Consultation Question 111

Object

Representation ID: 365

Received: 22/02/2021

Respondent: Miss Kathryn Nutter

Long lee has poor access over Coney Lane Bridge. There has already been a large development in this area, placing a strain on local amenities, ie, transport, education. Affordable low cost housing would bring the area down and increase over crowding and crime rates.
Land off Golden View Drive is totally unsuitable, as it is narrow, and existing households have to use the road for parking. There are narrow roads leading to this site. Increased volume of traffic would make this area unsafe, and spoil current green space afforded to this area. Golden View Drive is an unadopted road.

Object

Representation ID: 477

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: 4229

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jane Stone

I am totally against your proposals and fail to see how they are going to add to the biodiversity of the area - in fact quite the opposite!

Support

Representation ID: 4475

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr David Wood

I have lived in the area for a long time, Occupation Lane Lane is unadopted from its junction with Cambourne Way and if the sites KY8/H and KY7/H were developed the developer would pay for the upgrading to council standards so it would be adopted.
This would be of great advantage to us the residents as it is in a poor state and delivery drivers and taxi drivers complain .
The fact there would be a few extra cars using the lane would be more than outweighed by having a good road.

Object

Representation ID: 5102

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Holden Gate Investments LTD

Objection to the failure to allocate site KY/039 (Banks Lane Riddlesden)

The land is about 3 acres and would be very suitable for residential development, given its frontage to a road and its south-facing orientation and the fact that it is abutting residential development on 3 sides.

I notice with some concern that this land was not allocated in your recent Draft Allocations Plan Document, issued in early February, for residential development and the purpose of this email is to ask if reconsideration to that could be undertaken so that in the next issue documentation, this land is proposed for residential development purposes for which it is ideally suited.

Object

Representation ID: 5753

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Chatsworth Settlement Trustees

Agent: Richard Wood Associates

Given CST’s comments on the proposed level of housing growth associated with Policy SP8 for Keighley and the need for this to be increased, the three rejected sites (KY/108, KY/109 & OA/011) and one 'non-assessed' site at Shann Lane (adjoining KY/112) would all provide opportunities to meet this need. In the case of the land at Bracken Bank (KY/108) this could be on part of the site.

Object

Representation ID: 5777

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Chatsworth Settlement Trustees

Agent: Richard Wood Associates

OA/011, Land adjacent to Cackleshaw Farm, Sykes Lane, Keighley – objection to the failure to allocate this site for housing development.

The site is in the proposed green belt, it is considered as a detached site in the Green Belt Review assessment and the SLA provides the following reasons for rejection “not attached to the urban area, trees”

Given CST’s comments on the proposed level of housing growth associated with Policy SP8 for Keighley and the need for this to be increased, the above rejected sites would all provide opportunities to meet this need.

Object

Representation ID: 6149

Received: 08/03/2021

Respondent: Daniel Murphy

I think you all need to have a rethink about all the houses you are allowing to be built up long lee. Just think about the bridge at coney lane this bridge will collapse its not if its when unless you build a new bridge and get all these builders to pay for it out of there fat profits When it does happen all long lee will be in total chaos no way to go for all this traffic. Theres better places to build house with good access then longee.

Object

Representation ID: 6917

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Joe Karkoszka

•Building on Green Belt destroys greenfields forever and is against government’s policy on protecting the environment.
•Infrastrcuture cannot cope with anymore housing e.g. transport, drainage, schools, doctors –all oversubscribed.
•The more houses that are built the more houses are needed in the future. E.g. in the 1950s the average family was a mother, father and 2.4 children, meaning that for every 8 houses built a ninth was required. Today the average family is larger than in the 50s.
•The world’s population is growing – 4 billion (1970s), nearly 8 billion today, meaning in another 50 years it will be 16 billion – the planet cannot sustain this.
•Should be looking bringing down the birth-rate rather than building.
•Should be using brownfield sites, leave the greenfield sites to provide oxygen and stop suffocating the planet with short term decisions.

Object

Representation ID: 7400

Received: 10/03/2021

Respondent: David Hill LLP

KY/151 - Long Lee Lane
•The landowners are keen to progress with developing the site and confirm that it is available.
•Under the revised methodology for calculating the housing requirement Bradford will need to provide more housing than shown in the draft plan. This site could contribute to this and it is noted it is identified as an ‘Alternative’. The site will not require Green Belt land to be released.
•It is noted that the site is described as not being achievable due to topography and landscape impact. Previous scheme submitted to show access is feasible and an illustrative layout to show how housing could be developed. It shows that topography will not prevent development. A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment for the site has assessed the landscape impact of the site. The site would be deliverable if allocated.

