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

Object

Representation ID: 17692

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Bannister Investments Limited

Agent: ID Planning

Whilst we note the policy states the proposed mix is the starting point for negotiations, it is considered the proposed mix too prescriptive, particularly having regard to government drive to increase home ownership.
Required Change
The bullet points in part E of Policy HO5 should removed so that tenure mixes are considered on a site by site basis having regard to the SHMA or other up to date evidence.

Object

Representation ID: 17702

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Bannister Investments Limited

Agent: ID Planning

We generally support the provision of such technical standards. However, further evidence is required to justify the requirement as detailed in the policy.
There is no evidence to support the proposed threshold of 10 dwellings or 5% in relation to wheelchair user standards. Further information and evidence is required to justify these requirements.
There are specific costs associated with meeting these needs which could have viability implications for the delivery of housing. Paragraph 4.22.8 explains that the standards have been assessed as part of the whole plan viability and that site circumstances will be considered if the standards make the site unviable. The viability of meeting the requirements should be mentioned in the policy.
Part E of the policy refers to Nationally Described Space Standards being implemented. Further evidence from the Council is necessary to justify the need for internal space standards.
Required Change
The policy wording should be amended to provide flexibility and viability for future development.

Comment

Representation ID: 17703

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Bannister Investments Limited

Agent: ID Planning

Whilst the Regional City should be the main focus for housing delivery in the absence of the 35% uplift being applied the quantum of housing should be reduced to a more realistic level (60%) and additional houses should be distributed to Principal Towns, Local Growth Centres such as Burley in Wharfedale where there are not the deliverability constraints and where the delivery of additional houses in these settlements is realistic. This approach will ensure the housing requirement and the
plan is deliverable.

The proposed distribution to Burley in Wharfedale should be increased. Additional Green Belt releases should be made to allocate smaller sites in the settlement to provide choice and mix of sites to support delivery. Sites BU/005 and BU/014 would form a natural extension to the settlement, sitting well alongside existing residential dwellings. The allocation of additional sites will ensure the delivery of a mix of sites to provide market and affordable housing and support services and facilities in the settlement.

Object

Representation ID: 17704

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Bannister Investments Limited

Agent: ID Planning

We object to the rejection of sites BU/005 and BU/014 for housing allocations. We consider the sites should be allocated as part of a sustainable eastern extension to the Local Growth Centre of Burley in Wharfedale.
There are no known physical constraints that would prevent the development of these sites.

Object

Representation ID: 30061

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Bannister Investments Limited

Agent: ID Planning

Housing Distribution - City Centre / Burley in Wharfedale

• Object to the proposed distribution which puts too much reliance on the City Centre, particularly in the absence of the 35% uplift. The distribution should be more closely aligned to the baseline distribution for the sub areas with additional distribution to support Local Growth Centres and uplift in the city centre and urban areas via the 35% uplift.
• The proposed distribution to Burley in Wharfedale should be increased to recognise the sustainability of the centre and the distribution it can make to housing needs.