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

Support

Representation ID: 5985

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: SHMS

Needs to be accelerated

Support

Representation ID: 5987

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: SHMS

Further funding and support is needed to support

Support

Representation ID: 5988

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: SHMS

Support [for policy as set out in the SPA] but policy should be further enhanced in hindsight should have been much stronger. Damage done by fires, vehicles and ramblers during Covid from urban area unfamiliar with need to protect habitats and ecology of the area.
Regulations - Protection of habits also links into climate change and pollution, activities experienced by farmers during the pandemic highlight more work is needed both with the Conservation of Habitats and species Amendment (EU exit) Regulations 2019 which should also link in with the Environment Bill and flood prevention measures (natural wetlands). A pro active approach rather than re-active when ecologically important species have been lost Which is particular important to rural areas in the Bradford District.
Zone approach - Support but question whether this is working in practice, any mitigation appears to come along after development. Also have noticed issues with some ecology reports not being comprehensive enough, being picked up by council officers. Would question the practicality of not providing car parking identified in table 1 below. In addition several uncontrolled parking areas (rough ground) are common throughout the district This causes problems for enforcement and waste issues.
CIL is not delivering the funding forecasted. However consider any development in the 0-7km zone should be a last resort after development in towns and city on pdl sites. Concern that the headroom(profit margin) identified in the CIL viability appraisal and consultation, will allow for an additional S106 cost and developers could seek to overide this in a site specific viability appraisal. Any needed funding for mitigation should be provided up front or in early stages of development to ensure mitigation measures are delivered in a timely manner (e.g. before specific site occupations) Also suggests developers are encouraged to contribute by incorporation of defensive hedgerows in preference to close boarding fencing, protect and supplement existing trees (1 fruit per garden minimum)

Object

Representation ID: 5989

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: SHMS

Lack of local resources