Frequently Asked Questions
Is there any point in objecting as it's a 'done deal' and the Council are not in a position to decline approval for fear of onerous cost implications?
Yes, there is every point in objecting (see valid objections below). The Council will not incur developers costs. The Planning Panel must act responsibly and make their decision based on valid planning criteria. On that basis they can accept or reject the outline planning application. If they reject it the developers do have the right of appeal (we do not) but only if the Planning Panel acted irresponsibly in rejecting the application without valid criteria would costs be awarded against them.
Where should I send my objection?
Objections should be submitted in writing to:
Planning Service, 3rd Floor, Jacob's Well, Bradford BD1 5RW
or emailed to:
or made via the Council's website:
in all cases quoting Application Number (see below) and stating your name and address. Representations without this information will not be valid.
The application number for the Current Application is 11/01203/MAO
What are invalid objections?
The following is a list of objections which are sometimes raised but which are not formally recognised by planning panels:
- the perceived loss of property value
- private disputes between neighbours
- the loss of a view
- the impact of construction work or competition between firms
- restrictive covenants
- ownership disputes over right of way
What are valid objections?
The following is a list of the main issues. Any or all of these can be included in your letter of objection and you are able to send in additional letters if you feel you wish to raise another issue. As new issues arise we will post them here and we will be creating Microsoft Word templates that you can download or you can cut and paste from below. It helps if you use your own words to begin and end your letter and to alter our list below into your own words.
- the development of the site for housing is not necessary to meet current housing requirements.
- the traffic generation from up to some 400 dwellings (plus potentially an additional 26 dwellings on adjacent site Ref S/H2.10) cannot satisfactorily be accommodated in the local highway network.
- a 2-lane swing bridge of the stated dimensions cannot satisfactorily serve a site of this size. Queuing and disruption on both bridge approaches will be the result of:
- inadequate bridge carriageway width (4.8m compared with a standard width of 5.5m)
- mechanical breakdowns
- plannned maintenance
- boat passage (approx 15 openings per day in season)
- the development will cause irreparable harm to the attractive landscape and visual character of the area.
- the development will cause irreparable harm to the archaeology and cultural heritage of the locality.
- the upheaval caused by significant civil engineering works and the lengthy building programme is environmentally unacceptable.
- the it has not been satisfactorily determined that there is sufficient capacity in the existing sewerage system to cope with the additional foul drainage discharge.
- the site is not readily accessible by public transport.
- The visibility at the junction of Oakwood Drive and lady lane is in adequate and substandard as required by the Manual for Streets recommendations.
- The design of the part-time signals proposed at Oakwood Drive/Lady Lane is inherently flawed from a safety aspect i.e. restricted footway facilities and an increased level of exposure resulting in consequential accidents/collisions involving pedestrians.
- Oakwood Drive is designed for a maximum of 200 dwellings (as demonstrated by the applicant’s additional 22 units). It is NOT suitable for the traffic that will be generated by an additional 400+ dwellings (plus the existing traffic from Airedale Mills and Micklethwaite), even in an emergency situation.