Consultation Question 29

Support

Representation ID: 1722

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Paul Stephens

The commitment to ".....work in particular with small developers, community groups and stakeholders....." is to be welcomed. A commitment to work and support Community Led Housing initiiatives should be a part of this, and reflected in other housing policies, particularly HO4 and HO5

Object

Representation ID: 1917

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Burley Parish Council

BDMC have clearly identified all sites, including strategic sites, which are specified and allocated in S5 of the Plan. These are shown in Table 4.14.1 which appears to be incorrect. There is a discrepancy between two sets of data. Why is this and how does this affect the delivery of the housing supply?

Also, no sites other than those delivering >400 houses are scheduled to start delivery before 2027 at the earliest. Many of these sites are close to District and employment centres already adequately served by local infrastructure. This would seem to contradict 4.14.10 and 4.14.11, given it has been acknowledged that in Wharfedale at peak times the services already run at capacity and that upgrading should be considered. Once again BDMC’s policy is to deliver 500 homes in Burley-in-Wharfedale on green belt, rather than taking a brownfield first policy approach.

Object

Representation ID: 3384

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: IMCO Holdings

Agent: Tetra Tech (Manchester)

We are not in support of Part E of this policy and would advocate for its deletion from the plan. There is no requirement in the NPPF to control housing land release through a phased process over the plan period. This approach would compromise and stifle the otherwise sustainable development of sites, unnecessarily so in the District’s outlying established Principle Towns and Local Growth Centres.

The phasing of housing land release would provide no benefits outside of the city centre, where settlements are not reliant on the strategic phasing of sites for infrastructure or regeneration purposes. Delaying the release of housing land would compromise rather than support the successfully delivery of meeting the District’s housing need requirements.

If a phased approach is taken forward, this should be carefully limited to strategically important sites where there are justified reasons at a site specific level for a phased approach.

Object

Representation ID: 3694

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.

Object

Representation ID: 4176

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Residents of Moor Lane, Turner Lane, Moor View and Moor Croft, Addingham

Agent: Airedon Planning and Design

Whilst this policy is supported, an objection is made as some of the allocations to the west of Addingham have been made despite the land not being available for development. Further details are set out in the attached report, including a letter from a landowner indicating that the land will not be available for development. It is therefore not possible to demonstrate that there will be a 5 year housing supply if some of the housing anticipated to come forward in years 0 - 5 is not available for development.

Support

Representation ID: 5433

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Arrowsmith Associates

Our client is supportive of policy HO1.

Object

Representation ID: 5446

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Peter Jenkins

The detailed response from Burley Parish Council indicates the the figures are incorrect.
It seems that the large sites are being concentrated on to ensure quick wins, although they tend not to have the necessary infrastructure, whereas smaller sites are qalso make a contribution to targets and are better served by existing infrastructure.
Green field sites are still the Council's objective notwithstanding policy- viz Sun Lane BU1/H and Scalebor BU2/H.

Object

Representation ID: 10961

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: P&D Northern Asset Management

Agent: Pegasus Group (Manchester)

The Queensbury Golf Course site should be included within the policy as a strategic site - it fits the criteria either as a site of at least 150 units fundamental to the delivery of the settlement's housing target or as as a cluster along with allocations QB4/H and QB5/H (on the basis of an increase density of 35dph.

Object

Representation ID: 11029

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: The Strategic Land Group

Agent: Walsingham Planning

The NPPF contains no directions that phasing policies should be contained within Local Plans.

Bradford has suffered from a long-standing undersupply of housing delivery for a sustained period. Its current deliverable supply housing sites is noted to be just 2.06 years, within the Council’s own evidence base.

The Council’s approach of delaying the delivery of the accepted, evidenced and adopted Core Strategy housing numbers by unnecessarily proposing the adoption of alternative housing numbers has further slowed and frustrated the much-needed delivery of new housing in the District.

In this regard, a proposed policy seeking the phasing of housing delivery within the plan-period is considered wholly unnecessary.

Object

Representation ID: 11410

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Robert Felstead

Note that the Council have identified all sites, including strategic sites, are specified and allocated in section 5 of the Plan. Table 4.14.1 is incorrect as it does not show all sites that meet the criteria to be defined as strategic. If included this would total 10,748 dwellings, with small sites contributing 11,172 dwellings.

Sites delivering 400 house or more, are not schedule to start delivering until 2027 at the earliest. Many are close to district and employment centres which are already adequately served by local infrastructure. It is confusing/unhelpful for the plan to include a policy to hold back sites until later in the plan period or pending the implementation of other proposals, such as essential infrastructure.

