Consultation Question 18

Object

Representation ID: 3685

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: 3981

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Susan Burn

Please look again at the possibility of using some of this designated land for housing in order to relieve/remove the proposed use of green belt land in other areas.
A particular example is -
NE/23E – Apperley Bridge / Esholt (Former Filter Beds – Water Treatment Works) – 26.61ha (net developable area).
Surely this presents as an excellent site to create a new community with excellent access to job opportunities.

Comment

Representation ID: 11026

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: The Strategic Land Group

Agent: Walsingham Planning

The Strategic Land Group support the objectives and proposed outcomes of each of these Policies; the delivery of appropriate employment land, sites, zones, job creation and skill delivery are essential for the District’s future prosperity.

However, without the delivery of sufficient housing opportunities to support these initiatives, key elements of the District’s existing and future workforce will be lost and their skills and ambitions will be utilised in other localities.

The Draft Local Plan proposes the same annual scale of annual job creation as the adopted Core Strategy but contains a housing delivery target that is over 30% lower. For the proposed scale of job creation to be delivered and the strategic sites and enterprise and other zones to be developed and occupied the Draft Local Plan housing delivery target must be increased, as a minimum to reflect the figure derived from the standard method.

Comment

Representation ID: 13824

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: John Finnigan

The Council should undertake a further comprehensive review of its overall employment land need and not make any Green Belt release proposals until that review has been concluded.

Support

Representation ID: 15406

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Highways England (Yorkshire & North East Team)

In broad terms, it is considered by CH2M that Highways England should support the overarching aspirations of Policy EC1 as it looks to locate employment development within established employment areas, in a hierarchical approach.
However, these aspirations should be supported by a robust transport evidence base. Furthermore, when each site emerges, it should be supported by the appropriate transport documentation, and where required an assessment of the impact at the SRN should
be undertaken on a basis agreed in advance with Highways England.

Support

Representation ID: 17117

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Caddick Developments Ltd

Agent: DPP Planning

We support Policy EC1 and the acknowledgement that the Apperley Bridge/Esholt Strategic Employment Area is of regional importance for supporting a green recovery and employment aspirations in general. It is also one of only two strategic sites within the District that would be able to accommodate larger units.

Object

Representation ID: 18069

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Harworth Group & Nufarm UK Ltd

Agent: Johnson Mowat

Harworth and Nufarm object to draft Policy EC1 on the basis that the policy does not allocate sufficient land to meet employment land need and deliver economic growth as set out in our response to draft policy SP6 (above); and that the policy does not allocate land of appropriate site size, type or location to meet employment land need and deliver economic growth.

The policy depends too greatly upon large sites in locations not well suited to the core industrial/warehouse market. In particular, the ‘Esholt Strategic Employment Area (SEA)’ sites (NE22/E and NE23/E) total 31.55 ha representing 45% of the total supply in a location c.10km from the motorway network.

Draft proposed allocations NE22/E, NE23/E and NE24/E should be omitted.

Additional alternative sites are required to be identified. This should include, as a minimum, the allocation of ‘Land north of Whitehall Road, Wyke’ (our ref. EM114/A) for c.21 ha of employment land for B2/B8 use.

Suggestions are made regarding amendment to strategic sites, medium and large sites and smaller sites (see attached document).

Object

Representation ID: 18082

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Harworth Group & Nufarm UK Ltd

Agent: Johnson Mowat

The ‘Land at Gain Lane and Woodhall Road’ site (NE24/E), which extends to 9.85ha (14% of total supply) is an existing RUDP 2005 allocation (BN/E1.17) and is understood to have already commenced development, with outline planning permission and reserved matters approval in place for three phases totalling c.20,700 sqm. Whilst development of this site is supported for employment uses, it is considered to be a committed site that was granted planning permission prior to the Plan Period (in December 2017) and not to constitute new supply i.e. being available for new employment development.

Draft Policy EC1 part B/1 should be amended to omit site NE24/E ‘Land at Gain Lane and Woodhall Road’ as this site is committed and being delivered, thereby not forming the supply of new employment land. As this site is indicated to deliver 9.85 ha of employment land this area will need to be re-provided at an alternative site(s).

Comment

Representation ID: 25249

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford Chamber of Commerce

Policy EC1’s approach does not reflect that of Policy SP2.

Agree with the general premise of Policy EC1, but concerned that approach is not ambitious enough, given previous poor performance in delivering quality employment land in the right locations. Has meant businesses relocating/locating elsewhere. New plan should seek to provide significantly more employment land to attract business back to the District.

Should reconsider the Richard Dunn Centre site as an employment allocation due to its proximity to the M606 and wider road network.

Bradford has under-performed economically compared to neighbouring areas and reflected in its approach to employment land provision. Decline will not stop without a more ambitious approach. To secure sustainable development and reduce climate change impacts, it is important that sufficient jobs are provided. It will be difficult for Bradford to compete with neighbouring areas unless it allocates more new sites in the right locations.

Object

Representation ID: 30220

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Harworth Group & Nufarm UK Ltd

Agent: Johnson Mowat

Draft Policy EC1 part D should be omitted (i.e. to omit sites NE22/E and NE23/E as employment allocations). The delivery of a green economy/science/technology based scheme at site NE23/E is able to be delivered via the current planning application, with its particular uses and details controlled by condition, if the Council considers that ‘very special circumstances’ for this exist. This would appropriately be an ‘over/extra’ employment site with appropriate development delivered according to its particular credentials. On this basis, there is no particular justification for the allocation of either site or support for any development at site NE22/E. Alternative site(s) will need to be identified to provide the 31.55 ha of land attributed to these.