Consultation Question 78

Object

Representation ID: 494

Received: 25/02/2021

Respondent: Mr Neil Collins

Bradford has a plentiful supply of brownfield sites that have not been developed.
In her judgement dated 8/6/2020 in Aireborough Neighbourhood Development Forum vs Leeds City Council, Mrs Justice Lieven found that it was wrong to leave Green Belt sites in a development plan solely because the Council wished to reduce the numbers around the district proportionately. Green belt should be removed from the plan and brownfield sites built on first.
This judgement is surely just as relevant to Bradford.
Our Prime Minister's "Build Build Build" announcement on 30/6/2020 said brownfield building would be made easier to protect Green Belt. This should be bourne in mind and our Green Belt not built on.

Comment

Representation ID: 15425

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Highways England (Yorkshire & North East Team)

It is not considered that locating development within the
settlements within Bradford North East, on their own, will have a severe impact on the capacity, operation and safety of the SRN, and this will be identified through the transport evidence base being prepared by the Council / the individual assessment of the transport implications of the sites by the sites’ promoters.
However, the quantum of sites forms part of a wider cumulative impact within the Bradford North East Area and the rest of the development aspirations within the Plan could severely impact the SRN, and this cumulative impact will need to be established by the Council and considered by Highways England.

Support

Representation ID: 17118

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Caddick Developments Ltd

Agent: DPP Planning

We support the area strategy for Esholt and agree that NE22/E and NE23/E should be considered in combination in order to best utilise the land and for future operation. We also agree with the contextual analysis and consider the best location for an access road is the existing junction of The Avenue and Apperley Lane.

Object

Representation ID: 18074

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Harworth Group & Nufarm UK Ltd

Agent: Johnson Mowat

At 31.55 ha representing 45% of the total employment land supply, the ‘Esholt Strategic Employment Area (SEA)’ is disproportionate to the overall distribution of employment land, the nature/sector of the uses indicated, and the suitability of the location for large numbers of HGV movements.

The SEA is located approximately 10km from the motorway network (M606)

Site NE23/E currently subject to a planning application does not therefore require an allocation to deliver employment development of an appropriate nature.

There is no justification for the allocation of site NE22/E (4.94 ha) other than its location between site NE23/E and the A658 Harrogate Road.

Sites NE22/E and NE23/E do not serve to meet the demand from occupier businesses and inward investors for employment development sites that are located close to the motorway network.

Draft Policy EC1 part D should be omitted (i.e. to omit sites NE22/E and NE23/E as employment allocations) and the proposals map amended accordingly.

Object

Representation ID: 29715

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Keyland Developments Ltd

Agent: Barton Wilmore

Our Client does support the principle of setting out a Local Area Strategy and Plan for the site (NE23/E) as it indicates the strategic importance of the development.

However, we do have some concerns with the information set out within the strategy. It is noted that a plan is included which suggests indicative phasing of site NE23/E, and whilst it is similar to the phasing parameters plan submitted as part of planning application 19/02504/MAF, they do not align. Given that the Council have confirmed agreement in principle to the parameters put forward by the landowner, we would suggest that the Council revise the indicative phasing so that they align with the submitted and agreed parameters plan.

This is important because the Council then outline an indicative delivery timeline and whilst we would not dispute the timings, it is based on the indicative phasing set out within the Local Area Strategy rather than the phasing parameters plan mentioned above.

We would be concerned as to how the Council may view the inconsistencies between the application submission documents and the information in the Local Plan going forward and how the current and future applications may be impacted. We suggest that these elements of the Local Area Strategy need to be revised to ensure consistency moving forward. Indeed, given that the current application, if approved will be underpinned by parameters plans covering these matters, we would question whether they are required.