Consultation Question 115

Comment

Representation ID: 301

Received: 19/02/2021

Respondent: Mr Roger Lambert

I am commenting on the allocation of Employment sites - and I suggest that the current lorry park south of the railway line, immediately east of the station buildings should be allocated as an Employment site - if necessary with adjacent land to its south included in order to give the site a realistic width. This would impact on the adjacent proposed housing site - see below.

Object

Representation ID: 479

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: 1057

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.

Comment

Representation ID: 15504

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.

Object

Representation ID: 17070

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr & Mrs J Cocker

Agent: Heritage Planning Design Ltd

Objection to the current green belt boundary.

the existing green belt boundary is consistent with the boundary of Steeton Conservation Area (CA), except for an outbuilding that is omitted from both the conservation area and green belt boundaries. However, the proposed green belt boundary is not consistent with the conservation area boundary and would result in the inclusion of additional domestic curtilage within the green belt, to the west of Apple Garth.

The inclusion of domestic land within the green belt is at odds with the general approach taken by the LPA when defining green belt boundaries and this land does not contribute to either the aim or purposes of the green belt, as articulated by the NPPF.

For the above reasons, it is respectfully requested that the green belt boundary is amended to omit the domestic curtilage of Hob Hill and Apple Garth, as identified by figure 5.

Support

Representation ID: 17666

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Barratt Homes and David Wilson Homes

Agent: ID Planning

We support the proposed allocation of site ST1/H for residential development. As demonstrated by the Site Assessments we consider that that positive conclusion attributed to the preferred allocation (ST1/H) area extends to the wider site area available (reference ST/001) and the allocation should be amended to include the wider/ larger site referred to as ST/001 to deliver new housing and positive effects for residents in a sustainable extension to the Steeton with Eastburn Growth Centre.

The wider reference ST/001 scores equally in terms of the Green Belt Assessment and against the Sustainability Objectives. We consider the wider allocation provides the potential for the delivery of additional new housing in this sustainable location.

Object

Representation ID: 19830

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Airedale NHS Foundation Trust

Agent: WSP UK Ltd

The addition of a site-specific policy in Bradford’s emerging Local Plan would demonstrate strategic planning for the vital development and infrastructure required by the hospital in compliance with national policy.

The plan will be in place until 2038, therefore it is imperative that a policy relating to the hospital is sufficiently flexible to accommodate a range of scenarios on the site, enabling the Trust to optimise the site’s potential and adequately provide for current and future care needs.

As such, we propose a site-specific policy (ie ‘ST6/HOSP’)· The future redevelopment for new hospital buildings and infrastructure;
· An increase in building heights to create views over the countryside, to improve patient wellbeing and also consolidate facilities and services;
· Provision of a new access / egress from Skipton Road to create a one-way system which would ease congestion at the existing junction;
· Expansion of the hospital facilities and infrastructure northwards by amending the Green Belt and Settlement Boundaries (please see site location plan);
· Provision of new landscaping buffer along the northern site boundary.