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

Object

Representation ID: 24884

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: CEG Land Promotions Ltd

Agent: Lichfields

Housing Need and Requirement

It is therefore concluded that CBMDC’s failure to plan for the full local housing need figure (i.e. 2,300 homes per year) is likely to result in any future Local Plan Examination Inspector concluding that the Local Plan should not be adopted. To avoid this, the next version of the Local Plan should be planning to accommodate the Local Housing Need figure including the 35% uplift, i.e. 2,300 dwellings per year. The latter figure should inform the housing requirement figure, which also needs to take account of the Local Plan's economic growth
policies.

Policy SP8 and other related housing policies should be updated accordingly.

Support

Representation ID: 24885

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: CEG Land Promotions Ltd

Agent: Lichfields

The articulation of a broad settlement hierarchy is supported in order to establish a sustainable pattern of growth and development across the district. Burley-in-Wharfedale’s continued designation as a local growth centre as set out in Policies SP2: Spatial Priorities and SP3: Hierarchy of Settlements is also supported. Such an approach is consistent with the approach set out in the adopted Core Strategy, where Burley-in-Wharfedale’s designation as a Local Growth Centre was subject to examination and deemed to be sound.

Support

Representation ID: 24886

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: CEG Land Promotions Ltd

Agent: Lichfields

The articulation of a broad settlement hierarchy is supported in order to establish a sustainable pattern of growth and development across the district. Burley-in-Wharfedale’s continued designation as a local growth centre as set out in Policies SP2: Spatial Priorities and SP3: Hierarchy of Settlements is also supported. Such an approach is consistent with the approach set out in the adopted Core Strategy, where Burley-in-Wharfedale’s designation as a Local Growth Centre was subject to examination and deemed to be sound.

Support

Representation ID: 24887

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: CEG Land Promotions Ltd

Agent: Lichfields

CEG welcomes and fully supports the identification of the site to the west of Burley-in Wharfedale (SLA:BU/001) as a preferred allocation for housing under site reference BU1/H: Sun Lane / Ilkley Road.

The allocation of the site is both a logical and an inevitable outcome of the fact that the Council has consistently supported its proposed development for 500 homes, a school and associated community facilities (application reference 16/07870/MAO).
Following a resolution by CBMDC to grant planning permission in line with Officers’ recommendations, the planning application was subject to a call-in inquiry held in May 2019, and planning permission ultimately granted in by the Secretary of State on 3rd March 2021.

The draft allocation, supporting text and evidence base relevant to site BU1/H: Sun Lane/Ilkley Road has been referred to and appended to the representations at Appendix 2. The Secretary of State’s decision and the accompanying Inspector’s Report to which much of this assessment cross-refers is included at Appendix 3.

Comment

Representation ID: 24888

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: CEG Land Promotions Ltd

Agent: Lichfields

The Proposed Site Allocation Map identifies site BU1/H: Sun Lane/Ilkley Road as a preferred housing allocation and of course is supported. However, the Site Allocations Map has a residual notation, indicating the site as being washed over by Green Belt. It is also displayed the same way in the separate ‘Local Area Strategy and Plan’ for Burley-in-Wharfedale set out below paragraph 5.16.32 of the main part of the draft local plan. This must be a cartographical error, as Policy SP5 (and associated accompanying text) of the draft plan relating to Green Belt is clear insofar as it identifies exceptional circumstances as required by paragraph 137 of the NPPF to remove land from the Green Belt, with part B of Policy SP5 listing the specific sites that should be released. This list includes site BU1/H.

Accordingly both the Site Allocation Map and the separate Local Area Strategy and Plan for Burley-in-Wharfedale should be amended, such that it depicts the site removed from the Green Belt consistent with Policy SP5 and to solely indicate its allocation for housing.

Comment

Representation ID: 24890

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: CEG Land Promotions Ltd

Agent: Lichfields

Paragraph 5.16.20 acknowledges that Burley-in-Wharfedale is heavily constrained by Green Belt with no practical brownfield or non-Green Belt growth options available or identified, and that it has been necessary to make changes to the adopted Green Belt in order to deliver the target for new homes. This conclusion is clearly supported by the facts and indeed the review of the alternative sites undertaken as part of the common ground agreed between CEG and CBMDC at the Inquiry, as well as the more recent Bradford Strategic Land Assessment 2021. Accordingly, paragraph 5.16.20 should be updated to refer to the “significant contribution” from Green Belt land required in order to meet the housing requirement for Burley-in-Wharfedale. This would reflect the position reached in Policy WD1 of the adopted Core Strategy.

Paragraph 5.16.20 refers to site BU1/H having planning approval, but it being subject to call-in and re-determination by the Secretary of State. In light of the decision made by the Secretary of State on 3rd March to approve the planning application, the latter part of the sentence should be deleted so that the final part of the paragraph simply reads as follows: “….This includes the large site at Sun Lane (BU1/H) to the West of the settlement. This site has planning permission (16/07870/MAO)”

By way of observation, rather than objection, Paragraph 5.16.30 refers to the wide range of community facilities present in Burley-in-Wharfedale, including post offices and a leisure centre and swimming pool. This is incorrect as the settlement is served by a single post
office facility, and there is neither a swimming pool nor leisure centre. This text should therefore be corrected to reflect this.