Object

Representation ID: 10858

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: JO Steel Consulting

Site is located within flood zone1.

Development accepted - 91/04052/OUT, vets surgery.

Residential development to SE(a cul de sac Waverley Avenue) - footings in the site show an intention to extend cul de sac.

GB purpose 1 moderate score is not justified, should be Low.

GB Purpose 2 - will not result in neighbouring towns merging. All are part of Riddlesden settlement.

The analysis overlooks the fact that Riddlesden merges into Crossflatts .

Purpose 3 - within a well-established urban area, there is no development within the site, that applies to most of the sites allocated.

This submission respects the boundary between flood Zone 1&2. - very important it is not physical nor visible, a new one would need to be put in place.

The site fronts onto a 10min bus route

1.5 h proposed, one of most sustainable sites in District.

Site can be delivered now.

Development will reduce the shortfall in five year supply.

Object

Representation ID: 11002

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: JO Steel Consulting

Landowner is to restrict the original proposal submitted area as far north as PROW 18. Add to the area the new Call for Sites submission shown edged blue on the attached plan.

New proposal represents a coherent area related to/adjoins the existing built-up-area and access can be obtained from a number of points.

PROW 18 to the north, and Hoo Beck to the east, offer new clear and defensible boundaries.

Proposal is more visually contained in landscape terms.

Close to bus stop providing an hourly service, extra houses proposed could lead to the current bus services being improved.

The proposals offer an opportunity to improve the surface of PROW 18.

Proposal will strengthen the eastern boundary visually/physically.

Suggested the proposal should achieve at worst a moderate rating across Purposes 2,3 and 4.

Site can be delivered now and housing allocation is justified.

Interest shown by housebuilders.

Assist in reducing the shortfall of a five year supply.

Object

Representation ID: 11383

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Chatsworth Settlement Trustees

Agent: Richard Wood Associates

KY/109, Land adjacent to Harewood Hills Farm, Goose Lane, Keighley

Objection to the failure to allocate this site for housing development.

The site is in the proposed green belt, it is considered as a detached site in the Green Belt Review assessment and the SLA provides the following reasons for rejection “no available access, sensitive landscape”

Given CST’s comments on the proposed level of housing growth associated with Policy SP8 for Keighley and the need for this to be increased, the above rejected sites would all provide opportunities to meet this need. In the case of the land at Bracken Bank (KY/108) this could be on part of the site.

Object

Representation ID: 11384

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Chatsworth Settlement Trustees

Agent: Richard Wood Associates

KY/108, Land at Harewood Rise, Bracken Bank

Objection to the failure to allocate this site for housing development.

The area is not allocated on the policies map and the SLA reason for rejection is “limited access, topography”

Object

Representation ID: 11385

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Chatsworth Settlement Trustees

Agent: Richard Wood Associates

Non Assessed Sites - new site - “Land North of Shann Lane, Keighley” has previously been submitted by CST.

It is noted from the February 2021 Call for Sites request that this exercise should only be used to provide information on any new site. This CST site is not on the rejected sites map and we have been unable to find it in the sustainability appraisal and green belt review assessments (appreciating that there is a large volume of information). The CST site is adjacent to site KY/112 which is a rejected site and lies in the Green Belt.

Given CST’s comments on the proposed level of housing growth for Keighley and the need for this to be increased, the Shann Lane site would also provide an opportunity to meet this need.

Comment

Representation ID: 15500

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Highways England (Yorkshire & North East Team)

It is not considered that locating development within the
settlements within Keighley, 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 Keighley 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: 16286

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Keighley Town Council

Keighley is the second largest town in district and as such the council accepts a number of new dwellings needed to be provided across Keighley. However, the council is concerned about the number of greenfield and greenbelt sites allocated in the draft plan. Out of a total of 44 sites allocated for dwellings 31 are either on greenfield or greenbelt sites. The local plan commitment to brownfield first hasn’t been reflected in its policies or allocations.

A major drawback for these proposed housing developments for Long Lee and Thwaites Brow is the infrastructure and roads. There is one road into Keighley and another, over the moor to Harden. A less appropriate road, The Twines - steep, cobbled - would end up being a rat run to the by-pass. The main road down into Keighley funnels traffic onto the one-way Coney Bridge over the river. This cannot be changed as the road is also compromised by the railway viaduct running overhead.

Object

Representation ID: 16505

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Anita Selby

Object to houses being built on greenfield or Green Belt sites when all options for new housing on inner town/city areas have been exhausted. Changes plans to explore all brownfield options first.

