Consultation Question 91
Comment
Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021
Representation ID: 265
Received: 15/02/2021
Respondent: Bruce Barnes
Re local area strategy and plan for Heaton-the area has experienced a substantial reduction in the bus timetable to town and Bingley with service now hourly when previously half hourly. The service serves a population in an older age group, and because of topography the area is difficult to access on foot.
The Manningham Heaton and Girlington plans ignore the importance of ginnels as safe play areas for children walking routes and micro ecologies. More emphasis should be placed on their conservation.
Object
Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021
Representation ID: 501
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
Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021
Representation ID: 15438
Received: 19/03/2021
Respondent: Highways England (Yorkshire & North East Team)
It is not considered that locating development within the
settlements within Bradford North 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 North 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.
Object
Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021
Representation ID: 27091
Received: 24/03/2021
Respondent: Persimmon Homes (West Yorkshire)
Agent: Lichfields
NW19/H
The site is currently designated as Green Belt within the Replacement Unitary Development Plan (RUDP).
The Proposed Site Allocation Map identifies the site as a preferred housing allocation and of course is supported.
However, the Site Allocations Map also indicates that the site as being washed over by Green Belt. It is also displayed the same way in the separate ‘Local Area Strategy and Plan’ for Heaton set out below paragraph 5.5.48 of the main part of the draft local plan. This is clearly a cartographical error, as Policy SP5 (and associated accompanying text) of the draft plan relating to Green Belt is clear insofar as it identifies exceptional circumstances as required by paragraph 137 of the NPPF to remove land from the Green Belt, with part B of Policy SP5 listing the specific sites that should be released. This list includes site NW19/H.
Accordingly, both the Site Allocation Map and the separate Local Area Strategy and Plan for Heaton should be amended, with it clearly depicting the site removed from the Green Belt consistent with Policy SP5 and to solely indicate its allocation for housing.
Object
Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021
Representation ID: 27105
Received: 24/03/2021
Respondent: Persimmon Homes (West Yorkshire)
Agent: Lichfields
Site NW13/H is currently designated as Green Belt within the Replacement Unitary Development Plan (RUDP).
The Proposed Site Allocation Map identifies the site as a preferred housing allocation and of course is supported. However, the Site Allocations Map also indicates that the site as being washed over by Green Belt. It is also displayed the same way in the separate ‘Local Area Strategy and Plan’ for Heaton set out below paragraph 5.5.48 of the main part of the draft local plan.
This is clearly a cartographical error, as Policy SP5 (and associated accompanying text) of the draft plan relating to Green Belt is clear insofar as it identifies exceptional circumstances as required by paragraph 137 of the NPPF to remove land from the Green Belt, with part B of Policy SP5 listing the specific sites that should be released. This list includes site NW13/H.
Accordingly, both the Site Allocation Map and the separate Local Area Strategy and Plan for Heaton should be amended, with it clearly depicting the site removed from the Green Belt consistent with Policy SP5 and to solely indicate its allocation for housing.