Consultation Question 8

Support

Representation ID: 1047

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Clive Brook Planning

We support the policy with a limited number of qualifications.

Support

Representation ID: 1074

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Birkbeck, University of London

This is all vey positive and exciting. I would add only two comments:

- First, encouraging ride sharing, while a good-sounding idea in principle, comes with severe and under-addressed safety issues that disproportionately affect female users. This is not just an issue in this document or in this region - it is a policy that for many years has been proposed, mainly by men, as a viable solution for reducing road use.

- Second, local topography means that unless e-bike stabling (mentioned in the document) and subsidy for e-bike purchase/hire is actively promoted, cycling is going to be a non-starter, no matter how much provision is made for cycle ways. There are just too few places in the district that can be connected by bike that do ot include hills too steep and long to put off all but the most committed cyclists.

Support

Representation ID: 1878

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Sir Stephen Brown

YOU WILL NEED TO UPGRADE THE RAILWAY UNDERPASS IN Ben Rhydding FROM ONE TO TWO LANES AND ALSO UPGRADE THE SINGLE TRACK IRON BRIDGE OVER THE WHARFE IN BEN RHYDDING TO TWO LANES TO COPE WITH EXTRA TRAFFIC GENERATED BY THE PROPOSED NEW DWELLINGS.

Object

Representation ID: 1909

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Burley Parish Council

3.7.4 A reasonable policy but fails to solve the need to travel across the District.

3.7.5 is a good strategy but relates to regional rather than district travel, whereas the District’s travel infrastructure should be the focus and priority of transport policy.

3.7.12 In the absence of a defined transport strategy without a budget or timetable for delivery, it is difficult to see how BDMC can respond to the ‘rapid change’ required in the NPPF.

Whilst rail connectivity is reasonable across the District, timetabling is an issue for some shift workers. Particularly those in ‘transport poverty’.

When do BDMC anticipate that Bradford Transport Strategy 2040 will be fully documented and funded for public consideration?

Support

Representation ID: 2504

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Peter Down

Whilst I support the proposed Policy SP7, there are various issues to be addressed. The Local Plan indicates a desire to reduce private car use and maximise efficient use of land, especially near public transport hubs and transport corridors. However, the Plan also proposes to develop current Green Belt areas which, given their locations, are likely to increase private car usage. The provision of large out-of-town retail developments should be discouraged in preference to smaller, local businesses. The term “Sustainable Vehicles” is a misnomer – these vehicles will still be consumable products and require resources for their manufacture, maintenance and disposal. There is a need for greater public transport connectivity to more rural areas especially at night-times and weekends. More information is required as to how it is intended to promote and expand the use of share public transport when the COVID-19 epidemic has effectively deterred this.

Support

Representation ID: 2506

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Dawn Jankowicz

100% the plan particularly the plans within point 4. Must ensure that there are enough electric car charging points in the area as the need for them will soar. In relation to point 1 need to address the glaring omissions regarding transport links from Baildon village centre e.g. only able to get directly to Bradford, why? There should be rail/bus links with neighbouring key centres such as Bingley/Eldwick/Keighley/Skipton/Otley/Guiseley (bus for the latter as rail station not accessible for all). Without this reliance on private cars/taxis is inevitable for the people of Baildon.

Support

Representation ID: 2747

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Helen Owen

It all sounds marvellous, but written by idealists with no understanding of how people live.

Support

Representation ID: 3138

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Baildon Branch Labour Party

Generally I support the policy but feel it needs to take into account the different topological challenges different areaas face. Quite often the distances between facilities look short but the terrain does not allow for that short route, particularly at night. The placement of some developments can necessitate car journeys to school, work or back, even though one may wish to go by another method.
In addition, efficient public transport services need to be in place earlier than the development.

