Consultation Question 44

Support

Representation ID: 314

Received: 19/02/2021

Respondent: Ms Mel Frances

Protecting public rights of way is important.

Support

Representation ID: 1924

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Burley Parish Council

We agree that the countryside should be under protection. We also support the proposals A1 through A6. The definition of countryside described in 4.30.3 appears to include Green Belt. A1 through A6 describe the limitations of development on countryside, but don’t appear to fully describe exceptions or refer to mechanisms used to potentially declassify Green Belt or extend settlement boundaries. The impression, from EN6 A1 through A6 alone, could be given that countryside is protected, but doesn’t highlight that countryside could essentially be declassified as such. Any development located within Green Belt as per SP5 should have rights of way protected and enhanced.

Object

Representation ID: 3708

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: 3756

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Andrew Lund

The policy is sound but, once again, the Ilkley housing proposals are non-compliant. Preferred option 4.30.3 clearly and unambiguously defines countryside as "everywhere outside of the settlement boundaries". Sites IL1/H and IL3/H are located outside the Ilkley settlement boundary as delineated on the policies map. The "countryside" map layer includes those sites. The "housing" layer then violates the countryside allocation.

Object

Representation ID: 5432

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Arrowsmith Associates

Whilst supportive of the aims of this policy, we note that the policies map shows sites which are allocated for development also being within the countryside designation. The aims of the plan in allocating such sites do not accord with the aims of policy EN6 and we advocate site allocations being removed from the countryside as defined by policy EN6.

Comment

Representation ID: 9818

Received: 12/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Labour)

EN 6 Not sure what supporting disabled access means. Is this promotional or merely passive? Much of the agriculture is becoming unsustainable, how about identifying sites for rewilding or as nature reserves? Perhaps to facilitate educational opportunities.

Comment

Representation ID: 18400

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Johnson Mowat

Johnson Mowat has no comment on draft Policy EN6, but notes that the extent of Countryside as defined on the Policies Map is expected to change to accommodate additional allocations for development as required to meet the housing requirement and ensure that land is allocated for employment development in the most appropriate locations.

Object

Representation ID: 19680

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Sport England

Some sport facilities are acceptable in the countryside such as changing rooms to serve a rural cricket ground, or an arena to serve an equestrian facility.

This policy should make it specifically clear that appropriate sport and recreation facilities which require a rural location or serve an existing rural sport facility are acceptable in the countryside.

Every year thousands of sports events take place that rely upon the natural environment. Many are the transient, peripatetic events that the organising club sets up, the competition takes place, and afterwards any equipment are dismantled and the land reverts to its original use e.g. equestrian activities, motorsport, cycling, running, canoeing and climbing events.

Occasionally some events do require planning permission and this tends to be where permitted development rights do not apply.

Policies should therefore be positively worded to protect and encourage peripatetic sporting events as well as permanent sport facilities.

Support

Representation ID: 21816

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Duncan Watson

We agree that the countryside should be under protection. We also support the proposals A1 through A6. The definition of countryside described in 4.30.3 appears to include Green Belt. A1 through A6 describe the limitations of development on countryside, but don’t appear to fully describe exceptions or refer to mechanisms used to potentially declassify Green Belt or extend settlement boundaries. The impression, from EN6 A1 through A6 alone, could be given that countryside is protected, but doesn’t highlight that countryside could essentially be declassified as such. Any development located within Green Belt as per SP5 should have rights of way protected and enhanced.

Support

Representation ID: 21899

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Catherine Starling

We agree that the countryside should be under protection. We also support the proposals A1 through A6. The definition of countryside described in 4.30.3 appears to include Green Belt. A1 through A6 describe the limitations of development on countryside, but don’t appear to fully describe exceptions or refer to mechanisms used to potentially declassify Green Belt or extend settlement boundaries. The impression, from EN6 A1 through A6 alone, could be given that countryside is protected, but doesn’t highlight that countryside could essentially be declassified as such. Any development located within Green Belt as per SP5 should have rights of way protected and enhanced.

