Consultation Question 4

Support

Representation ID: 792

Received: 05/03/2021

Respondent: Clive Brook Planning

Policy SP3- Settlement Hierarchy is supported with some qualifications which highlight how other plan policies must be changed in order to deliver all the benefits sought for settlements as expressed in this policy.

Object

Representation ID: 1182

Received: 10/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Mike Pope

I believe the reinstatement of Burley in Wharfedale to a Local Growth Area was achieved in a way that contravenes Council rules regarding ‘Conflict of Interest’. CEG Land Promotions were invited to meetings to discuss the Council’s Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA.) At the time CEG already owned (or had an option to buy) Green Belt Land in the village. The changes made to the document at the meeting and signed by CEG (9/03/15), resulted in B in W being reinstated as a Growth Area and housing numbers in the village increasing.
As purchasers of green belt land in B in W, CEG should not have been invited to the meeting as their sole intention was to ensure land they owned would be used for housing development. An investigation needs to be called to determine whether CEG declared an interest and whether their input affected decisions the council made.

Support

Representation ID: 1212

Received: 10/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Paul Holmes

The settlement hierarchy sets out where the next developments are needed based on sound planning evidence. It therefore also sets out where development is not as needed and therefore should be protected. From a personal perspective in my local area there has been a huge amount of building taking place on green field sites. To quantify this within a 1 mile radius there have been over 500 houses built with more still planned. This has been within the last 5 years. This leaves an impression that the area has taken on more than it's fair share of additional development and lost much of the open green countryside that it had until recently. This is at the detriment of the existing residents.

Object

Representation ID: 1905

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Burley Parish Council

3.3.9 We are aware that the demographics of each of the Local Growth centres are different and with respect to affordable housing each area has a very different affordability ratio. Burley-in-Wharfedale has the highest affordability ratio of all and we are concerned that little truly affordable housing has been delivered locally. We are concerned that developers can make affordable home payment contributions in lieu of delivery of affordable housing provision on site which undermines the purpose of Core Strategy HO5 and 3.3.9. Why is this mitigation required at any site across the District and will you commit to ending this practice?

We would also like to understand what employment opportunities BDMC believe exist within Burley-in-Wharfedale that would support the employment assertion in 3.3.9?

Support

Representation ID: 2458

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Peter Down

In principle, I support the proposed policy SP3. However, to date, City of Bradford MDC has appeared to pay scant regard to the impact of its decisions on Local Centres. This is evidenced by the large development that has been permitted off Micklethwaite Lane / Sty Lane to the north of Bingley and the proposed greenfield development adjacent to Cottingley between March Cote Lane and Cottingley Moor Road. This appears to contravene the proposed policy to focus development in the Regional City of Bradford and the aim of a reduced scale of development in Local Service Centres and Rural Areas (paragraph 3.3.11). The planning policy should also include the need to provide, retain and maintain community facilities within Local Centres and not just focus on housing provision.

Object

Representation ID: 2541

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Baildon Branch Labour Party

The policy of improving the design quality does not pay enough attention to the need to green up houses. New builds should be carbon neutral and have features at the build stage which ensure this. All houses, including affordable and social should have these features.
Transport focus is on movement between settlements whereas there is also a need for intra settlement travel allowing for less car use.

Object

Representation ID: 2737

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Helen Owen

How can you create new and improve existing green/ open spaces when you intend to allow building on key green belt areas? It’s totally contradictory.

Support

Representation ID: 2854

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Alison Tribe

I support the settlement hierarchy and the idea behind it. I am very pleased at the effort to remove many Green Belt and greenfield sites from the Plan and, in Silsden, the fact that Bolton Road allotments and the field behind the Hive have been allocated as Open Space. However, there should be more honesty about the fact that the decision not to relate development to population size will have a significant impact on the character and community cohesion of Silsden and Burley. And in Silsden there are no plans to create recreational space for children despite the building of upwards of 300 houses on the canal side of the village and the intention stated in this policy.

Support

Representation ID: 3385

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: IMCO Holdings

Agent: Tetra Tech (Manchester)

We support the hierarchy of centres outlined. We also support establishing within Policy SP3 that the Local Growth Centres should make a significant contribution to meeting the District’s housing needs.

