Consultation Question 135

Object

Representation ID: 486

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: 11001

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: JO Steel Consulting

Surface water flood risk has been removed.

Site is poor quality grazing land.

Northern boundary to the new houses comprises a wooden post/rail fence, and gabions.

Green Belt Assessment does recognise that a combination of Marsh Lane/Moorhouse Lane will be more compliant with the NPPF than a wooden post/rail fence.

The boundary proposed, two public highways are permanent and obviously defensible.

Green Belt Assessment is contradictory purpose 4, on page 2 the contribution is assessed as “major" yet the summary, which in this respect is agreed concludes that it is Low.

Site would represent a reasonably logical rounding off the settlement.

The site is seen in the context of recent development to the south and a ribbon of development fronting Marsh Lane to the west.

Landscape impact, site has no greater impact than some other allocations.

Could be delivered now for self-build, parties have already approached the landowner expressing self-build interest.

Contribution to 5 year supply.

Comment

Representation ID: 15524

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.

Object

Representation ID: 18410

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Charles Ratcliffe

Object to the rejection of site OX/001.
•Site has a history of being allocated for development in the past but was reallocated as Village Green Space in the last plan (RUDP).
•The site should not be Local Green Space. The SHLAA indicated that the site has no public access, does not contribute to the setting of the area and does not fulfil the village greenspace designation.
•The site does not meet the Local Green Space criteria.
•There are no special features which make it beautiful, no public access for recreation, it is not of historic value, is not rich in wildlife and is too large a parcel of land to be allocated for LGS.
•The site at Cross Lane has more beauty and significant as a LGS site. It has a number of special features: hedgerows, trees, nesting birds, watercourse etc.
•The site at Crossfield Road should not be identified for development as it undermines the Green Belt designation and sets a precedence for Green Belt erosion.
•Development of this site with a sensitive design provides an opportunity to enhance the conservation area. Any flood risk and ecological impact could be mitigated.
•Site would be accessed from Denholme Road and there is a bus stop adjacent to the site. The site would have positive effects on the socio-economic SA Objectives.

Object

Representation ID: 29035

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr John Waddington

Agent: Eric Breare Design

•Object to the rejection of OX/001 for development and its allocation as Local Green Space.
•Site was previously allocated for housing following an appeal to the Local Development plan.
•The Inspector stated the development should be guided by a Design Brief but this was not produced before PPG3 was released requiring brownfield sites to be developed first. Greenfield sites were given a release date but the government then required the Council to work on a RUDP. This land was allocated Village Green Space.
•Site put forward in the SHLAA and described as: “Village green-space notation does not represent the site as it has no public access and does not contribute in any way to the setting of the area. Slightly sloping grubby field between houses”
•Site is only designated Local Green Space following consultation with the Parish Council.
•The site does not meet the criteria for LGS as set out in the Oxenhope Neighbourhood Plan.
•There are no special features that give it beauty, no public access for recreation. Historic value is provided by the reservoir tower not from the adjacent field that does not contribute to the setting. The wildlife is not rich, the nesting bird are not identified. Site is too large to be designated LGS.
•The site at Cross Lane has more beauty and significance as a LGS. That site has more special features and is richer in wildlife.
•Also wrong to identify Green Belt site at Crossfield Road over this site as it undermines the Green Belt and sets a president for further Green Belt erosion.
•The site presents an opportunity for development with a sensitive design to mitigate any impact on the Conservation Area. A flood risk assessment and ecology survey would be carried out and mitigation measures provided. Open Space would be provided.
•The site is on a bus route with a stop adjacent to the site. Safe access could be provided from the wide frontage on Denholme Road. Some positive effects are predicted for a range of SA Objectives.

Object

Representation ID: 30213

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Eric Breare Design

-Object to the rejection of OX/001 and the allocation of the site as Local Green Space.

-Site history of being allocated for housing development following an appeal to the Local Development plan (UALP).
-The planning inspector stated that its development should be guided by a Design Brief to be produced by CBMDC, pre PPG3.
-This land was re-allocated as Village Green Space.
-SHLAA assessment described as :- “Village green-space notation does not represent the site as it has no public access and does not contribute in any way to the setting of the area. Slightly sloping grubby field between houses”.
-When the site is judged by the development team on its own merit, the site should not be Local Green Space. It is only following consultation with the Parish Council that this designation is allocated.
-Site does not meet the criteria for Local Green Space as set out in the Oxenhope Neighbourhood Plan. Local Green Space designation should only be used where the site is demonstrably special and holds local significance because of its beauty, historic significance, recreational value and richness of its wildlife. There are no special features to the field.