Consultation Question 114

Comment

Representation ID: 302

Received: 19/02/2021

Respondent: Mr Roger Lambert

I request that the clough down which flows Steeton Beck should be identified as worthy of "green protection". This is an amazing geological canyon, with spectacular mature woodland, birds, wild garlic and bluebells and a public footpath - with potential for further extension deeper into the village and perhaps extension behind the housing at Whitley Head. I leave the choice of designation to the planning officer, but surely this amazing amenity should be protected.

Object

Representation ID: 478

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: 1058

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Sharon Almond

Green belt land should not be considered for development.

Building on Green Belt land is in contravention to the Government’s aims and objectives. The fundamental aim of the Government’s Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. The Government’s policy on protection for the Green Belt is set out in chapter 13 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which clearly states the importance of Green Belt land and emphasises that when protecting the Green Belt, local authorities should maximise the use of suitable brownfield sites before considering changes to Green Belt boundaries.

The NPPF demands that there should be “exceptional circumstances” before Green Belt boundaries can be changed and states that inappropriate development is harmful to the Green Belt and should be approved only in “very special circumstances”.

It is my own personal view that green belt land should be protected from any development.

Object

Representation ID: 1586

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Ian Greenwood

The map used top present the 'Local Area Strategy and Plan' is out of date & does not show the latest developments so misrepresents the current housing density.
‘Delivering new or enhanced infrastructure - Station Road/B6265 junction is a choke point in the area and will struggle to meet the demands of further developments and there are no proposed improvements. Still waiting footpath access to the train station from the last development.
'Supporting the vitality and viability' & ‘A key hub for the community to meet their day to day needs’ retail has no parking & only if you need your hair cutting. No new retail units in the plan
‘Seeking to ensure that future development conserves and enhances key heritage assets’, recent new developments have failed, they look more pseudo Cotswold village.
‘Seeking to protect and enhance existing open spaces’ is at odds with the proposed housing density proposed.

Object

Representation ID: 1880

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Victoria Fleming

I strongly object to the building of a further 175 homes on green field sites in the village especially when that appears to be the only concrete part of the strategy. Even the development of 2.68ha of employment land is extremely vague with the lack of detail provide. The other points seem to be aspirational and I am disappointed to see there is no mention of the need for a footbridge across the dual carriageway near the railway station to enable pedestrians to get safely from to Silsden.

A significant number of houses have been built on green field sites both harming the semi-rural character of the area for existing residents and putting extra strain on local services and roads. There has been no obvious investment in local infrastructure and facilities following the building of these houses. The benefit of the strategy does not seem to be to the community.

Object

Representation ID: 5134

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Christopher Leach

Objections on increased housing which utilises current green belt land( ST1/H)
This will add increase vehicle numbers into the steeton area which is already congested. There will be transport issues with accessing and exiting the new development onto the existing road hierarchy.
It will add capacity issues to the existing sewerage system.
I am not sure the existing facilities , education , health, amenities for shopping etc are robust enough and may need to be reviewed.

Object

Representation ID: 7949

Received: 12/03/2021

Respondent: Sylvia Walker

Building on Green Belt land is in contravention to the Government’s aims and objectives.
Local authorities should maximise the use of suitable brownfield sites before considering changes to Green Belt boundaries. Where, in this plan, are the proposals for brownfield sites I ask?
The NPPF demands that there should be “exceptional circumstances” before Green Belt boundaries can be changed. Bradford Council has not provided sufficient justification for why these green belt sites should be considered
section 5.14.24 states that the villages are "constrained" but have been enlarged (doubled) in recent times- it is unfair to have overloaded (out of all proportion to our size).
Mental health should not be set aside for more development
Local health care has struggled to keep up with demand
It is environmentally irresponsible to impose more housing

Comment

Representation ID: 15503

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Highways England (Yorkshire & North East Team)

It is not considered that locating development within the settlements within Steeton with Eastburn, 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 Steeton with Eastburn 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: 17659

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Barratt Homes and David Wilson Homes

Agent: ID Planning

Whilst we support the Council’s strategy that the majority of housing should be distributed to the Regional City, the distribution of 73% of the LHN requirement to this area is too high and negatively impacts on the distribution to the wider district and other settlements. The proposed distribution to the Regional City and in particular the Bradford City Centre and Shipley and Canal Road Corridor areas is unrealistic given there are significant challenges in terms of deliverability and viability. The quantum of housing proposed would require a significant step change in housing delivery in these areas. To rely on the quantum of housing coming forward as proposed by the preferred option distribution presents a high risk that the plan will not deliver the housing requirement and also impact on the Council’s ability to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply. The proposed delivery in the city and urban area should be achieved by the application of the 35% uplift which would provide the growth in these areas without detracting from sustainable growth of the wider district.
Required Change
Whilst the Regional City should be the main focus for housing delivery in the absence of the 35% uplift being applied the quantum of housing should be reduced to a more realistic level (60%) and additional houses distributed to Principal Towns and Local Growth Centres such as Steeton where there are not the deliverability constraints and where the delivery of additional houses in these settlements is realistic. This approach will ensure the housing requirement and the plan is deliverable.
Overall, however, we object to the 35% uplift being excluded as this would provide the preferred growth strategy for the urban areas whilst also ensure and maintain a balanced distribution of housing growth to meet identified needs in the wider district and sustainable settlements.

Support

Representation ID: 19828

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Airedale NHS Foundation Trust

Agent: WSP UK Ltd

The Trust welcomes the draft plan’s acknowledgement at paragraph’s 5.14.38 – 5.14.39 of the structural issues with the hospital and the general aim to develop a new hospital. The Trust welcomes the support for the potential redevelopment of the hospital in the Local Area Strategy and Plan for Steeton with Eastburn.

Object

Representation ID: 19829

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Airedale NHS Foundation Trust

Agent: WSP UK Ltd

Consultation Question 14 regarding the Steeton with Eastburn Local Area Strategy, we request the plan is amended to include a specific policy relating to the hospital. This would secure in principle support for certain key development parameters relating to the redevelopment of the hospital and also its expansion and improvement of facilities over the plan period to 2038.

We also request certain facts and figures about the hospital’s operation in the draft plan are updated.

It is also requested that paragraph 5.14.38 is amended to state that The Trust employs over 3,500 permanent staff and has over 350 volunteers.

Comment

Representation ID: 24284

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

-Oppose building on green belt.
-5.14.13: more should be done to provide further retail and a further boost will make these villages more sustainable so the communities are able to more easily access services without the need to travel out of the area.
-Crosshills level crossing issues of long waits, tailbacks and increased pollution. CBMDC to address concerns with North Yorkshire to seek solutions.
-Poor transport infrastructure – reduced bus routes, awaiting railway station car park extension, poor cycle ways.
-Local housing needs - older population than average requires suitable housing to match need. Affordable housing for younger population
-Strongly oppose the development for building on any Green Belt sites.
-The brownfield areas elsewhere in the District should all be developed first before any Green Belt land is even considered.
-Impact on ‘sensitive’ landscape
-Impact on primary and secondary education provision – currently at capacity.
- Para 5.14.41: There are concerns that the Marley Waste Water Treatment Works is at capacity plus also the other utilities which serve the area.

Object

Representation ID: 28253

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.