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

Object

Representation ID: 1912

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Burley Parish Council

3.10.6 The detail presented here should not be aspirational but should identify and deliver green infrastructure as mandatory.

Object

Representation ID: 1913

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Burley Parish Council

3.11.6 The HRA does not conclusively state that it is South Pennine Moors, rather than the North pennine Moors, that will suffer from the impact of development at Burley-in-Wharfedale, it merely states a ‘likelyhood’. Neither does the HRA exclude the possibility of functional links to the North Pennine Moors AONB. There is no consideration of a functional link between Burley-in-Wharfedale and the AONB, despite its proximity to the settlement. This needs consideration alongside the impact on the SPA/SAC, particularly given there is a river crossing regularly used by residents and visitors to reach the AONB for recreation.

Menston is roughly equidistant from the AONB and SPA/SAC, so similar considerations apply.

Object

Representation ID: 1914

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Burley Parish Council

BPC accepts that this is a good set of aspirational policies which the plan seeks to deliver, but regrets there is little evidence of fiscal or forward planning to support delivery.

Object

Representation ID: 1915

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Burley Parish Council

This is a good set of goals. However, BPC is eager to understand BDMC’s intentions to attract new business and new investment and solve a number of issues [See uploaded Burley Local Plan Response]. Please could BDMC indicate how you will address each of these and measure success or failure.

Object

Representation ID: 1916

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Burley Parish Council

BPC would agree that strengthening the integration of sustainable transporting new developments is essential to the delivery of the Local Plan. It is noted that BDMC suggests that development is unsustainable under the conditions at 4.8.2. Clearly this is an issue at Burley-in-Wharfedale and, no doubt, at other places across the District. There is a further disconnect in term of priorities [see response to Q118] that has been overlooked in the context of the Local Plan’s ‘sustainability’ objectives.

Object

Representation ID: 1917

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Burley Parish Council

BDMC have clearly identified all sites, including strategic sites, which are specified and allocated in S5 of the Plan. These are shown in Table 4.14.1 which appears to be incorrect. There is a discrepancy between two sets of data. Why is this and how does this affect the delivery of the housing supply?

Also, no sites other than those delivering >400 houses are scheduled to start delivery before 2027 at the earliest. Many of these sites are close to District and employment centres already adequately served by local infrastructure. This would seem to contradict 4.14.10 and 4.14.11, given it has been acknowledged that in Wharfedale at peak times the services already run at capacity and that upgrading should be considered. Once again BDMC’s policy is to deliver 500 homes in Burley-in-Wharfedale on green belt, rather than taking a brownfield first policy approach.

Object

Representation ID: 1918

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Burley Parish Council

BPC would agree that land use needs to be efficient in both city centre and rural settings. Revisions to increase the target minimum from 35 to 50 per hectare need careful consideration, but could assist in the delivery of affordable homes.

We would suggest that apartments could be part of the housing mix. Apart from being less expensive to build, apartments have a smaller total land footprint, are ideal for increasing housing density above the minimum 35 dwellings per hectare and, if built correctly, can support the BDMC’s Climate Emergency goals.

Object

Representation ID: 1919

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Burley Parish Council

Concerns at the approach adopted in respect of affordable housing policy have been expressed at Q4. In addition it is a surprise that despite a wealth of evidence in the Local Plan that should be used as input, it has clearly had little or no consideration e.g. looking at the suggested targets used in HO5, there are issues affecting the credibility of the figures in Zones 3 and 4.

Affordable home payment contributions by a developer can be made instead of delivering affordable housing on a development site. If BDMC have a genuine commitment to deliver affordable housing across the District, why is this even considered in the Local Plan? What is the justification or basis for this policy when affordable housing is needed in all areas of development?

Object

Representation ID: 1920

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Burley Parish Council

We expect to fully support adopting the potential Natural England National Green Infrastructure standards - with the proviso that we have not yet seen the mature documents. Residents of Burley-in-Wharfedale and the Wharfe valley highly value our green spaces and infrastructure. Our existing infrastructure has been invaluable during the CV19 pandemic, as residents have been able to take exercise locally in semi-rural and natural settings. Any new development must consider providing good access to green spaces and infrastructure. We would appreciate further support in building the Greenway link between our communities, which would provide a safe route for walking and cycling between our villages and towns. The broader and more holistic coverage of the Green Infrastructure Standards deserve inclusion in a policy to ensure that we meet the best standards possible - subject to regular review.

Object

Representation ID: 1921

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Burley Parish Council

We fully support a policy which protects, enhances, restores and expands biodiversity and geodiversity. We have a concern over existing flora and fauna being under threat from new development - especially on Green Belt. Compensation for loss of existing biodiversity and offsetting should [4.26.17] be a last resort. How do we qualify and quantify where we need to exercise this last resort? Compensation seems to be an easy approach for developers who might make large profits from Green Belt sites. How do we protect these sites now and in the future? Do we have examples of proposals for how compensation works well and produces good results for communities? How do we get properly independent assessments on impact of development? How do we decide and who decides that benefits of a development outweighs the importance of the biodiversity interest (G)? How will the council promote recommendations for household applications [4.26.12]?