Consultation Question 6

Object

Representation ID: 135

Received: 13/02/2021

Respondent: Miss Margaret Evans

Concreting 71 sites of our precious Green Belt is not an acceptable plan.
The areas being built at are being done so for planner profit, these are small characterful villages for the most part. Most people living there can already afford houses within existing stock. So why build here? So planners can make a profit by selling in desirable areas to people largely from outside that area. In doing so reduces the Green Belt around it and subsequently makes it less desirable with property prices reducing. Bradford is a big enough city, we don't need more mini cities next door.

Object

Representation ID: 267

Received: 08/02/2021

Respondent: Amanda Richards

Building /adaptation or repurposing land on Green belt or Green field sites - impact on the environment, damage to wild life and impact on surface water drainage - displacement in other areas.
Opposed to development in Apply bridge / Baildon/ Low moor farm sites/ Thackley/ Bolton woods/ Esholt, near the blue pig in Eccleshill/ undercliffe
There are many brown field/ old retail / industrial sites, in inner Bradford and outer Bradford which can be used or repurposed, without effecting the above.
I am ok with my Social housing being built, however there should be a maintained notice up giving the number of the agent responsible for the houses and tenants, so I there is any problems with anti social behaviour, threats to neighbouring households they can make a direct complaint about the tenant, as the details do not seam to be regularly available.

Object

Representation ID: 268

Received: 09/02/2021

Respondent: Ms Jane Hutchinson

Basically I’m extremely concerned that the Bradford council is considering using any green belt land for new developments. Apart from small villages not having adequate infrastructures in place to support new developments there must be hundreds on brown field sites that could surely be re developed without having to touch a scrap of green belt land. We have the most beautiful countryside in the Bronte district & this will year by year be eroded by new developments.
I’m aware of the importance of development but let’s take a leading example & commitment in Bradford council to become a nationwide leader in agreeing to only redevelop sites that have been previously used & not take up out most precious & glorious countryside.

Object

Representation ID: 290

Received: 19/02/2021

Respondent: Ms Mel Frances

I object to greenbelt land releases. If we have learned nothing from the warning signs of the climate emergency and the covid crisis that is resulting in physical and mental health and wellbeing issues, and that green spaces are vital in both cases, then we are truly doomed as a species.

Object

Representation ID: 492

Received: 25/02/2021

Respondent: Mr Neil Collins

Strongly disagree that these are exceptional circumstances that warrant building on so many Green Belt Sites.
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: 857

Received: 06/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Gillian Barton

I want to keep our green spaces green. It’s a heavily populated area as it is, so our green belt is really important for the environment and for our collective mental health! I don’t mind if brown belt land is used, and there seems to be plenty of that about doing nothing, so please leave our green spaces alone!

Object

Representation ID: 868

Received: 07/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Neil Crowther

Bradford as a community should be committed to maintaining its green belt as assisting the fight against global warming is paramount and our current infrastructure would not support increased housing and population.

Object

Representation ID: 891

Received: 07/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Anthony Atherton

I’m all for building homes but not on any green belt land we have enough brownfield sites available

Object

Representation ID: 923

Received: 07/03/2021

Respondent: Clive Brook Planning

We support the conclusion that there are exceptional circumstances which justify Green Belt releases for housing and employment land. We object to the lack of sufficient Green Belt release provision for the higher levels of need and demand for both housing and employment land as contained in the evidence and responses we put forward on other strategic and topic based policies as well as site specific submissions. We object to the exclusion of any provision for safeguarded land which is justified and required.
We object to a lack of a positive and proactive approach which recognises the considerable multiple benefits which can be achieved via enabling residential developments which are capable of delivering wholly sustainable developments to the benefit of existing and new communities.

Object

Representation ID: 1059

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Sharon Almond

Green belt land should not be considered for development.

Building on Green Belt land is in contravention to the Government’s aims and objectives. The fundamental aim of the Government’s Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. The Government’s policy on protection for the Green Belt is set out in chapter 13 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which clearly states the importance of Green Belt land and emphasises that when protecting the Green Belt, local authorities should maximise the use of suitable brownfield sites before considering changes to Green Belt boundaries.

The NPPF demands that there should be “exceptional circumstances” before Green Belt boundaries can be changed and states that inappropriate development is harmful to the Green Belt and should be approved only in “very special circumstances”.

It is my own personal view that green belt land should be protected from any development.

Object

Representation ID: 1349

Received: 12/03/2021

Respondent: Jill Robinson

Agent: WBW Surveyors Limited

My Client objects to the omission of land to the south of Brow Rd, Haworth from the preferred housing site allocations for Haworth, and to the continued allocation of the land as Green Belt.

The site is almost totally enclosed by other housing developments to the north east and west. Development on the site would result in a sensible “rounding off” of the Green Belt boundary.

In landscape terms the site is suitable for development.