Object

Representation ID: 3245

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Mike Wild

3.7.12 Location of Development
It is clear that the transport policy is not defined, has no set budget and no time table for delivery, in Burley in Wharfedale or throughout the District. It is difficult to see how BDMC expect to respond to the ‘rapid change’ required in the NPPF if basic targets and budgets have not been decided, agreed or ring-fenced

When do Bradford Council anticipate that the Bradford Transport Strategy 2040 will be fully documented and funded for public consideration? No where is there a concrete proposal to address the current and future rail capacity issues for Wharfedale

Support

Representation ID: 3247

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Wilsden Parish Council

We are supportive of the general principles of Policy SP7 but disappointed that 4b) does not have a stronger commitment to the provision of EV charging points especially in new developments. We believe that developers should be required to install, except in exceptional circumstances, EV charging points in all new developments.

Object

Representation ID: 3675

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Philip Sutcliffe

he 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: 3795

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Jenny Woodward

I agree with the emphasis on sustainable transport and healthy streets. A few additional points:
Some existing infrastructure could be easily improved for better cycling e.g. the canal towpaths (better surfaces, lit during commuting hours) and for better walking (e.g. removing narrow stiles / steps that prohibit walking with prams - these, for example, prohibit walking with pushchairs from Bingley Myrtle Park to St Ives). Could there be a cycling / walking forum that looks at local improvements that could be made?
I'd also like to see more ambition. Cycling on many of the local roads is frankly scary and unpleasant. I should know, I've been hit twice by cars and have recently taught my daughter to ride on the roads. It is alarming.

Support

Representation ID: 3929

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Susan Burn

I support this forward looking plan for the future transport of our district.

Support

Representation ID: 4157

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr David Smith

If the proposed new rail line from Manchester to Leeds via Bradford proves too expensive to pursue, I suggest an alternative fast Bradford to Manchester service via Huddersfield, connecting to an upgraded and electrified Leeds -Manchester route. This would require a new 4 mile connection (3 miles in tunnel) from Low Moor to Bradley, near Huddersfield. Journey times to Huddersfield and Manchester would be much reduced. A connection at Bradley could also provide a new direct service to Barnsley and Sheffield, connecting to cities in the East and West Midlands.

Support

Representation ID: 4163

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 to Policy SP7 in that it sets out a sensible approach to ensuring that development is located in sustainable places, and residents have access to a wide range of sustainable forms of transport. However, allocating large numbers of sites on the western edge of Addingham runs contrary to this policy as they are not close to services or facilities, including those in the village centre, and the nearby bus route does not offer a viable alternative to the use of the private car for journeys to work - even if it only means using the car to drive to Ilkley to catch the train.

Object

Representation ID: 4436

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford Shipley Travel Alliance

Include actions that will substantially contribute to tackling the climate emergency.
Include the Council and WYCA net-zero carbon policy and its implications for transport.
Consider the traffic reduction pathways to reach the WYCA targets already shown as minimums.
If it would be costly to continue with current schemes, this must be stated and explored for its implications.
Put the hierarchy of traffic in developments within the policy. The Plan must be very clear to its Councillors and residents the nature of any changes in law and national regulation that are required.
Each development should be car traffic-free by assumption, with great compensating penalties for developers who do not offer car traffic-free.
Every Housing and Economic development site must be considered as requiring to be car-traffic free.
No development should contribute to an increase car traffic. How will this be ensured through planning regulations?

Support

Representation ID: 4497

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Julie Townsend

As a sustainable transport professional, I understand the pressing importance of shifting to more sustainable and inclusive transport, and strongly support this policy. However, I recommend it is strengthened in several ways:
-demand reduction: aspire to follow good practice in developing '20 minute neighbourhoods'
-2b: refer to sustainable 'and safe' streets, given evidence that road danger is a key inhibiting factor in active travel, especially for children and would-be cyclists
-2a-d: emphasise the need to better integrate rail, bus, community transport and active travel. Currently, integration between modes is extremely poor, making journeys longer, inconvenient, unpleasant, unsafe, and/or inaccessible/impossible for many
-2f: incorporate making green spaces, cultural sites and attractions accessible via inclusive and sustainable means for everyone within Bradford, alongside visitors

This policy should include commitments to incorporate the sustainable travel hierarchy across all aspects of planning/development, and to support infrastructure/service improvements with effective local engagement, listening and communications.

