The adoption of this plan cannot come soon enough.
At least one planning application has been made for development on land identified by WYCA as part of a potential mass transit route. Approval of the application by the relevant district council (Leeds) would destroy the option for mass transit use, having potential implications for the wider system in future.
The application in question would block two of the three route options between Bradford and Leeds at Tyersal. The site sits within Leeds but is close to Bradford city centre. This is an example of a site which should be safeguarded now.
In Chapter One from Table 1: Application of jDPD policies:
Policy 7: Safeguarding Mass Transit would be ‘applicable upon confirmation of a preferred route option for individual Mass Transit routes’
There is an implication here that, prior to adoption of the jPDP and confirmation of a Preferred Route Option, that route option could already be blocked by development taking place in the meantime, having been approved by the relevant local council.
It is frustrating that the Statement of Intent (ref Chapter 2 para 2.5), was signed 5 years ago, some 3 or 4 years after early plans appeared, and it seems another 10 years will pass before anything much materialises.
There are good things in the SDF which, not before time, connects the planning of homes, regenerating brownfield sites, high density housing etc with transport including, crucially, Mass Transit.
Chapter 3: We support the principals set out in objectives SO1 – SO8 but there is urgency around SO8 and the safeguarding of potential transit routes.
3.13 ‘Relationship of the jDPD to adopted plans’ refers to the phased delivery of Mass Transit with identification of routes taking place at different times across the five LPA areas. Some of these routes should arguably be identified at an early stage to reduce the risk of development compromising them. Once this has happened, alternatives may not be available or viable.
We support the cross boundary approach set out in 4.16. Travel across regional boundaries is important, especially for those living close to these boundaries on either side. This is potentially an area of confusion and frustration for passengers iin such areas.
We strongly support Transit-oriented Development as set out in Chapter 5 and Policy 3.
In Criteria A of Policy 3 referring to optimising land use and site capacity, layout and built forms should not exclude building high in appropriate locations, making optimum use of site footprints, avoiding sprawl and minimising distances to transit stops and hubs. Shops, cafés and other amenities should be encouraged in the vicinity to create vibrant and safe areas for walking.
Such objectives are set out in more detail in the following Criteria B, C, D and E and we are in full agreement with these.
We note the governments stated position on encouraging developments close to railway stations, referred to in Chapter 5, are broadly in support of this, and of applying the same principal to mass transit.
The discussion around Reasonable Walking Distance, in Chapter 5, is interesting and it is right that this will vary according to location. We would suggest that this may also vary from day to day, with weather conditions playing a part. A short walk to an unsheltered bus stop one day might be replaced by a longer walk to a more sheltered facility on another, less clement day. There are many factors determining this and there will be blurred edges to what may be regarded as a cut-off point.
To summarise Chapter 5, it sets out policies and principals we feel have long been neglected and we share broadly the aspirations and principals represented here.
The Placemaking strategy set out in Chapter 6 is ambitious in that it could, in conjunction with principles in Policy 3, involve, in some cases, the effective rehabilitation of some degraded urban environments.
In Policy 4, we would agree with the principle of road space reallocation where appropriate and practical.
Paragraph 6.17 refers to attracting and retaining innovative businesses and a skilled workforce and the importance of liveability and good design in the built environment.
In addition, and importantly, good transport links are also a factor in graduate retention – graduates choosing to stay in an area following university, thereby contributing to that area’s economic and social wellbeing.
Chapter 9: Policy 7: Safeguarding Mass Transit Routes and Sites
We feel there should be, if only informal, an understanding in place before adoption of the jPDP and that safeguarding of all identified route options should be in place before confirmation of a preferred route.. All route options should be safeguarded once identified as such. Options for future additions to the system should also be safeguarded where identified.
In Chapter 10: Policy 8, the last paragraph states that LPAs should have regard to the anticipated phasing of Mass Transit delivery and that duties in the policy should be applied with a focus on avoiding prejudice to future delivery. This is also re-iterated in paragraph 10.18.
This is of great importance and we hope LPAs will adhere to this principal.