Object

Representation ID: 1352

Received: 12/03/2021

Respondent: Justin Whitehorn & Richard Robinson-Horley

Agent: WBW Surveyors Limited

My Clients object to the omission of land to the west of Micklethwaite Lane (BI050) from the preferred housing site allocations for Bingley, and to the continued allocation of the land as Green Belt and does not agree with the Council’s assessment pf the site and reasons for its non-allocation i.e. landscape and heritage impact.

Object

Representation ID: 1506

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Lightowler Associates

Re IL1/H Ben Rhydding Drive releasing a large greenfield site for high density development of housing in an area with low density high quality properties will detract from ambience and amenity of the area.

The above whilst not contiguous with is very close to IL3/H Coutances Way, another large greenfield site for high density development of housing.

Both these developments will put increased pressure on current amenities, communication and traffic flow; the latter includes a narrow single track railway bridge.

The advisability of releasing two greenfield sites for high density housing development in the same area of the town should be reassessed. The proposed two developments will add 285 households, representing 90.8% of the proposed housing developments in Ilkley. This will put enormous pressure on that part of the town and alter the whole ambience of the area.

Object

Representation ID: 1630

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: WBW Surveyors Limited

My client objects to the omission of land off Nares St Haworth (ref HA/026) from the preferred housing site allocations and to the continued allocation of the land as green belt.

Object

Representation ID: 1632

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Matt Craven

Too much focus on greenbelt land. This is BRADFORD Council so build your houses in BRADFORD rather than ruining the countryside. I could drive around Bradford today and find you plenty of sites to regenerate. Just because Bradford is an undesirable place to live shouldn't mean you have to go looking for greenfield in outlying areas. This will just make these more desirable areas the same undesirable areas to live in 20 years time when there's no green areas and the area is both polluted and over run by cars and people. Some of the proposed sites seem to ignore the flood risks.

Object

Representation ID: 1692

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Jonathan Procter

Building on Green Belt land is in contravention to the Government’s aims and objectives.
The NPPF demands that there should be “exceptional circumstances” before Green Belt boundaries can be changed and states that inappropriate development is harmful to the Green Belt and should be approved only in “very special circumstances”. These circumstances do not apply here. BDMC has not shown that Ilkley's housing needs warrant releasing greenbelt land in accordance with the NPPF requirements , nor that it has considered appropriate alternatatives . Ilkley is a cash cow for BDMC and is yet again being milked for the benefit of other districts . It is an tourist spot because of its green belt surroundings , and BDMC's proposals will damage this and promote a dangerous precedent

Object

Representation ID: 1827

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Glenn Miller

Building on the Green Belt in Ilkley (sites IL1/H, IL2/H and IL3/H) will have significant impact on the openness at the approach to Ilkley from the A65. Building on sites IL1/H and IL3/H will also increase the likelihood of Ilkley and Burley-in-Wharfedale encroaching on each other.

Object

Representation ID: 1907

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Burley Parish Council

3.5.3 BPC would like to understand BDMC’s definition of “exceptional circumstances” in the context of the NPPF. Whilst we accept that some elements of brownfield may be unviable, we find it hard to understand why land that would support the delivery of a significant number of homes still remains unviable 16 years after identification.

3.5.4 We would like to alert BDMC to the unoccupied housing which could contribute to the housing allocation figures and which throw a completely different perspective on where housing and regeneration efforts should be directed.

3.5.13 would not contribute to the District’s employment needs given 3.31

Object

Representation ID: 1953

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Helen Miller

The aims of any Green Belt include to check unrestricted sprawl, to prevent neighbouring towns merging, and to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. Green Belt are to be used essentially after all other alternatives have failed and only in exceptional circumstances.

The quantity of Green Belt land proposed to be used on the east side of Ilkley in particular breaks all of the aims above, and there is no explanation provided as to why this amounts to “exceptional circumstances”.

Object

Representation ID: 2108

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Julija Moskalina

Outrages to build houses on green belt in any areas ! Do consider that for future generation , where else they will see wild life, like now from just going on a walk around the village . Protect protect protect!
Do not destroy beauty of countryside. There are so many consequences and responsibilities, we need to treasure open green spaces, wild life, nature, if not then humanity just destroy them self eventually.

Object

Representation ID: 2246

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Greg Hutchinson

The plan to build mass housing by releasing green belt land around the top end of Clayton is wholly inappropriate.

All the roads in and out of Clayton are essentially country lanes and not fit for mass traffic. 3 out of the 4 roads out of Clayton are so narrow that they do not accommodate two-way traffic. The main pinch-point around Clayton roundabout is already log jammed at peak hours with traffic blocking entry/exit, due to the nature of the road network and single file traffic. Please, no more building, no more traffic. Two of the roads don't even have footpaths in sections and walking on these is bad enough with the current level of traffic.

