Consultation Question 2

Showing comments and forms 1 to 30 of 200

Object

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 287

Received: 19/02/2021

Respondent: Ms Mel Frances

Representation Summary:

Some of the sites chosen for building homes would not protect the environmental assets that already exist but would destroy them. This would also reduce the network of green space available to residents and wildlife. There is no real mention of consultation with existing communities rather, building without delay.
Urban green spaces are vital for humans and animals and cannot be replaced by providing them elsewhere in place of where they already existed. We need to stop messing with nature in this way.

Object

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 717

Received: 04/03/2021

Respondent: Clive Brook Planning

Representation Summary:

On behalf of my clients I object to the inclusion of section 5d in this policy which seeks to minimise the use of Green Belt land. This is not a justified and sustainable approach.

Object

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 1013

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Mr David Robison

Representation Summary:

It's not honestly clear from reading this what has been adopted or is being recommended.

There seems to be an inherent contradiction in your use of the word growth and economic potential as a phrase, which you can't fix with the word sustainable.

I wouldn't support any dilution of environmental aspects. Also concerned that active travel modes should be prioritised over electric cars. A clear target for reduction of non active journeys needs to be set. Planning needs to follow this, not be an afterthought.

Support

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 1064

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Birkbeck, University of London

Representation Summary:

This seems a clear and positive statement of goals, with balanced consideration of competing requirements. However, I would note that there are a very large number of typographical errors in the area of the statement relating to the environment (and only this area), which gives the impression, intentionally or otherwise, that this was given less attention than other sections (typos marked in square brackets):

It will meet the environmental objectives by the inclusion of [a] suite of policies design[ed] to protect, conserve and enhance it['s] environmental assets, by focusing development [on] its main urban areas and by investing in public transport infrastructure[,] in the process reducing the need to travel by car and reducing climate change emissions; and

It is also interesting that the aim is to maximise use of brownfield sites 'wherever possible' but that no 'wherever possible' pertains to minimising green field development.

Support

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 1200

Received: 10/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Paul Holmes

Representation Summary:

The planning of open green space and the protection of it for the use of the districts residents is key to their welfare. During the current pandemic there has been a decrease in people travelling any distance for recreation purposes with many more than usual opting to use the green space close to their homes as recreational space, in compliance with the Government guidelines. This local green space needs protection now more than ever.

Object

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 1283

Received: 11/03/2021

Respondent: Lightowler Associates

Representation Summary:

Perception that there has been too little consideration of brown field sites which would assist regeneration of areas and a readiness to justify use of Green belt land. There is concern that any consideration is being given to the use of land liable to flooding at whatever level.
IL3/H Coutances Way in Ilkley is liable to flooding.

Object

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 1335

Received: 12/03/2021

Respondent: Doctor Fiona Schneider

Representation Summary:

There is too much proposed use of green field sites,not enough regeneration of redundant office space and more imaginative use of brown field sites is needed.

Support

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 1498

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Lightowler Associates

Representation Summary:

Support the general concept of delivering sustainable development but questions whether the proposals meet that objective; see consultation re IL1/H and IL3/H

Support

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 1873

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Sir Stephen Brown

Representation Summary:

SUPPORTED

Object

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 1903

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Burley Parish Council

Representation Summary:

A. There is a disconnect between housing and infrastructure delivery. Bradford’s lack of a coherent transport strategy indicates that the Local Plan does not conform to NPPF sustainability policy [s2 7-14].

B. Ref B3 and 3.2.11: we agree this is an important issue but would question whether any progress will be made. Other authorities e.g. Leeds, Manchester and Nottingham have faced the same issue but put in place concrete plans to address them.

Ref B4 aligns with Bradford’s January 2019 declaration of a climate emergency and is a good policy statement but question whether Bradford’s actions meet this aspiration e.g in their attitude toward Leeds Bradford Airport which shows no consideration for Wharfedale residents.

Ref 5b; 1.2.9: we agree with the statements - but do not believe that in practice the allocation of brownfield and non-green belt land is being prioritised first.

Object

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 1950

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Helen Miller

Representation Summary:

1. Serious concerns about the short notice period, inappropriate timing, online-only nature of the consultation (excluding many residents) and difficulties in meeting with and fully informing local residents of the proposals contained in the Draft Local Plan due to the Covid-19 restrictions;


2.The claim that BDMC actually needs 1700 new dwellings every year is open to robust challenge not least because of evidence of falling, not rising, population estimates;

3. Despite everything in the Draft Local Plan concerning climate change, environmental sustainability, green infrastructure and the huge importance of the Green Belt, 97% of the new homes proposed for Ilkley, (305 out of 314), are to be built on that very Green Belt. This is of such seriousness and has such far-reaching consequences that it cannot be allowed to slip through unchallenged – once this land is removed from the Green Belt it is quite simply too late.

