Consultation Question 9

Object

Representation ID: 20090

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Jayne Driver

Housing Distribution - Baildon

Baildon’s target is an extra 250 properties but there are already 80 properties with consent granted leaving 170 required properties although the plan still lists well over the required amount at 217.

18 reasons for objection listed (see submission) including concerns relating to use for brownfield land before greenfield sites; loss of green belt - many alternative non green belt sites in Baildon have not been considered; access traffic and highways issues; adverse impact on air quality; loss of the only green spaces left along West lane; impact on local wildlife such as deer, foxes, birds and bats; there is a lack of public transport in the area; finally Bradford is part of the WYCA review which is likely to result in further parcels of non green belt land becoming available.

Object

Representation ID: 20318

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Adrian Naylor

Housing Distribution - Addingham

No justification for the Addingham target to increase from 75 in the 2019 partial review to 200 now. What has changed in this time?

Local service centres, as defined in the Plan, are expected to take “a reduced scale of growth compared to urban areas'

The village does not have the infrastructure to cope with this housing and the plan is silent on solutions for additional infrastructure and how it will be paid for.

Ilkley grammar school will have a shortfall from 2022 to 2027 varying between 50 and 86 pupils per year.

Transport links are problematic. Anyone living in Addingham will more than likely have to drive to get to work or to school.

The additional housing should be allocated to Ilkley which as a principle town and has the infrastructure and the transport links to cope with the increased numbers. There is no logical reason for Ilkley's reduced target.

Object

Representation ID: 20379

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Michael & Rose Smye

Number of people: 2

Housing Distribution - Addingham

Addingham - As a small village with poor transport links i.e. no train station we appear to have been allocated a huge number of houses compared to surrounding towns/area with better transport links.

Comment

Representation ID: 21613

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

I accept that there is a need for Affordable Housing but it should be geared towards local families with legitimate contacts to the area and a formula that gives affordability.

Object

Representation ID: 21642

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Elizabeth Nancy Briggs

Agent: Johnson Mowat

Housing Need and Requirement

Our clients have concerns with the Draft Plan’s strategic approach to the overall housing requirement and the Council’s chosen approach of dismissing the Government requirement of a 35% uplift to the housing requirement (Policy SP8).

It is considered at the very least, the 35% uplift as required by the Government should be applied to the overall housing requirement, resulting in an annual requirement of 2,300 dwellings per annum, rather than the Council’s preferred approach of 1,704 dwellings per annum.

Object

Representation ID: 21643

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Elizabeth Nancy Briggs

Agent: Johnson Mowat

Housing Distribution - Thornton

The Draft Local Plan significantly increases the urban focus by directing more development to Bradford City Centre. The Preferred Option Draft Local Plan proposes 7,000 dwellings in the City Centre, a significant uplift from 3,500 in the Core Strategy, and 4,000 in the Draft Core Strategy Partial Review. The Council have therefore applied an urban focus uplift in terms of the distribution of development but without applying an uplift to the overall requirement. This results in a whole shift away from the distribution identified in the adopted Core Strategy, with disproportionate reductions to the majority of sustainable settlements and sub areas in the
District, including Thornton (Local Growth Centre).

Whilst the increase from 500 dwellings (Core Strategy Partial Review) to 575 dwellings in Policy SP8: Housing Growth is welcomed; it remains my clients position that the overall requirement for the both Thornton and the District as a whole should be significant higher.

Object

Representation ID: 21647

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Nancy Fairbank

Agent: Johnson Mowat

Housing Need and Requirement

Our clients have concerns with the Draft Plan’s strategic approach to the overall housing requirement and the Council’s chosen approach of dismissing the Government requirement of a 35% uplift to the housing requirement (Policy SP8).

It is considered at the very least, the 35% uplift as required by the Government should be applied to the overall housing requirement, resulting in an annual requirement of 2,300 dwellings per annum, rather than the Council’s preferred approach of 1,704 dwellings per annum.

Object

Representation ID: 21648

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Nancy Fairbank

Agent: Johnson Mowat

Housing Distribution - Thornton

The Draft Local Plan significantly increases the urban focus by directing more development to Bradford City Centre. The Preferred Option Draft Local Plan proposes 7,000 dwellings in the City Centre, a significant uplift from 3,500 in the Core Strategy, and 4,000 in the Draft Core Strategy Partial Review. The Council have therefore applied an urban focus uplift in terms of the distribution of development but without applying an uplift to the overall requirement. This results in a whole shift away from the distribution identified in the adopted Core Strategy, with disproportionate reductions to the majority of sustainable settlements and sub areas in the District, including Thornton (Local Growth Centre).

Whilst the increase from 500 dwellings (Core Strategy Partial Review) to 575 dwellings in Policy SP8: Housing Growth is welcomed; it remains my clients position that the overall requirement for the both Thornton and the District as a whole should be significant higher.