Support

Representation ID: 21928

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Dr Samantha Cook

We agree that the countryside should be under protection. We also support the proposals A1 through A6. The definition of countryside described in 4.30.3 appears to include Green Belt. A1 through A6 describe the limitations of development on countryside, but don’t appear to fully describe exceptions or refer to mechanisms used to potentially declassify Green Belt or extend settlement boundaries. The impression, from EN6 A1 through A6 alone, could be given that countryside is protected, but doesn’t highlight that countryside could essentially be declassified as such. Any development located within Green Belt as per SP5 should have rights of way protected and enhanced.

Support

Representation ID: 21957

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Birgit Almond

We agree that the countryside should be under protection. We also support the proposals A1 through A6. The definition of countryside described in 4.30.3 appears to include Green Belt. A1 through A6 describe the limitations of development on countryside, but don’t appear to fully describe exceptions or refer to mechanisms used to potentially declassify Green Belt or extend settlement boundaries. The impression, from EN6 A1 through A6 alone, could be given that countryside is protected, but doesn’t highlight that countryside could essentially be declassified as such. Any development located within Green Belt as per SP5 should have rights of way protected and enhanced.

Support

Representation ID: 21986

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Corrie Hardaker

We agree that the countryside should be under protection. We also support the proposals A1 through A6. The definition of countryside described in 4.30.3 appears to include Green Belt. A1 through A6 describe the limitations of development on countryside, but don’t appear to fully describe exceptions or refer to mechanisms used to potentially declassify Green Belt or extend settlement boundaries. The impression, from EN6 A1 through A6 alone, could be given that countryside is protected, but doesn’t highlight that countryside could essentially be declassified as such. Any development located within Green Belt as per SP5 should have rights of way protected and enhanced.

Support

Representation ID: 22015

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Carly Mitchell

We agree that the countryside should be under protection. We also support the proposals A1 through A6. The definition of countryside described in 4.30.3 appears to include Green Belt. A1 through A6 describe the limitations of development on countryside, but don’t appear to fully describe exceptions or refer to mechanisms used to potentially declassify Green Belt or extend settlement boundaries. The impression, from EN6 A1 through A6 alone, could be given that countryside is protected, but doesn’t highlight that countryside could essentially be declassified as such. Any development located within Green Belt as per SP5 should have rights of way protected and enhanced.

Support

Representation ID: 22044

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Helen Ross

We agree that the countryside should be under protection. We also support the proposals A1 through A6. The definition of countryside described in 4.30.3 appears to include Green Belt. A1 through A6 describe the limitations of development on countryside, but don’t appear to fully describe exceptions or refer to mechanisms used to potentially declassify Green Belt or extend settlement boundaries. The impression, from EN6 A1 through A6 alone, could be given that countryside is protected, but doesn’t highlight that countryside could essentially be declassified as such. Any development located within Green Belt as per SP5 should have rights of way protected and enhanced.

Support

Representation ID: 22076

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Rebecca Spencer

We agree that the countryside should be under protection. We also support the proposals A1 through A6. The definition of countryside described in 4.30.3 appears to include Green Belt. A1 through A6 describe the limitations of development on countryside, but don’t appear to fully describe exceptions or refer to mechanisms used to potentially declassify Green Belt or extend settlement boundaries. The impression, from EN6 A1 through A6 alone, could be given that countryside is protected, but doesn’t highlight that countryside could essentially be declassified as such. Any development located within Green Belt as per SP5 should have rights of way protected and enhanced.

Support

Representation ID: 22105

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Lucy Ashton

We agree that the countryside should be under protection. We also support the proposals A1 through A6. The definition of countryside described in 4.30.3 appears to include Green Belt. A1 through A6 describe the limitations of development on countryside, but don’t appear to fully describe exceptions or refer to mechanisms used to potentially declassify Green Belt or extend settlement boundaries. The impression, from EN6 A1 through A6 alone, could be given that countryside is protected, but doesn’t highlight that countryside could essentially be declassified as such. Any development located within Green Belt as per SP5 should have rights of way protected and enhanced.