Support

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 2444

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Peter Down

Representation Summary:

Although, in principle I support the proposed policy SP1, to date, City of Bradford Council has appeared to pay little regard to sustainable development. The focus appears to have been primarily on economic benefits. What is the point of permitting development on greenfield sites, with its associated environmental impacts, when there are brownfield sites that could be redeveloped first? What is the point of permitting development of large housing developments without consideration for the facilities the residents require and without having adequate infrastructure and public transport connections? Just telling developers they need to contribute money to offset these impacts is not good enough. The Council also needs to be stronger when it comes to the redevelopment of existing facilities and amenities which will impact the local population. The social policy also needs to reflect the need to provide, maintain and enhance community facilities local to developments.

Object

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 2618

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: NEAT

Representation Summary:

SP1 does not stop habitat destruction, and does nothing to ensure that views of local residents are considered and honoured. "Streamlined and redesigned" suggest quite the opposite.
It would be easier to believe that "sustainable development" does not imply "environmental destruction" if there was a clear focus on redeveloping the large number of form industrial and commercial sites.
Impact assesments have either not been caried out or have been completely ineffective. For example, the Boar's Well area (bounded by Biolton Road, King's Road and Queen's Road) was a haven for a variety of wildlife until 2012, when 48 houses were built on the green field opposite Peel Park. Since then, kestrels, jays and pheasants have not been seen. Bizarrely, those houses could have been built on the site of the former Wapping School, just down the road, which remains, nine years later, a gutted ruin.

Object

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 2730

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Helen Owen

Representation Summary:

The plan does not do as it should. Green belt land should be protected. Merging of settlements and unrestricted growth will harm the environment for all.

Support

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 2824

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Alison Tribe

Representation Summary:

I broadly support this policy because sustainability must be at the heart of all Council decisions. In order to promote this, I would like to see included, regarding the ‘Transformational investment in infrastructure’ mentioned at B2, a requirement that every infrastructure project must be able to evidence how, when construction and use are combined, it will have zero net carbon emissions before or by 2038. And the measurement of carbon emissions must not include carbon offsetting as this is misleading and prone to misuse.

Support

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 3271

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Wilsden Parish Council

Representation Summary:

We note in Policy SP1, 2 the reference to Neighbourhood Plans and we believe the wording needs clarification. We appreciate that not all parts of the district will develop Neighbourhood Plans and in the context the statement “where relevant” may be appropriate. Once a Neighbourhood Plan is made the policies become a part of the adopted Local Plan and it is recommended that this is clarified in this Policy.

Support

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 3343

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Julie Townsend

Representation Summary:

I strongly support the inclusion of a sustainable development policy. However, the policy's contents do not align with widely-accepted definitions of what sustainable development means, and thus offer a poor foundation for incorporating sustainability into local planning. Sustainable development is accepted to mean development that meets the needs of current generations without disadvantaging future generations (see UN's Bruntland Report). This means planning must take into account future disadvantage caused by, for example, depleting finite resources, degrading the natural environment, or contributing to the climate crisis. Social sustainability is about inter- and intra-generational equity, not simply meeting current needs. Sustainable development research is also clear that local engagement, dialogue and social capital is critical to enabling sustainable forms of development (e.g. see Dale et al, 2010). This is currently not recognised in BMDC's draft policy. I recommend that BMDC's planning department should up-skill on sustainable development and take an evidence-based approach.

Object

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 3669

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Philip Sutcliffe

Representation Summary:

The 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.

Support

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 3774

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Andrew Lund

Representation Summary:

The policy is sound. However I am not satisfied that the Council's SA methodologies are sound. They must be evidence based. Presently they are too judgemental. I have provided comments specific to certain proposed development sites in subsequent sections of this consultation.

Support

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 3877

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Susan Burn

Representation Summary:

I support this holistic, integrated and ambitious policy.

Support

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 4651

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Menston Parish Council

Representation Summary:

Add that sequential flood risk assessment must include groundwater flood risk, not just fluvial and coastal flood risk.

Object

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 5027

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Nick Jones

Representation Summary:

Difficult to comment completely on as the consultation has been so poor by BMDC. Have experience of 2 developments outside of BMDC which are examples of a failed development and one which has been OK, only because of the involvement of the Joseph Rowntree Housing Trust.

