Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Object

Representation ID: 5472

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: CPRE West Yorkshire

We’ve not been able to visit these sites ourselves but the following sites have been brought to our attention based on the concerns from local groups:

SI2/H
SI3/H
SI4/H
SI5/H

We support the position of Silsden Campaign for the Countryside, that the land at the southern point of Silsden, as well as the northern point towards the north and east of SI2/H, should be returned to the Green Belt. See attached map for clarity.

Through reviewing the density of these proposed site allocations, we do not accept that the extent of proposed greenfield allocation is necessary to accommodate the proposed amount of development. Similar to other areas of the district, the level of density proposed in Silsden is much lower than we would expect; this is also true of the brownfield site Si5/H. We suggest that the density should be increased and the size of allocation reduced accordingly.

Object

Representation ID: 5474

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: CPRE West Yorkshire

Similar to other comments made on the site allocations across the district, at 18.34 the gross density for site CO1/H is not policy compliant and would not constitute sustainable development.

Object

Representation ID: 5475

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: CPRE West Yorkshire

The sites proposed for Shipley, like many other sites Across the district, are proposed to be built within green belt land and at a density of around 26dpha, a figure much lower than the HO2 minimum of 35 dpha, and even more inconsistent with our position set out in policies SP4, SP5 and SP8. Moreover, site SH4/H is proposed for land which is expected to be within a Proposed Clean Air Zone. Whilst this site allocation mentions there are potential for some positive effects for the area, such as improvement to the local economy, there are some concerns.

Sites SH5/H and SH6/H are also proposed to be, at least in part, within the Proposed Clean Air Zone and both have elements of woodland along their boundary. There is the risk of flooding at these sites too as sections of the land is within flood Zone 2. As the last buffer of land between Cottingley and Shipley, it is important to maintain this open landscape.
Development on this land would result in the removal of a significant amount of woodland, which would be a major harmful impact.

Object

Representation ID: 5476

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: CPRE West Yorkshire

Please see attaIn addition to our wider strategic objection to the Plan’s proposed Green Belt allocations, we also have grave concerns in SE Bradford about what the Green Belt deletion would enable. We understand that the council may wish to bring development to the area to address deprivation, we do not accept that development of these allocations will bring the targeted benefits that are needed, and will instead have net negative impacts. By removing Green Belt land at Holme Wood, the amount of accessible green space to residents is reduced. It is also entirely unclear how the development of these sites is, or is not, co-dependent with the SE Bradford Access Road, which is referred to in the Plan but not indicated on the proposals map and not mentioned in the transport policies. The air quality, noise and severance associated with the new road would have a disproportionate negative impact on the access to and enjoyment of green space for those deprived neighbourhoods.
Consequently, in our opinion these allocations will not only have an impact on the function of the Green Belt, but the Green Belt deletions will enable unsustainable outcomes.
In line with our comments on policy SP5, we also object to these site allocations:
▪ SE45/H
▪ SE31/H
▪ SE18/H
▪ SE13/H
ched document.

Object

Representation ID: 5477

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: CPRE West Yorkshire

In line with our comments on policy SP5, we object to these site allocations:

TH3/H
TH9/H
TH11/H

Object

Representation ID: 5478

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: CPRE West Yorkshire

In line with our comments on policy SP5, we object to the site allocation OX1/H.

Object

Representation ID: 5479

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: CPRE West Yorkshire

In line with our comments on policy SP5, we object to these site allocations:

OA1/H
OA2/H

Object

Representation ID: 5480

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: CPRE West Yorkshire

In line with our comments on policy SP5, we object to these site allocations:

HR1/H
HR3/H

Object

Representation ID: 5481

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: CPRE West Yorkshire

In line with our comments on policy SP5, we object to the site allocation CU3/H.

Object

Representation ID: 5482

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: CPRE West Yorkshire

In line with our comments on policy SP5, we object to the site allocation ME1/H.