Consultation Question 11

Support

Representation ID: 292

Received: 19/02/2021

Respondent: Ms Mel Frances

I support any policy that does actually protect and enhance biodiversity, habitat and increased green space.
Green bridges and tunnels for wildlife would be a great addition here (as in Scandinavia) to reduce road kill and to allow safe movement of insects, birds and mammals etc so that the natural world can 'do it's thing'.
Living roofs and walls could be added to new and existing buildings (as in Singapore).

Object

Representation ID: 1912

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Burley Parish Council

3.10.6 The detail presented here should not be aspirational but should identify and deliver green infrastructure as mandatory.

Support

Representation ID: 2279

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Clive Brook Planning

We support the existing policy content but consider that it should be slightly expanded to positively encourage joint working with landowners/developers to enable the enhancement and expansion of green infrastructure networks.

Support

Representation ID: 2518

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Peter Down

Whilst I support the proposed Policy SP10, the protection, maintenance and enhancement of Green Belt areas should be based on those currently designated and not the amended Green Belts as detailed in the draft Local Plan. Other Green and Blue Infrastructure benefits do not appear to have been recognised, including: re-opening of culverted watercourses; preventing development within the floodplain (especially within the 1 in 100 (1%) AEP fluvial flood zone); removing existing developments from the floodplain (especially within the 1 in 100 (1%) AEP fluvial flood zone); providing green spaces alongside watercourses, and; insisting that minimum proportions of green and blue areas be provided in future developments.
Further information is required as to how this policy is to be implemented. It is unlikely to be sufficient to rely on the planning application process alone and additional measures, such as, financial incentives and disincentives, are likely to be required.

Support

Representation ID: 2753

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Helen Owen

The intentions are good, but the proposals for building on the Green Belt don’t match these intentions. No joined up thinking.

Support

Representation ID: 3059

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Alison Tribe

I totally support the Preferred Option

Support

Representation ID: 3253

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Wilsden Parish Council

We support the overall principles of Policy SP10 and will make detailed comments in our responses to Q39 and Q60.

Support

Representation ID: 3563

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: NEAT

This sounds very good - but it appears to be undermined in practice.
For example, Bolton Road, from the junction with Shipley Airedale Road to Peel Park, had been a green corridor, with bats, owls, pheasant, jays, a pair of kestrels an even a grouse once evident. Most of these have disppeared since the loss of the meadow on the north-west side of Bolton Road in 2012. Now there is a "for sale" sign on the vegetated verge of the road.
It would be useful to add to this policy a reqirement fo an annual audit of biodiversity in the Bradford district, ward by ward, so that every can see which species are becoming extinct locally owng to planning decisions.

Support

Representation ID: 3605

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Climate Action Menston

The biodiversity crisis calls for a bolder approach: all verges should be wild flower meadows; 30% of every council owned open space should be allowed to be wild, with minimal human intervention; “Wild Belts” or derelict areas within the city should be rewilded to provide wildlife corridors; the public should be educated about why wild areas are necessary.
The design of the energy infrastructure should be compatible with conversion to micro-grids.
All buildings should have habitats for wildlife built into them eg swift bricks, and every flat roof should be covered in living plants. This would help reduce water runoff as well as providing habitats for insects and nectar for bees.
Flood risk needs to be emphasised further.

Object

Representation ID: 3678

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: 3760

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Andrew Lund

While I support the aims of this policy I contend that several proposals elsewhere in the draft local plan fail to comply with it. For example, in Ilkley the release of sites IL1/H and IL3/H from the Green Belt for the construction of 285 housing units obliterates the only green corridor in Ben Rhydding extending from open moorland to the River Wharfe.

