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

Comment

Representation ID: 24287

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

This is a steep sided area and will affect the local landscape character in Steeton. I think this is more over development for the village.

Comment

Representation ID: 24288

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

Outline permission has already been given.

Comment

Representation ID: 24289

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

This is a steep sided area and will affect the local landscape character. I think this is more over development for the village.

Comment

Representation ID: 24904

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

There seems to be a slightly foggy definition of ‘Baildon’ involved here. It is appreciated that Metropolitan District Council boundaries do not align precisely with the Township/Parish boundaries, but some parts of ‘lower Baildon’ seem to have been removed from consideration for housing without clear rationale for doing so.

Object

Representation ID: 24905

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

Noted that, in addition to the unacceptably heavy weighting in Baildon to the use of Green Belt sites, there are no brownfield sites considered.

Within the time frame of the Local Plan there is one such ‘previously developed’ site omitted from consideration. It is not currently available, but will be, in all probability, before 2023 target date for submission/adoption of the Plan.

Ian Clough Hall (will become ‘previously developed’ on demolition) - is scheduled for demolition, with large part of the site (approximately 0.4ha, excepting the lower level car park area).

Potential for approximately 40 units on site of 0.4ha (1.0 acre). Would be an achievable target on the relevant portion of the site footprint.

Object

Representation ID: 24906

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

Only one aspect of this proposal carries a ‘minor positive’ effect and that effect is wholly ‘socio-economic, i.e. that the profile of housing envisaged at a density of 26 units/ha is likely to produce properties with values providing a better than average contribution to the Metropolitan District’s Tax Base. The site is regarded as having a ‘moderate impact for urban sprawl and would have a ‘major impact on openness’. It would actually, quite patently, have a major impact on that urban sprawl.

The presence of water courses, rising water table and ‘stressed’ soakaways down the adjacent sloping hillside, have already had some significant impacts on other already developed housing sites off West Lane. Significant development will risk further serious detrimental effects.

Object

Representation ID: 24907

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

The site, immediately adjacent to BA2/H with the same indicative density (26 units/ha), has exactly the same adverse indicators as for BA2/H. Development of both these sites would move the position from deeply undesirable to an unacceptably shocking degradation of the local Green Belt, with very major detrimental growth of urban sprawl, together with further exacerbation of the drainage factors mentioned.

Object

Representation ID: 24908

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

Even with a very low housing unit density indicated (just under 19units/ha), this is a clearly undesirable proposal, with even the report citing ‘high potential for urban sprawl and a ‘major impact on openness’. Given the almost standard commentary with regard to ‘sustainability’, I find it difficult to conceive of what might be considered a ‘not sustainable’ site if this one doesn’t qualify for that description. Access and already heavily compromised road infrastructure is relevant here and there is no realistic opportunity for improved public transport. This is a poor and ill-considered proposal.

Object

Representation ID: 24909

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

Even if we discount any portions of this site falling within Flood Zones 2 and 3a and reduce the area for development to the 85% of the site lying within Flood Zone 1, the remaining 1.05ha is only planned to produce a unit density of 29 per ha. Of all the sites under discussion for Baildon, this is the best (or least worst!) one which could, objectively, provide for ‘medium density affordable housing’. Densities of 26, 26 and 19 units per hectare respectively, included in the Draft Plan at the 3 Green Belt sites already discussed in this submission, would be likely to produce precisely zero contribution to any conceivably sensible definition of ‘affordable’. This site would appear to be more suitable for somewhat higher density of affordable homes.

Object

Representation ID: 25551

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

Strongly object to 4 proposed sites.

97% is to be built on Green Belt. Goes again sustainability criteria seeking to “Minimises the use of Green Belt land”.

Would lead to urban sprawl, leading to lack of defined spaces between settlements/developments.

Access to IL3/H would exacerbate issues around Valley Drive/Wheatley Lane junction

Wheatley Grove is unsuitable for higher traffic levels.
Flooding is a serious issue. Will be exacerbated by development.

Infrastructure issues are not addressed.

Likely to create more pressure on sewage system.
Potential increase in students needing to attend secondary school. Ilkley Grammar School is at capacity. No site identified for expansion.

Middleton brownfield site (identified by NYCC for development) would add extra housing to the Ilkley area. Not considered by the plan.

Plan does not benefit Ilkley residents. Town has suffered over-development. Building more houses will add to existing infrastructure issues (parking, flooding, school places).

Look to develop suitable brownfield sites elsewhere in the District.