Consultation Question 4

Object

Representation ID: 29736

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Caroline Whitaker

I believe that the underlying case for Silsden being designated as a local growth centre has still not been proven; there is a misunderstanding of the reality of its transport links as well as the capacity of other infrastructure.

Support

Representation ID: 29931

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Harworth Group PLC

Agent: Rob Moore

We note that there is a commitment within the Local Plan to support the regeneration of the district with Policy SP2 detailing Holme Wood as the key regeneration area.

In conjunction with this, Policy SP3 encourages development which supports the regeneration of the city.

These elements of the policy are fully supported and it is essential that it is maintained as an objective for the council. We would draw the council’s attention to the way in which my client’s site SE/163 can deliver on this objective in a way which no other site can.

Object

Representation ID: 29999

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Daniel Spencer

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?

Object

Representation ID: 30080

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Savia Lorain Hughes

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: 30140

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: P&D Northern Asset Management

Agent: Pegasus Group (Manchester)

We support Queensbury’s identification as one of 6 Local Growth Centres under part 5 of policy SP2 and under Policy SP3. It is of a scale and has the range of service one would expect to achieve this status in the settlement hierarchy.

Support

Representation ID: 30145

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Andrew Coates

Agent: Rural Solutions

We agree with the classification of Addingham as a Local Service Centre and agree that new housing will allow for appropriate growth of the settlement which will attract new residents and help retain and build upon the vitality and vibrancy of Addingham centre and its services.

Object

Representation ID: 30163

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Catherine Terry

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: 30284

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Barry Hopkinson

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.