Consultation Question 84

Object

Representation ID: 98

Received: 12/02/2021

Respondent: Miss Lynne Strothers

Your stealing green belt land. This is a horse riding area you are going to KILL both HORSES AND RIDERS with this.
No regard for walkers, dog walkers horse riders only
Gleesons have been building for years haven't sold many houses because people DO NOT WANT THEM.
NO GREEN BELT only BROWN sites to build on

Object

Representation ID: 497

Received: 25/02/2021

Respondent: Mr Neil Collins

Bradford has a plentiful supply of brownfield sites that have not been developed.
In her judgement dated 8/6/2020 in Aireborough Neighbourhood Development Forum vs Leeds City Council, Mrs Justice Lieven found that it was wrong to leave Green Belt sites in a development plan solely because the Council wished to reduce the numbers around the district proportionately. Green belt should be removed from the plan and brownfield sites built on first.
This judgement is surely just as relevant to Bradford.
Our Prime Minister's "Build Build Build" announcement on 30/6/2020 said brownfield building would be made easier to protect Green Belt. This should be bourne in mind and our Green Belt not built on.

Object

Representation ID: 3651

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Philip Sutcliffe

he green belt was set up to stop urban expansion. In the case of
Bradford, to stop it becoming part of Leeds. Bradford planning office
being completely undemocratic wishes to pour cement and tarmac all
over the green belt in Tong. The reason I say undemocratic is as
follows. ~There has not been one survey, or opinion poll taken in
Bradford, which agrees with Bradford councils views on building on
green belt. In fact approx 90 % of population of Bradford totally
disagree with Bradford councils housing and road plans. However, the council which claims
represents the people is acting like a fascist state.

Your new road and housing plans directly effect my Grade II house and
land. However, you have not had the decency to contact me over the
last 10 years. I doubt you care less about me than the environment and
the creatures that need it.

Object

Representation ID: 3655

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Philip Sutcliffe

he green belt was set up to stop urban expansion. In the case of
Bradford, to stop it becoming part of Leeds. Bradford planning office
being completely undemocratic wishes to pour cement and tarmac all
over the green belt in Tong. The reason I say undemocratic is as
follows. ~There has not been one survey, or opinion poll taken in
Bradford, which agrees with Bradford councils views on building on
green belt. In fact approx 90 % of population of Bradford totally
disagree with Bradford councils housing and road plans. However, the council which claims
represents the people is acting like a fascist state.

Your new road and housing plans directly effect my Grade II house and
land. However, you have not had the decency to contact me over the
last 10 years. I doubt you care less about me than the environment and
the creatures that need it.

Object

Representation ID: 3864

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Peter Martin

Agent: Athena Planning and Development

The landowners of Royds Hall Farm are seeking the allocation of Site SE/077 and the potential development land at Summer Hall Ing, Delf Hill for housing. The further development land is located directly adjacent to Site SE/077, is contiguous to the built up area and would form an acceptable and sustainable urban extension which could significantly contribute to the provision of affordable housing, resolution of anti-social behaviour and the regeneration of Delf Hill Estate. The landowners are working with BMDC Estates on the establishment of a Collaboration Agreement for the future marketing and sale of SE/077 and are committed to bringing these sites forward.

Object

Representation ID: 3865

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Peter Martin

Agent: Athena Planning and Development

SE/077
The landowners of Royds Hall Farm are seeking the allocation of Site SE/077 and the potential development land at Summer Hall Ing, Delf Hill for housing. The further development land is located directly adjacent to Site SE/077, is contiguous to the built up area and would form an acceptable and sustainable urban extension which could significantly contribute to the provision of affordable housing, resolution of anti-social behaviour and the regeneration of Delf Hill Estate. The landowners are working with BMDC Estates on the establishment of a Collaboration Agreement for the future marketing and sale of SE/077 and are committed to bringing these sites forward.

In conclusion, site SE/077 has been identified as a preferred site for housing development, since the 1990s, is currently allocated for development and has had a previous planning permission tested on appeal with no issues regarding proximity to a hazardous installation raised previously. It is considered that the reasons for allocating the site for housing development have not significantly changed to warrant not being included in the BDLP. Further it is considered discounting the site in isolation solely on the basis of the hazardous installation with no consideration to the previous planning history or other regeneration and anti-social issues prevalent at this location is not in accordance with the settlement hierarchy and vision of the BDLP or the objectives of BMDC.

