Consultation Question 123

Object

Representation ID: 459

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: 1615

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Alan Elsegood

The numbers of dwellings is already excessive: more than the village roads can cope with, and we have insufficient places at the primary school and Mernston has no secondary school. Already, Menston's secondary age children have to go to Leeds schools (eg. Guiseley) or elsewhere, and this adds to the commuter problems. Bradford Council has already allowed building on every bit of available greenspace apart from our small park and bits of Public Open Space. The sites already approved can only access jobs and main roads by travel though the narrow and congested streets of this village, increasing the hazard to pedestrians and other road users. You take no account of the fact that we've had High Royds thrust upon us as, technically, it is Leeds' Council area. Enough! Leave us as a village.

Object

Representation ID: 4732

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Menston Parish Council

The main Bingley Road site (if completed) would contribute an additional 133 homes therefore site ME1/H is surplus to allocation requirements and it's release from greenbelt and subsequent development is contrary to proposed policy.

Comment

Representation ID: 15512

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: 20002

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Avant Homes

Agent: Tetra Tech (Leeds)

Advocates the allocations of site ME/013 for residential development.

Consider that the site is the Site to be suitable, available, deliverable and achievable and performs favorably when compared against preferred options. For example the preferred green belt option site ME1/H has no direct access, and is reliant on access from the development site to the east, which has a well-documented history and issues with delivery. ME1/H is outside the Core Strategy Accessibility Standards. However, site ME/013 can be safely accessed direct from Otley Road, and complies with the Core Strategy Accessibility Standards.

Site ME0/13, does not appear to be covered in the SA and Strategic Environmental Assessment which forms part of the Local Plan Evidence base.

We disagree with the green belt assessment of site ME/013. Our proposed re-scoring would suggest the overall rating is downgraded from Major to Moderate.

In the context of the comments above and our view that housing targets for Menston should be higher we continue to promote site ME/013 for allocation.

Object

Representation ID: 21585

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Graham Dearden

I would like to amend previous Call for Sites application ME/017.
New Proposal -
To increase the size of plot available to the full 2 acres as shown on the attachment.
To design and build ECO houses which would incorporate all the latest technology that reduces the Carbon Footprint and lowers the Energy requirements.
Each house to include where practical
1. Higher than normal levels of thermal insulation.
2. Better than normal air-tightness
3. Good levels of day light
4. Passive Solar orientations
5. Heating with renewable resources ie heat pumps, solar panels, biomass etc
6. Rainwater harvesting
7. Triple glassing
8. Mechanical ventilation and heat recovery
9. Due to the position of the land could be a possibility.

This project could commence with 2 houses being built, depending on the positioning and orientation it could be possible to increase to 10 houses.

Object

Representation ID: 29692

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Persimmon Homes (West Yorkshire)

Agent: Barton Wilmore

Persimmon objects to the exclusion of site ME/005 as a proposed housing allocation, as it is a deliverable site which is suitable, available and achievable.

The only reason the Council have rejected the site is because of perceived Green Belt impacts and landscape impacts.

However, the Council have not fully justified specifically what the issues through their evidence base.

Persimmon have provided technical documentation which demonstrates that contrary to the Council’s conclusions, the development of the site would have minimal impact upon the Green Belt and the local landscape.

We consider that site ME/005 should be allocated based on the current housing requirement proposed in the draft Local Plan as it is suitable, available and achievable. However, in the context that the Council have a shortfall of 9,000 units across the Plan period and will therefore need to apportion additional units to Menston, this site should be allocated once the numbers are increased to the standard method level.

Detailed technical assessment so the site are provided - see submission document - including relating to highways, landscape, green belt, ecology

Object

Representation ID: 29693

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Persimmon Homes (West Yorkshire)

Agent: Barton Wilmore

Green Belt Assessment of ME/005

In the ‘Site Assessment and Rejected Sites Background Paper’ the Council confirm that site ME/005 is rejected on the following grounds – Green Belt Impact and Landscape Impact.

However, having reviewed the Council’s evidence base we have been unable to locate the Green Belt Assessment, which the document implies has been undertaken.

For context, the Green Belt Appraisal conducted by Pegasus on behalf of Persimmon concludes as follows:
Whilst the removal of the site from the Green Belt would result in some harm to the Green Belt by virtue of the direct impact of its footprint, the actual perceivable extent of harm would be minimal and would not significantly affect any Green Belt purpose. The development of the site offers potential to discretely and neatly ‘round off’ the settlement edge and provide a strong defensible Green Belt boundary.

Pegasus, who undertook the appraisal made the following assessment:

Purpose 1 – to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas – there would be no unrestricted sprawl

Purpose 2 – to prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another – there would be no merging of neighbouring towns

Purpose 3 – to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment – development of the site would result in minimal encroachment into the countryside

Purpose 4 – to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns – development of the site would have no impact on the setting and special character of historic towns

Purpose 5 – to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land – not assessed

Object

Representation ID: 29694

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Persimmon Homes (West Yorkshire)

Agent: Barton Wilmore

Landscape Assessment of ME/002

The other reason the Council have dismissed the site is due to ‘landscape impacts’. In order for the Council to have come to that conclusion we would expect there to have been a landscape document within the Council’s evidence base which had been prepared by qualified landscape architects and which assesses the site and its landscape impacts. We have been unable to locate any such document and it is therefore assumed that the Council are relying on the site appraisal comments
within the Sustainability Appraisal (SA), which has been prepared by Arcadis.

The SA states that development of the sit would potentially lead to the loss of green infrastructure elements such as trees that are high visual amenity, which would likely adversely impact upon town and local
character.

However, Pegasus’ assessment of the site concludes very differently, see below.

It is not considered that the development of the site would result in the loss of any landscape features that hold an individual landscape or visual value or are of a specific importance to the wider landscape character. Existing landscape features worthy of retention such as the trees within and bounding the site, and the stone walling along Burley Road could be incorporated as part of a new development. Together with new planting, retained vegetation would contribute to the well wooded character of the locality and help to integrate new development into the landscape.

Comment

Representation ID: 30116

Received: 19/02/2021

Respondent: Paul .

What’s the point of having designated green belt land when all you do is change it when you need moor £££+ We want to live in a village , not an extension to Bradford council failed council estates