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

Object

Representation ID: 29710

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Keyland Developments Ltd

Agent: Barton Wilmore

It is noted that the Policy seeks all new homes to meet the Nationally Described Space Standards (NDSS). The PPG is clear that NDSS can only be introduced into local planning policy where there is a clear and identified need to do so and that to do so would be viable. Whilst in principle our Client understands why the Council may seek to introduce NDSS, this must not be done on the basis of being an aspiration, they must be a clear and identified requirement to do so.

Similarly, the requirement for all new properties to meet Building Regulation M4(2) ‘accessible and adaptable dwellings’ and 5% of homes on major developments of 10 or more units meeting Building Regulations M4(3) ‘wheelchair user dwellings’ must be fully evidenced before being introduced to policy.

Object

Representation ID: 29711

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Keyland Developments Ltd

Agent: Barton Wilmore

Our client understands and agrees with the aspirations of the policy to protect and retain trees where possible. However, there are occasions where trees need to be removed to access development sites.

Part C of the policy proposed a presumption in favour of the retention and enhancement of trees, woodland and hedgerow cover – particularly those which contribute towards – the character of a settlement or its setting, or the amenity of the built-up area; an area’s sense of place or local distinctiveness; valued landscapes; biodiversity and wildlife habitats. Such an approach is not advocated within the NPPF and we would question the need for such a policy. The policy is flawed in that whilst a tree may hold some biodiversity value, its loss and replacement with other enhancements could lead to an overall gain and the policy does not allow for such consideration. This part of the policy is unnecessary as it is covered by Policy DS2 and should be deleted.

Object

Representation ID: 29712

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Keyland Developments Ltd

Agent: Barton Wilmore

The policy requires new residential developments to provide new open space on-site where possible or make a payment in-lieu of on-site provision.

To calculate the extent of on-site provision, the Council have included an Open Space Standard at Appendix 11, which sets out the expected level of existing provision per 1,000 of the population and the required maximum distance from residential property to each type of open space. It is then for the applicant to decipher the extent of open space that is required on each development factoring in local deficiencies and surpluses.

We would suggest it is incumbent on the Council to inform the applicant as to the type and level of open space that is required rather than it being the applicant’s responsibility.

A more suitable approach would be to set a set level of open space per dwelling as this gives clarity to applicants when considering development proposals.

As such, our Client objects to the proposals as currently drafted.

Support

Representation ID: 29713

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Keyland Developments Ltd

Agent: Barton Wilmore

As noted elsewhere within these representations our Client supports the allocation of site NE23/E as a proposed employment site given its strategic importance to the District. The landowner has demonstrated through the live planning application ref: 19/02504/MAF that the site is suitable, available and achievable and represents a deliverable site, that is sequentially preferable when considering land to be released from the Green Belt given it comprises of previously developed land.

Our Client fully supports the Council’s position that ‘exceptional circumstances’ have been demonstrated to warrant to release of land from the Green Belt to meet the Council’s employment needs.

The Council’s existing employment land supply is generally of poor quality and small in scale meaning that indigenous businesses wishing to scale up their operations may have to leave the District due to lack of choice in the market. The Esholt development is large in scale and offers a unique location in terms of site characteristics (flat topography; development platforms in situ; previously developed land; attractive landscape surrounds) and well as being highly sustainable due to the proximity of Apperley Bridge railway station, bus routes and the local road network.

The Esholt development is hugely important to the Council and it is essential that it is allocated in order for the Council to meet their employment targets over the plan period.

We note that the proposed allocation does not included the land which is currently being proposed for the vehicular access to serve NE23/E and we would advise that the boundary is revised to safeguard an area around the proposed access route, as without this, it could be argued that the land which his allocated is not achievable as there is no suitable access within the confines of the Site.

Comment

Representation ID: 29714

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Keyland Developments Ltd

Agent: Barton Wilmore

It is noted that the Council have prepared a Local Area Strategy and Plan for the Apperley Bridge/Esholt (Former Filter Beds – Waste Water Treatment Works) site (Sites NE22/E and NE23/E). Our Client owns site NE23/E but have no control over site NE22/E and the Council must note that no agreement is in place to develop these sites collectively and site NE22/E must demonstrate that it can be accessed and developed independently of our Clients site.

Object

Representation ID: 29715

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Keyland Developments Ltd

Agent: Barton Wilmore

Our Client does support the principle of setting out a Local Area Strategy and Plan for the site (NE23/E) as it indicates the strategic importance of the development.

However, we do have some concerns with the information set out within the strategy. It is noted that a plan is included which suggests indicative phasing of site NE23/E, and whilst it is similar to the phasing parameters plan submitted as part of planning application 19/02504/MAF, they do not align. Given that the Council have confirmed agreement in principle to the parameters put forward by the landowner, we would suggest that the Council revise the indicative phasing so that they align with the submitted and agreed parameters plan.

This is important because the Council then outline an indicative delivery timeline and whilst we would not dispute the timings, it is based on the indicative phasing set out within the Local Area Strategy rather than the phasing parameters plan mentioned above.

We would be concerned as to how the Council may view the inconsistencies between the application submission documents and the information in the Local Plan going forward and how the current and future applications may be impacted. We suggest that these elements of the Local Area Strategy need to be revised to ensure consistency moving forward. Indeed, given that the current application, if approved will be underpinned by parameters plans covering these matters, we would question whether they are required.

Object

Representation ID: 29716

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Keyland Developments Ltd

Agent: Barton Wilmore

As noted under our comments relating to Policy SP5, our Client objects to the Council’s decision not to allocate the residential element of the Esholt site / application for residential purposes (NE/053). It has been established that the Council can allocate land detached from the boundary of the Bradford North East sub-area i.e. sites NE22/E and NE23/E, so there is no procedural reason why they can not allocate the housing site.

The NPPF provides clear guidance on the approach Council’s should take when releasing land from the Green Belt, paragraph 138 states “where it has been concluded that it is necessary to release Green Belt land for development, plans should give first consideration to land which has been previously-developed and/or is well-served by public transport”. The guidance does not state that such sites have to be adjacent to existing settlement boundaries and it is presumed that this is intentional so not as to preclude suitable sites which are not adjacent to a settlement boundary.

Site NE/053 is a case in point. It does adjoin a settlement, but one which is not defined in the settlement hierarchy; however, it is previously developed and it well-served by public transport, being near to Apperley Bridge railway station. As such, the site is sequentially preferable to most Green Belt release sites which the Council are proposing.

In addition to this, the Council are fully aware of the exceptional level of design and sustainability that the development is proposing, and it is considered that this helps to further justify the sites release from the Green Belt as a proposed housing allocation. Ultimately, by allocating this site, it means that should the housing target remain as proposed by the Council, a small reduction in the amount of greenfield, Green Belt release could be achieved.