Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021
Search representations
Results for CPRE West Yorkshire search
New searchObject
Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021
ST4/H - Rear of Holly Fold
Representation ID: 8171
Received: 24/03/2021
Respondent: CPRE West Yorkshire
We’ve not been able to visit this site (ST1/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 gross density of the dwellings at ST1/H is much lower than we advocate, and is likely to achieve well below the HO2 minimum of 35 dpha net. As stated in the council’s report, 19% of the site is in 3b flood zones which causes concern for proposed development on this land.
In line with our comments on policy SP5, we also object to the site allocation, ST4/H.
Object
Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021
SE37/E - North of Westgate Hill and West of Tong Lane
Representation ID: 8172
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 South East Bradford. In addition to the strategic level, we have identified the following sites which we believe to have an impact on the local area:
▪ SE37/E
▪ SE47/H
▪ SE46/H
Object
Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021
SE47/H - Westgate Hill Street, Tong Lane, Holme Wood
Representation ID: 8173
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 South East Bradford. In addition to the strategic level, we have identified the following sites which we believe to have an impact on the local area:
▪ SE37/E
▪ SE47/H
▪ SE46/H
Object
Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021
SE46/H - Land west of Tong Lane and east of Holme Wood
Representation ID: 8174
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 South East Bradford. In addition to the strategic level, we have identified the following sites which we believe to have an impact on the local area:
▪ SE37/E
▪ SE47/H
▪ SE46/H
Object
Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021
SE31/H - Land west of Ned Lane, Holme Wood
Representation ID: 8175
Received: 24/03/2021
Respondent: CPRE West Yorkshire
In 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
Object
Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021
SE18/H - Ned Lane, Holme Wood
Representation ID: 8176
Received: 24/03/2021
Respondent: CPRE West Yorkshire
In 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
Object
Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021
SE13/H - Ned Lane, Holme Wood
Representation ID: 8177
Received: 24/03/2021
Respondent: CPRE West Yorkshire
In 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
Object
Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021
IL1/H - Ben Rhydding Drive, Wheatley Grove
Representation ID: 8178
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 Ilkley. In addition to the strategic level, we have identified the following sites which we believe to have an impact on the local area:
▪ IL1/H
▪ IL2/H
▪ IL3/H
As stated in our objection comments on policy SP5, proposed development within the Green Belt across the district shows a net density averaging around 26 dpha, well below the HO2 minimum of 35 dpha. These sites identified in Ilkley are lower still, with gross densities of 18.11, 16.95 and 20.92.
We also note that IL4/H, while not in the Green Belt, is also the subject of significant local concerns especially about flood risk.
We would suggest that the development needs of Ilkley need to be re-examined from the perspective of producing more compact development at significantly increased density, thereby improving walkability, having much-reduced landtake and allowing for real enhancements to green infrastructure and flood management.
Object
Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021
IL2/H - Skipton Road east
Representation ID: 8179
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 Ilkley. In addition to the strategic level, we have identified the following sites which we believe to have an impact on the local area:
▪ IL1/H
▪ IL2/H
▪ IL3/H
As stated in our objection comments on policy SP5, proposed development within the Green Belt across the district shows a net density averaging around 26 dpha, well below the HO2 minimum of 35 dpha. These sites identified in Ilkley are lower still, with gross densities of 18.11, 16.95 and 20.92.
We also note that IL4/H, while not in the Green Belt, is also the subject of significant local concerns especially about flood risk.
We would suggest that the development needs of Ilkley need to be re-examined from the perspective of producing more compact development at significantly increased density, thereby improving walkability, having much-reduced landtake and allowing for real enhancements to green infrastructure and flood management.
Object
Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021
IL3/H - Coutances Way
Representation ID: 8180
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 Ilkley. In addition to the strategic level, we have identified the following sites which we believe to have an impact on the local area:
▪ IL1/H
▪ IL2/H
▪ IL3/H
As stated in our objection comments on policy SP5, proposed development within the Green Belt across the district shows a net density averaging around 26 dpha, well below the HO2 minimum of 35 dpha. These sites identified in Ilkley are lower still, with gross densities of 18.11, 16.95 and 20.92.
We also note that IL4/H, while not in the Green Belt, is also the subject of significant local concerns especially about flood risk.
We would suggest that the development needs of Ilkley need to be re-examined from the perspective of producing more compact development at significantly increased density, thereby improving walkability, having much-reduced landtake and allowing for real enhancements to green infrastructure and flood management.