Consultation Question 34

Object

Representation ID: 1725

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Paul Stephens

This policy should also incorporate other Community Led Housing Initiatives (CLH), and not be limited to self and custom build. For example, a Community Land Trust (CLT) may established to provide affordable housing that meets the needs of the local community, but the members of the CLT would not necessarily be residents of the scheme.
A simple addition of the words "and other community led housing" to the policy would suffice. The 8 detailed points would then apply to custom, self-build and other CLH

Object

Representation ID: 3699

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: 10964

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: P&D Northern Asset Management

Agent: Pegasus Group (Manchester)

We support the delivery of self-build homes and the Queensbury Golf Course site potentially lends itself to providing some self-build plots given the setting of the site, but this is something that will need to be explored in more detail as the masterplan advances and we can confirm in due course.

As such, at this stage, we must object to the part of the policy that places a blanket obligation on larger, strategic sites of over 100 homes to deliver 5% self-build plots. This is considered to be an arbitrary, unjustified and not a particularly pro-active or positive policy approach to delivering self-build plots.

Letter and Plan attached stating the case for Queensbury Golf Course to be allocated for housing and includes further evidence to support objection to HO6

Object

Representation ID: 18397

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 HO6.

In particular, the Council should present appropriate evidence to support the requirement for 5% of the total plots on developments of over 100 dwellings to provide service plots for custom or self-build housing.

Object

Representation ID: 25167

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

This policy looks for residential sites of over 100 dwellings to provide at least 5% of the dwelling plots for sale to self-builders. Many of our members will be able to assist the custom build sector either through the physical building of dwellings on behalf of the homeowner or through the provision of plots for sale to custom builders. The HBF are, therefore, not opposed to the idea of increasing the self-build and custom build sector for its potential contribution to the overall housing supply. However, most of the Council’s approach is restrictive rather than permissive by requiring the inclusion of such housing on developments of over 100 dwellings. This policy approach only changes the house building delivery mechanism from one form of house building company to another without any consequential additional contribution to boosting housing supply. Meaning that as currently proposed this policy will not assist in boosting the supply of housing and may even limit the deliverability of some sites and homes. The HBF would recommend appropriate evidence is collated to ensure that house building delivery from this source provides an additional contribution to boosting housing supply. This is likely to include engaging with landowners and working with custom build developers to maximise opportunities.

The HBF does not consider that the Council has appropriate evidence to support the requirement for 5% of the total plots on developments of over 100 dwellings to provide service plots for custom or self-build housing. PPG sets out how custom and self-build housing needs can be assessed. The SHMA (2019) highlights that 1,175 people were registered on the Council’s self-build register, it provides no analysis or evaluation of this figure, and does not provide any other evidence or information.

Comment

Representation ID: 27766

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Persimmon Homes (West Yorkshire)

Agent: Lichfields

Whilst the policy support afforded to self-build and custom housebuilding in national planning policy is recognised, delivering such plots are impractical for a volume housebuilder for a number of reasons, including difficulties in providing service connections and agreeing the various adoption agreements and standards, and ensuring satisfactory health and safety and construction management consistent with the wider site.

Provision for self-build opportunities are likely to be better supported on a smaller scale sites, incorporating windfall opportunities and/or Council owned land where such opportunities can be more easily incorporated.
Furthermore, given the number of sites yielding over 100 units proposed within the draft Local Plan, it is questionable whether there would ever be sufficient demand for the scale of self-build opportunities that this would generate. As such, providing for a minimum requirement solely on the larger, and defined ‘strategic sites’ would more appropriately deal with the national planning policy requirement to support self-build and custom housebuilding in line with the approach adopted by other nearby authorities, notably Harrogate and York.
It is therefore recommended that point c of policy HO6 be removed, with the remainder of the policy providing general support for self-build and custom housing where this can be provided in line with identified demand being and with regard to viability considerations and site-specific circumstances. If the provision of a minimum of proportion of self-build plots is to remain a policy requirement then this should apply only to the larger scale, strategic sites (400 units plus).

Object

Representation ID: 27920

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: E.M. Farming & Leisure Ltd

Agent: McLoughlin Planning

This policy looks for residential sites of over 100 dwellings to provide at least 5% of the dwelling plots for sale to self-builders. This may well apply to site EM/012 Land at Carr Lane, East Morton.

Considered that the Council’s approach is restrictive rather than permissive by requiring the inclusion of such housing on developments of over 100 dwellings and the approach is not supported by the evidence presented

Comment

Representation ID: 28047

Received: 24/08/2021

Respondent: Aimee Rawson

Plots for custom and self-build housing sites would go some way to making more varied housing development. Should these be made available at a reasonable price to eco-self builders it could be a new approach to mixed housing development.