Development at SE/077 will result in a capital receipt to BMDC, greatly assist in the resolution of current issues around anti-social behaviour and fly tipping, overall regeneration of the Delf Hill estate and contribute significantly to affordable housing in South East Bradford.

As above, any planning application and environmental assessment for housing development on site SE/077 would have regard to the appropriate HSE guidance and undertake an assessment of risk and develop a sensitive design layout as considered appropriate.

In summary, the landowners are hereby seeking the allocation of SE/077 for housing development within the BDLP since:
▪ being located within a consultation zone for a hazardous installation does not immediately preclude development or the allocation of land for development;
▪ the reasons for supporting the grant of planning permission and the previous housing land allocation have not significantly changed;
▪ development in this location would support and enable regeneration of the Delf Hill estate and wider area; and
▪ development in this location would assist with the cessation of ongoing nuisance caused by anti-social behaviour.

Object

Representation ID: 4204

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Humera Kanwal

This will create more issues, problems around our Area with traffic
School
Drs
More pollution
Less leisure activities available
Etc.
We already have M606, traffic pollution
Supermarkets traffic
Manchester rd crowded junction etc.

Object

Representation ID: 4910

Received: 11/03/2021

Respondent: Holden Gate Investments LTD

Objection to the failure to allocate SE/098 - Wyke Mills, Huddersfield Road, Wyke

All I seek is this 8-acre site to be considered as a future potential residential or mixed residential/commercial opportunity. Although currently, various mill buildings, all tenanted, these buildings are elderly and the basis of occupation short-term. Furthermore, the land is now really a non-conforming user being surrounded predominately by either residential or woodland. All nearby land recently developed has been for residential purposes.

As I say, on behalf of the owners of this land, all I seek is your re-consideration of this superb potential residential opportunity as it is not included in the draft local plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) which was issued in February of this year. That seemed most surprising.

Object

Representation ID: 5042

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Green Party of England & Wales

There is an over dependence on greenbelt / greenfield sites where as some brown field sites are being overlooked.

(Local Plan Team- multiple comments were made against this question supported by the attachment containing further information. These comments have been grouped and merged into one submission)

Object

Representation ID: 5075

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Barratt Homes and David Wilson Homes Yorkshire West

Agent: Sheppard Planning

Barratt object to the omission of land at High Fernley Road, Wyke from the Plan and the failure to allocate it for housing development with a potential yield of around 140 homes.

We consider that its lack of inclusion is not sound and that the rationale and evidence behind this decision is flawed. We therefore ask that it be allocated for housing in the next draft of the Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 5798

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Umaymah Khan

Because the development will cause serious congestion and traffic therefore, pollution and the doctors surgery and schools have no further capacity.

Object

Representation ID: 7532

Received: 08/03/2021

Respondent: Mr W Willan

Agent: Townsend Planning Consultants

Objection to the omission of land at Raikes Lane, Holme Wood from the Plan as a preferred option housing site. (SLA ref SE/062)

As stated previously, the housing proposals at or near to Holme Wood are far more scaled back than that proposed in previous consultations. The representation site was previously identified as part of previous development proposals and identified as an area to potentially be removed from the Green Belt. It is considered that the site should be allocated as previously intended as the site forms a logical extension to the settlement and would assist the Council meeting its housing need.

It is not known why the Council now seek to scale back proposals for development in the Holme Wood area.

Object

Representation ID: 11281

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Peter Martin

Agent: Athena Planning and Development

Sites D and E - Submission of additional land as a possible housing allocation, adjoining / to the west and north of SE/077

