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

Support

Representation ID: 5422

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Arrowsmith Associates

Our client is supportive of policy SP3, in particularly the designation of Addingham as a Local Service Centre.

For the sake of clarity, sites which the plan allocates for development could be included within settlement boundaries. At present the policies map shows them being outside of settlement boundaries.

Support

Representation ID: 5425

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Arrowsmith Associates

Our client welcomes sensible adjustments to green belt boundaries where this is necessary, in particularly in relation to site AD7/H - Turner Lane/ Silsden Road, Addingham.

In light of the Council not having allocated enough housing land in the plan to satisfy the Government’s required 35% up lift in urban areas such as Bradford, it may be necessary for further green belt boundary adjustments.

Object

Representation ID: 5432

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Arrowsmith Associates

Whilst supportive of the aims of this policy, we note that the policies map shows sites which are allocated for development also being within the countryside designation. The aims of the plan in allocating such sites do not accord with the aims of policy EN6 and we advocate site allocations being removed from the countryside as defined by policy EN6.

Support

Representation ID: 5433

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Arrowsmith Associates

Our client is supportive of policy HO1.

Object

Representation ID: 5435

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Arrowsmith Associates

Housing Need and Requirement

Housing figures fail to meet the 35% uplift which the Government has applied to 20 of the biggest urban centres, including Bradford. As set out in the plan, that uplift would amount to an additional 10,728 homes and an annual average of 2,299/annum.

In failing to incorporate that uplift, the plan risks being found unsound when assessed against at least three of the tests of soundness:

a) Positively prepared – the plan fails to provide a strategy which seeks to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs in a manner consistent with Government policy.
b) Justified – the plan does not provide an appropriate strategy, the reasonable alternative of providing site allocations covering the uplift not having been adequately addressed before being dismissed.
d) Consistent with national policy – the plan as proposed is not consistent with national policy requiring a 35% uplift in Bradford District.

Support

Representation ID: 5444

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Arrowsmith Associates

Our client welcomes the allocation of this site for housing development.

We note that the site is well contained by field boundaries and mature trees along the boundaries. It is well related to the settlement of Addingham and well served by public transport and is adjacent to playing fields.

This site is available for development in the short term to meet the area’s housing requirements.