Object

Representation ID: 21652

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Amy Treetops

Agent: Johnson Mowat

Housing Need and Requirement

Our clients have concerns with the Draft Plan’s strategic approach to the overall housing requirement and the Council’s chosen approach of dismissing the Government requirement of a 35% uplift to the housing requirement (Policy SP8).

It is considered at the very least, the 35% uplift as required by the Government should be applied to the overall housing requirement, resulting in an annual requirement of 2,300 dwellings per annum, rather than the Council’s preferred approach of 1,704 dwellings per annum.

Object

Representation ID: 21653

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Amy Treetops

Agent: Johnson Mowat

Housing Distribution - Thornton

The Draft Local Plan significantly increases the urban focus by directing more development to Bradford City Centre. The Preferred Option Draft Local Plan proposes 7,000 dwellings in the City Centre, a significant uplift from 3,500 in the Core Strategy, and 4,000 in the Draft Core Strategy Partial Review. The Council have therefore applied an urban focus uplift in terms of the distribution of development but without applying an uplift to the overall requirement. This results in a whole shift away from the distribution identified in the adopted Core Strategy, with disproportionate reductions to the majority of sustainable settlements and sub areas in the
District, including Thornton (Local Growth Centre).

Whilst the increase from 500 dwellings (Core Strategy Partial Review) to 575 dwellings in Policy SP8: Housing Growth is welcomed; it remains my clients position that the overall requirement for the both Thornton and the District as a whole should be significant higher.

Object

Representation ID: 21657

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Patchett Developments Ltd

Agent: Johnson Mowat

Housing Need and Requirement

Our clients have concerns with the Draft Plan’s strategic approach to the overall housing requirement and the Council’s chosen approach of dismissing the Government requirement of a 35% uplift to the housing requirement (Policy SP8).

It is considered at the very least, the 35% uplift as required by the Government should be applied to the overall housing requirement, resulting in an annual requirement of 2,300 dwellings per annum, rather than the Council’s preferred approach of 1,704 dwellings per annum.

The housing requirement of the District and the settlements including Cottingley, Bradford South West and Bradford North West should be seen as a minimum to demonstrate a commitment to significantly boosting housing delivery.

Typically, housebuilders will deliver 35 dph. It should be noted that the CO1/H measures 8.45 hectares. In this context CO1/H is capable of delivering approx. 295 dwellings and the therefore the introduction of a minimum figure will enable a housebuilder to potentially deliver additional units.

Once NW7/H is ‘Allocated’ our client will be looking to submit a planning application almost immediately. In this context the Delivery Timescales should be amended to 0 – 5 years.

Object

Representation ID: 21658

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Patchett Developments Ltd

Agent: Johnson Mowat

Housing Distribution - Cottingley

The Draft Local Plan significantly increases the urban focus by directing more development to Bradford City Centre. The Preferred Option Draft Plan proposes 7,000 dwellings in the City Centre, a significant uplift from 3,500 in the Core Strategy, and 4,000 in the Draft Core Strategy Partial Review. The Council have therefore applied an urban focus uplift in terms of the distribution of development but without applying an uplift to the overall requirement.

This results in a whole shift away from the distribution identified in the adopted Core Strategy, with disproportionate reductions to the majority of sustainable settlements and sub areas in the District including Cottingley (Local Service Centre).

Whilst the increase from 0 dwellings (CSPR) to 150 dwellings in Policy SP8: Housing Growth is welcomed; it remains my client’s position that the overall requirement for the both Cottingley and the District as a whole should be significant higher.

Object

Representation ID: 21698

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: George Upite

Agent: Johnson Mowat

Housing Need and Requirement

Our clients have concerns with the Draft Plan’s strategic approach to the overall housing requirement and the Council’s chosen approach of dismissing the Government requirement of a 35% uplift to the housing requirement (Policy SP8).

It is considered at the very least, the 35% uplift as required by the Government should be applied to the overall housing requirement, resulting in an annual requirement of 2,300 dwellings per annum, rather than the Council’s preferred approach of 1,704 dwellings per annum.

Further the housing requirement for Bradford South West and the District should be seen as a minimum so as to demonstrate a commitment from CBMDC to significantly boosting housing delivery over recent years.

Once SW6/H is ‘Allocated’ our client will be looking to submit a planning application almost immediately. In this context the Delivery Timescales should be amended to 0-5 years.

Object

Representation ID: 21699

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: George Upite

Agent: Johnson Mowat

Housing Distribution - Bradford SW

The Draft Local Plan significantly increases the urban focus by directing more development to Bradford City Centre. The Plan proposes 7,000 dwellings in the City Centre, a significant uplift from 3,500 in the Core Strategy, and 4,000 in the Draft CSPR.