Support

Representation ID: 3813

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Jenny Woodward

I support the acknowledgement of the importance of GS. However, it is not clear how it will be protected and how it feeds into housing allocations. There needs to be an enforceable GS Accessibility standard i.e. new developments can not adversely affect GS provision for existing homes (using Natural England standards of 2 ha of GS within 5 minutes walk)
Bradford Council need to identify areas of existing housing that do not meet the GS standard and pro-actively look for GS opportunities.
The GS technical report is not nuanced enough e.g. in Bingley, St Ives makes up most of the Parks provision yet is not easily accessible on foot for many areas.
Improved enforcement is critical. Could the income from new builds help fund the enforcement team?
Finally, the emphasis is very much on human health. A target re biodiversity is also needed.

Support

Representation ID: 3951

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Susan Burn

Well done. Excellent.

Support

Representation ID: 4527

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Julie Townsend

I support this policy, and welcome its reference to joining up green spaces with active travel networks. However, this policy should additionally recognise the need to join up green spaces with public/community transport, to enable these spaces to be accessed sustainably by all, and to reduce the huge detriment being caused to wildlife, green spaces, and surrounding communities, by increasing traffic levels.

Support

Representation ID: 5013

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Queensbury Tunnel Society

We welcome the general policy of enhancing access to green spaces and encouraging walking and cycling. We are particularly keen to see the development of greenways, above all the connectivity that would be provided by a Bradford to Halifax greenway via Queensbury Tunnel and the extension of the Great Northern Railway Trail through from Thornton to Keighley.
We believe a strong commitment to green infrastructure is vital for community health and well-being for present and future generations, and must be evidenced in scheduled projects that establish a comprehensive, safe and attractive network for active travel.

Support

Representation ID: 5339

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Peter Jenkins

Previous answer shows that such a policy – not just mere “aspirations” - would be making savings and contributing to targets now.

Policies please and not just aspirations.

Support

Representation ID: 5455

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford Cycling Campaign

Bradford Cycling Campaign welcomes the commitment to the protection and maintenance of active travel routes such as cycle paths and greenways. Paragraph A refers to, ‘where appropriate’, the network will be enhanced. There are many opportunities around the district for the enhancement of existing infrastructure that currently excludes cyclists, for example footpaths into cycleways. In some cases, this is a straightforward reclassification of suitable paths, while in others minimal development work would be needed. Such enhancements should be done ‘wherever possible’ rather than ‘where appropriate’ as these are quick wins for cycling and sustainable infrastructure development.

Support

Representation ID: 5467

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: CPRE West Yorkshire

We fully support and welcome this policy.

Support

Representation ID: 5856

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Alison Neave

good policies.

Support

Representation ID: 5987

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: SHMS

Further funding and support is needed to support

Object

Representation ID: 6765

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jean Cawkwell

OBJECT to specific reference within policy SP10 in the draft plan, provided at appendix 14. This plan is too vague and is unclear on what is to be protected or enhanced under this policy.

The policy states that all areas of designated open space will be protected as defined by Policy CO2, including privately owned sporting venues. The Council has no evidence to justify specific protection of privately owned golf clubs and highly relevantly neither does Sport England seek to protect golf courses.

OBJECT to Queensbury Golf Course being designated area of open space. Queensbury Golf Couse should NOT be classed as public open space.

Comment

Representation ID: 9803

Received: 12/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Labour)

SP 10 for me this is potentially the most exciting element of the plan so far. Bradford and environs has an enormous amount of potential. I would make this the main sales pitch for the local plan.

Object

Representation ID: 10955

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: P&D Northern Asset Management

Agent: Pegasus Group (Manchester)

We support the Council’s desire to create a Green and Blue Infrastructure Network. However, we object to specific reference within Policy SP10 to the plan provided at Appendix 14. This plan is too vague and at such a scale that it is difficult to pinpoint exactly what areas are to be protected or enhanced under this policy.

The policy states that all areas of designated open space will be protected as defined by Policy CO1 but this seemingly applies to private sporting venues, including Queensbury Golf Club.

