Consultation Question 88

Object

Representation ID: 498

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: 741

Received: 04/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Joan Speight

I disagree with all of the green space on Woodside being earmarked for building, I don’t object to SW25/H as I understand it was residential flats there in the past,, similarly SW28/H as building has taken place adjacent to this site recently and it has only been used for fly tipping and tethering of horses. However sites SW26/H, SW14/H & SW34/H no building as this is the only bit of green space left on the Estate, SW26/H could be a cycle/ skateboard park to get the children out in the fresh air to help combat obesity in this area.

Object

Representation ID: 3859

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Peter Martin

Agent: Athena Planning and Development

Objection to the failure to allocate site SW/034B for housing.

The Green Belt and Landscape

• The deletion of the green belt in this location is justified, the site is deliverable and developable and would assist with meeting housing need including affordable housing need across Bradford South West.
• The development of SW/034B will not affect either the character or openness of the green belt.
• The implementation of a landscape framework for both SW14/H and SW/034B could serve to both frame and screen views into and out of the site, enhancing its key characteristics and that of the surrounding area.
• The development of SW14/H and SW/034B would enable a clear and defined edge of the built up area to be established.
• None of the defining elements of the South Bradford area would be affected by housing development at SW/034B.
• Unlike the other preferred options for housing development which involve development in the green belt, the development of SW/034B would not give rise to significant impacts on the South Pennine Moors SPA and SAC.
• Key elements of the South Bradford Landscape Character Area could be enhanced and strengthened by the implementation of appropriate boundary treatment including new native trees and hedgerows.
• Linkages to existing green infrastructure and open space could be enhanced.


The Settlement Strategy

• The allocation of SW/034B is in compliance with the BDLP settlement hierarchy and would notably assist and support the regeneration of Woodside.
• The site is well contained by existing development and lies within a sustainable location accessible by a high frequency bus network and within close proximity to Low Moor Rail Station unlike other preferred allocated sites.
• The principle of housing development in this location has already been considered acceptable with the identification and allocation of the adjacent site SW14/H.
• Small scale developments across the Royds and Wibsey area do not present the same opportunity for transformational change (as required by Policy SP3) at Woodside as SW/034B.
• Development in this location would provide residents with improved access to jobs, services, transport and health and education facilities when compared to other preferred housing sites.

Heritage

• The setting and grounds of Royds Hall is predominately to south of the Hall itself, where the development of SW14/H and SW/034B to the north cannot be seen.
• The impact on the setting of Royds Hall has already been impacted by the allocation and future development of 276 units at SW14/H.
• There will be no significant harmful impact upon the existing farm steading as a result of SW/034B as any such impacts could be suitably mitigated by the implementation of an appropriately landscaped development layout.

Sustainability Appraisal

Looking at the SA scoring it is considered that SW/034B performs better (in particular on biodiversity and geodiversity and accessible services) than other green belt sites which have been identified as preferred options for housing development. On biodiversity and geodiversity, critically, whilst all seven of the preferred sites together with SW/034B will result in the loss of greenfield land, all seven of the preferred options following the Habitat Regulation Appraisal (HRA) screening process have been identified as likely to trigger significant effects on the South Pennine Moors Special Protection Area (SPA) / Special Area of Conservation (SAC). The development of Site SW/034B would not give rise to such significant landscape impacts.

Object

Representation ID: 4637

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

Speaking specifically about Clayton Heights (SW6/H, SW9/H, SW10/H and SW36/HC) which falls into Queensbury Ward, the excessive use of Green Belt Land makes the preferred allocations impossible to support.

Within Clayton Heights there is just one primary school (Stocks Lane) which has recently expanded and is already close to/at capacity. The other relatively close-by Primary School is Home Farm which is also at capacity. 95 new homes I this area has the potential to very quickly overwhelm the local education provision.

There is one GP practice close to Clayton Heights (Horton Bank) which already services a large number of patients and great care must be taken to ensure that the local health provision is not overwhelmed.

Object

Representation ID: 5557

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Contour Planning Services Limited

Site SW17/H (Briggella Mills)
Amafhh Investments owns the freehold of Briggella Mills. Whilst Amafhh supports the Council’s identification of the site for residential development, it is concerned that the draft Local Plan only identifies the site as being suitable (indicatively) for 200 residential units, and considers the draft Local Plan misses the opportunity to use this large previously developed site, located in a highly sustainable location, to assist the Council meet its shortfall of residential land and to meet its aspiration to develop the majority of housing allocations on Previously Developed Land.

Amafhh considers the site is capable of delivering in excess of 700 dwellings and the draft Local Plan should be modified to reflect this higher number of units.

Object

Representation ID: 5567

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Contour Planning Services Limited

Amafhh Investments are proposing an additional site (formerly known as City Gate, now known as Phoenix Village) to the preferred allocated sites listed within ‘Table B: Bradford South West Housing Sites – Preferred Allocations’ and as such provide (in the attached document) a plan with a red line in support of this proposed site allocation. A representation to propose this site through the current Call for sites has also been made.

Amafhh consider this site is suitable for a mixed use residential led development on the basis that such a development would be policy compliant and that it is available and deliverable within the early part of the plan period for no less than 400 new homes.