Keighley town centre – lots of empty buildings. Could be converted to flats or dwellings. On the outskirts there are derelict areas that could be built on first without encroaching fields from the villages, or building in more desirable areas.

Object that many proposals will be for 3/4 bed excutive housing especially in villages. Does Keighley need all housing that is proposed?

Could consideration be given to building sheltered housing/wardened flats for the over 60s or some bungalows?

Reconsider plans to build on Green Belt and greenfield sites. Is against current thinking about climate change, preserving the environment, nature and wellbeing. Should cherish green/open spaces. Policy is Green Belt land should be protected and to prevent sprawl.

Object

Representation ID: 28552

Received: 09/04/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Labour)

Green belt sites – understand why these are on the plan, but ask that they be removed.

Object

Representation ID: 29437

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: The Black Family

Agent: Johnson Mowat

Objection to the failure to allocate site KY/003 in full

The Draft Local Plan needs to identify additional sites in order to plan for the housing requirement of 2,300 dwellings per annum. The majority of the site is located within the Keighley Urban Area, which is an identified Principal Town in the settlement hierarchy. The majority of the site is safeguarded in the RUDP for future development.

This site has been considered suitable for development for a number of years including in both the UDP and RUDP. Extracts from the 2004 RUDP Inspector's Report are provided

Site KY/003 has not been rejected in the SLA, part of the site is an identified preferred housing allocation (KY1/H) and it is considered wholly logical to include the remaining parcel of KY/003 as a deliverable housing site in the Local Plan.

There has been no sustainability appraisal undertaken of the site, however the sustainability appraisal scoring for Site KY1/H should be similar to this wider land parcel.

We are confident that a sensitive scheme is achievable, that is capable of mitigating potential heritage harm, via appropriate design and retention of openness where required.

The land constitutes a logical inclusion as a housing allocation, to the well-served and well-located north west Keighley urban area, which would include a minor Green Belt deletion, to allow the creation of a logical urban edge to this part of the Keighley urban area and stronger more durable Green Belt boundary.

Object

Representation ID: 29441

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: The Illingworth Family

Agent: Johnson Mowat

Objection to the failure to allocate site KY/003 in full

The Draft Local Plan needs to identify additional sites in order to plan for the housing requirement of 2,300 dwellings per annum. The majority of the site is located within the Keighley Urban Area, which is an identified Principal Town in the settlement hierarchy. The majority of the site is safeguarded in the RUDP for future development.

This site has been considered suitable for development for a number of years including in both the UDP and RUDP. Extracts from the 2004 RUDP Inspector's Report are provided

Site KY/003 has not been rejected in the SLA, part of the site is an identified preferred housing allocation (KY1/H) and it is considered wholly logical to include the remaining parcel of KY/003 as a deliverable housing site in the Local Plan.

There has been no sustainability appraisal undertaken of the site, however the sustainability appraisal scoring for Site KY1/H should be similar to this wider land parcel.

We are confident that a sensitive scheme is achievable, that is capable of mitigating potential heritage harm, via appropriate design and retention of openness where required.

The land constitutes a logical inclusion as a housing allocation, to the well-served and well-located north west Keighley urban area, which would include a minor Green Belt deletion, to allow the creation of a logical urban edge to this part of the Keighley urban area and stronger more durable Green Belt boundary.

Object

Representation ID: 29500

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Chatsworth Settlement Trustees

The following sites have been rejected:
OA/011 Cackleshaw Farm
KY/109 Harewood Hills Farm
KY/108 Harewood Rise

Given CST's comments on the proposed level of housing growth for Keighley and the need for this to be increased, the above rejected sites would all provide opportunities to meet this need (in whole or in part)
The site "Land North of Shann Lane" has previsouly been submittled by CST. It is noted from the February 2021 Call for Sites request that this exercise should only be used to provide information on any new site. This CST site is not on the rejected sites map and we have been unable to find it in the sustainability appraisal and green belt review assessments (appreciating that there is a large volume of information). The CST site is adjacent to KY/112 which is a rejected site and lies in the Green Belt.
Given CST's comments on the proposed level of housing growth for Keighley and the need for this to be increased, the Shann Lane site would also provide an opportunity to meet this need.

Object

Representation ID: 29538

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Elizabeth & Tim Walton

Number of people: 2

•Keighley has empty buildings which are brown field sites which could be developed ahead of any green field or Green Belt. There does not appear to have a large number of sites put forward in Bradford City Centre, most of the Keighley and Ilkley district seem to be absorbing the brunt of the influx
•North Street, Keighley – compulsory purchases would free up unused properties to utilise as brownfield sites
•Green Belt should be protected.

