Local Plan notes for those wishing to respond

History at Sun Lane, the case.

The Sun Lane case acts as a prominent example of how the Green Belt “Very Special Circumstances” (VSC) threshold is interpreted in the High Court and by planning inspectors.

1. The Weight of “Dire” Housing Under-Supply: The case cements the principle that an acute, persistent failure by a local authority to meet housing delivery targets can form the primary foundation of VSC to breach the Green Belt.
2. Deficient Decision-Making Standards: It serves as a warning to the executive branch that if the Secretary of State disagrees with an Inspector’s expert findings, they must provide robust, logically coherent, and legally airtight planning reasons to do so—otherwise, the decision will fail a High Court challenge.
3. The Totality of VSC Benefits: The combination of affordable housing delivery (30%), a dedicated educational facility, and a lack of alternative non-Green Belt delivery options can collectively outweigh the preservation of open countryside.

The site has since been progressed by David Wilson Homes, who secured subsequent detailed reserved matters approvals to construct the development.

Further detail on Bradford’s planning portal, reference number 16/07870/MAO

Regulation 19 responses.

Having considered the content of Regulation 19, as set out in the public brief, it’s unacceptable for the public to comment on what is essentially targeted toward developers. The planning system is supposed to build trust with the public, Regulation 19 documentation is an example of how not to do things.

As a brown field property investor, there was initial confusion about the topics covered in the documentation. I spotted an issue following notes on several planning applications not yet in the public domain. This may affect proposals in my own ward (Wharfedale) but will undoubtedly affect proposals listed throughout the plan, on which the Local Planning Authority expect public engagement and informed feedback.

I’ll use site H119 as an example, accompanied by extracts from the Regulation 19 Local plan. In addition, I’ve included an extract from what I believe to be true. The documentation to which I refer is detailed on pages 1323 to 1324, and 1334 which appear as follow, –

What the public eye will see.

At a first glance, the proposal appears to deliver 100 homes. That’s the only information that the public are likely to see; minimums will be overlooked, see https://www.bradford.gov.uk/media/6298/session-3-housing-policies.pdf for further information.

The public are likely to comment on the above, when contained lower down in documentation on a different page we have,-

Note: Housing density is noted in the site specific requirements paragraph. It is stated at 35dph to comply with Policy HO2. A quick calculation yields 35 dph x 18.81 hectare, circa 658 homes, however, as developers need to deliver green space and site boundaries, retain trees and some hedges, build internal roads, etc, it would not be unreasonable to, at least, half this figure.

The fact remains that I had overlooked this fact in a first and second reading despite having some knowledge of what’s likely to be the outcome. This is not an isolated occurance, H383, H385, and H577 (H577 already approved – application number 24/04950/MAO, 65 homes) are presented in the same fashion.

I know that planning applications will come forward during the approval process of Regulation 19, but where facts are known, these should be included in outgoing Regulation 19 communications for comment.

The 5-year land housing supply penalty.

Councils are legally required to demonstrate a clear 5-year supply of deliverable housing land. If they fall short, the planning scales tip heavily in favour of developers, triggering alternative land release options like the Grey Belt.

The Grey Belt is a designation created to bridge the gap between strictly protected green fields and developed urban brownfield sites. It is officially defined as land within the designated Green Belt that comprises previously developed land (brownfield) and/or land that does not strongly contribute to the Green Belt’s core purposes.

Bradford’s Land Housing Supply.

Recent planning committee reports and statements from council officers indicate that the housing land supply for the district sits at approximately 2 to 2.08 years, falling significantly short of the 5-year requirement set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

The lack of a 5-year land supply and failure to meet government housing delivery thresholds has heavily influenced recent planning decisions, leading to approvals for residential schemes on sites previously protected or classified under emerging grey belt criteria. This bypasses the previous high bar set in “Very Special Circumstances” rule, diluted to new “Golden Rules” which provides the loophole which developers now exploit. This revision to national planning policy is far less prescriptive to very special circumstances and allows developers to more easily ‘game’ the planning system.

The “Golden Rules” for Major Development.

Landowners and developers cannot just build anything on the Grey Belt. To get permission for major housing projects, they must meet ‘strict‘ criteria:

• Affordable Housing: A minimum target of 50% affordable housing (with a floor requirement to provide at least 15% above the existing local policy target), currently set at 30% in Wharfedale.
• Infrastructure: Developers must fund or provide necessary local or national infrastructure (e.g., schools, GP surgeries, transport).
• Green Space: Projects must deliver new or vastly improved public green spaces.

It’s laughable that new or vastly improved green spaces can be delivered by building on the Green Belt, using a small section of the built on site.

Biodiversity.

To give you some context here, the site at Otley Road, Menston, dfoes not provide a 10% gain in biodiversity, and yet it has been approved for delivery. If net biodiversity gains are not being met, gains or credits may be bought elsewhere in West Yorkshire or elsewhere in the UK. Remember, applications should not be determined unless these issues are addressed by the applicant, see Section 99 of ODPM Circular 06/2005.

There’s huge amounts of information that can be used if plans come forward. There are, –

• Biodiversity and traffic impact studies at Sun Lane. AONB, SPA/SAC arrangements.
• Views, desk studies and dates for biodiversity metrics for species.
• What’s on the Red list for wildlife.

Infrastructure need, is the area really a sustainable location?

• Focus on secondary schools in the area, they all over capacity. New building at IGS is not to accommodate more pupils, it’s an upgrade to replace older buildings.
• Station parking – lack of parking causing on street issues (Burley, Menston & Ben Rhydding).
• Local facilities are all noted in NPPF, Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Core Strategy, RUDP. plus case history at Sun Lane.
• Cumulative development impact, applications are dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
• Buses, no connectivity to Bradford. This situation will not change under new franchising arrangements being introduced at the WYCA.
• Access arrangements for site H119. There’s no access to this site from Leatherbank or Greenholme Mills (both private roads). This would suggest an new roundabout on the A65.

These are my initial thoughts on the Local Plan (Regulation 19) for those wishing to comment. I will publish my own feedback after close of the consultation, not before.

Infrastructure need, are areas really sustainable locations?

• Focus on secondary schools in the area are all already over capacity.
• Building at IGS is not to accommodate more pupils, it’s an upgrade to replace older buildings.
• Station parking – lack of parking causing on street issues (Burley, Menston & Ben Rhydding)
• Local facilities, noted in NPPF, T & C Planning Act 1990, Core Strategy, RUDP. Case history at Sun Lane.
• Cumulative development impact, applications are dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
• Buses, no connectivity to Bradford. This situation will not change under franchising arrangements being implemented at the WYCA.
• Access arrangements – A65 Roundabout, no access from Greenholme Mills or Leatherbank.

Overarching policies.

• Golden Rules.
• 5-year Land Housing supply.
• Sustainability.