Support

Representation ID: 3455

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr David Johnston

I support the settlement hierarchy particularly the statement the local service centres will have a smaller SCALE of development and the policy will enhance biodiversity

Object

Representation ID: 3671

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Philip Sutcliffe

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

Representation ID: 3771

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Andrew Lund

No comment required

Support

Representation ID: 3904

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Susan Burn

I am worried that the plans for Ilkley may dilute and ultimately destroy the unique character of this town.

I also consider that the plan has failed to look at Burley/Ilkley/Addingham as an integrated community. There is a very strong sense of community among these 3 settlements, I am very worried that your plans may lead to the loss of these profound and beneficial personal and community ties.

Support

Representation ID: 4148

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Residents of Moor Lane, Turner Lane, Moor View and Moor Croft, Addingham

Agent: Airedon Planning and Design

Support is given for indicating that Addingham should be a local service centre and therefore should support a smaller scale of development and ensure excellent environmental conditions. It is agreed that development should protect and enhances settlement and landscape diversity and character, particularly with the close proximity of two separate SACs. It should be ensured that the allocations in the Local Plan uphold the requirements of Strategy Policy SP3 as at the moment they do not carry forward its policy in a sustainable manner in relation to Addingham.

Object

Representation ID: 4258

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Burley Bridge Association

The designation of Burley in Wharfedale and Menston as local growth centres is not correct. There is no prospect of employment growth in these areas and new housing will simply provide dormitory homes for people commuting to Leeds. The roads are already very busy and, despite this, many people choose to drive rather than use the train. The environmental and quality of life implications of this extent of new housing development are highly undesirable.

Support

Representation ID: 4454

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Julie Townsend

I largely support the content of this policy. However, with its focus on access to work and economic opportunities and urban leisure, it overlooks the critical importance of ensuring sustainable and inclusive access to green spaces and rural areas. Bradford enjoys some wonderful green spaces, especially throughout its rural hinterland, and these spaces have become especially valued and important through the pandemic. Yet access to them is currently far from inclusive and sustainable. The St Ives estate is a case in point, which is commonly transformed at the weekends to a congested, polluted car park which non-drivers will struggle to access. This policy should acknowledge the crucial need for inclusive, sustainable, safe transport and travel connections not only between and into urban centres, but also connecting people with our green spaces.

Object

Representation ID: 4654

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Menston Parish Council

Menston is a village with extremely limited capacity to expand without greenbelt release. It sits in the lowest priority for Location of Development as defined by policy SP4, therefore does not make it a suitable location as a Local Growth Centre. Existing planning applications have been difficult to deliver. Suggest review in consideration of the greenbelt constraints and reduced housing targets. Menston lies within the 2.5km zone of influence of the South Pennine Moors.

Object

Representation ID: 5113

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Peter Jenkins

Objectives 1-7 are excellent.

Otherwise I repeat that infrastructure MUST come first, and this means attending to existing infrastructure not just adding new, however necessary that may be too, on top of creaking current facilities. (One example - just drive around on local village roads in shameful condition.)
The stated aims for green spaces are not compatible with proposal to build on ‘easier’ green field sites, as already discussed above.
I repeat the statement about requiring the evidence for employment growth along the Wharfe valley.

Object

Representation ID: 5146

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Clive Richardson

Again fine words but how do you make, e.g. Thornton a "hub for transport". The largest shop in Thornton Civil parish is not available by public transport. There is no direct bus to Halifax. There are no buses between Thornton and Queensbury. The nearest village, Clayton, is 7 minutes away by car, yet 55 minutes by bus, with a very narrow footpath on Low Lane making walking dangerous.

Object

Representation ID: 5314

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Baildon & Shipley Friends of the Earth

Baildon & Shipley FOE
There is considerable potential, particularly in the less urban/ more rural parts of the District, and the urban fringe, for food-growing, including community orchards.
Create new and improve existing open space, green areas, networks and corridors including the urban fringe ,to enhance biodiversity, food growing and recreation.

Support

Representation ID: 5378

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Alison Neave

I am content with this strategic policy.
I approve of the policy points for Ilkley and Keighley as principal towns.
As I hardly know Bingley, I am not commenting on whether the policy is appropriate or not for it.

Support

Representation ID: 5422

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Arrowsmith Associates

Our client is supportive of policy SP3, in particularly the designation of Addingham as a Local Service Centre.

For the sake of clarity, sites which the plan allocates for development could be included within settlement boundaries. At present the policies map shows them being outside of settlement boundaries.

