Consultation Question 35

Object

Representation ID: 3700

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: 10965

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: P&D Northern Asset Management

Agent: Pegasus Group (Manchester)

We support this policy and the Council’s objective to deliver specialist housing for those in need of care and/or support.

We note the analysis indicating need for 3,900 units of specialist older person dwellings such as extra care or retirement housing (C3 Use Class); and an increase of 2,200 residential care units (C2 Use Class).

The Queensbury Golf Course site offers the opportunity to deliver extra care units/retirement living. In particular, the part of the site where the existing club house is located is considered to be appropriate given proximity to bus stops and local shops.

Part C of the policy requires C3 Use Class extra care provision to provide affordable housing requirements too. We don’t take a particular issue with that at this stage but clearly any supporting viability assessment will need to consider the cost differences between standard C3 market housing and extra care housing as the products, values and costs of delivering such schemes are very different despite the same use class.

Comment

Representation ID: 18165

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Raymond Wilkes

We need lots of new housing but it is very difficult to find locations.

Many old people live in large houses which were once family houses and more accommodation for the elderly should be created. Such accommodation is better in urban areas and allows higher density housing while releasing existing family homes. It is understandable that many elderly people who really need to move for their own benefit are reluctant to do so due to nostalgia and inertia. A programme to help such people move would be beneficial and create new housing without new building.

Support

Representation ID: 18390

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mapeley STEPS Limited

Agent: Montagu Evans LLP

The Council will also support the provision of specialist housing and accommodation including for older persons (Policy HO7).
The Council’s approach to the strategic allocation of sites and ensuring efficient use of land through appropriate density and mix of development is supported. The HMRC Shipley site is a sustainable, suitable and deliverable location for a high quality residential led development to deliver much needed housing for the District.

Comment

Representation ID: 25168

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

34. This policy states that where development falls within Use Class C3, affordable housing provision will be required in line with Policy HO5 Affordable Housing. The HBF considers that the Council will need to ensure that this requirement is appropriate in terms of viability for these types of developments.

Object

Representation ID: 27776

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Persimmon Homes (West Yorkshire)

Agent: Lichfields

Whilst this aim is supported unreservedly, it is considered that the requirement for 100% of new homes to meet Requirement M4(2) of the Building Regulations, as required by Policy HO9, is wholly onerous.
Requirement M4(2) is not a mandatory Building Regulations requirement and in order to meet this requirement, Persimmon would need to completely redesign a significant number of the house types within its standard range. The resulting impacts would be prevalent in plot size, development density and, ultimately, site viability.
It is questioned whether there is a need to impose such stringent requirements on every residential development. Rather, it is recommended that such design measures are only implemented when there is robust evidence to justify the need in a particular location. Indeed, national legislation is currently evolving on this matter through building regulations, and the overwhelming position of the industry is that these matters should be addressed through this avenue. Persimmon objects to CBMDC seeking to impose ‘over and above’ requirements, particularly where there is no evidence that these are required in the district. Should CBMDC wish to retain reference to a minimum proportion of properties, it is recommended that this is reduced to no more than 25%.
Reference to the national space standards as set out within Policy HO7 is welcomed in ensuring the achievement of good quality residential accommodation, and which all Persimmon’s standard house types meet or exceed.