Consultation Question 139

Object

Representation ID: 170

Received: 15/02/2021

Respondent: Mr David Benson

General comments:
1 There is a need for affordable homes for young families not more expensive houses for the rich.
2 There is an opportunity to build "eco homes" which can be designed to fit with the local environment.
3 Throughout the documents the phrase "Development at this site would be unlikely to result in a significant effect, either positive or negative".
This is debatable.
4 Please ensure that amenities such as expansion of allotments are mandated not "where possible"
5 Protection for bronte way path as part of the green corridor?

Object

Representation ID: 489

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: 1079

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Tracy Walker

Don’t use our green belt use the brown field sites and old mills that keep getting fired!

Object

Representation ID: 1380

Received: 12/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Sarah Dixon

Thornton has the potential to become another tourist hotspot like Haworth, and progress is already being made on this with initiatives such as the Bronte Stones, Bronte Walks, Bronte Way and other village enhancements such as South Square and Sapgate Gardens. To wantonly destroy the country landscape along the Bronte Way (TH1/HC, TH9/H, TH2/H) and around the two hostelries (Ring O'Bells / White Horse)will have a negative effect on these improvements and on the economic and social development of the district.
I understand the need for new housing, and would support greater use of the land designated TH8/HC and further along the lefthand side of Thornton Rd, which scenery could be enhanced by sympathetic housing. I suggest rather than building on green fields, better use could be put to the 9,623 homes in Bradford that are currently empty (Bradford Homelessness Strategy 2020-2025). Let's preserve the village nature of Bradford's surroundings.

Object

Representation ID: 2085

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Linda Scurrah

There are sites that could be alternatives. They would reduce negative impact on The Thornton Valley, which could be left as a 'Green Corridor' preserving valuable natural habitats and creating a green space for communities to use, benefiting heath and well being.
1) Where Old Rd meets Thornton Rd.
2) Above Leaventhorpe Hall
3) Where Thornton Rd meets Bell Dene.
See map uploaded.

Object

Representation ID: 2540

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Joanne Wilcock

I object to houses being built so close to the Bronte Way as this will negatively impact the history and heritage of the area. The houses should be built in a less sensitive area.

Object

Representation ID: 3091

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Heather Tattersal

1. Detrimental to my mental health. Use the footpath along the top of the proposed development with my family at least weekly sometimes daily to exercise and the feeling of rurality is hugely beneficial.
2. GP already oversubscribed and inaccessible for poor/no mobility. I have neighbours who already have to go to Allerton for GP as Thornton had no space!
3. Thornton primary already a huge school with intake of 90 children. Children will already be daunted by such a huge intake plus classroom sizes already at max!
4. Footpath along the back is bronte way and national treasure used by many locally, nationally and international visitors. To take away from the beauty of that when there is land elsewhere in the city or even in Thornton is to take away from our culture.

Object

Representation ID: 4389

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Marcia Troy

Thornton has alot of elderley walking groups who are interested in the heritage of the village ,they bring alot of positive economic impact ,this would make a successful village unacceptable to these groups and many tourists who come to walk the village and surrounding areas

Object

Representation ID: 4830

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Les Hall

The Dole and Prospect Mills site has been badly managed for many years. Additionally, the support provided to local residents over this time, by many agencies, has been poor. As such, I feel it wholly reasonable to ask that all proper steps are taken to fully appreciate and consider the concerns of local residents. Moving forward I would ask that there be further detailed consultations, involving all parties and residents, at all relevant points during whatever further actions are taken.

If the development is appropriate and sensitive to local residents and the local area as a whole then I would not object. I do feel that 50 homes is excessive though.

Object

Representation ID: 5148

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Barratt Homes and David Wilson Homes Yorkshire West

Agent: Sheppard Planning

Please see attached statement.

Barratt Homes and David Wilson Homes
Yorkshire West (Barratt) objects to the omissions of land at Thornton Road and Green Lane, Thornton (Site TH/007) from the Preferred Options Draft Plan.

We consider that this is a sensible Green Belt release for Thornton, which can deliver much needed housing in the settlement and support the continued health of its existing services.

The site does not perform Green Belt functions and is accessible to a wide range of services and facilities. It has no environmental constraints and could deliver around 75 homes including 2 affordable homes (15% in line with draft policy H05) in the Plan Period.

Object

Representation ID: 5191

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Helen Marriott

Excessive number of properties proposed many on greenfield and green belt land.
Proximity to protected habitats. Negative impact of increased footfall and traffic.
Increase in traffic leading to traffic log jams, particularly at peak times and during road works and bad weather.
Inability of local infrastructure; roads, schools, doctors, dentist, public transportation and limited leisure facilities to cope with any increase in demand.
Destruction of unique character and heritage of village.
Unnecessary destruction of green field/belt.
New properties out of character with village, unimaginative architecture, lack of space, covering of soil with tarmac etc. reducing water absorption increasing risk of flooding.
Negative impact on local economy as village less attractive to visitors/walkers.
Reducing village to 'commuter' belt where majority of new residents are not actively engaged in the community.
Increased threat to livestock from 'out of control' dogs. Increased volume of dog faeces fouling local footpaths, pavements and other habitats.

