Consultation Question 125

Object

Representation ID: 480

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: 4794

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: J A Whitwham

Agent: WBW Surveyors Limited

Rejected site - CU/008
-Land should be added to the Preferred Housing Site Allocations for Cullingworth and identified as a housing site by the new Local Plan.
-The land should also be released from the Green Belt to allow its development for housing under Policy SP5. (detailed assessment provided).
Site CU/008 is a preferable site for housing allocation than proposed allocation CU/3H.
1. Site enclosed by other housing developments. Given the characteristics of the surrounding land uses, it would be logical to release this site from the constraints of Green Belt policy. CU/008 would be a sensible rounding off of the Green Belt boundary, whereas this would not be the case with CU/3H which would project out into the open countryside. The impact on the rural character and appearance of the open countryside would be minimal as previous development has already altered it.
2. ‘topography’. It is accepted that the site slopes downhill to the south east and careful consideration will therefore need to be given to finished floor levels of the new dwellings and vehicular parking / manoeuvring areas. However, there is no reason why an appropriately designed scheme cannot be produced and this is not a reason of substance that justifies discounting the site. The topography has advantages. Most public views of the site will be from Bingley Road to the north west which is set at a higher level. New built development on the site will therefore be set at a lower level and will not be prominent in the local landscape. Development will simply infill the gap between existing built development.
3. ‘flood risk’. Only the south-eastern tips of the site, adjacent to Ellar Carr Beck, are within an identified area of Flood Risk. The final design of any scheme would need to ensure that this constraint was allowed for, but there is no reason why the development would be at an unacceptable risk from flooding, or could not provide surface water attenuation measures to ensure that flood risk is not exacerbated elsewhere.
4. The site is located close to the centre of the village and would therefore be a sustainable location for new development. The site has good access to local shops, services, and public transport. Development would help to further sustain the continued provision of those facilities within the settlement.
5. access could be achieved onto Bingley Road.
6. The landowner is willing to see the site developed and would be supportive of the allocation. There are no known obstacles or exceptional costs that would prevent development taking place on the site.

Comment

Representation ID: 15514

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Highways England (Yorkshire & North East Team)

It is not considered that locating development within the settlements within Cullingworth, 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 Cullingworth 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: 28837

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

3. There is no mention of the old village hall site, which has potential for housing.

4. There’s a site near the Manywells development, which is earmarked for development. An application for housing has been withdrawn, which would have provided 25 houses (https://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/19086242.plan-25-homes-cullingworth-withdrawn/ )

Comment

Representation ID: 29654

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Cullingworth Parish Council

Alternative site

Residential development of 25 dwellings on vacant land | Land Off Manywells Brow Cullingworth Bradford West Yorkshire BD13 5DX - Outline approval granted for 25 residential dwellings under application ref: 19/03606/MAO
We acknowledge we have to accept extra development, however, it has to be recognised that Cullingworth is undergoing the largest increase in housing stock in the local district over the last seven years. We view any future development to be minimal to afford the infrastructure to be improved to cope with the additional pressures and where possible further development to be contained within the confines of the village to maintain our rural, historical heritage and avoid the beginnings of an urban sprawl as per items 3.4.1, 3.4.5, Policy SP4: Location of development A1 and 3.5.1. We therefore recommend that this site be substituted for CU3/H Cullingworth Road/Doll Lane.

Comment

Representation ID: 29655

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Cullingworth Parish Council

Alternative site:

The Old Village Hall site – Church Street/Station Road
This is a brownfield site, which Bradford Council own and could potentially offer a further 10 housing units. We reiterate items 3.4.5, Policy SP4: Location of development A1 and 3.5.1.