Consultation Question 24

Object

Representation ID: 1916

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Burley Parish Council

BPC would agree that strengthening the integration of sustainable transporting new developments is essential to the delivery of the Local Plan. It is noted that BDMC suggests that development is unsustainable under the conditions at 4.8.2. Clearly this is an issue at Burley-in-Wharfedale and, no doubt, at other places across the District. There is a further disconnect in term of priorities [see response to Q118] that has been overlooked in the context of the Local Plan’s ‘sustainability’ objectives.

Object

Representation ID: 3691

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: 3836

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Jenny Woodward

I agree with what is said above. However, it does not always seem to have been taken into account in the allocation of housing. For example, the proposed development at Heights Lane in Eldwick.

Object

Representation ID: 4283

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Burley Bridge Association

Bradford Council needs to take a much firmer stance on bus services which even pre-covid did not work for many people. Buses don't start early enough and finish too early for many people to be able to use them to get to work or for leisure purposes. Tickets are not integrated and many journeys cost far too much money given the quality of service, especially unreliability and slowness of progress. Buses could be reliable, integrated and environmentally friendly and thereby play a large part in enhancing our communities as well as clean air and the environment. The best route to achieve this would be through WYCA taking public control of our bus services, and thereby delivering good integration with rail and other services. Bradford Council should take a strong stance on this.

Support

Representation ID: 5411

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Peter Jenkins

Support in principle but concern in that it will not be possible to address issues in Wharfedake satisfactorily.

Object

Representation ID: 5513

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford Cycling Campaign

Bradford Cycling Campaign supports the idea of a hierarchy of development favouring ‘zero-car’ developments over ‘unsustainable’ developments which barely reduce vehicle. However, in Policy TR3 itself there is no reference to this hierarchy and how it would be used. TR3 B offers a very open-ended requirement: ‘contribute to’ and ‘appropriate levels’ for cycling versus public transport and highways will, in practice, be impossible to evaluate and rank. Instead, developers should be required to demonstrate how they have chosen to prioritise cycling/walking and public transport over car-use. LTN principles should be the default expectation so that it is easier or quicker to move around on foot or by cycle than by car. Looking at specific development sites, however, there is no sign of reference to these policies. Notes on potential sites include headings on Public Transport Accessibility, Sustainability, Habitat, Constraints/Opportunities and other Considerations, but no heading on active travel.

Object

Representation ID: 5936

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Baildon & Shipley Friends of the Earth

We support the idea of a hierarchy of development favouring ‘zero-car’ developments and welcome the designation of developments which barely reduce vehicle use as ‘unsustainable’. However, in Policy TR3 there is no reference to this hierarchy. For example, would developments classified as ‘unsustainable’ automatically be refused? TR3 B states that ‘development should support and contribute to appropriate levels of enhancement of all transport’ and then lists priorities.
This appears to be very open-ended: ‘contribute to’ and ‘appropriate levels’ for cycling versus public transport and highways will, in practice, be impossible to evaluate and rank.
Instead, developers should be required to demonstrate how they have chosen to prioritise cycling/walking and public transport over car-use in their transport statements.
LTN principles should be the default expectation in major developments so that, for example, it is easier, more convenient or quicker to move around on foot or by cycle than by car.

Comment

Representation ID: 6487

Received: 15/02/2021

Respondent: Bruce Barnes

More of a focus on promoting bus use and incentivising active travel is needed throughout the plan.

Object

Representation ID: 10958

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: P&D Northern Asset Management

Agent: Pegasus Group (Manchester)

We note that the Council wish to allocate sites that meet walking distance thresholds to public transport stops and other key services as set out in Appendix 6 of the Draft Local Plan.

We consider the 800m / 10 minute walk time applied to local services should also be applied to bus stops that provide a regular service to town and city centre locations. Indeed, if someone is willing to walk 10 minutes to get to local shops and 20 minutes to a school, we think a 10 minute walk to a primary bus corridor is also a suitable distance.

Comment

Representation ID: 11409

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Robert Felstead

We would agree that strengthening the integration of sustainable transport into new developments is essential to the delivery of the Local Plan, moreover, Council suggests that development is unsustainable where “4.8.2 where car trips are reduced by between 0% and 30% of local prevailing rates, and active and public transport modes have parity in access with private vehicles.” Clearly this is an issue in Burley in Wharfedale and without doubt, elsewhere across the district. But there is another disconnect here in terms of priorities which I will consider further in my response to Question 118 that’s been overlooked in the context of the Local Plan’s ‘sustainability’ objectives.

Support

Representation ID: 15408

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Highways England (Yorkshire & North East Team)

It is considered by CH2M that Highways England should support the aspirations of Policy TR3. However, these aspirations should be aligned with and supported by a robust transport evidence base.