The Council have therefore applied an urban focus uplift in terms of the distribution of development but without applying an uplift to the overall requirement. This results in a whole shift away from the distribution identified in the adopted Core Strategy, with disproportionate reductions to the majority of sustainable settlements and sub areas in the District, including Bradford SW.

It is now the intention of the Plan to reduce the overall requirement for Bradford SW to 3,175 dwellings. This is not supported by our client; it is our clients position that the overall requirement for the both Bradford South West and the District as a whole should be significant higher.

Object

Representation ID: 21765

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr J.H. Cove

Housing Distribution - Wharfedale

Plan unsound in relation to Green Belt release in Wharfedale (1,045 dwellings).

Plan not justified and does not meet local infrastructure requirements. Wharfedale does not require this number of homes to meet demand for local employment.

Would make more sense to protect Green belt, revitalising empty homes and make better use of brownfield sites.

Concern over sites AD3/H, AD4/H, IL1/H, IL3/H & BU1/H resulting in virtual ribbon development between Guiseley and Addingham. Creeping urbanisation is a major threat to the environment and damage those qualities that attract visitors and prosperity.

Maintaining open spaces and wildlife is fundamental to environmentally sound and sustainable development. Plan deviates from this.

Plan is disingenuous in promises to improve infrastructure and conflates Green Belt release with them when policies could be implemented independently. No guarantee that these improvements/mitigation will be delivered due to current climate.

Plan offers destruction of the Wharfedale environment with no clear benefit.

Object

Representation ID: 21776

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Simon & Bernice Talbot

Number of people: 2

Housing Distribution - Silsden

Silsden seems to have been allocated a bigger proportion of houses to find than some other areas.

Your plan seems to have neglected the willows development in your calculations.

Housing which is taking place / planned appears not to be aimed at lower paid workers.

You have also used a lower density factor for the proposed developments than that your policy states of 35 units per hectare.

There are no proposals to ease congestion along Keighley Road to Bolton Road.

Because of previous developments it seems unlikely that any bypass round Silsden will be almost impossible by the geography of Silsden and rash planning decisions which have been made in the past.

Silsden has a thriving tourist trade as a centre for walking, cycling and touring along the canal. There is v little parking for such tourists and the proposals will worsen this.

Object

Representation ID: 21802

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Duncan Watson

See answer at Q6.

3.8.45 Please provide the evidence on which this statement is based.

3.8.50 The issue here is not one of affordability but of income and social housing. Affordable social housing needs to be delivered at a very low starting price.

Whilst BPC accept that it is inevitable that some housing need has to be met from green belt, our previous comments about housing viability in Q5 remain. In this section the housing allocation from Burley is 326 units of 625 houses in the Local Plan.

Why could BDMC not consider an affordable housing initiative as in Manchester?

Object

Representation ID: 21885

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Catherine Starling

See answer at Q6.

3.8.45 Please provide the evidence on which this statement is based.

3.8.50 The issue here is not one of affordability but of income and social housing. Affordable social housing needs to be delivered at a very low starting price.

Whilst BPC accept that it is inevitable that some housing need has to be met from green belt, our previous comments about housing viability in Q5 remain. In this section the housing allocation from Burley is 326 units of 625 houses in the Local Plan.

Why could BDMC not consider an affordable housing initiative as in Manchester?

Object

Representation ID: 21914

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Dr Samantha Cook

See answer at Q6.

3.8.45 Please provide the evidence on which this statement is based.

3.8.50 The issue here is not one of affordability but of income and social housing. Affordable social housing needs to be delivered at a very low starting price.

Whilst BPC accept that it is inevitable that some housing need has to be met from green belt, our previous comments about housing viability in Q5 remain. In this section the housing allocation from Burley is 326 units of 625 houses in the Local Plan.

Why could BDMC not consider an affordable housing initiative as in Manchester?

Object

Representation ID: 21943

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Birgit Almond

See answer at Q6.

3.8.45 Please provide the evidence on which this statement is based.

3.8.50 The issue here is not one of affordability but of income and social housing. Affordable social housing needs to be delivered at a very low starting price.

Whilst BPC accept that it is inevitable that some housing need has to be met from green belt, our previous comments about housing viability in Q5 remain. In this section the housing allocation from Burley is 326 units of 625 houses in the Local Plan.

Why could BDMC not consider an affordable housing initiative as in Manchester?

Object

Representation ID: 21972

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Corrie Hardaker

See answer at Q6.

3.8.45 Please provide the evidence on which this statement is based.

3.8.50 The issue here is not one of affordability but of income and social housing. Affordable social housing needs to be delivered at a very low starting price.

Whilst BPC accept that it is inevitable that some housing need has to be met from green belt, our previous comments about housing viability in Q5 remain. In this section the housing allocation from Burley is 326 units of 625 houses in the Local Plan.