Object

Representation ID: 5175

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Peter Jenkins

There is a total disconnect between the housing aspirations, and therefore employment, and the transport reality, due to decades of the policy of 'development first and infrastructure (maybe) later'. For example The Wharfe Valley, like all valleys, is restricted in the amount of service and infrastructure routes available, and what was available has long been used up, and is already creaking.

Consequently house prices are too high for most industrious to attract employees in such areas.

Employment route needs to start at early school level.

A Local Growth Centre here is a near impossibility for oft repeated and even sometimes acknowledged reasons.

Object

Representation ID: 5452

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford Cycling Campaign

We welcome approaches such as the prioritisation of projects which enable cycling and the intention to reduce the dominance of motor vehicles. It is right to require developers to demonstrate explicitly how they will prioritise cycling from the outset, rather than as tokenistic afterthoughts. We are pleased the Council recognises the urgency in this. We are disappointed, therefore, that the policy itself does not reflect this. SP7 refers to measures that ‘encourage’ cycling, a vague term which often means little. Instead, SP7 should repeat the welcome assertions in the discussion and explicitly state that cycling will be prioritised over vehicles. SP7 refers to ‘supporting the shift in road space’ from cars, but if cycling IS to be prioritised, rather than simply providing cycling corridors there must be equivalent disincentives to driving e.g. closing options for cars. This should be stated explicitly as an inevitable consequence of prioritising active travel.

Support

Representation ID: 5494

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: CPRE West Yorkshire

We warmly welcome and support many aspects of this policy, which is truly forward-looking in its intent for a 21st century, sustainable pattern of transport.

In SP7A and B, we are unclear as to the plan’s role in supporting these rail and mass transit improvements. Conversely it is unclear to what extent the locational sustainability of the plan’s spatial strategy is contingent on the measures in A and B which may or may not be
forthcoming within the plan period.

Given the need for Bradford to achieve net-zero carbon by the end of the plan period, any measures that are to contribute to carbon reduction must be able to take effect during the plan period. If they will not take effect until towards the end of or beyond the planned period, then they are legitimate measures to ensure that development post 2038 is zero carbon; but development that takes place before 2038 must measurably contribute to zero
carbon in the absence of these measures. This needs to be clarified.

The four principles of sustainable transport set out in SP7C are very important and we give them our full support. It is very encouraging to see a local plan policy taking a robust and ambitious approach to demand reduction through the location of development, and to
transforming travel choices and patterns through reallocation of road space and reengineering of streets.
The supporting text for this chapter (3.71 to 3.7 28) is in fact much clearer than the policy itself in explaining what the plan aims to achieve and how to implement it. Indeed, we would suggest these components be moved into the policy itself.

Support

Representation ID: 5597

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Harden Village Council

Harden Village Council is supportive of sustainable, safe and healthy travel and transport, as reflected in our shared statement with neighbouring villages in Bingley Rural, attached.

Object

Representation ID: 5828

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr John McKee

Throughout this Policy the word "support" is used extensively. No reasonable person would object to many of the policy elements coming to fruition however the majority are not within BMDC gift. It is not possible to plan for these elements, rather they are assumptions or a wishlist at best. There is no sensitivity or risl assessment if these deliverables do not come to fruition what is the impact

Support

Representation ID: 5865

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Alison Neave

Good proposals here for transport with less carbon use & global warming.
Better more frequent bus services which connect with rail services at time suitable for commuters would also help . Some people will do more working at home but others will need to commute into towns or Leeds or Bradford or further afield, in the coming years.

Note there will be electric cars as well as e-bikes. Hope these polices will not become anti-car - we do need a mix of transport methods.

Object

Representation ID: 5918

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Baildon & Shipley Friends of the Earth

Baildon FOE -SP7
1. New housing development generates more vehicle movements. The Climate Emergency means that private car use needs to be driven down; not allowed to increase.
2. The phrase “support the shift” (to sustainable transport) does not mean anything much. It is a weak phrase. There needs to be a concerted effort, unwavering determination and change in culture to bring about the transformational change.
3. Bring the Bradford Cycle Strategy (‘Keeping the Wheels Spinning’) into the mainstream, embrace it properly, and let that inform the Local Plan. This is about “making Bradford District a place where is cycling is naturally a part of everyone’s daily life.”
4. Short pedestrian journeys can be made easier and safer by many of the guiding principles associated with School Streets and LTNs. Again, this ties in with the 15-minute neighbourhood concept.
5. See also our reference to Vauban, Germany, under SP4.

