QB8/H - Long Lane

Object

Representation ID: 677

Received: 03/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jenny Butterworth

I strongly object to the developments on Long Lane. My reasons are that the housing would be built on green belt land. You say that you want to avoid using green belt land but 7 of the 8 proposed sites are green belt. This area has already had many new housing developments, all of which are accessed via Long Lane. There is too much vehicular traffic on Long Lane as it is, and many of the new houses here have 2 or 3 vehicles each. There are many pedestrians, cyclists, dog walkers, children and joggers. The pavements are very narrow and non existent in places. This is a dangerous narrow road and we regularly have motorists speeding along it. Further along the road it narrows to a single lane, winding round a blind bend with no pavement at all. There is also no provision for infrastructure, such as doctor's, etc.

Object

Representation ID: 2082

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Retailing

Not enough parking on recent developments and the existence of several road junctions close together with parked vehicles is causing reduced visibility and road space which is already making this area dangerous for road users. Further developments with yet more junctions will only add to this.

Object

Representation ID: 2416

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Antony Dove

In recent years housing developments have taken place to both the north and south sides of Long Lane. These have led to an increase of traffic along Long Lane and an increase in illegal street parking on junctions and pavements making exit from properties at Lower Hazelhurst increasingly dangerous. Photos can be supplied. Allowing building on this field will further exacerbate the problem.
This field is part of the Upper Shibden Valley Green Belt and contains a well-used footpath. Building in this field would be to the detriment of the overall quality of the Upper Shibden Valley as a local outdoor amenity.

Object

Representation ID: 2419

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Stuart Browne

There have been significant developments in the long lane area in recent years and this has taken its toll on the road and surrounding area. Long lane is not a large road and is not designed for the high levels of traffic that already use it on a daily basis.
With a large high school in close proximity the traffic numbers around school times are heightened further. This area is already used as ‘rat run’ for people to avoid the traffic lights in Queensbury and the bottle neck at the top of Deanstones lane, surely more housing would exacerbate this further.
There are many brownfield sites in Bradford that need to be regenerated which would help with housing numbers and also improve the more run down areas of the city greatly. To be considering developing areas such as long lane because the construction is ‘easier’ is hugely irresponsible.

Object

Representation ID: 3906

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Keith Wevill

As with my comments on QB9/H, the map shown is inaccurate as it doesn't show the recent development of 140 homes on the old quarry site on Long Lane.
Long Lane has problems with traffic using it as a Rat Run. Additional housing, from this proposal and QB9/H, will generate more traffic resulting in greater traffic delays. With more houses this development could cause greater traffic problems.
There is the environmental issue as fields act as "soak" areas for water reducing the risk if flooding further down the valley. Housing on the field would increase the risk of flooding elsewhere.
There is also the question of can the infrastructure, drainage, water supply, electricity supply etc cope with the additional housing. If we are to be forced into using electric cars can the electricity supply in the area cope with the additional loads of hundreds of cars being charged.

Object

Representation ID: 4132

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Ian Nicholson

Long Lane is not suitable for additional traffic to what already exists. The road is already a rat run for traffic cutting the Queensbury cross out. Peoples safety needs to be taken into account. Local schools are already full and Queensbury has only one GP's practice after the other one relocated out of the area. The local bus service (576) is unreliable. Long lane has already had a number of housing developments completed over the last ten years. We do not need more housing off, or adjacent too Long Lane.

Support

Representation ID: 4184

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Heath Ackroyd

Kids frequently are breaking into barns and causing damage, dog walkers leave their mess in the field edge. Litter is thrown into the field from Long Lane. The field has buildings on three of the 4 edges. Put the area back into use.

Object

Representation ID: 4631

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

This is a Green Belt site and although the number of houses is small, the impact on the valley below would be significant.

Long Lane is narrow for its entirety, particularly travelling towards Hazel Hurst Road and there are already calls for it to be made one-way. The road is congested by parked cars going towards the junction with Deanstones Lane and there’s a large Secondary Academy, multiple sports pitches and small industrial/office development within meters of this Junction. This area has seen recent development without supporting highway improvements on Long Lane and the road is already overwhelmed.

Object

Representation ID: 5644

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

This is a Green Belt site and although the number of houses is small, the impact on the valley below would be significant.
Long Lane is narrow for its entirety, particularly travelling towards Hazel Hurst Road and there are already calls for it to be made one-way. The road is congested by parked cars going towards the junction with Deanstones Lane and there’s a large Secondary Academy, multiple sports pitches and small industrial/office development within meters of this Junction. This area has seen recent development without supporting highway improvements on Long Lane and the road is already overwhelmed

Object

Representation ID: 8147

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: CPRE West Yorkshire

In line with our comments on policy SP5, we object to these site allocations:

QB1/H
QB4/H
QB5/H
QB6/H
QB8/H
QB9/H

Our recommended approach to density would mean that it should not be necessary for all of these sites to be allocated in order to meet the settlements development needs.

Comment

Representation ID: 28775

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Environment Agency

Site in Flood Zone 1 ONLY
Mitigation should be set above the 1 in 100 plus cc level for the site as suitable for the proposed vulnerability classification (EA standing advice should cover this).

If the site is considered Greenfield then surface water discharge rates post development should be restricted to the pre development Greenfield discharge rate. If the site is considered Brownfield then there should be a 30% reduction in surface water discharges, or restricted to Greenfield rates, there should be no increase in brownfield surface water discharge rates post development. So as to support prevention of cumulative increases to flood risk and should be in line with SuDs design principles.

For developments near ordinary watercourses we would recommend an 8 metre easement strip along the length of the riverbank, or a 45degree angle from the bed in the case of culverts, to be kept clear of permanent structures such as buildings. This is to maintain access to the riverbank for any improvements or maintenance. A Flood Defence Consent may be required for the LLFA for works in/affecting an ordinary watercourse.

For main rivers, we generally require an 8 metre easement strip along the length of the riverbank to be kept clear of permanent structures such as buildings, or a 45degree angle from the bed in the case of culverts. This is to maintain access to the riverbank for any improvements or maintenance. Environmental Flood Risk Activity Permits may be required for development near rivers.

It is possible the sites within close proximity to Flood Zones 3b, 3 and 2 may be subject to future risk identified within the SFRA (to follow) which may affect its allocation or how development should be sequentially laid out on the site.

Consideration must be made to making space for water and providing betterment in terms of flood risk management where ever possible.