Consultation Question 26

Support

Representation ID: 1092

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Birkbeck, University of London

In general, I strongly support enhancement of public transport and reduction of car use, however, in suggesting that the council might use parking provision as a 'lever' (let's be honest, and call it a stick), no consideration seems to be given to the fact that the choice is often not between 'Drive to location A and park or go to location A by public transport'. It is more often 'Go to location where the reason for travelling makes journey by car most sensible or go to another location to achieve the same ends'. I have on several occasions chosen to travel to Leeds, Halifax or Wakefield to accomplish tasks that could have been achieved in Bradford precisely because of lack of available parking, and because public transport did not provide an adequate solution. In short, provision of effective public transport needs to precede reduction in parking.

Support

Representation ID: 2900

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Alison Tribe

I agree that Parking needs to be a 'stand alone' policy and I agree with points C - G, which are clearly aimed at encouraging people to use all methods of transport other than the private car wherever this is easily possible. But I don't see how the points A - B will make any contribution to 'effecting the transition to sustainable transport (4.10.1). Requiring developers to provide routes for cycle/safe walking to local schools and train stations would have more impact (for example, widening the footpath from Silsden to the train station which currently can't be used by buggies or wheelchair users). Until there are dedicated cycle paths that link places together, cheap, frequent and reliable buses, and integration between bus and train services, people won't leave their cars at home however the developments where they live are designed.
Getting developers to provide a Metro card or other Travel Plan will make little difference until bus services are more frequent and reliable and link to train services.

Object

Representation ID: 3158

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Baildon Branch Labour Party

I have some concerns regarding policy of reducing long term parking in the smaller town centres. Often public transport is poor intra these settlements and, therefore, people will drive to their final detination or, to use the more regular inter settlement buses, people will go to the vicinity of the terminus and park there. Due to reluctance to pay parking charges they end up parking on the roadside. If car parks were free and allowed long stay those commuters/shoppers would be off the roads or roadside. In addition, parking for railway stations, particularly the smaller ones, needs to be reviewed with the transport authorities.

Object

Representation ID: 3693

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: 3839

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Jenny Woodward

I agree with the above. Housing on-site means neighbours don't interact and results in excessive 'hard' landscaping. It does need to be complemented however with better public transport and shared car schemes so people can accept the changes.

Support

Representation ID: 5413

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Peter Jenkins

A brave attempt at a difficult issue

Comment

Representation ID: 10959

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: P&D Northern Asset Management

Agent: Pegasus Group (Manchester)

The Queensbury Golf Course site is highly accessible and within a short walking distance to local shops, bus stops and other day to day services.

In due course a transport assessment and travel plan will be drawn up for the site. But it would be helpful if the Council could articulate what public transport plans are expected to be delivered within the area over the course of the plan period (even if this is just a summary of the Local Transport Plan or cross reference to it).

At this moment in time, we do not foresee an issue in providing the required amounts of parking in line with this policy at the Queensbury Golf course site when redeveloped for housing.

Support

Representation ID: 15533

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 aspirations of Policy TR5 as it is recognised that the provision of car parking within the District is a driver of modal choice. Furthermore, the policy seeks to minimise motor vehicle parking within new developments, as well as actively managing down parking levels below the standards.
As such, it is considered by CH2M that such an approach would reduce the impact of the aspirations within the Plan on the SRN.
However, these policy aspirations need to be adhered to when new developments come forward.

Comment

Representation ID: 15837

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: West Yorkshire Combined Authority (WYCA)

Policy TR5: Parking, will help achieve the transition from car to sustainable transport modes by reducing parking in accessible locations which is supported.

However, further work is needed to better articulate what the council considers to be ‘high public transport accessibility’. The accessibility criteria in Appendix 6 is broadly based on the revoked Yorkshire and Humber Regional Spatial Strategy (2008). In principle, these standards provide a useful starting point for measuring accessibility but could be further refined. The Combined Authority can assist in developing the accessibility criteria to make them more relevant and measurable.

It would also be useful to cross reference the emerging Combined Authority Developer Advice Note that begins to detail our approach when responding to planning applications.

Object

Representation ID: 18393

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Johnson Mowat

With reference to Table 1 and the following paragraph, Johnson Mowat objects to the category description of any development other than that categorised as ‘Zero-Car’, ‘Traffic-Free’ or ‘Car-Light’ as ‘Unsustainable’. The sustainability of any development depends upon a range of social, environmental and economic factors. It is not appropriate to define a category of development as ‘unsustainable’ in outright terms when consideration is given only to location and parking provision.


Johnson Mowat is concerned that the inclusion of unduly low parking standards in the draft Plan and the application of these in practice risks causing problems of on-street and inconsiderate parking including damage to landscape planting and verges etc. Parking provision should be carefully considered at the planning application stage in the particular context of the development proposed.

Comment

Representation ID: 19932

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Climate Action Ilkley

Number of people: 7

3. Space dedicated to car parking should be reduced as an acknowledgement that there are sustainable alternatives to every household owning one or more cars. For example, housing developments could include car clubs, lockable cycle shelters, communal electric cargo bike schemes, and so on. The current norm where every new house is built with provision for one or even more private cars is not sustainable.

Object

Representation ID: 29065

Received: 29/03/2021

Respondent: Historic England

The design, layout and proximity of parking facilities has the potential to cause as much harm to the significance of heritage assets, including their setting, as new built
structures. As such, we would request that a small change is made to the policy to acknowledge this point.
Criterion B.b, amend to read:
‘is designed in consideration of the street scene, local character and historic environment,’