Support

Representation ID: 5978

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: SHMS

Summary
Support however the policy does not maximise the potential that the district could harvest from this. Example it is unlikely there will be sufficient power supply to sustain a complete step change to electric vehicles, Traditionally the logistics models focus on large economies of scale, large depots for HGV and Bus operators. Buses and refuse and local delivery vehicles are the higher polluters by the nature of their operation in addition to particulate emmissions on older engines. Local storage provision could be explored to minimise travel distances and time incurred by employees in the transport and services business sectors
Consideration of alternative fuels such as Hydrogen and the infrastructure to support should be explored (refer Aberdeen Council web pages)

Comment

Representation ID: 9800

Received: 12/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Labour)

SP 7 What determines the use of public transport is whether you can access it from home – at a reasonable price. At the moment in many areas of Keighley you need a car to get into town (bus prices are very high) and once in it, you stay in it. This bedevils all progress in getting people to leave their car behind. More bus subsidy and cross-ticketing needed.

Comment

Representation ID: 10950

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: P&D Northern Asset Management

Agent: Pegasus Group (Manchester)

We suggest that it would be helpful if this policy cross referred to the spatial strategy and settlement hierarchy policies in terms of confirming where development will be targeted to reduce model travel dependency on the private car. In short, this will mean locating the majority of development towards the Regional Centre, Principal Towns and Local Growth Centres, including Queensbury.

Object

Representation ID: 11396

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Robert Felstead

Policy is reasonable but fails to address the need to travel across the district. Travel infrastructure in the District should be a priority and the focus of policy, which then needs to align with regional systems.

Transport policy is not defined, has no set budget and no timetable for delivery in Burley in Wharfedale or elsewhere. Therefore, how can the Council respond to rapid change as required by the NPPF if it is not decided, agreed or ring-fenced?

Policy has not addressed a particular transport subset. Rail/bus connectivity is reasonable across the district; however, timetabling is an issue for shift workers. Services operate between 6.00am & 11.30pm. How are they, particularly those who are classed as being in ‘transport poverty’ supposed to get to work?

When will the Bradford Transport Strategy 2040 be fully documented and funded for public digestion? The WY Transport Strategy has been in place since 2017.

Comment

Representation ID: 12152

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: British Horse Society

Only approximately 85 km of PROW network is available for horse riders, in Bradford (bridleways, byways and restricted byways)

The network is fragmented, roads are often the only available links between one RoW and the next. Any infrastructure relating to non-motorised users must take into account those other than walkers and cyclists.

Local Plan should include equestrians as vulnerable road users, to ensure that their needs are considered equally alongside those of pedestrians and cyclists.

Inclusion of equestrians in the Active Travel Strategy.

Equestrians to be included in any shared-use routes.

Equestrians should be considered/consulted at early stage of any major housing or infrastructure development.

Horse riding is a year-round activity which is classed as moderate intensity exercise. Some older or disabled people, being on horseback or in a horse-drawn carriage gives them access to the countryside and a freedom of movement they would not otherwise be able to achieve.
There are considerable psychological and social benefits from equestrian activities.
Equestrianism is popular, and contributes significantly to the local economy.
The equestrian community currently has many difficulties in finding safe access. Many issues could be addressed and resolved through good planning of future development. Community horse arenas could be provided using section 106 money.

Support

Representation ID: 15404

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Highways England (Yorkshire & North East Team)

It is considered by CH2M that Highways England should support the aspirations of Policy SP7 as it looks to reduce the demand for travel through a variety of policy threads and policy mechanisms. Such a policy seeks to reduce the number of single-occupancy private vehicle trips across the Plan period, which in turn, would reduce the impact of the Plan at the SRN.