Comment

Representation ID: 15825

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: West Yorkshire Combined Authority (WYCA)

As part of the Planning Delivery Fund, the Combined Authority were successfully awarded funding to provide strategic support in partnership with Leeds City Region Local Authorities to ensure investment in design quality in development plans. It is in this capacity that the following comments relating to Urban Design are made.

The Combined Authority is supportive of the inclusion of policies relating to urban design. We welcome the ambition to significantly improve quality in housing and neighbourhood design, and to create inclusive, accessible, distinctive and healthy places. Bradford’s high population of children and young people is reflected in policies that prioritise green space, doorstep play and safe routes to play destinations.

Policies could be further strengthened by including welcoming and safe routes to schools as a requirement.

Comment

Representation ID: 15836

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: West Yorkshire Combined Authority (WYCA)

The WY Transport Strategy includes targets to significantly increase the number of trips made by bus, rail, bicycle and walking and to reduce trips by car. Achieving these targets is, in part, reliant on complementary planning policy which supports these goals.

We are therefore encouraged that Policy TR3: Integrating Sustainable Transport and Development provides a clear policy steer that will help deliver the WY Transport Strategy objectives by making best use of existing public transport networks and considering future transport investment proposals.

Object

Representation ID: 16725

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Shipley Town Council

We support the idea in the discussion (4.8.2) of a hierarchy of development favouring ‘zero-car’ developments and welcome the designation of developments which barely reduce vehicle use as ‘unsustainable’. However, in Policy TR3 itself there is no reference to this hierarchy.

The policy is too open ended. Instead, developers should be required to demonstrate how they have chosen to prioritise cycling/walking and public transport over car-use in their transport statements. LTN principles should be the default expectation in major developments so that, for example, it is easier, more convenient or quicker to move around on foot or by cycle than by car.

Looking at the specific example of the planned development of green belt on Bankfield/Branksome area (SH5/H & SH6/H) and SH4/H (Glenview Drive), there appears to be a significant contradiction in developing these sites that have very poor active travel connectivity, limited public transport options and no local amenities that are easily accessible by foot or cycle.

Support

Representation ID: 17295

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: The Great Northern Railway Trail Development Group

However, it will be down to the skill, knowledge and understanding of planners on getting to grips with the details regarding sustainable development that will either make or break any attempt by Bradford Council to change the attitude of house builders and further this approach.

Object

Representation ID: 18392

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Johnson Mowat

With reference to part A of draft Policy TR3, Johnson Mowat queries what ‘Applicants will be expected to adhere to Healthy Streets and 15 Minute Neighbourhood Principles’ means in practice and how this should be interpreted in the determination of planning applications.

It is suggested that this sentence is revised as follows to reflect support for the principle rather than an expectation of adherence which is likely to be beyond the influence of particular applicants for planning permission:

‘Developments that adhere or contribute to Healthy Streets and 15 Minute Neighbourhood Principles will be supported'

Object

Representation ID: 21808

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Duncan Watson

BPC would agree that strengthening the integration of sustainable transporting new developments is essential to the delivery of the Local Plan. It is noted that BDMC suggests that development is unsustainable under the conditions at 4.8.2. Clearly this is an issue at Burley-in-Wharfedale and, no doubt, at other places across the District. There is a further disconnect in term of priorities [see response to Q118] that has been overlooked in the context of the Local Plan’s ‘sustainability’ objectives.

Object

Representation ID: 21891

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Catherine Starling

BPC would agree that strengthening the integration of sustainable transporting new developments is essential to the delivery of the Local Plan. It is noted that BDMC suggests that development is unsustainable under the conditions at 4.8.2. Clearly this is an issue at Burley-in-Wharfedale and, no doubt, at other places across the District. There is a further disconnect in term of priorities [see response to Q118] that has been overlooked in the context of the Local Plan’s ‘sustainability’ objectives.

Object

Representation ID: 21920

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Dr Samantha Cook

BPC would agree that strengthening the integration of sustainable transporting new developments is essential to the delivery of the Local Plan. It is noted that BDMC suggests that development is unsustainable under the conditions at 4.8.2. Clearly this is an issue at Burley-in-Wharfedale and, no doubt, at other places across the District. There is a further disconnect in term of priorities [see response to Q118] that has been overlooked in the context of the Local Plan’s ‘sustainability’ objectives.

Object

Representation ID: 21949

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Birgit Almond

BPC would agree that strengthening the integration of sustainable transporting new developments is essential to the delivery of the Local Plan. It is noted that BDMC suggests that development is unsustainable under the conditions at 4.8.2. Clearly this is an issue at Burley-in-Wharfedale and, no doubt, at other places across the District. There is a further disconnect in term of priorities [see response to Q118] that has been overlooked in the context of the Local Plan’s ‘sustainability’ objectives.