Comment

Representation ID: 24891

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: CEG Land Promotions Ltd

Agent: Lichfields

Whilst the allocation of BU1/H is fully supported, it is noted that the text within the pro-forma is inconsistent with the position reached by the Council in supporting the planning application and the extensive areas of common ground reached between CEG and CBMDC. They should be reviewed.
SEE ATTACHMENT FOR FURTHER DETAILS

On the basis that planning permission has been granted by the Secretary of State for up to 500 homes, and indeed Table A at paragraph 5.6.13 identifies the site as being allocated for 500 homes, there is no justification for the conclusion/summary section of the proforma to identify the site as delivering between 250 and 500 homes. It should simply refer to 500 homes, consistent with the other parts of the plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 24892

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: CEG Land Promotions Ltd

Agent: Lichfields

CEG are surprised that land at Scalebor House, Moor Lane is proposed as a preferred housing allocation under Policy SP5, site reference BU2/H and identified as having the potential to deliver 110 houses over the plan period.

The conclusions reached in identifying the site as a preferred allocation are wholly contrary to the position agreed with CBMDC in the consideration of this site as part of the evidence to the call-in Inquiry into the proposals by CEG at Sun Lane/Ilkley Road.

The Alternative Site Assessment (2016) and Updated Alternative Site Assessment (April 2019), as agreed in full by CBMDC (and thus the Council's position to the Inspector and Secretary of State), concluded the following in respect of the Scalebor site:
1 The site is unsuitable in Green Belt terms on the basis that it breaches the railway line, which provides a strong and defensible boundary to Burley-in-Wharfedale, and would conflict with the purposes of including land within it by creating sprawl and encroachment into the countryside.
2 The site is unsuitable in highways terms on the basis that no suitable access can be delivered due to the private status of Highlands access road, poor visibility along Moor Lane, and a lack of viable alternative access options.
3 That the site is undeliverable on the basis that the site is subject to a restrictive covenant, imposed by the Secretary of State, preventing use of the land in question for anything other than grazing land. The restrictive covenant can only be lifted with the consent of numerous and multiple landowners, being the Secretary of State and multiple residents of the
neighbouring Scalebor Park development.

Comment

Representation ID: 24895

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: CEG Land Promotions Ltd

Agent: Lichfields

Section C2 of the policy relates to such evidence that may be reasonably required to demonstrate whether land proposed for development affects foraging habitat for qualifying species of the SPA. The policy should therefore allow for evidence to demonstrate that SPA birds are not present on the land in question, rather than simply protecting a particular habitat type, in order to ensure that the policy correctly reflects the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended). The text of policy C2 should be updated to read:

‘2. In Zone B it will be considered, based on such evidence as may be reasonably required, whether land proposed for development affects foraging habitat <DEL: for qualifying species of the> <INSERT: used by SPA birds>. Further guidance can be found in the South Pennine Moors SPD.’

In the interests of clarity it is requested that Section D of the policy, which cross-refers to the South Pennine Moors SPD, makes reference to the specific part of the policy to which it applies (on the basis that SP11 C 3 b relates to a calculated financial contribution, rather than bespoke mitigation provided pursuant to SP11 C 3 a) as follows:
D. The South Pennine Moors SPD sets out a strategic mitigation scheme and a mechanism for the calculation of the financial contributions <INSERT: under policy SP11, C, 3b> to mitigate recreational impacts on the SPA and SAC as a consequence of housing growth and subsequent population increases.

These amendments will also ensure that reference to the provision of new recreational greenspace, or improved open space, as having the potential to mitigate recreational pressure on the SPA/SAC as referred to in Policy CO1 is consistent with the provision of Policy SP11 and the accompanying SPD

Comment

Representation ID: 24896

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: CEG Land Promotions Ltd

Agent: Lichfields

Recommendations to clarify this policy:
1 In order to provide certainty the Wildlife Habitat Network mentioned in the table within Section A should be defined on the policies map.
2 Section B incorrectly refers to ‘functionally linked land’ as if it were part of the SPA in that it applies the likely significant effect test to functionally linked land. The correct test is whether the effects on functionally linked land will have a likely significant effect upon the SPA, not the functionally linked land. In order to be compliant with Habitat Regulations the text within the bracket – (or land functionally linked to the SPA) – must be deleted. The final paragraph of Section B further perpetuates this error and should be deleted in order to comply with the Habitats Regulations, 2017 (as amended). Section B is linked to Policy SP11. The proposed changes suggested for SP11 will modify the application of Section B of the policy.
3 Section C: There is no legal requirement for impacts upon SSSI to be assessed ‘in combination with other developments’ and this reference should be removed as it does not reflect the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Similarly there is no legal requirement to assess ‘broader impacts on the national network of SSSIs.’ The use of the phrase ‘at this site’ is ambiguous and should be removed.
4 Section D: The Wildlife Habitat Network needs to be defined in order to provide certainty for decision making. The policy does not allow sufficiently flexibility for mitigation and compensatory measures and should be reworded to reflect this.
5 Section I should not reference the Environment Bill, because there is no certainty as to the Bill’s final form or content.
6 Section J: There is no legal requirement to provide Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) within a development site as a matter of priority, nor is there any legal requirement for the need to justify why gain cannot be delivered on site. The policy should be reworded to allow for
offsite mitigation in all cases. There is also no legal requirement to provide BNG compensation ‘a preference for those in the immediate vicinity’ and this should also be removed.
7 Section K substantially repeats the previous sections and should be removed.
8 Section M is unclear and ambiguously worded. BNG is a tool for securing gain in biodiversity not ‘well-being’. It is also not clear how this policy will be implemented in
practice.
9 Section N: Ecological surveys should be carried out in manner that is also proportionate to the ecological features present on the site, not just the type and scale of the development.