Why could BDMC not consider an affordable housing initiative as in Manchester?

Object

Representation ID: 22001

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Carly Mitchell

See answer at Q6.

3.8.45 Please provide the evidence on which this statement is based.

3.8.50 The issue here is not one of affordability but of income and social housing. Affordable social housing needs to be delivered at a very low starting price.

Whilst BPC accept that it is inevitable that some housing need has to be met from green belt, our previous comments about housing viability in Q5 remain. In this section the housing allocation from Burley is 326 units of 625 houses in the Local Plan.

Why could BDMC not consider an affordable housing initiative as in Manchester?

Object

Representation ID: 22030

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Helen Ross

See answer at Q6.

3.8.45 Please provide the evidence on which this statement is based.

3.8.50 The issue here is not one of affordability but of income and social housing. Affordable social housing needs to be delivered at a very low starting price.

Whilst BPC accept that it is inevitable that some housing need has to be met from green belt, our previous comments about housing viability in Q5 remain. In this section the housing allocation from Burley is 326 units of 625 houses in the Local Plan.

Why could BDMC not consider an affordable housing initiative as in Manchester?

Object

Representation ID: 22062

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Rebecca Spencer

See answer at Q6.

3.8.45 Please provide the evidence on which this statement is based.

3.8.50 The issue here is not one of affordability but of income and social housing. Affordable social housing needs to be delivered at a very low starting price.

Whilst BPC accept that it is inevitable that some housing need has to be met from green belt, our previous comments about housing viability in Q5 remain. In this section the housing allocation from Burley is 326 units of 625 houses in the Local Plan.

Why could BDMC not consider an affordable housing initiative as in Manchester?

Object

Representation ID: 22091

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Lucy Ashton

See answer at Q6.

3.8.45 Please provide the evidence on which this statement is based.

3.8.50 The issue here is not one of affordability but of income and social housing. Affordable social housing needs to be delivered at a very low starting price.

Whilst BPC accept that it is inevitable that some housing need has to be met from green belt, our previous comments about housing viability in Q5 remain. In this section the housing allocation from Burley is 326 units of 625 houses in the Local Plan.

Why could BDMC not consider an affordable housing initiative as in Manchester?

Object

Representation ID: 22120

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Chris Turner

See answer at Q6.

3.8.45 Please provide the evidence on which this statement is based.

3.8.50 The issue here is not one of affordability but of income and social housing. Affordable social housing needs to be delivered at a very low starting price.

Whilst BPC accept that it is inevitable that some housing need has to be met from green belt, our previous comments about housing viability in Q5 remain. In this section the housing allocation from Burley is 326 units of 625 houses in the Local Plan.

Why could BDMC not consider an affordable housing initiative as in Manchester?

Object

Representation ID: 22149

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Judy Breckett

See answer at Q6.

3.8.45 Please provide the evidence on which this statement is based.

3.8.50 The issue here is not one of affordability but of income and social housing. Affordable social housing needs to be delivered at a very low starting price.

Whilst BPC accept that it is inevitable that some housing need has to be met from green belt, our previous comments about housing viability in Q5 remain. In this section the housing allocation from Burley is 326 units of 625 houses in the Local Plan.

Why could BDMC not consider an affordable housing initiative as in Manchester?

Object

Representation ID: 22189

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Paul Hardaker

See answer at Q6.

3.8.45 Please provide the evidence on which this statement is based.

3.8.50 The issue here is not one of affordability but of income and social housing. Affordable social housing needs to be delivered at a very low starting price.

Whilst BPC accept that it is inevitable that some housing need has to be met from green belt, our previous comments about housing viability in Q5 remain. In this section the housing allocation from Burley is 326 units of 625 houses in the Local Plan.

Why could BDMC not consider an affordable housing initiative as in Manchester?

Object

Representation ID: 22218

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Helen Taylor

See answer at Q6.

3.8.45 Please provide the evidence on which this statement is based.

3.8.50 The issue here is not one of affordability but of income and social housing. Affordable social housing needs to be delivered at a very low starting price.

Whilst BPC accept that it is inevitable that some housing need has to be met from green belt, our previous comments about housing viability in Q5 remain. In this section the housing allocation from Burley is 326 units of 625 houses in the Local Plan.

Why could BDMC not consider an affordable housing initiative as in Manchester?

Object

Representation ID: 22247

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Dr Ceri Pitches

See answer at Q6.

3.8.45 Please provide the evidence on which this statement is based.

3.8.50 The issue here is not one of affordability but of income and social housing. Affordable social housing needs to be delivered at a very low starting price.

Whilst BPC accept that it is inevitable that some housing need has to be met from green belt, our previous comments about housing viability in Q5 remain. In this section the housing allocation from Burley is 326 units of 625 houses in the Local Plan.

Why could BDMC not consider an affordable housing initiative as in Manchester?