - Active in 1856 through 1882. • Idle and Thackley Brass Band - Founded in 1893 by the merger of Idle Brass Band and Thackley Brass Band, bandmaster Albert Wade. Still active in 1943. Secretary A. Holgate in 1902-1907. Officers in 1908 were treasurer Jim Baxter, secretary C.E. Anderton, president Percy Illingworth. Jim Baxter played euphonium c.1910. Johnny E.T. Howard was a member for eleven years before his death in 1916. Conductor T. Powell in 1902, Walter Walker in 1904, S. Thornton in 1905, V. Stanley in 1930. Also known as Idle and Thackley Public Subscription Band at one time. One report gives it disbanding in 1930, but it must then have been revived soon afterwards. Records of the band (1898-1943) are held in the West Yorkshire Archive (Bradford). • Idle Brass Band - Active from 1853. This may be the same as the Idle Airedale Brass Band. Conductor Mr Fallis in 1872. Isaac Murgatroyd was a member in the 1860s/1870s. Amalgamated with the Thackley Brass Band in 1893 to form Idle and Thackley Brass Band. • Idle Conservative Brass Band - Founded in March 1867, obtained their instruments in May 1867, bandmaster Mr Terry. Active through to 1875. Also known as Idle Working Men's Conservative Society Brass Band. • Idle Mission Brass Band - Active in 1891. Sincere thanks to both Bob and Gavin for this little slice of history.

In April’s edition - you can find it here in All Magazines above - I wrote an article attempting to explain Bradford Council’s Draft Local Plan. This sets out the housing requirements for the district for the period 2020-2038 and is a legal requirement set by Government. At the time I pointed out the difficulty in getting under documents the size of a novel. I made an honest attempt but - hands up - I missed the significance of a land classification termed as call for sites detailed in a supplementary document. Put the kettle on, stay with me. Bradford North East includes the wards of Idle and Thackley, the southern part of Windhill and Wrose, Eccleshill, Bolton and Undercliffe (east of Wapping Road), Bowling and Barkerend and Bradford Moor. It has a has a target for new homes (net of existing commitments) of 663 by 2038; land already allocated - preferred options - would more than satisfy this. Great news for BD10 concrete bombed in recent years? Not so, as a call for sites allows landowners a once in a generation opportunity to submit land previously not considered for development. It could signify the equivalent of a local gold rush with land and house values at all-time highs. A few weeks ago locals, via Facebook, became aware of the possibility of a significant chunk of land bordering Park Road and Ainsbury Avenue in Thackley potentially being made available for development. I understand that the land is owned by the council and has the potential for a significant housing site. If anybody has information to the contrary please get in touch. Council policy is to always ensure that developments achieve 50 units to the hectare...a minimum of 35 as an exception. There are three parcels of land totalling approximately 4.7 hectares. Aside from the blatantly obvious issues such as how hundreds of new houses could access an already restricted area; the loss of recreational green space and habitat; the impact on issues such as local flooding; the lack of infrastructure i.e. schools, doctors etc put very simply this would be madness. But we have seen this madness before. Could it happen? Nothing is certain in this world especially where vast sums of money could be made. And yet, until we hear anything definitive, it is like boxing in the dark. But bear in mind our council has little commitment to this area, is cash-strapped and focused on a Local Plan that is city centre oriented in numbers if not values. BD10 is one of the few jewels in the crown. The Trumpit will try to keep on top of developments; I am grateful for input so far from local Councillor Sunderland. Whilst the two of us would be the first to admit we share differing world views, we do care about this area. For those who wish to dig deeper there are several links below to documents central to this. LIST OF LINKS Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021 A beast of a document but if you focus on your area it is just about tolerable. https://bradford.oc2.uk/document/20?fbclid=IwAR1hKdPKXXZ1s3zo4i5aV01BzkQcDlvx0mBeYl55jouOcKid-FWZdcRsufw Bradford District Wide Local Plan - Site Assessment Update Report - February 2021 A light read in comparison but still almost a hundred pages. Pages 30-31 are of local BD10 interest. Sites of a local interest are: Thackley - NE/065 (Mitchell Lane): NE/069 (Apperley Road): NE/071, 75 & 75 (Park Road and Ainsbury Avenue): NE/141A (North of Thackley) Idle Moor - NE/062 & 128. https://www.bradford.gov.uk/Documents/BDLP/Reg18/Evidence/Site%20Assessment%20and%20Rejected%20Sites%20Background%20Paper.pdf Bradford Council Local Plan - Rejected Sites Interactive Map. A very useful and easy to navigate tool. https://bradford.opus4.co.uk/planning/localplan/maps/draft-bradford-district-local-plan-rejected-sites#/x:409933/y:438626/z:4/b:14/o:4726,o:4727,o:4728