Object

Supporting Documents of the Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Feb 2021)

Representation ID: 30249

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Chartford Homes

Agent: Barton Wilmore

Representation Summary:

Objection to the failure to allocate sites SH/044 and SH/048 for housing development.

It is requested that the Council consider sites SH/044 and SH/048 as one combined site for the purposes of the emerging plan.

It is considered that this combined site represents a logical rounding off of the settlement given its location between an existing school and residential development, would not lead to encroachment into the countryside, urban sprawl or the coalescence of settlements. As such, the land no longer serves a Green Belt purpose and should no longer be protected.

The site represents a far more logical housing site than site SH4/H, which does not relate as well to the settlement and would lead to encroachment into the countryside. Furthermore, the topography of the site is prohibitive with significant access issues.

The combined site SH/044 and SH/048 is not considered to be constrained and matters such as ecological impacts could be mitigated through future design proposals and the site represents a suitable and logical housing allocation.

The site is suitable, available and achievable and also includes previously developed land and is being promoted by a well respected local housebuilder and Bradford Council.

It is noted in the Council’s ‘Site Assessment and Rejected Background Paper’ that site SH/044 has been rejected on a single basis – access. This is incorrect as the Council have previously considered a pre-application enquiry (14/04390/PMJ) for this site for a development of 67 units. The Council’s highways officer stated, “it is considered that the proposal is generally acceptable and it is not anticipated that there will be any major highway issues arising from your proposals”. The indicative layout demonstrates that a suitable access can be achieved to serve SH/044 if it is brought forward in isolation and the Council have incorrectly dismissed the site.