Support

Representation ID: 22134

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Chris Turner

We agree that the countryside should be under protection. We also support the proposals A1 through A6. The definition of countryside described in 4.30.3 appears to include Green Belt. A1 through A6 describe the limitations of development on countryside, but don’t appear to fully describe exceptions or refer to mechanisms used to potentially declassify Green Belt or extend settlement boundaries. The impression, from EN6 A1 through A6 alone, could be given that countryside is protected, but doesn’t highlight that countryside could essentially be declassified as such. Any development located within Green Belt as per SP5 should have rights of way protected and enhanced.

Support

Representation ID: 22163

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Judy Breckett

We agree that the countryside should be under protection. We also support the proposals A1 through A6. The definition of countryside described in 4.30.3 appears to include Green Belt. A1 through A6 describe the limitations of development on countryside, but don’t appear to fully describe exceptions or refer to mechanisms used to potentially declassify Green Belt or extend settlement boundaries. The impression, from EN6 A1 through A6 alone, could be given that countryside is protected, but doesn’t highlight that countryside could essentially be declassified as such. Any development located within Green Belt as per SP5 should have rights of way protected and enhanced.

Support

Representation ID: 22203

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Paul Hardaker

We agree that the countryside should be under protection. We also support the proposals A1 through A6. The definition of countryside described in 4.30.3 appears to include Green Belt. A1 through A6 describe the limitations of development on countryside, but don’t appear to fully describe exceptions or refer to mechanisms used to potentially declassify Green Belt or extend settlement boundaries. The impression, from EN6 A1 through A6 alone, could be given that countryside is protected, but doesn’t highlight that countryside could essentially be declassified as such. Any development located within Green Belt as per SP5 should have rights of way protected and enhanced.

Support

Representation ID: 22232

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Helen Taylor

We agree that the countryside should be under protection. We also support the proposals A1 through A6. The definition of countryside described in 4.30.3 appears to include Green Belt. A1 through A6 describe the limitations of development on countryside, but don’t appear to fully describe exceptions or refer to mechanisms used to potentially declassify Green Belt or extend settlement boundaries. The impression, from EN6 A1 through A6 alone, could be given that countryside is protected, but doesn’t highlight that countryside could essentially be declassified as such. Any development located within Green Belt as per SP5 should have rights of way protected and enhanced.

Support

Representation ID: 22261

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Dr Ceri Pitches

We agree that the countryside should be under protection. We also support the proposals A1 through A6. The definition of countryside described in 4.30.3 appears to include Green Belt. A1 through A6 describe the limitations of development on countryside, but don’t appear to fully describe exceptions or refer to mechanisms used to potentially declassify Green Belt or extend settlement boundaries. The impression, from EN6 A1 through A6 alone, could be given that countryside is protected, but doesn’t highlight that countryside could essentially be declassified as such. Any development located within Green Belt as per SP5 should have rights of way protected and enhanced.

Support

Representation ID: 22290

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Sonya Hampton

We agree that the countryside should be under protection. We also support the proposals A1 through A6. The definition of countryside described in 4.30.3 appears to include Green Belt. A1 through A6 describe the limitations of development on countryside, but don’t appear to fully describe exceptions or refer to mechanisms used to potentially declassify Green Belt or extend settlement boundaries. The impression, from EN6 A1 through A6 alone, could be given that countryside is protected, but doesn’t highlight that countryside could essentially be declassified as such. Any development located within Green Belt as per SP5 should have rights of way protected and enhanced.

