Consultation Question 134

Object

Representation ID: 485

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: 3754

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Ms L Scott

The local school is already at full capacity. Where would the children from these new houses attend school? Out of the 2 suggested sites I don't think Cross Lane is an ideal option as this would cause extra traffic on a road that children use on their walk to and from school. How would concreting over the suggested fields affect the houses lower down with regard to potential water run off? How would the infrastructure of Oxenhope support these extra houses? There is little public transport. The internet is unreliable and we often have power cuts. Cars are constantly double parked outside the only shop often stopping the bus getting through. Extra houses in the village would only compound this problem.

Object

Representation ID: 4425

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Peter King

Whilst I am in general agreement with the following key objectives listed as bullet points,
(1) Continue to protect the historic character of the village...
(2) Continue to protect important areas of open space...
(3) Protect and enhance key green infrastructure corridors and habitat network...
I am unable to reconcile the proposed removal of greenbelt / reduction of green corridor and extension of the built-up footprint of the village by the development highlighted on the map at OX1/H and to a lesser extent OX2/H.
Furthermore, it represents a significant step towards the urbanisation of what is currently a predominantly rural village. The preferred option for new housing provision in the village has always been via organic growth, infilling small brownfield sites, and not en bloc re-allocation of land use, such as these proposals.

Object

Representation ID: 4470

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Ian Foxon

I feel the allocating 100% more houses than identified as required is unfair on Oxenhope, no other areas have such dramatic differences in requirement and allocations. I also disagree that Oxenhope has only 5 units committed but not delivered, this figure should be much higher.

Object

Representation ID: 6598

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Lisa Hirst

I wish to object to planning in Oxenhope. Oxenhope holds its charm for tourism and through the busiest months we have issues with parking and traffic as it is. We are a picturesque village and I object to Bradford’s council stupid plan for 44 extra housing which won’t be to help locals rent or buy but for people with money to eventually end up as a part of Keighley town centre.

Object

Representation ID: 6797

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Jill Okunowo

•Previous planning application refused on Green Belt grounds. Plan includes 115 homes to be built on Green Belt in the Worth Valley.
•NPPF requires local authorities to maximise use of brownfield sites before changing Green Belt.
•NPPF requires ‘exceptional circumstances’ before changing Green Belt.
•What has changed to allow the release of green belt land?
•No sufficient justification providing exceptional circumstances for releasing Green Belt.
•The local authority should demonstrate all other reasonable options for meeting development needs.
•Local authorities must identify housing need for each settlement –this has not been explored sufficiently to justify building on green belt in Haworth/Oakworth/Oxenhope.
•No account of infrastructure to support additional homes e.g. schools, doctors, road links, public transport, water, sewerage, electricity, internet etc.
•Importance of green space/access to countryside for physical and mental well-being. Eroding Green Belt impacts on available green space. Haworth/Oxenhope have been visited by thousands of people during lockdown.

Object

Representation ID: 6922

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Joe Karkoszka

•Building on Green Belt destroys greenfields forever and is against government’s policy on protecting the environment.
•Infrastrcuture cannot cope with anymore housing e.g. transport, drainage, schools, doctors –all oversubscribed.
•The more houses that are built the more houses are needed in the future. E.g. in the 1950s the average family was a mother, father and 2.4 children, meaning that for every 8 houses built a ninth was required. Today the average family is larger than in the 50s.
•The world’s population is growing – 4 billion (1970s), nearly 8 billion today, meaning in another 50 years it will be 16 billion – the planet cannot sustain this.
•Should be looking bringing down the birth-rate rather than building.
•Should be using brownfield sites, leave the greenfield sites to provide oxygen and stop suffocating the planet with short term decisions.

Comment

Representation ID: 8320

Received: 12/03/2021

Respondent: Oxenhope Village Council

Summarised by Local Plan Team from attachment:
Dispute of figures shown in table 1 of Local area strategy- there are 27 houses from unimplemented approvals in the village

Comment

Representation ID: 15523

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Highways England (Yorkshire & North East Team)

It is not considered that locating development within the settlements within Oxenhope, 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 Oxenhope 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: 18231

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

Consultation
The current consultation is being held online only as we are currently in a covid19 lockdown period. This means many people are being disenfranchised from the process who don’t have online access or skills to use it. Normally such an important consultation would have face to face sessions in community spaces and libraries where people could view the plans the provide feedback.

The Conservative Group formally submitted a council motion to extend the consultation period after the Local Election period when community buildings and libraries will reopen so face to face consultation events could be held. However, despite support from both the Liberal Democrats and Green Party the Labour Councillors voted against giving residents any more consultation opportunities face to face.

Object

Representation ID: 23590

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Steven Preston

Number of people: 2

-Lack of local resources.
-Co-Operative causes traffic congestion and double-parking
-Without expansion of the village commercial infrastructure there is limited scope for the present facilities to support further growth.
-Concerns regarding Fire Station in Haworth, and reduction in cover provided from Keighley. Oxenhope is a known area which falls outside of the response times.
-Lack of GP medical cover & Emergency First Responders by Yorkshire Ambulance Service.
-Impact on Oxenhope Primary school.
-Visual impact of development upon the views from Oxenhope Station Conservation Area.
-Tourism is an important considerations

Object

Representation ID: 28260

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Member of Parliament (Conservative)

Green belt should not be considered for development as it is in contravention to Governments aims and objectives.
Local Authorities should maximise the use of brownfield sites before considering changes to Green Belt boundaries.
There are no exceptional circumstances to justify releasing sites from Green Belt protection. All other reasonable options to meet housing need should be considered.
Inadequate proposals have been presented with regards to upgrading local infrastructure to cope with proposed extra housing. and extra pressures on local services.
There is no clear vision to increase passenger capacity on local public transport. This is in contravention to the Governments Decarbonising Transport strategic priority.
No justification for the proposed housing numbers identified to warrant removal of areas of Green Belt.