Object

Representation ID: 10956

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: JO Steel Consulting

A site specific Green Belt Assessment has not been carried out. (Relates to rejected site TH/023).

-Buildings comprising these former mills now demolished.
-Two applications approved, decision notices never issued because s106 agreement required.
-A pre-application enquiry reply indicated additional areas that might have potential for development pending a review of the Green Belt boundary.
-Boundary as described would encompass land that was most involved with the operations of the former Mills when they were operational.
-The pre-application letter stated:
unlikely to result in a level of ecological landscape or heritage harm which could not be overcome through sensitive design.” development would , in conservation terms, transform the site from its current negative contribution to making a positive contribution.

-Brownfield/PDL.
-Sustainable location, near to frequent bus routes.
-Would make positive contribution to Conservation Area.
-Development can be delivered now, a housing allocation is justified on the additional area proposed.
-Development will reduce shortfall of five year supply.

Object

Representation ID: 11826

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Clive Brook Planning

Rejected Site TH/013

Site specific submission for land at Spring Holes Lane, Thornton. Considers that a residential allocation of this land for a development of circa 58 dwellings. Will contribute to towards an enhanced requirement in Thornton (800 to 825 dwellings).

Some of the proposed greenfield and brownfield sites are subject to a variety of constraints and/or environmental requirements to accommodate reducing their combined capacity by around 100 dwellings.

Disagree with the overall conclusion reached in this site specific Green Belt assessment that the site has a major potential impact on the Green Belt. In particular:

PURPOSE 3:- I disagree that the site plays a major role in Safeguarding the countryside from encroachment given its size, disposition and associations with settlement and development to the south , north west and due to topographical changes to the east. The countryside in the wider tract of Green Belt is crossed by pylon lines and other infrastructure and is a somewhat degraded landscape.

PURPOSE 4:- I have argued in response to the selected Green Belt Methodology that this criterion relating to the preservation of the setting and special character of historic towns has been misapplied and is not relevant to the Bradford District context.

Relationship of the site with Thornton Recreation Ground to the south west and the sports fields to the west presents opportunities for environmental improvements and appropriate landscaping

Disagree with the SA assessment against criterion 3 -Land and Buildings as the loss of a relative small area of greenfield land does not justify a major adverse impact rating.

Comment

Representation ID: 15528

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Highways England (Yorkshire & North East Team)

It is not considered that locating development within the settlements within Thornton, 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 Thornton 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: 29818

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Bridge View Developments Ltd

Agent: Bradley Stankler Planning

•Submission promotes the site located off North Cliffe Lane, Thornton (TH/022) as a housing allocation.
•Submission is on behalf of housebuilders committed to the early development of the site.
•Insufficient land has been identified in the plan for housing development. The plan fails to meet the spatial planning objectives.
•The site has been submitted previously at earlier stages of the plan’s preparation.

•Allocation of land for housing must be in accordance with the plan’s Strategic Policies on the housing requirement and spatial distribution.
•Policy SP1 states the Council will take a positive and proactive approach that reflects the NPPF’s presumption in favour of sustainable development. Of relevance is the key objective that the plan will ensure sufficient land is allocated to meet the District’s housing needs.
•Policy SP2 seeks to support, protect and enhance the roles of the Principal Towns and Local Growth Centres. Achieving a sustainable pattern of growth/development across the District.
•Policy SP3 uses a settlement hierarchy to achieve sustainable patterns of growth.
•Thornton is identified as a Local Growth Centre intended to fulfil a role in accommodating significant additional growth.
•Policy SP4 sets out that sites will be allocated using a sequential approach reusing previously developed land and buildings, greenfield opportunities within settlements, local green belt releases in sustainable locations.
•Policy SP5 lists the sites to be released from the Green Belt to meet housing and employment needs. Considers that exceptional circumstances exist to justify changes. Three sites in Thornton are identified for release.
•Policy SP8 sets out the housing requirement and distributes 2875 dwellings to Local Growth Centres (575 for Thornton). 15% of homes in these settlements should be on PDL.
•In Thornton greenfield land including Green Belt will need to be allocated for 489 dwellings.


•The 10% discount on committed sites for non-implementation is an under-estimate for sites in Thornton.
•Existing sites are long-standing commitments with constraints and are unlikely to make a meaningful contribution to the housing requirement for Thornton.
•The likely contribution from commitments will be 80%, therefore the committed sites are likely to achieve 35 dwellings, not 43. Land for a further 8 dwellings will need to be allocated.