Object

Representation ID: 21978

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Corrie Hardaker

BPC would agree that strengthening the integration of sustainable transporting new developments is essential to the delivery of the Local Plan. It is noted that BDMC suggests that development is unsustainable under the conditions at 4.8.2. Clearly this is an issue at Burley-in-Wharfedale and, no doubt, at other places across the District. There is a further disconnect in term of priorities [see response to Q118] that has been overlooked in the context of the Local Plan’s ‘sustainability’ objectives.

Object

Representation ID: 22007

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Carly Mitchell

BPC would agree that strengthening the integration of sustainable transporting new developments is essential to the delivery of the Local Plan. It is noted that BDMC suggests that development is unsustainable under the conditions at 4.8.2. Clearly this is an issue at Burley-in-Wharfedale and, no doubt, at other places across the District. There is a further disconnect in term of priorities [see response to Q118] that has been overlooked in the context of the Local Plan’s ‘sustainability’ objectives.

Object

Representation ID: 22036

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Helen Ross

BPC would agree that strengthening the integration of sustainable transporting new developments is essential to the delivery of the Local Plan. It is noted that BDMC suggests that development is unsustainable under the conditions at 4.8.2. Clearly this is an issue at Burley-in-Wharfedale and, no doubt, at other places across the District. There is a further disconnect in term of priorities [see response to Q118] that has been overlooked in the context of the Local Plan’s ‘sustainability’ objectives.

Object

Representation ID: 22068

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Rebecca Spencer

BPC would agree that strengthening the integration of sustainable transporting new developments is essential to the delivery of the Local Plan. It is noted that BDMC suggests that development is unsustainable under the conditions at 4.8.2. Clearly this is an issue at Burley-in-Wharfedale and, no doubt, at other places across the District. There is a further disconnect in term of priorities [see response to Q118] that has been overlooked in the context of the Local Plan’s ‘sustainability’ objectives.

Object

Representation ID: 22097

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Lucy Ashton

BPC would agree that strengthening the integration of sustainable transporting new developments is essential to the delivery of the Local Plan. It is noted that BDMC suggests that development is unsustainable under the conditions at 4.8.2. Clearly this is an issue at Burley-in-Wharfedale and, no doubt, at other places across the District. There is a further disconnect in term of priorities [see response to Q118] that has been overlooked in the context of the Local Plan’s ‘sustainability’ objectives.

Object

Representation ID: 22126

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Chris Turner

BPC would agree that strengthening the integration of sustainable transporting new developments is essential to the delivery of the Local Plan. It is noted that BDMC suggests that development is unsustainable under the conditions at 4.8.2. Clearly this is an issue at Burley-in-Wharfedale and, no doubt, at other places across the District. There is a further disconnect in term of priorities [see response to Q118] that has been overlooked in the context of the Local Plan’s ‘sustainability’ objectives.

Object

Representation ID: 22155

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Judy Breckett

BPC would agree that strengthening the integration of sustainable transporting new developments is essential to the delivery of the Local Plan. It is noted that BDMC suggests that development is unsustainable under the conditions at 4.8.2. Clearly this is an issue at Burley-in-Wharfedale and, no doubt, at other places across the District. There is a further disconnect in term of priorities [see response to Q118] that has been overlooked in the context of the Local Plan’s ‘sustainability’ objectives.

Object

Representation ID: 22195

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Paul Hardaker

BPC would agree that strengthening the integration of sustainable transporting new developments is essential to the delivery of the Local Plan. It is noted that BDMC suggests that development is unsustainable under the conditions at 4.8.2. Clearly this is an issue at Burley-in-Wharfedale and, no doubt, at other places across the District. There is a further disconnect in term of priorities [see response to Q118] that has been overlooked in the context of the Local Plan’s ‘sustainability’ objectives.

Object

Representation ID: 22224

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Helen Taylor

BPC would agree that strengthening the integration of sustainable transporting new developments is essential to the delivery of the Local Plan. It is noted that BDMC suggests that development is unsustainable under the conditions at 4.8.2. Clearly this is an issue at Burley-in-Wharfedale and, no doubt, at other places across the District. There is a further disconnect in term of priorities [see response to Q118] that has been overlooked in the context of the Local Plan’s ‘sustainability’ objectives.

Object

Representation ID: 22253

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Dr Ceri Pitches

BPC would agree that strengthening the integration of sustainable transporting new developments is essential to the delivery of the Local Plan. It is noted that BDMC suggests that development is unsustainable under the conditions at 4.8.2. Clearly this is an issue at Burley-in-Wharfedale and, no doubt, at other places across the District. There is a further disconnect in term of priorities [see response to Q118] that has been overlooked in the context of the Local Plan’s ‘sustainability’ objectives.