Object

Representation ID: 28496

Received: 25/02/2021

Respondent: Dr Ros Brown

Sustainability Assessment(s) – significant inaccuracies between reports which misrepresent this beautiful and much used site:- E.g. IL1/H Site Proforma and IL/009 in the SA report - not accurately assessed and should b e removed from PO.

-No GB exceptional circumstances
-The level of habitat, landscape character and surface water flood risk/drainage mitigation plus the need for replacement of an area of open space of high visual amenity and biodiversity and tree cover with compensatory Green Belt enhancement and a new area to replace that which would be unnecessarily destroyed in order to achieve a development with limited accessibility to local services and a need to depend on cars begs the question as to why this site has been included.

Inaccuracies and points to address in SA for the site:
7. The negative impact of housing development on the high visual amenity of this area has been underestimated and should be seen as a major negative.

8. Ben Rhydding Drive has listed buildings/ heritage assets.

9 - References ‘new employment premises’ (?) yet 130 residential dwellings proposed with associated air pollution within the SSSI Risk Zone (above)

10 –Ben Rhydding Drive is a private not an access road therefore access required via narrow/poor sight lines Wheatley Grove/Wheatley Lane junction increasing the hazards to this junction (which would need re-modelling). It would also direct more traffic up Wheatley Grove round to the narrow/poor sight lines junction with High Wheatleyand then on to the blind corner junction of High Wheatley/Ben Rhydding Road. This increase in car traffic would endanger walkers and cyclists and therefore not supporting national and local active travel policies. The Wheatley Grove access increases the distance from rail station and no frequent buses this is a major negative with a declining baseline.

11 –Building at 18dpha does not meet the density requirements meaning this development, or one of any increased density does not represent a significant enough contribution to Bradford’s housing numbers and tenure mix to warrant the negative impact of destroying the functionality of this site within a SSSI Impact Risk Zone. This is a major negative.

12 – The distance from accessible services does not support the Local Plans ’15 Minute Neighbourhood approach’

13 – Overstretched infrastructure and services. This is a major negative.

16 – The area is in regular use and benefits local residents - would have a major negative impact on the wellbeing of existing residents and PROW users due to destruction of natural habitats.

17 – Both the local primary and secondary school are beyond the target distances.

19 – The history and scale of the proposed development show construction is likely to be by a larger developer not smaller local builders. The level of disruption and extra construction traffic could also be a negative for local businesses therefore suggesting a positive/negative effect.