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

Object

Representation ID: 23667

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bankhead (Eldwick) Ltd

Agent: Johnson Mowat

Housing Need and Requirement

Our clients have concerns with the Draft Plan’s strategic approach to the overall housing requirement and the Council’s chosen approach of dismissing the Government requirement of a 35% uplift to the housing requirement (Policy SP8).

It is considered at the very least, the 35% uplift as required by the Government should be applied to the overall housing requirement, resulting in an annual requirement of 2,300 dwellings per annum, rather than the Council’s preferred approach of 1,704 dwellings per annum.

Further the housing requirement for Bingley and the District should be seen as a minimum so as to demonstrate a commitment from CBMDC to significantly boosting housing delivery over recent years.

Once Site BI4/H and Site BI8/H is ‘Allocated’ our client will be looking to submit a planning application almost immediately. In this context the Delivery Timescales should be amended to 0 – 5 years.

Object

Representation ID: 23668

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bankhead (Eldwick) Ltd

Agent: Johnson Mowat

Housing Distribution - Bingley

The Draft Local Plan significantly increases the urban focus by directing more development to Bradford City Centre. The Plan proposes 7,000 dwellings in the City Centre, a significant uplift from 3,500 in the Core Strategy, and 4,000 in the Draft CSPR.

The Council have therefore applied an urban focus uplift in terms of the distribution of development but without applying an uplift to the overall requirement. This results in a whole shift away from the distribution identified in the adopted Core Strategy, with disproportionate reductions to the majority of sustainable settlements and sub areas in the District, including Bingley.

Whilst the increase from 800 dwellings (CSPR) to 850 dwellings is welcomed it remains my client’s position that the overall requirement for the both Bingley and the District as a whole should be significant higher.

Additional material and suggested changes provided in submission document.

Furthermore, CBMDC identify the land at Sty Lane as making a significant contribution to the existing housing requirement over the plan period. There is considerable doubt as to its deliverability.

Support

Representation ID: 23669

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bankhead (Eldwick) Ltd

Agent: Johnson Mowat

Supports the inclusion of Site BI4/H (but note its separate objection to the non-identification of the remaining extent of Site BI4/H and Site BI8/H)

The site is well located within the Bingley sub area. Bingley is one of the Principle Towns.

The green belt site specific assessment concludes that BI4/H would have a moderate potential impact on the green belt. There are exceptional circumstances to justify the site's release for development.

In terms of heritage impacts our client is not advocating the complete development of land parcels where there would be ‘substantial harm’ or ‘less than substantial harm (unacceptable)’ to the Grade II Listed Prince of Wales Park.

The site is deliverable, there are no known viability issues and no environmental constraints associated with the site that cannot be dealt with via appropriate design.

The development would form a logical extension to Eldwick.

Support

Representation ID: 23670

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bankhead (Eldwick) Ltd

Agent: Johnson Mowat

Supports the inclusion of Site BI8/H (but note its separate objection to the non-identification of the remaining extent of Site BI4/H and Site BI8/H)

The site is well located within the Bingley sub area. Bingley is one of the Principle Towns.

We disagree with the green belt site specific assessment which concludes that BI8/H would have a major potential impact on the green belt. There are exceptional circumstances to justify the site's release for development.

In terms of heritage impacts our client is not advocating the complete development of land parcels where there would be ‘substantial harm’ or ‘less than substantial harm (unacceptable)’ to the Grade II Listed Prince of Wales Park.

The site is deliverable, there are no known viability issues and no environmental constraints associated with the site that cannot be dealt with via appropriate design.

The development would form a logical extension to Eldwick.

Object

Representation ID: 23671

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bankhead (Eldwick) Ltd

Agent: Johnson Mowat

Objects to the non-identification of the remaining extent of Site BI4/H (SLA BI/013).

The site is well located within the Bingley sub area. Bingley is one of the Principle Towns.

The Council clearly consider this site is suitable, in that part of the site is included for housing and the SLA does not reject the site. This site lies in a sustainable location, it is available and suitable and deliverable site.

The green belt site specific assessment concludes that BI4/H would have a moderate potential impact on the green belt. There are exceptional circumstances to justify the site's release for development.

Regarding heritage impact our client is not advocating the complete development of land parcels where there would be ‘substantial harm’ or ‘less than substantial harm (unacceptable)’ to the Grade II Listed Prince of Wales Park.

The site is deliverable, there are no known viability issues and no environmental constraints associated with the site that cannot be dealt with via appropriate design.

The development would form a logical extension to Eldwick.

Object

Representation ID: 23672

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bankhead (Eldwick) Ltd

Agent: Johnson Mowat

Objects to the non-identification of the remaining extent of Site BI8/H (SLA BI/059).

The site is well located within the Bingley sub area. Bingley is one of the Principle Towns.

The Council clearly consider this site is suitable, in that part of the site is included for housing and the SLA does not reject the site. This site lies in a sustainable location, it is available and suitable and deliverable site.

We disagree with the green belt site specific assessment which concludes that BI8/H would have a major potential impact on the green belt. There are exceptional circumstances to justify the site's release for development.

Regarding heritage impact our client is not advocating the complete development of land parcels where there would be ‘substantial harm’ or ‘less than substantial harm (unacceptable)’ to the Grade II Listed Prince of Wales Park.

The site is deliverable, there are no known viability issues and no environmental constraints associated with the site that cannot be dealt with via appropriate design.

The development would form a logical extension to Eldwick.