In summary, the landowners are seeking the allocation of Sites D and E for housing development in the BDLP as:
▪ The allocation of these parcels of development land would ensure the District’s housing needs and allow for a significant contribution to the affordable housing land supply;
▪ The green belt boundary in this location has been drawn arbitrarily and when viewed against the allocation and grant of planning permission at Site SE/077, the allocation of Sites D and E for housing development represents a sensible and discreet extension to the settlement boundary;
▪ The sites are immediately deliverable and developable;
▪ The minimal release of land from the green belt is sustainable, with development in this location able to make the best use of existing infrastructure and transport capacity as it benefits from being within close proximity to a high frequency bus network and Low Moor Rail Station;
▪ Development at Sites D and E will not bring about harm to the green belt in terms of its character and openness.
▪ Sites D and E have a good physical and visual landscape capacity to absorb a housing development.
▪ The vast majority of the key elements and characteristics of the local landscape will remain unaffected by a housing development on Sites D and E.
▪ Being located within a consultation zone for a hazardous installation does not immediately preclude development or the allocation of land for development;
▪ Development in this location would support and enable regeneration of the Delf Hill estate and wider Low Moor and Wyke area;
▪ Development in this location would assist with the cessation of ongoing nuisance caused by anti-social behaviour; and
▪ A sensitive design and development layout could be implemented allowing for enhancement of and increased access to open space and green infrastructure corridors. Suitably designed landscaping and boundary treatment would further improve the local area.

Object

Representation ID: 12315

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Caddick Land

Agent: Peacock and Smith

Proposed alternative site - Odsall Garden Suburb

See attachments.

Caddick Land wishes to promote land at South Bradford Golf Course, Odsal for approximately 450 dwellings in the form of a Garden Suburb.

The proposals are a strategically significant opportunity that will allow the Council to help provide for a large number of quality homes housing in a highly sustainable location, whilst reducing the amount of Green Belt needed to meet housing needs. Furthermore, the proposed development will support the provision of green infrastructure; increase access to recreation and play facilities by existing and new local residents; and enhance biodiversity.

Object

Representation ID: 13079

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Ramy Abdalla

Agent: CODA Planning Limited

Se attachments - objection failure to allocate SHLAA site SE/110 - Land at Huddersfield Rd, Wyke for residential development and remove from green belt.

Object

Representation ID: 13584

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Cllr Jonathon Taylor

Number of people: 3

We share the concerns of residents of both Leeds and Bradford over the scale of housing development currently being considered and also may be put forward in future years. We remain concerned about the consistent lack of consultation on development either on the Leeds or Bradford side of the border.

The ongoing pursuit of developing a link road through the Tong Valley will have significant impact on Leeds. In 2019, here in Horsforth & Rawdon, we secured a huge victory for our residents and the environment by forcing a U-Turn on our phase of a link road scheme by highlighting many of the concerns raised to you over Tong Valley.

The Greenbelt implications are not limited to the environmental concerns associated with a new road. The unsustainable housing over development that will follow a new road will wreck the Greenbelt enjoyed by residents from Bradford, Leeds and further afield.

Comment

Representation ID: 13807

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: John Finnigan

“5.3.45 “Local Area and Strategy Plan – Holme Wood

The Masterplan may form part of a wider corridor development strategy for the South East Bradford Access Road, subject to ongoing technical studies and evidence.” “together with references in the individual Site Allocations to SEBAR in reference to such “Masterplan”.

The BDLP does not show a line or even alternative lines for the SEBAR. The fifth (unlabelled) plan which appears within the Holme Wood local area strategy at paragraph 5.3.45 appears to place it in the middle of Tong Valley approximately at New Lane.

Comment

Representation ID: 15431

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Highways England (Yorkshire & North East Team)

It is considered that the following sites have the potential to impact upon the capacity, safety and operation of the SRN:
• SE32/E
• SE33/E
• SE34/E
• SE35/E
• SE36/E
• SE37/E
• SE38/E
• SE39/E
• SE40/E
• SE41/E
• SE42/E
• SE1/H
• SE4/H
• SE20/H
• SE26/HC
• SE30/H
• SE46/H
With this is mind, these sites should be considered in the context of paying due cognisance to CH2M’s comments to Consultation Questions 80 to 83

Object

Representation ID: 17002

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Brian Martin

Suggestion that site SE/077 (SHLAAA ref) should be allocated for housing development in the Local Plan.

This site has been previously allocated for housing and had planning consent.

The land is available for development.

It will provide much needed new housing, address the problem of waste ground without a boundary, reduce areas in which to fly tip and close off areas in which to ride illegal quad and motorbikes. This will make farming the land possible, provide an injection for the local economy and massively reduce the cost of clearing up mess and rebuilding vandalised walls and fences.

Object

Representation ID: 17129

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Countryside Properties Yorkshire

Agent: DPP Planning

We propose that the land to the south of Shetcliffe Lane should be a housing allocation for the reasons set out within Statement.

