Consultation Question 104

Object

Representation ID: 470

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: 1112

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Cathy Isaac

Limited school places.
Limited gp appointments.
Flooding causes issues on the estate including waste drainage issues.
Loss of green space.
Increased traffic with bridge access.

Object

Representation ID: 1122

Received: 10/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Paul Lonsdale

Why would you propose to build on any green belt when no information has been notified about brownfield sites.
Please supply evidence that due diligence has been done on brownfield sites and supply the exceptional circumstances that preclude them from being used instead.
Also, I quote from your proposal “lacks adequate public transport”, “there are few employers” which in reality is a pub, hair salon and beautician. This amounts to less than 10 paid employees in a village with over 1000 people living in it.
Your proposal is encouraging more car usage causing more pollution.
The school is already full and a surgery can realistically only be reached by car as they are in other villages.
It is not common sense to build new houses in this location.

Object

Representation ID: 1133

Received: 10/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Amy Morgan

I do not support building on green belt. Use brown field sites to protect wildlife habitats and the beauty of our environment. It’s very disappointing that Bradford council are yet again (Incinerator is the perfect case in point) putting money ahead of the precious environment we live in.

Object

Representation ID: 1213

Received: 10/03/2021

Respondent: Mr John McGee

KY15H will put houses on green belt site and extend the built up sprawl and destroy open spaces in this essentially rural environment.
EM1/H similarly puts housing on this green belt area and extends the perimeter of the village of East Morton. This significantly changes the character of the village and there are a number of brown sites which could be re-used and tidied up with less environmental damage.

Support

Representation ID: 1548

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: East Morton Community Shop

Hi
As a resident of East Morton I support in principle the overall objective for the village ,which involves the development of a site on Street Lane on the northern boundaries of the village(EM1/H)
It would be good if this housing was 'affordable' or publicly rented accomodation and that design standards were of 'passiv house' standard.
I am,however,concerned about access to any such development which is up a very narrow lane with blind bends.
The road is used to access West Morton and as a top road to Silsden and Ilkley.The increased traffic would I think cause difficulties unless the road was widened close to the development.
Close to the proposed development the road often floods as water comes off surrounding fields.I guess this would also be a potential problem

Object

Representation ID: 6427

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Debbie Rutter

•Object to the building of around 200 houses on a number of sites in and around East Morton
•East Morton Primary has been extended multiple time and there will be no playground left if this continues.
•People live in East Morton to enjoy the surrounding countryside.
•Building more houses will stretch local amenities and transport links even further.
•Using brownfield sites to infill with smaller development should be the council’s priority. Building on protected land is a line that should not be crossed.
•All residents should be consulted before the decision making process goes any further.

Object

Representation ID: 6464

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Anne Barton

•Green belt land should not be considered for development at all.
•Building on Green Belt land is in contravention to the Government’s aims and objectives.
•NPPF emphasises that local authorities should maximise the use of suitable brownfield sites before considering changes to Green Belt boundaries.
•NPPF demands there should be “exceptional circumstances” before Green Belt boundaries can be changed.
•Bradford Council has not provided sufficient justification which provides “exceptional circumstances” for why these green belt sites should be considered.
• The Local Authority must identify a housing need requirement for a particular settlement, so that housing growth numbers can be justified. I have seen no evidence which stipulates that Riddlesden and East Morton’s housing need for the next 15 year period warrants releasing land for up to 198 houses.
•I haven’t seen any justification that demonstrates that all other possible options have been considered which warrants green belt being developed.

Object

Representation ID: 9629

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Harry Bond

I am writing to object against the plan to build numerous housing developments (East Morton, riddlesden, thwaites brow etc) on green belt land. Please just use brownfield land which has to be an option.

Comment

Representation ID: 15493

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Highways England (Yorkshire & North East Team)

It is not considered that locating development within the
settlements within East Morton, 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 East Morton 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: 27977

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: E.M. Farming & Leisure Ltd

Agent: McLoughlin Planning

Specific Comments

Para 5.11.4 – consistent with EMFL’s aspirations of high quality residential development and to improve member and leisure facilities at the Golf Course.

Para 5.11.19 to .23 – concern that plan links Green Belt to natural landscape and character village through the description as it conflates several issues. It is solely a containment tool. Green Belt element should be treated as a separate/discrete item or reference removed.

Para 5.11.23 – does not distinguish between private and public spaces.

Object

Representation ID: 27978

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: E.M. Farming & Leisure Ltd

Agent: McLoughlin Planning

Overall Strategy

Overall strategy for East Morton is satisfactory and there is no issue with the inclusion of land at High Stead to deliver seven houses. However, object to the Settlement Specific proposals as they are considered to fail the tests of soundness.

Some of this derives from the concerns about the proposed housing requirement and spatial distribution (SP8), but also that the settlement specific proposals failing to deliver against the settlement strategy. 7 houses at High Stead is unlikely to deliver market and affordable housing, or upgrades to open space provision.

Object

Representation ID: 27979

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: E.M. Farming & Leisure Ltd

Agent: McLoughlin Planning

Alternative Strategy
EMFL sets out revised Preferred Options proposals which are variations of the initial submission of site EM012 which dates to 2016 and responded to the adopted Core Strategy Policy SP8 requirement for East Morton, which was for a minimum of 100 dwellings.

In planning terms, the Core Strategy SP8 remains in place as the development plan policy for the village. It is recognised that there is no opportunity to provide additional housing at East Morton without incursion into the Green Belt which is tightly drawn around the edge of the settlement.

EMFL consider that the land at EM012 or a variation of it provides the most appropriate option for East Morton, to deliver a mix of market and affordable housing, and potentially to address the open space requirements alongside EMFL’s own ambitions.

Object

Representation ID: 28258

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Member of Parliament (Conservative)

Green belt should not be considered for development as it is in contravention to Governments aims and objectives.
Local Authorities should maximise the use of brownfield sites before considering changes to Green Belt boundaries.
There are no exceptional circumstances to justify releasing sites from Green Belt protection. All other reasonable options to meet housing need should be considered.
Inadequate proposals have been presented with regards to upgrading local infrastructure to cope with proposed extra housing. and extra pressures on local services.
There is no clear vision to increase passenger capacity on local public transport. This is in contravention to the Governments Decarbonising Transport strategic priority.
No justification for the proposed housing numbers identified to warrant removal of areas of Green Belt.