Respondent name
JFT & Sons
Responses
Respondent Type
Landowner/developer
Policy Name/Part of plan
GB1
Legally Compliant
No
Sound
No
Oral Examination
Yes
Why you consider the Draft Local Plan is not legally compliant or is unsound or fails to comply with the duty to co-operate

the emerging plan unsound because it is not justified and it is not consistent with national policy because it has not taken adequate account of reasonable alternatives and so the exceptional circumstances needed to release the proposed allocations from the green belt have not been demonstrated (it therefore conflicts with NPPF paragraph 141).

Modification if applicable

We again invite the Council?s meaningful engagement with us to carry forward the land at Kenyon Lane Junction (site ref. R18/P2/033) as a proposed allocation

Summary of comments

The site is a proposed allocation previous promoted by our client for redevelopment under LPA ref. R18/P2/033 in the original call for sites exercise in 2018. The site was not selected for allocation, but r in spite of re-drafting the local plan, its merits have not been reappraised either. As far we can tell, the Council has ruled out the site for both housing and employment allocations based solely on the October 2018/19 site assessment. However, since then, planning application refs 2018/33144 (Sept 2018) for B8/B2 and 2019/36189 (Feb 2020) for the B2 industrial use of the land have both been approved and implemented. In spite of the site?s current location in the green belt, it is clearly brownfield land already and it has been demonstrated that it is suitable, available and deliverable for future growth. The indicative capacity for new development is estimated as to up to 9,650 sq.m of Class E (g) (formerly Use Class B1); and B2 and B8 Class uses or a business park. NPPF Paragraph 141 requires that the Council must demonstrate that it has effectively evaluated and exhausted all alternative brownfield sites before finding that the ?exceptional circumstances? exist to release land from the green belt, particularly when releasing green field land. No updated assessment of R18/P2/033 has been completed in spite of my writing to the Council?s planning policy manager on 11th September 2020 asking for the Council engage with us on the local plan. The lack of an updated assessment of proposed site ref. R18/P2/033 demonstrates that the council has not discharged this policy burden. Moreover, there are also some inaccuracies in the original assessment of that warrant correction. the proposed allocation at Barley Castle Farm is a greenfield, green belt site. This site has been refused planning permission in July 2018 and both the appeal against refusal and the resubmission application (April 2019) were dismissed by the secretary of state as recently as 2nd November 2020. The council has failed to justify why the allocation of Barley Castle Farm is suitable, the council must be compelled to go back to its evidence base and look more closely at brownfield sites it has previously ruled out. I am involved in the Calderdale local plan hearings and exactly that step has been mandated by the Inspector at the Examination Hearings.

Respondent Type
Landowner/developer
Policy Name/Part of plan
DEV4
Legally Compliant
No
Sound
No
Oral Examination
Yes
Why you consider the Draft Local Plan is not legally compliant or is unsound or fails to comply with the duty to co-operate

the emerging plan unsound because it is not justified and it is not consistent with national policy because it has not taken adequate account of reasonable alternatives and so the exceptional circumstances needed to release the proposed allocations from the green belt have not been demonstrated (it therefore conflicts with NPPF paragraph 141).

Modification if applicable

We again invite the Council?s meaningful engagement with us to carry forward the land at Kenyon Lane Junction (site ref. R18/P2/033) as a proposed allocation