We consider that the original assessment is now out of date and that the Site should be reassessed. The Site has a SHLAA reference SE/129. Please also find a location plan and indicative site plan with red line boundary in the appendices.

Comment

Representation ID: 17455

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr & Mrs . Pyrah and Saunders

Number of people: 4

Agent: ID Planning

Chapter 5.3 provides details of 35 preferred housing allocations for the Bradford SE. Half of the area requirement is to be provided in two large allocations to
the east of Tong Street. We support these allocations but consider additional allocations are necessary to provide choice and ensure suitable deliverable sites are
provided to meet local need across the South East area, particularly in Low Moor and Wyke area where only 2 housing allocations providing a total of 152 dwellings are
proposed in the north of the area.
-The Area Strategy states that the allocation of land for new homes is fairly restricted by the hazardous installation sites.
-Sustainability Assessments have been carried out for sites SE/070 and SE/164 and have been discounted. The reason the site are rejected is due to ‘proximity to hazardous installation’ and ‘too small’. We object to this conclusion and consider that the site is suitable for allocation to deliver sustainable new homes.
-Consultation with the HSE has confirmed that the HSE don’t advise against development for up to 30 dwellings up to a density of 40 per hectare in the Middle
zone. There is therefore no technical constraint to the principle of housing development on site SE/070 as a result of the HSE Consultation Zone and the
site should be allocated for housing.
-Technical reports & maps relating to the site have been undertaken and submitted.

Object

Representation ID: 18086

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Harworth Group & Nufarm UK Ltd

Agent: Johnson Mowat

In response to the points made throughout these representations, it is considered that additional land should be allocated for employment development in the Bradford South East area.

In particular, this is required to be able to accommodate mainstream industrial and distribution sector uses, be easily accessible to the motorway network and be deliverable in the short term.

Harworth and Nufarm therefore propose the allocation of ‘Land north of Whitehall Road, Wyke’ (our ref. EM114/A) to provide c. 21 ha of employment land.

Object

Representation ID: 18406

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: The Emerson Group

Agent: Johnson Mowat

On behalf of our client we object to the rejection of site SE/126 in the Draft Local Plan.

The Draft Local Plan needs to identify additional sites in order to plan for and meet the housing requirement of 2,300 dwellings per annum in the District.

Site SE/126 has been rejected on the grounds of impact on an Ancient woodland; landscape impact; and due to access over a railway tunnel. It is not considered that any of these reasons either individually or in combination justify the rejection of this site.

There does not appear to be an individual Green Belt assessment of Site SE/126 as there are for other Green Belt sites either included or rejected in the Preferred Options Local Plan. However a assessment of the strategic parcel has been carried out. Given the assessment of the wider Parcel 101 results in a combination of low and moderate impact, there is justifiable reason to suggest that the smaller site SE/126 will also score an equally or lesser impact against Green Belt purposes.

The site has no ownership or viability constraints and is deliverable.

There are no environmental constraints associated with the site, and the development of this site would fit with the current urban structure of Wyke and the wider South East Bradford sub area.

The site constitutes a logical extension to the well-served and well-located south western edge of Wyke, abutting the existing settlement edge.

Object

Representation ID: 18566

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Oliver Cattley

There isn’t much greenbelt to enjoy locally except Tong Valley.

We walk there several times a week. It’s great for stress levels, the children to get some clean air and for us all to have some exercise. The views are lovely.

Having previously worked in Bradford, I am aware that a lot of it is.. well.... derelict.

These buildings already have the infrastructure in place, why is the priority for new housing to build in to the greenbelt when there are so many of these sites that could easily be renovated without destroying a beautiful area?

I work in substance misuse. Many of the buildings in Bradford are used by squatters and injecting drug users. Regeneration would not only be cheaper than new builds but would address some of the issue here also.

Comment

Representation ID: 28132

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Hallam Land Management

Agent: Johnson Mowat

It is requested that future iterations of the Local Plan combine the residential element of the urban extension as a single allocation.

There is no known reason why the individual parcels of SE19/H, SE46/H, SE47/H and SE48/H cannot be combined to form a logical residential allocation alongside the proposed employment allocation SE37/E within the overall Holme Wood South Urban Extension.