Support

Representation ID: 22319

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Vivienne McCabe

We agree that the countryside should be under protection. We also support the proposals A1 through A6. The definition of countryside described in 4.30.3 appears to include Green Belt. A1 through A6 describe the limitations of development on countryside, but don’t appear to fully describe exceptions or refer to mechanisms used to potentially declassify Green Belt or extend settlement boundaries. The impression, from EN6 A1 through A6 alone, could be given that countryside is protected, but doesn’t highlight that countryside could essentially be declassified as such. Any development located within Green Belt as per SP5 should have rights of way protected and enhanced.

Support

Representation ID: 22348

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: John McCabe

We agree that the countryside should be under protection. We also support the proposals A1 through A6. The definition of countryside described in 4.30.3 appears to include Green Belt. A1 through A6 describe the limitations of development on countryside, but don’t appear to fully describe exceptions or refer to mechanisms used to potentially declassify Green Belt or extend settlement boundaries. The impression, from EN6 A1 through A6 alone, could be given that countryside is protected, but doesn’t highlight that countryside could essentially be declassified as such. Any development located within Green Belt as per SP5 should have rights of way protected and enhanced.

Support

Representation ID: 22377

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Natalie Shaw

We agree that the countryside should be under protection. We also support the proposals A1 through A6. The definition of countryside described in 4.30.3 appears to include Green Belt. A1 through A6 describe the limitations of development on countryside, but don’t appear to fully describe exceptions or refer to mechanisms used to potentially declassify Green Belt or extend settlement boundaries. The impression, from EN6 A1 through A6 alone, could be given that countryside is protected, but doesn’t highlight that countryside could essentially be declassified as such. Any development located within Green Belt as per SP5 should have rights of way protected and enhanced.

Support

Representation ID: 22488

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Harri Pitches

We agree that the countryside should be under protection. We also support the proposals A1 through A6. The definition of countryside described in 4.30.3 appears to include Green Belt. A1 through A6 describe the limitations of development on countryside, but don’t appear to fully describe exceptions or refer to mechanisms used to potentially declassify Green Belt or extend settlement boundaries. The impression, from EN6 A1 through A6 alone, could be given that countryside is protected, but doesn’t highlight that countryside could essentially be declassified as such. Any development located within Green Belt as per SP5 should have rights of way protected and enhanced.

Support

Representation ID: 22517

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Teresa McDonell

We agree that the countryside should be under protection. We also support the proposals A1 through A6. The definition of countryside described in 4.30.3 appears to include Green Belt. A1 through A6 describe the limitations of development on countryside, but don’t appear to fully describe exceptions or refer to mechanisms used to potentially declassify Green Belt or extend settlement boundaries. The impression, from EN6 A1 through A6 alone, could be given that countryside is protected, but doesn’t highlight that countryside could essentially be declassified as such. Any development located within Green Belt as per SP5 should have rights of way protected and enhanced.

Support

Representation ID: 22546

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Vicky Gordon

We agree that the countryside should be under protection. We also support the proposals A1 through A6. The definition of countryside described in 4.30.3 appears to include Green Belt. A1 through A6 describe the limitations of development on countryside, but don’t appear to fully describe exceptions or refer to mechanisms used to potentially declassify Green Belt or extend settlement boundaries. The impression, from EN6 A1 through A6 alone, could be given that countryside is protected, but doesn’t highlight that countryside could essentially be declassified as such. Any development located within Green Belt as per SP5 should have rights of way protected and enhanced.

Support

Representation ID: 22575

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Robin McDonell

We agree that the countryside should be under protection. We also support the proposals A1 through A6. The definition of countryside described in 4.30.3 appears to include Green Belt. A1 through A6 describe the limitations of development on countryside, but don’t appear to fully describe exceptions or refer to mechanisms used to potentially declassify Green Belt or extend settlement boundaries. The impression, from EN6 A1 through A6 alone, could be given that countryside is protected, but doesn’t highlight that countryside could essentially be declassified as such. Any development located within Green Belt as per SP5 should have rights of way protected and enhanced.