As I can see from this, the Council’s number 1 priority is to deliver 500 homes in Burley in Wharfedale on Green Belt, rather than taking the brownfield first policy approach.

Object

Representation ID: 16269

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Robbie Feather

Agent: ID Planning

As set out in the reasonable alternatives considered, there is no requirement in the NPPF to phase sites. It is maintained that this policy is unnecessary and could result in deliverable sites being held back at a time when the Government’s priority is to significantly boost housing supply.

Required Change
-Part E of Policy HO1 should be deleted. Sites that have been identified as suitable for allocation should be able to be brought forward from the date of adoption. To hold back deliverable allocated sites at a time when the housing supply should be boosted is contrary to national policy.

Object

Representation ID: 16966

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Avant Homes

Agent: ID Planning

As set out in the reasonable alternatives considered, there is no requirement in the NPPF to phase sites. It is maintained that this policy is unnecessary and could result in deliverable sites being held back at a time when the Government’s priority is to significantly boost housing supply.

Required Change:
Part E of Policy HO1 should be deleted. Sites that have been identified as suitable for allocation should be able to be brought forward from the date of adoption. To hold
back deliverable allocated sites at a time when the housing supply should be boosted is contrary to national policy.

Object

Representation ID: 17423

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr & Mrs . Pyrah and Saunders

Number of people: 4

Agent: ID Planning

The policy states that a range of sites of different types, sizes and locations will be allocated to meet the housing requirement and settlement target set out in Policy SP8. Part E of the proposed Policy seeks to manage and phase sites based on 7 listed principles.

As set out in the reasonable alternatives considered, there is no requirement in the NPPF to phase sites. It is maintained that this policy is unnecessary and could result in deliverable sites being held back at a time when the Government’s priority is to significantly boost housing supply.

Required Change
Part E of Policy HO1 should be deleted. Sites that have been identified as suitable for allocation should be able to be brought forward from the date of adoption. To hold back deliverable allocated sites at a time when the housing supply should be boosted is contrary to national policy.

Object

Representation ID: 17653

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Barratt Homes and David Wilson Homes

Agent: ID Planning

Part E of the proposed Policy seeks to manage and phase sites based on 7 listed principles.
As set out in the reasonable alternatives considered, there is no requirement in the NPPF to phase sites. It is maintained that this policy is unnecessary and could result in deliverable sites being held back at a time when the Government’s priority is to significantly boost housing supply.
Required Change
Part E of Policy HO1 should be deleted. Sites that have been identified as suitable for allocation should be able to be brought forward from the date of adoption. To hold
back deliverable allocated sites at a time when the housing supply should be boosted is contrary to national policy.

Object

Representation ID: 17689

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Bannister Investments Limited

Agent: ID Planning

As set out in the reasonable alternatives considered, there is no requirement in the NPPF to phase sites. It is maintained that this policy is unnecessary and could result in deliverable sites being held back at a time when the Government’s priority is to significantly boost housing supply.
Required Change
Part E of Policy HO1 should be deleted. Sites that have been identified as suitable for allocation should be able to be brought forward from the date of adoption. To hold back deliverable allocated sites at a time when the housing supply should be boosted is contrary to national policy

Object

Representation ID: 18394

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Johnson Mowat

Johnson Mowat supports and endorses the position of the Home Builders Federation as set out in its representations regarding draft Policy HO1.

In particular, the Plan must allocate a sufficient range of sites to provide enough sales outlets to enable delivery to be maintained at the required levels throughout the plan period.

Policy SP8 should adopt a higher requirement and accordingly, it will be necessary to allocate additional sites under draft Policy HO1.

As indicated above, separate representations are submitted on behalf of individual clients in relation to particular sites and locations which will assist the Council in identifying additional sites.

Object

Representation ID: 18923

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs WE Nichol

Agent: Carter Jonas

Policy HO1 details how the housing requirement set out within Policy SP8 will be delivered through the
allocation of a range of sites of different types, sizes and locations. The sites are listed within Section 5 of the
Plan, with relevant site proformas. It would be useful to provide a table summarising the allocations, their size
and their proposed capacity within the policy. This could be similar to table 4.14.1: Strategic Sites but to include
all of the sites.

We also consider that the plan should allocate additional sites to act as a buffer to ensure a sufficient supply
of deliverable sites should under-delivery occur. This would ensure flexibility in line with the requirements of
the NPPF.

Object

Representation ID: 18933

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs J Kamyar

Agent: Carter Jonas

Policy HO1 details how the housing requirement set out within Policy SP8 will be delivered through the
allocation of a range of sites of different types, sizes and locations. The sites are listed within Section 5 of the
Plan, with relevant site proformas. It would be useful to provide a table summarising the allocations, their size
and their proposed capacity within the policy. This could be similar to table 4.14.1: Strategic Sites but to include
all of the sites.

