Consultation Question 62

Object

Representation ID: 3719

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: 3869

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Jenny Woodward

HIA should include measures re the walkability of the neighbourhood (as defined by residents). Plus, how it contributes (or not) towards social cohesion e.g. providing bumping spaces.

Object

Representation ID: 4293

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Burley Bridge Association

It was extremely disappointing that Bradford Council did not take a formal stance against the expansion of Leeds Bradford Airport. The health problems from the noise generated by the big increase in flights, especially over Wharfedale at night-time are well-understood. This of course is alongside the disastrous impact on climate from so many more flights which will render carbon targets entirely unachievable. Please can Bradford Council take its climate responsibilities seriously and acknowledge that an expanded airport will have a large impact on the health of many people living in the Bradford area. This is not just an issue for Leeds City Council.

Object

Representation ID: 5732

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Kentucky Fried Chicken (Great Britain) Limited

Agent: SSA Planning Limited

We consider that specifically targeting hot food takeaways rather than all food and drink uses is not supported by research, which often conflates these (including, for example, bakeries, cafes and restaurants). For example, Public Health England mapping and data on 'fast food outlets' density includes uses in former Classes A1, A3 and A5 and so cannot determine proliferation or concentration of hot food takeaways specifically. Indeed, these other uses (including, for example, public houses with expanded food provision) can often constitute more of a problem - see Robinson, E et al, 2018. ‘(Over)eating out at major UK restaurant chains: observational study of energy content of main meals’ BMJ 2018 (363) 4982.

Object

Representation ID: 18401

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Johnson Mowat

Paragraph 4.48.8 states that ‘Policy CO3 sets out the criteria for screening and when a HIA will need to be submitted with a planning application’.

Johnson Mowat considers that draft Policy CO3 does not set out adequate screening criteria and only provides a specific indication of a requirement for Health Impact Assessment (HIA) in relation to hot food outlets.

The draft Policy indicates a threshold above which a screening assessment will be required, but provides no indication of the nature or context of development proposals above the threshold that would be expected (or not expected) to be accompanied by a HIA. Greater clarity on this should be provided to make sure the plan is effective in this regard.

Comment

Representation ID: 19701

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Sport England

Sport England welcomes this policy; however, we would suggest that it includes reference to Active Design. Please see our comments on SP15 above.

Object

Representation ID: 27817

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Persimmon Homes (West Yorkshire)

Agent: Lichfields

Policy SP15 provides an overarching framework for the consideration, and encouragement, of the creation of healthy places, with Policy CO3 requiring all major developments to undertake a screening assessment and, where applicable, a subsequent Health Impact Assessment (HIA) for major developments, commensurate to the scale of the development, to accompany the planning application.

Whilst the intention of policy SP15 in encouraging development proposals to positively design for creating healthy places is supported, HIA, or HIA screening, as required by Policy CO3 is considered to be an unnecessary requirement. Compliance with the health related planning policies and themes set out in Policy SP15 can be addressed sufficiently within Planning Policy Statements and Design and Access Statements typically submitted with residential applications, and certainly for all major residential applications where such matters would be considered by officers without the need for further reports. It is therefore requested that Policy CO3 be removed from the draft Local Plan.