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

Object

Representation ID: 8161

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: CPRE West Yorkshire

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

KY2/H
KY7/H
KY15/H
KY35/H
KY36/H
KY40/H

Object

Representation ID: 8162

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: CPRE West Yorkshire

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

KY2/H
KY7/H
KY15/H
KY35/H
KY36/H
KY40/H

Object

Representation ID: 8163

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: CPRE West Yorkshire

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

BI3/H
BI4/H
BI8/H

Object

Representation ID: 8164

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: CPRE West Yorkshire

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

BI3/H
BI4/H
BI8/H

Object

Representation ID: 8165

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: CPRE West Yorkshire

We’ve not been able to visit this site (BA5/H) ourselves but it has been brought to our attention based on the concerns from local groups. In addition to our comments on SP5, we would object to this site allocation. The site BA5/H has been identified to be highly accessible to services and within sustainable transport modes, specifically Baildon train station at 800m walk away. However, the site is located adjacent to a TPO tree and an area of TPO woodland. Removing this part of the green belt which has a large potential for landscape impact, is of concern, and developing low density housing on it would be a very unsustainable outcome for the site.

In line with our comments on policy SP5, we also object to the following site allocations:

BA2/H
BA6/H

Object

Representation ID: 8166

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: CPRE West Yorkshire

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

SW5/H
SW6/H
SW10/H
SW18/H
SW22/H
SW33/H

In particular, site SW33/H appears to be proposed for extremely low development density, which is unsustainable in any location and not compatible with the strategy. Our position is that sites that are not suitable for policy-compliant densities should not be allocated, irrespective of whether they are brownfield, greenfield or Green Belt.

Object

Representation ID: 8167

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: CPRE West Yorkshire

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

SW5/H
SW6/H
SW10/H
SW18/H
SW22/H
SW33/H

In particular, site SW33/H appears to be proposed for extremely low development density, which is unsustainable in any location and not compatible with the strategy. Our position is that sites that are not suitable for policy-compliant densities should not be allocated, irrespective of whether they are brownfield, greenfield or Green Belt.

Object

Representation ID: 8168

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: CPRE West Yorkshire

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

SW5/H
SW6/H
SW10/H
SW18/H
SW22/H
SW33/H

In particular, site SW33/H appears to be proposed for extremely low development density, which is unsustainable in any location and not compatible with the strategy. Our position is that sites that are not suitable for policy-compliant densities should not be allocated, irrespective of whether they are brownfield, greenfield or Green Belt.

Object

Representation ID: 8169

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: CPRE West Yorkshire

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

SW5/H
SW6/H
SW10/H
SW18/H
SW22/H
SW33/H

In particular, site SW33/H appears to be proposed for extremely low development density, which is unsustainable in any location and not compatible with the strategy. Our position is that sites that are not suitable for policy-compliant densities should not be allocated, irrespective of whether they are brownfield, greenfield or Green Belt.

Object

Representation ID: 8170

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: CPRE West Yorkshire

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

SW5/H
SW6/H
SW10/H
SW18/H
SW22/H
SW33/H

In particular, site SW33/H appears to be proposed for extremely low development density, which is unsustainable in any location and not compatible with the strategy. Our position is that sites that are not suitable for policy-compliant densities should not be allocated, irrespective of whether they are brownfield, greenfield or Green Belt.