We also consider that the plan should allocate additional sites to act as a buffer to ensure a sufficient supply
of deliverable sites should under-delivery occur. This would ensure flexibility in line with the requirements of
the NPPF.

Object

Representation ID: 18943

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs I Wood

Agent: Carter Jonas

Policy HO1 details how the housing requirement set out within Policy SP8 will be delivered through the
allocation of a range of sites of different types, sizes and locations. The sites are listed within Section 5 of the
Plan, with relevant site proformas. It would be useful to provide a table summarising the allocations, their size
and their proposed capacity within the policy. This could be similar to table 4.14.1: Strategic Sites but to include
all of the sites.

We also consider that the plan should allocate additional sites to act as a buffer to ensure a sufficient supply
of deliverable sites should under-delivery occur. This would ensure flexibility in line with the requirements of
the NPPF.

Object

Representation ID: 18953

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr GRN Jones

Agent: Carter Jonas

Policy HO1 details how the housing requirement set out within Policy SP8 will be delivered through the
allocation of a range of sites of different types, sizes and locations. The sites are listed within Section 5 of the
Plan, with relevant site proformas. It would be useful to provide a table summarising the allocations, their size
and their proposed capacity within the policy. This could be similar to table 4.14.1: Strategic Sites but to include
all of the sites.

We also consider that the plan should allocate additional sites to act as a buffer to ensure a sufficient supply
of deliverable sites should under-delivery occur. This would ensure flexibility in line with the requirements of
the NPPF.

Object

Representation ID: 21809

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Duncan Watson

BDMC have clearly identified all sites, including strategic sites, which are specified and allocated in S5 of the Plan. These are shown in Table 4.14.1 which appears to be incorrect. There is a discrepancy between two sets of data. Why is this and how does this affect the delivery of the housing supply?

Also, no sites other than those delivering >400 houses are scheduled to start delivery before 2027 at the earliest. Many of these sites are close to District and employment centres already adequately served by local infrastructure. This would seem to contradict 4.14.10 and 4.14.11, given it has been acknowledged that in Wharfedale at peak times the services already run at capacity and that upgrading should be considered. Once again BDMC’s policy is to deliver 500 homes in Burley-in-Wharfedale on green belt, rather than taking a brownfield first policy approach.

Object

Representation ID: 21892

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Catherine Starling

BDMC have clearly identified all sites, including strategic sites, which are specified and allocated in S5 of the Plan. These are shown in Table 4.14.1 which appears to be incorrect. There is a discrepancy between two sets of data. Why is this and how does this affect the delivery of the housing supply?

Also, no sites other than those delivering >400 houses are scheduled to start delivery before 2027 at the earliest. Many of these sites are close to District and employment centres already adequately served by local infrastructure. This would seem to contradict 4.14.10 and 4.14.11, given it has been acknowledged that in Wharfedale at peak times the services already run at capacity and that upgrading should be considered. Once again BDMC’s policy is to deliver 500 homes in Burley-in-Wharfedale on green belt, rather than taking a brownfield first policy approach.

Object

Representation ID: 21921

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Dr Samantha Cook

BDMC have clearly identified all sites, including strategic sites, which are specified and allocated in S5 of the Plan. These are shown in Table 4.14.1 which appears to be incorrect. There is a discrepancy between two sets of data. Why is this and how does this affect the delivery of the housing supply?

Also, no sites other than those delivering >400 houses are scheduled to start delivery before 2027 at the earliest. Many of these sites are close to District and employment centres already adequately served by local infrastructure. This would seem to contradict 4.14.10 and 4.14.11, given it has been acknowledged that in Wharfedale at peak times the services already run at capacity and that upgrading should be considered. Once again BDMC’s policy is to deliver 500 homes in Burley-in-Wharfedale on green belt, rather than taking a brownfield first policy approach.

Object

Representation ID: 21950

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Birgit Almond

BDMC have clearly identified all sites, including strategic sites, which are specified and allocated in S5 of the Plan. These are shown in Table 4.14.1 which appears to be incorrect. There is a discrepancy between two sets of data. Why is this and how does this affect the delivery of the housing supply?

Also, no sites other than those delivering >400 houses are scheduled to start delivery before 2027 at the earliest. Many of these sites are close to District and employment centres already adequately served by local infrastructure. This would seem to contradict 4.14.10 and 4.14.11, given it has been acknowledged that in Wharfedale at peak times the services already run at capacity and that upgrading should be considered. Once again BDMC’s policy is to deliver 500 homes in Burley-in-Wharfedale on green belt, rather than taking a brownfield first policy approach.