The Council’s evidence on open space and sports pitches is contained in reports dated 2016, 2018 and 2019. None of the assessments make any reference to golf courses. As such, there is no evidence that has been prepared to confirm that the likes of Queensbury Golf course should be specifically protected.

Sport England do not seek to protect golf courses under the organisations statutory obligations.

Comment

Representation ID: 11405

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Robert Felstead

“3.10.6 The aspiration to create space for both green and blue”.

The details presented here should not be aspirational, as so many others are. The policy needs to identify and deliver green infrastructure (GI) as mandatory requirement of the Local Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 11544

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Yorkshire Wildlife Trust

We feel that section B of this policy could be better worded to incorporate Building with Nature Standards as a mechanism for delivery, supporting the multifunctional aspirations highlighted by the local plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 13577

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Canal & River Trust

Reference to the canal (within part Ac) and blue infrastructure within the policy text would help to make the Local Plan more effective as it would make it clearer to decision makers that our network forms part of the wider GI network in Bradford District, and that the policies apply to our waterway corridor.

Comment

Representation ID: 17174

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Jones Homes (Yorkshire) Limited

Agent: Savills (UK) Ltd

The policy as worded is broadly appropriate and should continue to allow for development and enhancement in any future draft of the policy.

The site south of Shipley Golf Course / Hazel Beck is allocated in part within the current Development Plan as a Local Wildlife Site and within the emerging Local Plan as Countryside and a Local Wildlife Site. With this in mind an Ecological Constraints Assessment has been undertaken for the site and adjacent land under the same ownership. The Ecological Assessment is included at Appendix D.

The survey identifies an area south of the site which could be used as an area for ecological improvement,
to offset any loss of habitat within the Local Wildlife Site.

Support

Representation ID: 17289

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: The Great Northern Railway Trail Development Group

Off-road cycleways, using former railway lines, are green corridors that form wildlife habitats for many species, not just parks and woodlands. These can contribute to biodiversity. We ask that former railway lines, such as the Great Northern Railway Trail, be included in the range of places where green infrastructure is to be protected. In this corridor, wildlife is flourishing, thanks to the support of the Bradford Urban Wildlife Group. This green linear corridor can also link other existing green spaces.
This policy refers in part to ‘ensuring that where opportunities exist, the scheme connects to the existing walking and cycling networks and greenways’.
From our experience these opportunities have not been recognised nor sufficiently pursued by Bradford Council officers, even with our intervention as a formal consultee to planning applications.

Object

Representation ID: 19838

Received: 01/04/2021

Respondent: Natural England

Natural England welcomes the strategic approach set out within Policy SP10 to protecting existing green and blue assets, and to delivering an enhanced and expanded Green Infrastructure Network.

We note the inclusion of a Green Infrastructure Network Map in support of this policy at Appendix 14 of the Draft Local Plan, and suggest that this should be complemented by a Green Infrastructure Strategy, to underpin the strategic approach.

Although we note below the commitment to frame the wording of Thematic Policy EN1 in terms of requiring new development to meet the emerging Framework of Green Infrastructure Standards1 as defined by Natural England once published, we advise that in order to strengthen this section further, this should be included here to give prominence to the strategic importance of Green Infrastructure.

Once the Standard become available, the Plan could include an objective to use the new standards to assess Green Infrastructure provision across the Metropolitan District.

Specific reference to net gain is also made within policies SP9, SP10 and TR2, however, the minimum 10% net gain is only stated in TR2. For the sake of consistency it is recommended that these policies either state the 10% minimum net gain requirement or make specific reference to Policy EN2.

Comment

Representation ID: 19933

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Climate Action Ilkley

Number of people: 7

4. New green infrastructure should be maximised, including the use of imaginative new initiatives, such as micro-forests (e.g. this project). Space that would otherwise have been used for cars can be used in such a way to mitigate against the climate change and the biodiversity crises. We’d also like to see easy, cheap but potentially significant measures such as gaps in fences for hedgehogs.