Object

Representation ID: 29547

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: The Thompson Family

Agent: Johnson Mowat

Objection to the failure to allocate site KY/002

The Draft Local Plan needs to identify additional sites in order to plan for the housing requirement of 2,300 dwellings per annum i.e. incorporating the 35% uplift. The site is located on the edge of Keighley Urban Area, which is an identified Principal Town in the settlement hierarchy. It is wholly justified to include an uplift in the housing requirement in Keighley.

The site has been rejected on the grounds of heritage, landscape and limited access. Account has not been taken of the potential reduced developable area to satisfy heritage constraints; there is no landscape evidence to understand the potential landscape impact, nor does this rejection reason account for the potential landscape buffer and additional planting. The Council have clearly not considered information previously submitted which includes a Highways statement indicating that suitable access is achievable.

We disagree with the conclusions of the green Belt Assessment and consider that the overall impact of the site is moderate. The extension of the settlement boundary would form a logical boundary and rounding off to the SE side of Hollins lane.

The proposed reduction of the developable area to mitigate heritage impacts will enable inclusion of substantial open space in the SE third of the site which also provides an opportunity for significant habitat creation and enhancement to biodiversity.

The site is located in close proximity to a number of services and facilities. It has no ownership constraints and deliverable. It has no viability issues and could deliver full S106 requirements.

Object

Representation ID: 29549

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: The Black Family

Agent: Johnson Mowat

Objection to the failure to allocate site KY/002

The Draft Local Plan needs to identify additional sites in order to plan for the housing requirement of 2,300 dwellings per annum i.e. incorporating the 35% uplift.
The site is located on the edge of Keighley Urban Area, which is an identified Principal Town in the settlement hierarchy. It is wholly justified to include an uplift in the housing requirement in Keighley.

The site has been rejected on the grounds of heritage, landscape and limited access. Account has not been taken of the potential reduced developable area to satisfy heritage constraints; there is no landscape evidence to understand the potential landscape impact, nor does this rejection reason account for the potential landscape buffer and additional planting. The Council have clearly not considered information previously submitted which includes a Highways statement indicating that suitable access is achievable.

We disagree with the conclusions of the green Belt Assessment and consider that the overall impact of the site is moderate. The extension of the settlement boundary would form a logical boundary and rounding off to the Se side of Hollins lane.

The proposed reduction of the developable area to mitigate heritage impacts will enable inclusion of substantial open space in the SE third of the site which also provides an opportunity for significant habitat creation and enhancement to biodiversity.

The site is located in close proximity to a number of services and facilities. It has no ownership constraints and deliverable. It has no viability issues and could deliver full S106 requirements.

Object

Representation ID: 29867

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Stuart Brook

Agent: Heritage Planning Design Ltd

Re KY36/H and SLA

Although the allocation of site KY36/H is welcomed (see seperate rep) the site boundary previously proposed by my Client extended further to the south, in-line with
the rear gardens of properties accessed via Green Acres and the site area was 0.64 ha (refer to Deliverability Questionnaire). However, the DLP boundary is in-line with Bradleigh Close, which reduces the site area to 0.24 ha.

It is respectfully requested that the site is extended back to 0.64 ha, which will enable the delivery of more affordable housing and greater benefits. In HPD’s opinion, this would be preferable to the release of other small sites, such as the nearby site at Harden Road (site ref. KY40/H), which make a greater contribution to the purposes of the green belt.

Object

Representation ID: 29886

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Kathleen Simpson

Agent: Heritage Planning Design Ltd

Re KY36/H and SLA

Although the allocation of site KY36/H is welcomed (see seperate rep) the site boundary previously proposed by my Client extended further to the south, in-line with
the rear gardens of properties accessed via Green Acres and the site area was 0.64 ha (refer to Deliverability Questionnaire). However, the DLP boundary is in-line with Bradleigh Close, which reduces the site area to 0.24 ha.

It is respectfully requested that the site is extended back to 0.64 ha, which will enable the delivery of more affordable housing and greater benefits. In HPD’s opinion, this would be preferable to the release of other small sites, such as the nearby site at Harden Road (site ref. KY40/H), which make a greater contribution to the purposes of the green belt.

Comment

Representation ID: 30128

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Dewar Planning Associates

We wish to put the following sites forward for consideration:

1. Goose Cote Lane, Keighley.

The site is highly sustainable, suitable, and immediately available to meet some of the housing needs of the district and all the local demand in Keighley for the plan period. It will help to address the planned distribution of housing land, as set out by the Council, helping to demonstrate a robust housing supply to meet Bradford’s housing delivery targets, whilst also providing a range of housing types and sizes to meet the identified long-term needs of the local area as part of a sound and plan-led
approach.