Object

Representation ID: 21979

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Corrie Hardaker

BDMC have clearly identified all sites, including strategic sites, which are specified and allocated in S5 of the Plan. These are shown in Table 4.14.1 which appears to be incorrect. There is a discrepancy between two sets of data. Why is this and how does this affect the delivery of the housing supply?

Also, no sites other than those delivering >400 houses are scheduled to start delivery before 2027 at the earliest. Many of these sites are close to District and employment centres already adequately served by local infrastructure. This would seem to contradict 4.14.10 and 4.14.11, given it has been acknowledged that in Wharfedale at peak times the services already run at capacity and that upgrading should be considered. Once again BDMC’s policy is to deliver 500 homes in Burley-in-Wharfedale on green belt, rather than taking a brownfield first policy approach.

Object

Representation ID: 22008

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Carly Mitchell

BDMC have clearly identified all sites, including strategic sites, which are specified and allocated in S5 of the Plan. These are shown in Table 4.14.1 which appears to be incorrect. There is a discrepancy between two sets of data. Why is this and how does this affect the delivery of the housing supply?

Also, no sites other than those delivering >400 houses are scheduled to start delivery before 2027 at the earliest. Many of these sites are close to District and employment centres already adequately served by local infrastructure. This would seem to contradict 4.14.10 and 4.14.11, given it has been acknowledged that in Wharfedale at peak times the services already run at capacity and that upgrading should be considered. Once again BDMC’s policy is to deliver 500 homes in Burley-in-Wharfedale on green belt, rather than taking a brownfield first policy approach.

Object

Representation ID: 22037

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Helen Ross

BDMC have clearly identified all sites, including strategic sites, which are specified and allocated in S5 of the Plan. These are shown in Table 4.14.1 which appears to be incorrect. There is a discrepancy between two sets of data. Why is this and how does this affect the delivery of the housing supply?

Also, no sites other than those delivering >400 houses are scheduled to start delivery before 2027 at the earliest. Many of these sites are close to District and employment centres already adequately served by local infrastructure. This would seem to contradict 4.14.10 and 4.14.11, given it has been acknowledged that in Wharfedale at peak times the services already run at capacity and that upgrading should be considered. Once again BDMC’s policy is to deliver 500 homes in Burley-in-Wharfedale on green belt, rather than taking a brownfield first policy approach.

Object

Representation ID: 22069

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Rebecca Spencer

BDMC have clearly identified all sites, including strategic sites, which are specified and allocated in S5 of the Plan. These are shown in Table 4.14.1 which appears to be incorrect. There is a discrepancy between two sets of data. Why is this and how does this affect the delivery of the housing supply?

Also, no sites other than those delivering >400 houses are scheduled to start delivery before 2027 at the earliest. Many of these sites are close to District and employment centres already adequately served by local infrastructure. This would seem to contradict 4.14.10 and 4.14.11, given it has been acknowledged that in Wharfedale at peak times the services already run at capacity and that upgrading should be considered. Once again BDMC’s policy is to deliver 500 homes in Burley-in-Wharfedale on green belt, rather than taking a brownfield first policy approach.

Object

Representation ID: 22098

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Lucy Ashton

BDMC have clearly identified all sites, including strategic sites, which are specified and allocated in S5 of the Plan. These are shown in Table 4.14.1 which appears to be incorrect. There is a discrepancy between two sets of data. Why is this and how does this affect the delivery of the housing supply?

Also, no sites other than those delivering >400 houses are scheduled to start delivery before 2027 at the earliest. Many of these sites are close to District and employment centres already adequately served by local infrastructure. This would seem to contradict 4.14.10 and 4.14.11, given it has been acknowledged that in Wharfedale at peak times the services already run at capacity and that upgrading should be considered. Once again BDMC’s policy is to deliver 500 homes in Burley-in-Wharfedale on green belt, rather than taking a brownfield first policy approach.

Object

Representation ID: 22127

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Chris Turner

BDMC have clearly identified all sites, including strategic sites, which are specified and allocated in S5 of the Plan. These are shown in Table 4.14.1 which appears to be incorrect. There is a discrepancy between two sets of data. Why is this and how does this affect the delivery of the housing supply?

Also, no sites other than those delivering >400 houses are scheduled to start delivery before 2027 at the earliest. Many of these sites are close to District and employment centres already adequately served by local infrastructure. This would seem to contradict 4.14.10 and 4.14.11, given it has been acknowledged that in Wharfedale at peak times the services already run at capacity and that upgrading should be considered. Once again BDMC’s policy is to deliver 500 homes in Burley-in-Wharfedale on green belt, rather than taking a brownfield first policy approach.