Support

Representation ID: 2405

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Joseph Firth

I fully support the removal of green belt from land, especially in the case of the Heights Lane fields of B14/H and B18/H. I know that there’s always plenty of objectors but they’re only trying to benefit themselves whilst pretending to care about other things!! You can’t make an omelette without cracking eggs and you can’t build affordable and market housing without removing some green belt. That’s why the council was granted permission to remove it in the first place. Without having that option, there is nowhere nice and pleasurable to build houses. Bingley/Eldwick is in a housing crisis and new houses must be built. 40 new houses would benefit eldwick families so much and it would only put it in line with the housing across heights Lane anyway! The fields are private, they are not enjoyed by the public - let’s make the most out of them. These fields are perfect for housing and there are no brownfield sites in eldwick... there’s nowhere else to build and HOUSES ARE NEEDED!

Object

Representation ID: 2466

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Peter Down

I must object to the proposed Policy SP5. Green Belt areas keep separation between individual areas of development and provide environmental and social benefits. The proposed adjustment of Green Belt areas appears to be a cynical attempt by City of Bradford MDC to permit development of numerous sites and increase urban sprawl whilst claiming there is no impact to Green Belt. This is not acceptable and appears to contravene the aim to respect and maintain Green Belt areas as indicated elsewhere in the Local Plan. The proposed policy appears to emphasise the current Green Belt areas that could be developed without providing enough strength to the initial aim to redevelop brownfield sites as the first course of action.

Object

Representation ID: 2744

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Helen Owen

Small areas of Green Belt released for housing soon add up. In Bingley, Cottingley and Shipley it means merging settlements. There is not the infrastructure to cope with the extra housing i.e schools, medical centre. The impact on the road network in the Aire Valley will be detrimental to health and to well - being. Talk of persuading residents to use public transport is just ‘pie in the sky’ No one actually believes that such a massive mind shift will occur or that public transport will suddenly improve .

Object

Representation ID: 2773

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Robin Hargrave

Totally object to the use of existing Green Belt land, and do not believe that current circumstances are exceptional.

Existing Green Belt land has already been allocated to keep the character and appearance of our precious villages, and should not be reversed.

Object

Representation ID: 3157

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Alan Wilcock

Fundamentally, there is no overall justification for the target housing numbers (1,703 dwellings per annum) over the 2020/2038 period given Bradford’s analyses and the current situation.

According to Bradford’s documents the population has increased by only 2,200 per annum over the last 7 years. Continuing at that rate would not require 1,703 dwellings per annum. In addition Bradford’s “Updating the Demographic Evidence February 2021” modelled a number of scenarios all of which had lower dwelling requirements ranging from 761 to 1,570 dwellings per annum; A reduction between 2,412 and 16,974 dwellings overall.

In a recent paper by Michael O’Connor and Jonathan Portes of the Economic Statistics Centre of Excellence 14 January 2021 “Estimating the UK population during the pandemic”, they concluded that instead of the UK population increasing by 350,000 it fell by 1.3 million in a one year.

There is no need to build on Green Belt.

Object

Representation ID: 3227

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Heather Jones

Greenbelt should not be taken. Bradford Council have not adequately prioritised the use of Brownfield sites, nor substantiated the 'exceptional circumstances' required to take green belt.

Object

Representation ID: 3297

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr David Wilmshurst

Para 3.6.15 states that for Employment Land Need and Jobs “This analysis was produced prior to the Covid-19 pandemic.” Account has not therefore been taken of the reduced demand for office and retail space following from increased working from home and online shopping resulting from the pandemic. The shortfall of 5,000 units is therefore excessive and the Green Belt land to be built on should be reduced accordingly. The Plan is therefore not in line with the National Planning Policy Framework para 11a which states that “plans should positively seek opportunities to meet the development needs of their area, and be sufficiently flexible to adapt to rapid change;” as with changes in land use resulting from the pandemic. It also contravenes paragraphs 3.8.42 and 43 which require Councils to maximise use of previously developed and under-utilised land and buildings, which could be used for housing.

Object

Representation ID: 3301

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Haworth, Cross Roads & Stanbury Parish Council

The Parish Council is concerned that the policy outlined will give a “green light” to developers seeking to build on other areas of Green Belt within the district. There are clear advantages to developers to choose this option and this plan, if adopted, will set a dangerous precedent.


The policy’s stated aims are, wherever possible to maximise the use of previously developed land and minimise the use of Green Belt. We feel these aims have not been met and that not enough protection has been given to the Green Belt.


We question whether the “exceptional circumstances” test has been rigorously applied across the district and would seek more evidence on the decision making process behind the rejection of the large number of previously developed sites.

Support

Representation ID: 3382

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: IMCO Holdings

Agent: Tetra Tech (Manchester)

On behalf of the landowner, support is provided for the allocation of site QB4/H – Brighouse Road.

We are supportive of the approach to plan for Green Belt release and the allocation of sites within Policy SP5. Without significant Green Belt release distributed across the District’s hierarchy of centres it is evident that the District’s future housing needs will not be met.