Local Development Framework
Update 15 April 2014
The Local Development Framework (LDF) Core Strategy public consultation was concluded on Monday 31st March 2014 by which time Menston Parish Council had made their representations in the prescribed form which are detailed below. Copies of these representations are also accessible at www.bradford.gov.uk/LDF. Shortly for your information we shall have copies available in the library.
The next stage in the consultation process will be Bradford Council’s review of the over 600 representations received with revised proposals expected to be presented to the Secretary of State for examination probably in the summer of 2014. In parallel work will commence on the
Allocations Document which identifies suitable sites to support the Core Strategy.
With reference to our representations we have requested access to the Inspector in most instances in order to give evidence of a local character to support our concerns.
The Parish Council representations primarily address the lack of infrastructure improvements to support any housing growth in Wharfedale, particularly with relevance to Menston. Additionally several representations deal with district wide issues that question the whole basis of the Core Strategy both on economic and infrastructure improvements grounds which undermine projected housing forecasts.
Menston Parish Council Representations (MPR) are available below:
| MPR no|| Core Strategy Ref||Subject of Representation|
| || Policy|| Section|| Para|
| 1 || SC1|| 3|| New||Lack of clarity on funding infrastructure|
|2 ||SC3||3||B1||Lack of local evidence of consultation with Leeds|
|3||SC5||3||B3||Concern about relevance to real access of communities|
|4||WD1||4.3||New||Lack of targets for Wharfedale infrastructure changes|
|5||WD1||4.3||4.3.2/3||Quality of proposed housing within Menston|
|6||WD1||4.3||B||House numbers growth within Menston|
|7||WD1||4.3||C||Questioning economic growth forecast for Wharfedale|
|8||WD1||4.3||D||No mention of protection for farmland about Menston|
|9||WD1||4.3||E||Lack of real improvements for local transport links|
|10||WD2||4.3||All||Secondary Education issues|
|11||EC2||5.1||1st||Concerns on District Employment growth forecasts|
|12||TR2||5.2||All||Parking policies fail to deal with Menston's problems|
|13||HO4||5.3||6||Phasing of new housing with infrastructure improvements|
|14||HO5||5.3||A||Housing Density issues|
|15||HO8||5.3||D||Concern new housing types ignore local needs|
|16||HO11||5.3||B||Affordable Housing concerns|
|17||HO11||5.3||D||Questioning Affordable Housing tenure mix|
|18||EN1||5.4||C||Lack of open space, recreation grounds and allotments|
|20||EN2||5.4||C||Inadequate vetting of Protected Species Surveys|
|21||EN7||5.4||C||Concern on inadequate protection from flooding|
|22||WM1||5.6||3||Waste Management concerns|
Peter Ward 15/4/14
PRINCIPAL CHANGES FROM THE CORE STRATEGY PROPOSALS OF 2011 Bradford Region
The planned housing growth to 2030 (previously 2028) is now reduced from 45500 to 42000 or 2470 increase a year. The housing site availability has been increased from 44000 to 54000 mainly due to newly identified sites, which includes 19000 in the Green Belt of which 11000 are included in the current proposals. In the 2010 proposals green field development (some will not be in Green Belt) supported 22530 new properties.
The job creation in the GVA Report of 2011 was 27000 over the period or approximately 1600 per year. We questioned in our response to this report how this level of job creation, much of which was comparatively low paid, could finance the building of 2470 new properties a year. Without explanation the job creation annual rate has now increased from 1600 to 2897 per year. This obviously needs understanding; it is a critical figure as housing growth should be driven by and supported from the new jobs growth in the area. Curiously the area allocated for new employment remains similar at 135 hectares.
In the new proposals there has been a sharp reduction in the projected increased housing for the region:-
Menston 900 > 400
Burley 500 > 200
Ilkley 1300 > 800
Addingham 400 > 200
Total 3100 > 1600
The principal reason given is that all these areas have been recognised as part of the habitats supporting birds, which seemingly place restrictions on new developments. I have not yet read the paper supporting this conclusion, which I believe has EU input, but it is available on the website details below.
This undoubtedly will be challenged by the developers but I speculate that additionally this level of housing has been pitched at a level that may avoid material changes to our roads, rail and school infrastructure which so far, aside from costs, has resisted convincing and practical solutions.
You may well question whether these numbers for Menston includes the 300+ houses for Derry Hill and Bingley Road. All I can say is that it certainly did in the original 900 houses of the 2010 proposal and the planning permission given on these sites post dated the work done on these proposals so their status in these numbers probably remains unchanged. In support for this Menston has now lost its growth centre status and is now a local services centre.
Affordable housing rates in the valley have also been reduced from 40% to 30%.
Areas allocated for employment in the valley now total 5 hectares whereas if my memory serves me properly it was previously 10 hectares.
The complete LDF proposals are on the Bradford website at www. Bradford.gov.uk/LDF- then Development Plan Documents, then Core Strategy.
Peter Ward 28/11/13