Consultation Question 79

Object

Representation ID: 495

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.

Object

Representation ID: 723

Received: 04/03/2021

Respondent: Your Architect Ally

SHLAA Site reference NE/062 should be considered for housing.

It is sustainable, deliverable, accessible and ideal for the kind of small, innovative housing development that is going to be needed as we adapt to a post-Covid world. It is connected to an existing community but adjacent to a large area of open land.

It is of a size that is unlikely to appeal to a volume housebuilder but perfect for a small forward thinking developer or self builder(s) to demonstrate the way forward for housing.

Object

Representation ID: 5025

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: John Cordingley Consultancy

Land at Lower Fagley
Land more suitable for housing development with access thereto. It is almost adjacent to the current Gleeson residential development. It is of limited value for agricultural use.

Comment

Representation ID: 15426

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.

Object

Representation ID: 17069

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Gleeson Homes and Regeneration

Agent: Peacock and Smith

The site is available (in the control of a housebuilder) and suitable for development; there are no constraints that cannot be addressed or mitigated for.

Although the Site Assessment Update Report 2021 asserts that the site should not be allocated due to
having “limited access”, we do not consider this a reason that can be sustained to justify the non allocation of the site.

Our client has control over part of the garden to 33 Kenstone Crescent, which allows for a suitable access to be achieved.

Furthermore, Idle is a settlement which hosts a wide range of services and facilities, including supermarkets, retail outlets, schools, medical facilities and public transport links. All of these are within close proximity of our client’s site

We conclude that site ref: NE/128 – Kenstone Crescent should be allocated for residential development.

Object

Representation ID: 18080

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: 29716

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Keyland Developments Ltd

Agent: Barton Wilmore

As noted under our comments relating to Policy SP5, our Client objects to the Council’s decision not to allocate the residential element of the Esholt site / application for residential purposes (NE/053). It has been established that the Council can allocate land detached from the boundary of the Bradford North East sub-area i.e. sites NE22/E and NE23/E, so there is no procedural reason why they can not allocate the housing site.

The NPPF provides clear guidance on the approach Council’s should take when releasing land from the Green Belt, paragraph 138 states “where it has been concluded that it is necessary to release Green Belt land for development, plans should give first consideration to land which has been previously-developed and/or is well-served by public transport”. The guidance does not state that such sites have to be adjacent to existing settlement boundaries and it is presumed that this is intentional so not as to preclude suitable sites which are not adjacent to a settlement boundary.

Site NE/053 is a case in point. It does adjoin a settlement, but one which is not defined in the settlement hierarchy; however, it is previously developed and it well-served by public transport, being near to Apperley Bridge railway station. As such, the site is sequentially preferable to most Green Belt release sites which the Council are proposing.

In addition to this, the Council are fully aware of the exceptional level of design and sustainability that the development is proposing, and it is considered that this helps to further justify the sites release from the Green Belt as a proposed housing allocation. Ultimately, by allocating this site, it means that should the housing target remain as proposed by the Council, a small reduction in the amount of greenfield, Green Belt release could be achieved.

Comment

Representation ID: 30129

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Dewar Planning Associates

We wish to put the following sites forward for consideration:
- Apperley lane