Summary of comments

The site is a proposed allocation previous promoted by our client for redevelopment under LPA ref. R18/P2/033 in the original call for sites exercise in 2018. The site was not selected for allocation, but r in spite of re-drafting the local plan, its merits have not been reappraised either. As far we can tell, the Council has ruled out the site for both housing and employment allocations based solely on the October 2018/19 site assessment. However, since then, planning application refs 2018/33144 (Sept 2018) for B8/B2 and 2019/36189 (Feb 2020) for the B2 industrial use of the land have both been approved and implemented. In spite of the site?s current location in the green belt, it is clearly brownfield land already and it has been demonstrated that it is suitable, available and deliverable for future growth. The indicative capacity for new development is estimated as to up to 9,650 sq.m of Class E (g) (formerly Use Class B1); and B2 and B8 Class uses or a business park. NPPF Paragraph 141 requires that the Council must demonstrate that it has effectively evaluated and exhausted all alternative brownfield sites before finding that the ?exceptional circumstances? exist to release land from the green belt, particularly when releasing green field land. No updated assessment of R18/P2/033 has been completed in spite of my writing to the Council?s planning policy manager on 11th September 2020 asking for the Council engage with us on the local plan. The lack of an updated assessment of proposed site ref. R18/P2/033 demonstrates that the council has not discharged this policy burden. Moreover, there are also some inaccuracies in the original assessment of that warrant correction. the proposed allocation at Barley Castle Farm is a greenfield, green belt site. This site has been refused planning permission in July 2018 and both the appeal against refusal and the resubmission application (April 2019) were dismissed by the secretary of state as recently as 2nd November 2020. The council has failed to justify why the allocation of Barley Castle Farm is suitable, the council must be compelled to go back to its evidence base and look more closely at brownfield sites it has previously ruled out. I am involved in the Calderdale local plan hearings and exactly that step has been mandated by the Inspector at the Examination Hearings.

Respondent Type
Landowner/developer
Policy Name/Part of plan
Omission Site
Legally Compliant
No
Sound
No
Oral Examination
Yes
Why you consider the Draft Local Plan is not legally compliant or is unsound or fails to comply with the duty to co-operate

the emerging plan unsound because it is not justified and it is not consistent with national policy because it has not taken adequate account of reasonable alternatives and so the exceptional circumstances needed to release the proposed allocations from the green belt have not been demonstrated (it therefore conflicts with NPPF paragraph 141).

Modification if applicable

We again invite the Council?s meaningful engagement with us to carry forward the land at Kenyon Lane Junction (site ref. R18/P2/033) as a proposed allocation

Summary of comments

The site is a proposed allocation previous promoted by our client for redevelopment under LPA ref. R18/P2/033 in the original call for sites exercise in 2018. The site was not selected for allocation, but r in spite of re-drafting the local plan, its merits have not been reappraised either. As far we can tell, the Council has ruled out the site for both housing and employment allocations based solely on the October 2018/19 site assessment. However, since then, planning application refs 2018/33144 (Sept 2018) for B8/B2 and 2019/36189 (Feb 2020) for the B2 industrial use of the land have both been approved and implemented. In spite of the site?s current location in the green belt, it is clearly brownfield land already and it has been demonstrated that it is suitable, available and deliverable for future growth. The indicative capacity for new development is estimated as to up to 9,650 sq.m of Class E (g) (formerly Use Class B1); and B2 and B8 Class uses or a business park. NPPF Paragraph 141 requires that the Council must demonstrate that it has effectively evaluated and exhausted all alternative brownfield sites before finding that the ?exceptional circumstances? exist to release land from the green belt, particularly when releasing green field land. No updated assessment of R18/P2/033 has been completed in spite of my writing to the Council?s planning policy manager on 11th September 2020 asking for the Council engage with us on the local plan. The lack of an updated assessment of proposed site ref. R18/P2/033 demonstrates that the council has not discharged this policy burden. Moreover, there are also some inaccuracies in the original assessment of that warrant correction. the proposed allocation at Barley Castle Farm is a greenfield, green belt site. This site has been refused planning permission in July 2018 and both the appeal against refusal and the resubmission application (April 2019) were dismissed by the secretary of state as recently as 2nd November 2020. The council has failed to justify why the allocation of Barley Castle Farm is suitable, the council must be compelled to go back to its evidence base and look more closely at brownfield sites it has previously ruled out. I am involved in the Calderdale local plan hearings and exactly that step has been mandated by the Inspector at the Examination Hearings.