Object

Representation ID: 5498

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: CPRE West Yorkshire

The hierarchy of settlements proposed here appears to be logical insofar as it is principally informed by the size, level of services and relative accessibility and connectivity of each tier of settlements.

The text for each tier of settlement is broadly similar, and this leads to the problem that it is difficult to discern how the policy might lead to different decisions about land allocations or the development expectations for that land in different tiers.

SP3 could be greatly simplified by identifying the levels of the hierarchy, but then saying that in each level of the hierarchy the allocation and development of land and buildings would seek to enhance the following considerations: · the capacity of the settlement to accommodate development; · the character of the place and neighbourhoods within it; · high standards of design of buildings and the public realm; · connectivity and maximising opportunities for take-up of sustainable and active travel modes; enhancing the quantity and quality of green infrastructure; · and enhancing the vitality of the place as a whole, and neighbourhoods within it. There is also a lack of a vision for the future of Bradford's rural areas. Currently the only concession to rural areas in the settlement hierarchy is through supporting broadband and live work and home working - neither of which are exclusively rural considerations.

Support

Representation ID: 5687

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Chatsworth Settlement Trustees

Agent: Richard Wood Associates

The hierarchy of settlements and its policy approach is supported, in particular that in respect of the Principal Towns: that Ilkley, Keighley and Bingley will be the main local focus for housing, employment, shopping, leisure, education, health and cultural activities and facilities; and that the roles of Ilkley, Keighley and Bingley as accessible and vibrant places to live, work and invest should be enhanced.

Object

Representation ID: 5907

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Baildon & Shipley Friends of the Earth

There is considerable potential, particularly in the less urban/ more rural parts of the District, and the urban fringe, for food-growing, including community orchards.
Create new and improve existing open space, green areas, networks and corridors including the urban fringe ,to enhance biodiversity, food growing and recreation.

Object

Representation ID: 5940

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: SHMS

Summary
Question the role and identity of growth centres going forward beyond 2030 (plan to run to 2038) due to lack of supporting infrastructure, build out achieved to date, lack of jobs growth, lack of employment land. and need to reduce emmissions hence reduce commuting. Increased working from home will present additional infrastructure capacity needs which can more readily be provided within existing network capacity in Bradford and Keighley centres.

Comment

Representation ID: 6757

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jean Cawkwell

Queensbury should be a Local Growth Centre and as identified in the adopted Core Strategy, should also be identified as a “Growth Area”.

Not testing the adopted Core Strategy “Growth Area” policy in the new proposed Local Plan Sustainability Appraisal is a serious issue for the soundness of the plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 9796

Received: 12/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Labour)

SP3 (page 18) Great to see that you want to make Keighley “vibrant”. The points made on transport are unarguable. It is just access to it is poor when you are not in the town centre. Surely this needs to be addressed if we want investment in our housing stock to work, along the lines intended.

In terms of building design this has been a disappointment to me. The ideas of meeting places, entertainment venues and open spaces for relaxation and exercise is largely absent from new developments in my ward. Point 5 is just what we want to see – how about facilitating local groups who can help develop this?

Object

Representation ID: 10939

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: P&D Northern Asset Management

Agent: Pegasus Group (Manchester)

We object to these policies on the following basis:
- there is justification to plan up to 2040 rather than 2038 and this should be noted in Policy SP2;
- the Policies should make reference to ‘Growth Areas’ as presented in the adopted Core Strategy where additional/extra planned growth for housing can take place;
- We consider Queensbury should be retained as a Growth Area, as provided in the adopted Core Strategy. It is capable of accommodating more homes than currently planned for and could achieve 1,000 homes as per the adopted Core Strategy. Again, this is not tested in the SA as a reasonable alternative;

Comment

Representation ID: 11371

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Robert Felstead

Clear that Local Growth Centres each have different demographics. Regarding affordable housing each have large variations in affordability ratios, based average income.

To suggest that affordable homes are to be delivered in Burley in Wharfedale is questionable, given the district’s average income of £36,871. Average affordability ratio in Burley is at least 6.82 (almost 7x district’s average income), so it is not clear how affordable housing delivery in Burley addresses the need of those living elsewhere in the district.

Noted that affordable home payment contributions can be made lieu of onsite provision. Query the need for this caveat and wish an explanation of why it is needed. Practice should end. Undermines policy HO5.

Wishes to understand what employment opportunities there are in Burley in Wharfedale and for Council to supply supporting evidence. None appears in the Local Plan except a small retail study and details of levels of self-employment.