Consultation Question 9

Object

Representation ID: 23288

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Ruth Tyson

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: 23317

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Emily Corbett

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: 23346

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Alan R Wood

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: 23375

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Matthew Hill

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: 23404

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Miss N Bateson

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: 23433

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Martin Tyson

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: 23585

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Peter Bryson

Housing Need and Requirement

Consultation being conducted before 2021 census data is known, ignoring the best data available to assess population and housing needs.

Figures are highly inaccurate, misleading and out of date. Not possible to reconcile figures accurately. Error in figures – might lead to 8,500 fewer homes being required.

Only areas of growth in the district have been to the south (near M606) and east (nearest Leeds). Other areas have seen the population static with no growth or declining. Employment also static or declining resulting in need for less housing. Trend is evidenced by community ratio, showing employment is falling as more people travel out to better jobs in Leeds – ratio has been ignored.

Figures undervalue and under-estimate the amount of vacant housing in Bradford.

Numbers for determining housing need are factually incorrect. Urgent need for housing is over-hyped. No basis to support view that more houses are needed now. Calculations of housing need throughout Bradford are wrong.

Object

Representation ID: 23586

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Peter Bryson

Housing Distribution - Regional City

Overall: the need for City Wide Housing

Overall, this 2021 Draft Plan simply does not adequately address the overall housing needs of the Bradford City region as a whole. This Draft Plan simply ignores the needs of a relatively-young city, one where there is now clearly a need for more affordable and sustainable housing sites to be developed within the main urban areas, especially in the city-centre itself; to the South and east of the city centre: where there is the essential sustainable employment growth.

Object

Representation ID: 23587

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Peter Bryson

Previously Developed Land

Extensive areas of Vacant Brownfield Land in Bradford

A number of strategic policies within this Local Plan give whole-heartedly support the policies for sustainable growth and development in the district. I also strongly support the policies which prioritise the allocation and use of brownfield sites. These good policies will both work towards the regeneration and also improving the sustainability of key areas, both within the village of Addingham itself and also, more generally, elsewhere within the much-wider Bradford City region.

As even a casual visitor to Bradford can see, much of Bradford’s urban land is now “brownfield and post-industrial”. These large areas of post-industrial of brownfield site is ideal for developing more affordable housing, obviously as part of a wider programme of urban regeneration.

However, in this draft plan, almost no brownfield sites have been identified. This omission is simply bizarre!!!

Object

Representation ID: 23608

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Sandra Auty

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: 23637

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.

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.

Should SW/004 and SW146 be 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: 23640

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Patchett Developments Ltd

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.

Additional material and suggested changes provided in submission document

Object

Representation ID: 23644

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Tim Metcalfe

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.

Over the last 5 years our client has been actively promoting SW33/H. Once SW33/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: 23645

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Tim Metcalfe

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.

Additional material and suggested changes provided in submission document

Object

Representation ID: 23646

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Peter Bryson

Housing Distribution - Addingham

Reduction in the housing target (from 200 houses to 75 houses) in the Core Strategy Partial Review was welcomed.

It is unclear how the new numbers and distribution strategy in the Plan has been calculated and applied, particularly when comparing housing numbers with larger towns (also Local Growth Centres) and the underutilised Bradford City Centre.

The higher target has resulted in a relatively high target for Addingham. The plan does not adequately explain why the previous conclusion has been reversed for Addingham. The overall housing provision for Addingham has been grossly over-estimated. The assumption that Addingham should contain eight new, large and modern suburban housing sites to meet these objectives is completely wrong.

Plan does not adequately take account of the lack of facilities and poor transport infrastructure. The new targe is far higher than justified or proportionate to the size of the local population, and is one which cannot be supported.

Object

Representation ID: 23649

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Bob Price

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.

Over the last 5 years our client has been actively promoting SW33/H. Once SW33/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: 23650

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Bob Price

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.

Additional material and suggested changes provided in submission document

Object

Representation ID: 23652

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Ian Price

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.

Over the last 5 years our client has been actively promoting SW33/H. Once SW33/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: 23653

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Ian Price

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.

Additional material and suggested changes provided in submission document

Object

Representation ID: 23655

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Stewart Blair

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.

Over the last 5 years our client has been actively promoting SW33/H. Once SW33/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: 23656

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Stewart Blair

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.

Additional material and suggested changes provided in submission document

Object

Representation ID: 23667

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bankhead (Eldwick) 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.

Further the housing requirement for Bingley 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 Site BI4/H and Site BI8/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: 23668

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bankhead (Eldwick) Ltd

Agent: Johnson Mowat

Housing Distribution - Bingley

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 Bingley.

Whilst the increase from 800 dwellings (CSPR) to 850 dwellings is welcomed it remains my client’s position that the overall requirement for the both Bingley and the District as a whole should be significant higher.

Additional material and suggested changes provided in submission document.

Furthermore, CBMDC identify the land at Sty Lane as making a significant contribution to the existing housing requirement over the plan period. There is considerable doubt as to its deliverability.

Object

Representation ID: 24120

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr David and Elise Howe

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: 24164

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Helen Stocker

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: 24203

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Ellie Keighley

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: 24316

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Benjamin Statham

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: 24345

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Katrina Kennedy

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: 24374

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Stephen Corbett

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: 24403

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: James Stocker

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?