Consultation Question 122

Object

Representation ID: 460

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: 688

Received: 03/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Jeremy Jackson

I do not believe that the proposal accurately reflects the ability of the Menston area to support the proposed allocation. The report highlights the lack of available open spaces and the provision of further houses makes the situation worse. I also believe the report over states the local employment opportunities as those listed over very few employment especially for young people. Finally I think the report fails to highlight ongoing concerns about secondary education places for children based in Menston.

Object

Representation ID: 1610

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Alan Elsegood

The description and assessment of Menston, prospective sites and facilities is heavily biased. It concedes that we have no brownfield sites but still proposes to consume what little available greenbelt we still have. There are very few jobs in Menston, most businesses are self-employment apart from the Co-op, chemist and Post Office, thus any new residents will have to commute to employment, adding congestion and carbon. Our village roads are already heavily constricted, congested and very busy at peak times. More houses would mean more traffic and we have few parking spaces in the village or at the railway station. This village is already chock-a-block. And recent development is not providing the sort of housing we want: if there were bungalows, some people could downsize and continue to live here amongst friends but the type of housing CBMDC is facilitating is just adding to our problems.

Object

Representation ID: 4726

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Menston Parish Council

Most of the area lies within Zone B, (2500m) of the South Pennine Moors Special Protection Area, (SPA), and areas on the Eastern edge of Menston are within Zone C (7000m) of the SPA.
The strategic flood risk assessment must include groundwater flood risk. There are known issues with groundwater emergence in the area which may adversely increase flooding downstream and may require novel or complex engineering solutions.
There is little scope for significant growth without breaching other policies, however the proposed target of 350 homes can be achieved without additional green belt release.
The calculations have not included the Bingley Road site which if competed will contribute.

Object

Representation ID: 5296

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Chris Steele

As the major objections to this are environmental and lack of local infractructure it seems wrong to ask this question before publishing details of infrastructure as set out in 5.18.38. How can proper comments be made when the effect on local infractructure is one of the grounds to objecting to the developments. There is already a lack of open space in the village. 5.18.30 states that there is a "significant deficit in provision with less than half the amount of required open space being available within the settlement area". Building on surrounding green spaces is not a solution to this, and will reduce access to the nearby countryside.
5.18.32 it is a pond not a "lake"

Comment

Representation ID: 15511

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Highways England (Yorkshire & North East Team)

It is not considered that locating development within the settlements within Menston, 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 Menston 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: 20001

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Avant Homes

Agent: Tetra Tech (Leeds)

In relation to Avant Homes land interest at Menston (ME/013):

Menston has seen a significant drop in housing numbers since the original Core Strategy set out a target of 600 residential units. The compression of housing supply in Local Growth Centres such as Menston will continue to restrict choice, inflate the price of existing property and extend the affordability gap.

Menston is acknowledged as a sustainable settlement for housing growth with a good level of facilities. It also has excellent accessibility by public transport to other destinations in West Yorkshire.

The need to promote sustainable patterns of development is important, particularly in districts with a significant proportion of Green Belt, such as Bradford. It is considered that Menston provides the opportunity to release Green Belt land for development which is well-served by public transport in accordance with the NPPF.

We consider therefore that changes are required to Policy SP8 to reflects Menston’s status as a sustainable location for new housing development.

Object

Representation ID: 21618

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

Most of the area lies within Zone B, (2500m) of the South Pennine Moors Special Protection Area, (SPA), and areas on the Eastern edge of Menston are within Zone C (7000m) of the SPA.

The strategic flood risk assessment must include groundwater flood risk. There are known issues with groundwater emergence (see above comments) in the area which may adversely increase flooding downstream and may require novel or complex engineering solutions.

There is no scope for significant growth without breaching other policies.

Comment

Representation ID: 21622

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

I support and concur with the submissions from both the Burley Parish Council and the Menston Parish Council.

Object

Representation ID: 25288

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Harworth Estates Property Group Ltd

- Support allocation of rejected site 007 Burley Road Menston- (see attached documents for details)