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

Object

Representation ID: 8141

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: CPRE West Yorkshire

In line with our comments on policy SP5, we object to these site allocations:
NW7/H
NW8/H
NW9/H
NW10/H
NW13/H
NW19/H - Considering the recognition of the site’s parkland setting, in our view the site is unsuitable for development at sufficient density to constitute sustainable development, and it should not therefore be allocated

Object

Representation ID: 8142

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: CPRE West Yorkshire

We’ve not been able to visit the site ourselves but concerns have been brought to our attention by local groups in Addingham. In addition to the strategic level, we have noted these specific concerns which point to unsustainable outcomes from these allocations:

AD1/H - distance of the site from the village centre which is a deterrent to walking or cycling
AD3/H - not located near public transport
AD6/H - Only part of site within 400m of a bus stop with two services every hour; distance from the village centre will be a deterrent for walking and cycling

The sites proposed for Addingham, like many other sites across the district, are proposed to be built within green belt land and at a gross density as low as 16dpha on one site (AD7/H)

Object

Representation ID: 8143

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: CPRE West Yorkshire

We’ve not been able to visit the site ourselves but concerns have been brought to our attention by local groups in Addingham. In addition to the strategic level, we have noted these specific concerns which point to unsustainable outcomes from these allocations:

AD1/H - distance of the site from the village centre which is a deterrent to walking or cycling
AD3/H - not located near public transport
AD6/H - Only part of site within 400m of a bus stop with two services every hour; distance from the village centre will be a deterrent for walking and cycling

The sites proposed for Addingham, like many other sites across the district, are proposed to be built within green belt land and at a gross density as low as 16dpha on one site (AD7/H)

Object

Representation ID: 8144

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: CPRE West Yorkshire

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

QB1/H
QB4/H
QB5/H
QB6/H
QB8/H
QB9/H

Our recommended approach to density would mean that it should not be necessary for all of these sites to be allocated in order to meet the settlements development needs.

Object

Representation ID: 8145

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: CPRE West Yorkshire

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

QB1/H
QB4/H
QB5/H
QB6/H
QB8/H
QB9/H

Our recommended approach to density would mean that it should not be necessary for all of these sites to be allocated in order to meet the settlements development needs.

Object

Representation ID: 8146

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: CPRE West Yorkshire

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

QB1/H
QB4/H
QB5/H
QB6/H
QB8/H
QB9/H

Our recommended approach to density would mean that it should not be necessary for all of these sites to be allocated in order to meet the settlements development needs.

Object

Representation ID: 8147

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: CPRE West Yorkshire

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

QB1/H
QB4/H
QB5/H
QB6/H
QB8/H
QB9/H

Our recommended approach to density would mean that it should not be necessary for all of these sites to be allocated in order to meet the settlements development needs.

Object

Representation ID: 8148

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: CPRE West Yorkshire

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

QB1/H
QB4/H
QB5/H
QB6/H
QB8/H
QB9/H

Our recommended approach to density would mean that it should not be necessary for all of these sites to be allocated in order to meet the settlements development needs.

Object

Representation ID: 8149

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: 8150

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.