•Application of the 10% reduction for non-delivery/non-implementation on the allocated sites is unreasonable and fails to take account of individual site circumstances.
•An assessment of the draft allocations indicates that a number of the sites are constrained and the blanket 10% reduction is not supported by evidence. The number of dwellings likely to be achieved will be significantly lower.
•(see separate representations on individual sites).
•These sites should be deleted as allocations: TH2/H, TH4/H, TH5/H, TH9/H, TH10/H, TH11/H. Also the following sites are constrained and would give a reduced capacity: TH1/HC, TH6/H. On this basis the allocations would not meet the housing target for Thornton leading to a shortfall of 198 dwellings. Compensatory land for housing will need to be allocated around Thornton to meet the spatial vision and objectives of the plan.
•In total there is a shortfall of 206 dwelling (198+8) which amounts to 36% of the 575 target for Thornton.
•Site TH/022 meets the policy requirements set out in the plan and should be allocated for housing.

Object

Representation ID: 29911

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Bridge View Developments Ltd

Agent: Bradley Stankler Planning

•Site TH/022 was identified in a previous draft of the plan for housing with the only constraint on its suitability being Green Belt.
•The site represents an opportunity for allocation within a Local Growth Centre in accordance Polices SP1-3, SP5 & SP8.
•The site is located within Thornton, which is an identified Local Growth Centre;
•The site is well related to the existing built area with well-defined physical boundaries;
•Unlike other draft allocated sites, the site performs little Green Belt function;
•The site is demonstrably sustainably located and given the need to release additional Green Belt sites to meet the identified housing land requirement, its allocation for housing development in the Plan period, should be a priority;
•There are no technical infrastructure reasons preventing the site making an early contribution to meeting housing land requirements.
•Assessment confirms that the site fails to perform any of the purposes of including land within the Green Belt as set out in the NPPF and makes no contribution to the openness. Consideration should be given to the removal of the site from the Green Belt in accordance with Policy SP5:
•Check the unrestricted sprawl of urban areas: The site is contained by strong, defensible boundaries. Development of the site as proposed will not lead to the extension of the built-up area beyond existing development boundaries.
•Prevent neighbouring towns from merging: Allocation of the site as proposed will not lead to any neighbouring towns from merging.
•Assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment: The site is separated from the wider urban edge by a strong belt of mature trees. The site is therefore more closely related both visually and physically to the urban area.
•Preserve the special setting of historic towns: Allocation of the proposed site will have no significant impact on any heritage asset. Development of the site can take into account the need to protect the setting of the listed building adjoining the site to the north.
•Assist in urban regeneration: The Local Plan strategy encourages regeneration within the urban area, wherein the site is located.
•The new Green Belt boundary should follow the existing field boundaries and substantial tree belts. These are easily recognisable, defensible and clear boundaries on the ground and will lead to a more robust long-term defensible boundary between the urban area and wider Green Belt.
•The site is located in a highly sustainable location with access to public transport and a wide range of facilities within walking distance.
•Site is related visually and physically to adjoining development. It represents an opportunity to provide a greater choice of market housing.
•Site makes no material contribution to the character of the area.
•The site would make a significant contribution to meeting the shortfall in housing land.
•Site is not within an area liable to flooding.
•North Cliffe Lane would be able to accommodate the additional traffic generated. Highway safety will not be a constraint to the site’s development.
•No trees within the main body of the site. Those important boundary trees worth of retention can be accommodated as part of the site’s development, forming the new Green Belt boundary.
•A buffer will be required to retain the setting of the listed buildings at Hoyle Ing House.
•Gas, electricity and drainage are available adjacent to the site. SUDS techniques will be explored.
•Site is available, suitable and deliverable.
•The site satisfies the release criteria for housing sites.
•The draft plan is currently unsound and it is requested that Site TH/022 be a preferred allocation for development.

Object

Representation ID: 30219

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Clive Brook Planning

Rejected site TH/013

Site specific submission for land at Spring Holes Lane, Thornton. (TH/013) Considers that a residential allocation of this land for a development of circa 58 dwellings. Will contribute to towards an enhanced requirement in Thornton (800 to 825 dwellings).

Some of the proposed greenfield and brownfield sites are subject to a variety of constraints and/or environmental requirements to accommodate reducing their combined capacity by around 100 dwellings.

Disagree with the overall conclusion reached in this site specific Green Belt assessment that the site has a major potential impact on the Green Belt.

Relationship of the site with Thornton Recreation Ground to the south west and the sports fields to the west presents opportunities for environmental improvements and appropriate landscaping

Disagree with the SA assessment against criterion 3 -Land and Buildings as the loss of a relative small area of greenfield land does not justify a major adverse impact rating.