Consultation Question 13

Showing comments and forms 1 to 7 of 7

Object

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 3680

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Philip Sutcliffe

Representation Summary:

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.

Object

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 5465

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: CPRE West Yorkshire

Representation Summary:

We have not had the capacity to analyse this policy and will reserve comment; other than to emphasise that minerals policy must be compatible with the Council’s climate targets; and we recommend that this should be incorporated into SP12(4) along the following lines:
Seek to ensure that the provision of new minerals development (including hydrocarbons) meets key environmental criteria, protects human and natural resources, and is compatible with the aim of achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2038.

Object

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 5989

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: SHMS

Representation Summary:

Lack of local resources

Comment

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 9805

Received: 12/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Labour)

Representation Summary:

SP 12 Interesting, but no comments!

Comment

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 15826

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: West Yorkshire Combined Authority (WYCA)

Representation Summary:

Priority 4 in the SEP, Infrastructure for Growth includes a commitment to ensuring a sufficient supply of minerals and waste infrastructure to sustain and support growth in housing, business and transport infrastructure.

In this capacity it is noted that the Plan includes a number of related policies and we would welcome engagement with Bradford on minerals and waste matters, such as making use of sub-regional evidence sources, including the West Yorkshire Waste Capacity and Needs Assessment Model.

Support

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 29059

Received: 29/03/2021

Respondent: Historic England

Representation Summary:

Bradford is a major supplier of high-quality building stone.
Consequently, we welcome this Policy which will help to
ensure that a steady supply of building stone is available for
the repair of historic buildings in Bradford and elsewhere
and for new development in sensitive areas. We also support the high quality restoration and aftercare of mineral sites.

Comment

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 29185

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Environment Agency

Representation Summary:

It is important to ensure there are no adverse impacts of minerals (including oil and gas) activities on aquifers and protect surface and groundwater resources. We would encourage you to explore the potential for including a policy on Oil and Gas.

An abstraction or dewatering activity may require a license/environmental permit, and this should be referenced in policy. This could also be included with Policy EN11.
There should be consideration of delivering the Water Framework Directive (WFD) and River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) objectives and actions. Plans and policies for minerals should protect biodiversity and the wider water environment (including water quality) and minimise disturbance on the river bank and to rivers. This should also be considered in regard to restoration of sites.

The EA document called ‘The Environment Agency’s approach to groundwater protection’ which contains position statement N indicates the following: “Within Source Protection Zone 1, the Environment Agency will normally object in principle to any planning application for a development that may physically disturb an aquifer”. Therefore it is strongly recommended that strategic planning for minerals is not located in SPZ1.

Criteria should ensure that minerals are worked in ways that don’t increase flood risk, protect the floodplain and ensure that there are no adverse impacts of ancillary activities on the water environment.