Failed NOT sustainable - The High Royds Menston development. Going for a number of years and is now tatty (poor quality construction, unadopted roads, poor paintwork on doors and windows etc), poorly maintained by the developers and is still not fully occupied. Can see this being mirrored, if care is not taken, in the case of the monstrous, oversized development which BMDC has been desperate to push through in Burley (Sun Lane) despite having little support or justification & not providing sufficient infrastructure.
OK sustainable - The monstrous developments in Derwenthorpe, York have only aged OK because of the involvement of Joseph Rowntree.

Object

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 5106

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Peter Jenkins

Representation Summary:

All good ambitions. Unfortunately not all the following contents of the plan accord with them.

The choice solely of 'support' or 'object' is totally unhelpful, as there are good and poor parts in most sections. One is often forced to mark 'object' if many parts are supprted.

Also the lack of a spellcheck facility is really unhelpful.

Object

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 5129

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Clive Richardson

Representation Summary:

In respect of PDL or Brownfield land "Where possible" is a get out. There needs to be a much stronger policy. The local development proposals for, for example Thornton show development of the major PDL, Dole and Prospect Mills as in 6 to 10 years, the same ass Greenfield and Green Belt site. The UDP said the site would be developed before 2013; with a laid-back policy of "where possible", it will still be undeveloped in 2038. There needs to be a greater sense of urgency.

Object

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 5260

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Baildon & Shipley Friends of the Earth

Representation Summary:

Baildon & Shipley FOE – SP1
1. Addressing the climate emergency must be paramount. All other objectives need to be secondary. More green space, maintaining biodiversity, cleaner air, better public health etc will follow on naturally if the climate emergency is paramount.
2. Sustainable development is required, including securing the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change. All planning strategies, and the decisions taken in support of them, must reflect the Council’s ambition to help businesses and communities build a zero-carbon future and prepare for the impacts of climate change. Accordingly, planning policies and all planning decisions must be in line with achieving net zero carbon by 2038.
3. Reduction in traffic levels (especially private cars) needs to happen quickly.
4. A need for ‘net gain’ at top level in the document, is vague, and needs to be tightened up properly with social, economic and environmental objectives.

Support

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 5369

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Alison Neave

Representation Summary:

Sensible approach covering many aspects.
Particularly like point 4 "support the social aspects of sustainability by ensuring that sufficient land is allocated to meet the housing needs of the district's growing population, by promoting high quality design, by developing healthy places with access to a network of green spaces which enhance the built environment, provide opportunities for sport and recreation and by taking action to tackle air quality problems." and point 5e minimises the adverse environmental impacts of growth, in particular with regards to climate change, air quality, biodiversity and habitats.

Object

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 5492

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: CPRE West Yorkshire

Representation Summary:

The overall strategic outcomes of any local plan should be:
1. net reductions in greenhouse gas emissions
2. net reductions in car traffic
3. net reductions in pollution
4. net enhancement of biodiversity
5. net increase in access to green space
6. net reduction in flood risk
7. and the benefits of these outcomes should be socially and spatially equitable.

SP1A is a reiteration of NPPF’s presumption in favour of sustainable development and we see no need to comment on that.

Part B is expressing Bradford's local interpretation and
application of the presumption. Referring to our headline aspirations for all local plans, we consider that SP1B needs to be much clearer and more specific about the need to achieve high-level, net enhancements to social, environmental and economic well-being.

NPPF in fact describes a net gain approach to several considerations.

Support

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 5595

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Harden Village Council

Representation Summary:

Harden Village Council is supportive of sustainable development principles, as reflected in our draft Neighbourhood Plan (currently being consulted on and subject to local agreement by referendum, available at https://hardenvillagecouncil.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Harden-NDP-Spring-2021-Reg-14-Consultation.pdf) and climate emergency declaration (see https://hardenvillagecouncil.gov.uk/climate-emergency/).

Support

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 5690

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Chatsworth Settlement Trustees

Agent: Richard Wood Associates

Representation Summary:

CST supports the overall emphasis on achieving sustainable development and recognition of its economic, environmental and social dimensions.

Object

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 5904

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Baildon & Shipley Friends of the Earth

Representation Summary:

Baildon & Shipley FOE – SP1
1. Addressing the climate emergency must be paramount. All other objectives need to be secondary. More green space, maintaining biodiversity, cleaner air, better public health etc will follow on naturally if the climate emergency is paramount.
2. Sustainable development is required, including securing the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change. All planning strategies, and the decisions taken in support of them, must reflect the Council’s ambition to help businesses and communities build a zero-carbon future and prepare for the impacts of climate change. Accordingly, planning policies and all planning decisions must be in line with achieving net zero carbon by 2038.
3. Reduction in traffic levels (especially private cars) needs to happen quickly.
4. A need for ‘net gain’ at top level in the document, is vague, and needs to be tightened up properly with social, economic and environmental objectives.