Consultation Question 6

Object

Representation ID: 23314

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Emily Corbett

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: 23343

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Alan R Wood

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: 23372

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Matthew Hill

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: 23401

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Miss N Bateson

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: 23430

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Martin Tyson

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: 23497

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Robin & Sheila Wright

Number of people: 2

There is a disproportionate disruption to Green Belt land 97% for Ilkley but only 20% overall for Bradford District. The destruction of Green Belt land has a large environmental cost and alters the character of a sensitive landscape. It would impact considerably on the conservation areas of Ilkley Moor, the centre of Ilkley and the heart of Ben Rhydding. Green belt should not be touched when there are brownfield sites available as there are in the Bradford District. Removing VAT from the cleaning of brownfield sites would encourage development there. While there is a need for a smaller amount of affordable housing for the Ilkley area, there are some open spaces available that are not Green Belt.

Object

Representation ID: 23605

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Sandra Auty

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: 23665

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Peter Bryson

The very high quality of Addingham’s surrounding landscape is evidenced in the designated Green Belt and its village green spaces. The importance is highlighted in the neighbourhood plan and other documents. The relationship with landscape and countryside around the village gives it a particular value.

Draft plan recognises the great value of the Green Belt and the villages’ green spaces, in line with the neighbourhood plan (2020).

Plan fails to mention the adjoining Nidderdale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), a major oversight and invalidating may key assumptions in it.

Policies SP5 & SP8 do not adequately explain or quantify any exceptional circumstances to justify releases in the Green Belt. Where minimal evidence is provided, it would seem that development of Green Belt sites in Addingham is not consistent with local housing needs analysis. Green Belt proposals have not passed either the sustainability test nor the exceptional or very special circumstances, required under the NPPF.

Object

Representation ID: 24117

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr David and Elise Howe

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: 24161

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Helen Stocker

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: 24200

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Ellie Keighley

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: 24313

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Benjamin Statham

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: 24342

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Katrina Kennedy

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: 24371

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Stephen Corbett

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: 24400

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: James Stocker

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: 24431

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Janine Ward

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: 24460

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Catherine Hinchliffe

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: 24545

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Lyndsey Lloyd

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: 24574

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Steven Langford

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: 24623

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Michelle Schofield

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: 24698

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Danny Schofield

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: 24736

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Hamish Logan

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: 24765

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Ashera Grande

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: 24843

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Chris Knowles

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: 24930

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Bridget Day

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: 24959

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Rob Pawson

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: 24988

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Anil Mander

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: 25018

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Louise Judd

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: 25048

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Richard Watson

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: 25082

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Tina Collins

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