Consultation Question 131

Object

Representation ID: 27

Received: 09/02/2021

Respondent: Joanne Addie

Given the increasing flood risk on Mill Hey, Haworth, it is unfathomable that the council propose yet more paving over of the side of a steep valley. Existing homes should be considered. This will exacerbate an existing known problem.

Object

Representation ID: 1017

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Amy Polshaw

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.

Object

Representation ID: 1348

Received: 12/03/2021

Respondent: Jill Robinson

Agent: WBW Surveyors Limited

Land to south of Brow Rd Haworth (Bridgehouse Farm)
Objection to the omission of a site in the Local Plan.
The identified land should be added to the Preferred Housing Site Allocations for Haworth and allocated as a housing site by the new Local Plan.
The land should also be released from the Green Belt to allow its development as a new housing site under Policy SP5. This is because:-
1. The site is almost totally enclosed by other housing developments to the north east and west. There is minimal encroachment into the open countryside and would be a logical location for further housing growth. Development on the site would result in a sensible “rounding off” of the Green Belt boundary.
2. In landscape terms the site is suitable for development. There are no particular features of
interest on the site and views of it are limited. From those locations where the site can be seen it would be viewed as a sensible infill between other built development and would not cause any harm to the landscape character of the wider open countryside.
3. The site is located close to the centre of Haworth 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.
4. An access could be achieved onto Brow Road where there would be excellent visibility to both the east and west.
5. The landowner would be supportive of the site being used for housing development, a custom / self-build housing site, or a specialised housing and accommodation site (for example given the sites central location within Howarth the site may be suitable for an extra care housing scheme).
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.

Object

Representation ID: 1569

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Mr James Thornton

Should not go aheah

Object

Representation ID: 1631

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: WBW Surveyors Limited

Support for the inclusion of rejected site HA/026 as an allocation in the plan.

1. The site adjoins existing housing development. Any further development required in Haworth/Cross Roads would likely require some encroachment into the countryside. The encroachment from this site is considered to be an acceptable level. The site would result in a sensible straighter edge of the Green Belt boundary.

2. Site is suitable in landscape terms. There are no features of interest and views are limited. The site would be viewed as a sensible infill or extension and would not harm landscape character.

3. The site is in a sustainable location with a number of roads which could provide access to the site (Halifax Road, Hebden Road). The site is in easy reach of local shops, services and public transport. Development would further sustain the provision of those facilitirs.

4. The landowner would be supportive of the site being used for housing, self-build, specialised housing and accommodation.

5. The landowner is willing to see the site developed and would be supportive of the allocation. There are not known obstacles or exceptional cost preventing development.

Object

Representation ID: 6113

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Todd Buchanan

Agent: Eric Breare Design

Re HA/006 - Not all the land should be rejected as a preferred site.
The bottom section of the site can be retained as Green Belt to reinforce the landscape setting
of the River Worth, which forms the boundary between Oakworth and Haworth.
This would form a roughly equal area of land to both sides of the river worth to separate the settlement areas.
The Green Belt is drawn too tight to the existing houses with no space for future expansion.
The land has two access points one down Mytholmes Lane and one from Hebble Row where the land has a road frontage.
The site is within 400M of a bus stop.
Plan by email blue land to be Green Belt with additional landscaping to form a stronger Green Belt boundary. Red development

Object

Representation ID: 7130

Received: 07/03/2021

Respondent: Elaine and Alan Storey

Number of people: 2

Please also stop referring to HA1/H: HA2/H: HA3/H and HA4/H as being in Haworth. HA1/H Worsted Way is located in Bocking, HA2/H: HA3/H and HA4/H is in Lees. Lees, Cross Roads and Bocking are all individual settlements clearly defined by boundaries with different issues to Haworth.

Comment

Representation ID: 15520

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Highways England (Yorkshire & North East Team)

It is not considered that locating development within the settlements within Haworth, 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 Haworth 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: 25312

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Harworth Estates Property Group Ltd

Support for including rejected site HA/013 in the Plan. (Masterplan document provided with the submission along with some further points outlined below).

An increase to the requirement and amendments to the distribution would allow housing to be provided in sustainable locations across Bradford, providing choice and flexibility. We suggest that Green Belt release should be considered in other settlements, particularly considering Bradford’s unique policy characteristics being heavily constrained by Green Belt. In order to retain flexibility over the plan period and to respond to potential housing land supply shortfalls over the plan period, we consider that there are Green Belt sites which should be considered that perform poorly against the five purposes of Green Belt. Sites should be considered for release where the green belt function is weak and that are in sustainable locations with access to transport and amenities.

Haworth is a sustainable location for housing growth with a good level of facilities and also has excellent accessibility by public transport to other destinations in West Yorkshire. There is currently limited potential for housing delivery in Haworth as there are few previously developed sites which could be used as windfall and the settlement is constrained by Green Belt. It is therefore clear that to meet the housing need in Haworth, new housing allocations are required. If development was purely focused on brownfield land in this settlement it could constrain growth and undermine the sustainable development aspirations outlined throughout the NPPF.

Object

Representation ID: 30027

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Neil Tomlinson

Agent: GTK PROJECTS LTD

Objection to the rejection of site HA/011

On behalf of the landowner of land East of Sun Street, Haworth, we write to ask the reasons behind why it looks like the land is shown omitted for future possible housing on the Draft Local Plan,(DLP)

It was originally shown in the Shlaa 3 (2015) as being in the Trajectory albeit with LA Policy Constraints So what has changed?

Eg. If it cannot be built on, then why was it originally allocated for future housing in the Shlaa?
The land East off Ivy Bank Lane also allocated on the Shlaa,(2015)has been given Planning Permission for Housing?