Object

Representation ID: 5594

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Contour Planning Services Limited

Amafhh Investments are proposing an additional site (to the south of Clarges Street) to the preferred allocated sites listed within ‘Table B: Bradford South West Housing Sites – Preferred Allocations’ and as such provide a plan (in the attached document) with a red line in support of this proposed site allocation. A representation to propose this site through the current Call for sites has also been made.

Amafhh consider the site is suitable for a mixed use residential led development on the basis that the site is policy compliant and that it is available and deliverable within the early part of the plan period for approximately 60 new homes.

Therefore, in answer to Consultation Question 88, Amafhh propose the Clarges Street site to accommodate approximately 60 dwellings with commercial uses at ground floor, through the site’s regeneration. Further details (and a plan) are set out in the attachment.

Object

Representation ID: 5669

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

Speaking specifically about Clayton Heights (SW6/H, SW9/H, SW10/H and SW36/HC) the excessive use of Green Belt Land makes the preferred allocations impossible to support.
Within Clayton Heights there is just one primary school (Stocks Lane) which has recently expanded and is already close to/at capacity. The other relatively close-by Primary School is Home Farm which is also at capacity. 95 new homes in this area has the potential to very quickly overwhelm the local education provision.
There is one GP practice close to Clayton Heights (Horton Bank) which already services a large number of patients and great care must be taken to ensure that the local health provision is not overwhelmed.

Object

Representation ID: 5842

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Greg Hutchinson

THE PLAN TO BUILD MASS HOUSING BY RELEASING GREEN BELT LAND AROUND THE TOP END OF CLAYTON IS WHOLLY INAPPROPRIATE. ALL THE ROADS IN AND OUT OF CLAYTON ARE ESSENTIALLY COUNTRY LANES AND NOT FIT FOR MASS TRAFFIC. 3 OUT OF THE 4 ROADS OUT OF CLAYTON ARE SO NARROW THAT THEY DO NOT ACCOMMODATE TWO WAY TRAFFIC. THE MAIN PINCH-POINT AROUND CLAYTON ROUNDABOUT IS ALREADY LOG JAMMED AT PEAK HOURS WITH TRAFFIC BLOCKING ENTRY/EXIT, DUE TO THE NATURE OF THE ROAD NETWORK AND SINGLE FILE TRAFFIC. PLEASE, NO MORE BUILDING, NO MORE TRAFFIC. TWO OF THE ROADS DON'T EVEN HAVE FOOTPATHS IN SECTIONS AND WALKING ON THESE IS BAD ENOUGH WITH THE CURRENT LEVEL OF TRAFFIC.

Comment

Representation ID: 15435

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Highways England (Yorkshire & North East Team)

It is not considered that locating development within the
settlements within Bradford South West, 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 South West 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.

Comment

Representation ID: 17527

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Labour)

Concerned with total numbers allocated towards Bradford South – seems disproportionately high compared to other areas.

Concerned about taking away green space in Royds – a deprived area, which needs/relishes its green spaces.

Of particular concern is the number houses planning on Fenwick Drive. Bordered by the heritage area of Judy Woods - will impact on the natural environment and biodiversity of this area. Some of these fields are prone to flooding.

Concerned about the impact on traffic – already have many complaints/concerns from residents – critical due to location of the primary school. For the same reason, suggested developments off Abb Scott Lane also raise concerns.

Developing the Delf Hill site might not be so bad - is currently an eyesore/not looked after, but traffic impact on Abb Scott Lane and Common Road should not be underestimated - again there is a primary school on Common Road.

No particular concerns developing the sites highlighted in Buttershaw. Development welcomed at the Reevy Road West site.

Object

Representation ID: 23641

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Patchett Developments Ltd

Agent: Johnson Mowat

Objection to the rejection of site SW/004

The site is rejected in the SLA on the basis that there is no suitable highway access.

Appendix 1 clearly shows that SW/004 can be accessed from Holts Lane / Delph Drive through an extension of the adopted Highway.

SW/004 provides a logical extension to the recently constructed development sitting adjacent to the its western boundary. It would also be bordered by properties on Delph Grove and Delph Terrace and therefore has defensible boundaries to the south, west and east.

The site is well located to provide residents with good access to jobs, services, transport and health facilities.

The plan should identify additional sites to meet a housing requirement of 2,300 dph

The site is deliverable, unconstrained housing sites capable of delivering housing to meet the identified housing requirement.

There are no known viability issues and the site could deliver the full S106 requirements.

There are no environmental constraints associated with the site that cannot be dealt with via appropriate design.

Object

Representation ID: 23642

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Patchett Developments Ltd

Agent: Johnson Mowat

Objection to the rejection of site SW/146

The site is rejected in the SLA on the basis that there is no suitable highway access.

Appendix 2 clearly shows that SW/146 can be accessed using an adoptable but slightly amended highway arrangement.

SW/146 borders properties on Delph Grove and therefore in conjunction with residential development can provides opportunities for significant landscape planting and the creation of formal / informal open space. SW/146 is also a logical extension to the urban edge.

The site is well located to provide residents with good access to jobs, services, transport and health facilities.

The plan should identify additional sites to meet a housing requirement of 2,300 dph

The site is deliverable, unconstrained housing sites capable of delivering housing to meet the identified housing requirement.

There are no known viability issues and the site could deliver the full S106 requirements.

There are no environmental constraints associated with the site that cannot be dealt with via appropriate design.