Comment

Representation ID: 28174

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Hallam Land Management

Agent: Johnson Mowat

Comment in relation to the sites within the Holmewood (South) SUE:

The findings of the Green Belt assessment of the individual land parcels conclude that the sites have a major potential impact on the Green Belt. It is agreed that there are opportunities to soften the built edge through landscaping / screening and integration of green infrastructure within the scheme design and also the possibility of improving greenbelt access and linkages.

The proposed release of the land from the Green Belt takes into consideration the narrowing of the gap between the eastern edge of the Bradford District and the western edge of the Leeds District and the amount of development proposed will have no adverse impact on this function of the Green Belt. It will not lead to the merging of settlements.

There is a clear opportunity to create a strong, defensible Green Belt boundary to the eastern edge of Bradford, with the Masterplan illustrating this potential. Furthermore, the proposed South East Bradford Access Road also has the potential of forming a strong, defensible Green Belt boundary to the east of Holme Wood South.

Comment

Representation ID: 29645

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Kirklees Metropolitan Council

• Local Wildlife Site – there is a Local Wildlife Site (LWS33) adjacent to the Kirklees Council and Bradford Council boundary which is relatively close to proposals in the emerging Bradford Local Plan. Kirklees Council is keen to ensure that there are no adverse impacts on this site.

Comment

Representation ID: 29666

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Leeds City Council

We note that there is further work to be carried out regarding detailed site requirements for the proposed allocations as issues are highlighted within the site assessments, SA appraisal and green belt assessments. With regard to the sites mentioned above, should the sites be allocated, site requirements should ensure that these sites are brought forward in a comprehensive, master planned manner. To achieve this it may be necessary to combine the sites into a single allocation. We wish to reserve our position on this until further evidence/information is provided through further consultation and duty to cooperate discussions.

The sites are SE45, 31, 13, 18/H and SE46, 47, 48/H and non-green belt site SE19/H

Object

Representation ID: 29960

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Harworth Group PLC

Agent: Rob Moore

We would like to raise a several fundamental issues and inconsistencies in respect of the Preferred Allocations in South East Bradford with specific reference to the Site Proformas and Site Assessment conclusions.

While we welcome the modest allocation of our client’s land in respect of Holme Wood North, we are
disappointed to see that the full extent of the Holme Wood Extension has not been allocated for housing.

The ‘Holme Wood North’ allocation is a group of small sites and while we understand these four sites may be brought forward under a comprehensive masterplan, we do not consider that these individual sites are of a scale to create the significant regeneration benefits that the allocation and delivery of the wider site can achieve. The reduced scale of development in this location, from 2,000 to c.297 homes creates a missed opportunity for the delivery of key infrastructure and socio economic benefits to the local community, therefore limiting the scale of regeneration achievable.

It is imperative that development directed to Holme Wood must be able to help provide the socioeconomic benefits to the community. However, the Holme Wood South site is in fact located adjacent to Birkenshaw rather than Holme Wood, with an extremely limited spatial ability to deliver the integration and accessibility that drives regeneration should it be progressed in isolation.

Object

Representation ID: 29961

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Harworth Group PLC

Agent: Rob Moore

Objection to the failure to allocate site SE/163

The site is sustainably located, being on the edge of Bradford City Centre and with the proposed relief road which would act as a defensible boundary between Bradford and Leeds. It therefore does not encroach into the open countryside in a way worse than the draft allocations and would instead be the catalyst in the regeneration of Holme Wood.

The proposed residential use of the site meets the three strands of sustainable development (social,
economic and environmental).

We have addressed the three reasons cited as being reasons for the site's non allocation and do not consider any of these to be justification for the decision.

1) There are no insurmountable heritage reasons for discounting the site.

2) There is no greater impact from the high-pressure gas mains on our client’s site than the preferred allocation at Holme Wood South. It should therefore not be regarded as a constraint to development.

3) Landscape impact - Whilst a detailed landscape study will be carried out in due course the site has limited landscape value, with large scale agricultural built form and quasi-urban features (e.g. Garden Centre) already established over many areas. While we recognise that any large SUE will have landscape impacts, the Holme Wood South site totals 45 Ha in the countryside and therefore will have potentially greater impacts on the landscape to our client’s site due to its elevated positon extending further into the countryside (figure 7). For that reason, it is inconsistent to discount site SE/163 using the same rationale that applies when allocating Holme Wood South.