Consultation Question 129
Object
Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021
Representation ID: 482
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
Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021
Representation ID: 3378
Received: 22/03/2021
Respondent: Harden Village Council
See comments on individual sites provided separately.
Object
Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021
Representation ID: 5517
Received: 24/03/2021
Respondent: Miss Sara Hughes
Harden will lose its identity as a historic village and will become a town but without access to a town's facilities. The proposed dwelling sites will have adverse affects on greenfield and green belt land. They will have a detrimental impact on Grade II and Grade II Listed Buildings close to said proposed dwellings. There are a number of tree protection orders in place on or adjacent to the proposed dwelling sites. The outlook will be majorly impacted and our beautiful village will lose a high percentage of its charm and appeal. The school cannot take more pupils, the village cannot support the level of traffic it already has and there are increased issues already with high speeding vehicles and parking. We have badger sets that roam freely in the gardens around the village and destroying more land will adversely affect these protected creatures. Also fox dens.
Object
Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021
Representation ID: 7239
Received: 10/03/2021
Respondent: David Hill LLP
•The landowners are keen to develop the site (HR/001) and confirm that it is available.
•Under the revised methodology for calculating the housing requirement Bradford will need to provide more housing than shown in the draft plan. This site could contribute to this.
•Previous scheme submitted to show access is feasible and an illustrative layout to show how the open space to the south of the site could be linked to the park to the west. The site would be deliverable if allocated.
Comment
Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021
Representation ID: 15518
Received: 19/03/2021
Respondent: Highways England (Yorkshire & North East Team)
It is not considered that locating development within the settlements within Harden, 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 Harden 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
Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021
Representation ID: 19831
Received: 24/03/2021
Respondent: Harden Village Council
Agent: Harden Village Council
Alternative Site HR/013 (part)
Harden Village Council suggests that the development of the east 1/3rd of the rejected HR/013 site
This section is enclosed by an existing tree line which would provide a strong boundary for the Green Belt.
Partial development of this site would not provide enough land to compensate for the loss of HR3/H, but taken in conjunction with HR1/H Chelston House (15) and HR4/HC Braes Castle (4), this would provide perhaps 40 houses in total.
Vehicle access from this site would be via the Chelston House site onto Wilsden Road. The definitive footpath from North View to the Ivy House farm track could be retained. Access to public transport, medical facilities and the village centre is good and certainly significantly better than that provided by HR3/H.
If the east 1/3rd were developed, there would be no impact on the view towards Goitstock and Harden Beck Valley.
Although we would be reluctant to support development on the rest of the site, if a compelling case for further intrusion into the Green Belt was made, we can see some advantage to further development here, over development of HR3/H.
Object
Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021
Representation ID: 23474
Received: 24/03/2021
Respondent: Padd Ltd
The following site is submitted as a call for sites. This land should be allocated in the plan: Land at Coytfield, Harden.