There is much energy at present being put in to the development and regeneration of the urban environment across Bradford district - and rightly so, for it is desperately needed. But it is important such developments are carried out in the right places.

In housing, for example, surely it makes more sense to build on so-called brownfield sites - thus bringing land back into use - rather than carving into greenfield sites. That way, housing needs are met, derelict land reclaimed and greenfield assets protected.

However, a threat to this approach has emerged. A few months ago, the Government announced it wanted to see 54,840 new homes in the district by 2026, under the Regional Spatial Strategy - a rise of more than 20,000 on the expected figure. Furthermore, this will become enshrined in law in March of next year.

What this means is that the Council must have a strategy of its own in place for such growth by then. If not, developers could step in and cherry-pick easy-to-develop greenfield sites, secure in the knowledge that the Government would back them over the Council in any appeals process.

Councillor Anne Hawkesworth, executive member for the environment, is right to raise these concerns with her colleagues, and they must pull together quickly to agree a strategy.

The Council has outlined four options for development, but until there is more meat on the bones, it is impossible to know which one should be chosen.

What is clear, is that the decisions on where buildings can be erected must ultimately be taken in Bradford, not in London. The possibility that this may not be the case should be enough to focus minds.