CC31/E - Prince's Way / One City Park

Object

Representation ID: 3457

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr C Duke

This valuable POS was apropriated ahead of consultation outcome - bias. The site contains open space components around city hall and urban back drop and has valuable mature trees on parts providing shade and green amenity whilst significant other mill sites or brownfield land which is NOT POS exists to used. The current use is consistent with the landscaping of City Park and would significantly detract by virtue of another high rise building from historic and environmental foot print of city hall and could be best achieved elsewere as per city park funding . The site belongS TO assett management and is likely part of their assett stripping strategy the site should therefore be given due regard on the basis of material planning constraints and objectives.

Object

Representation ID: 16539

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Muse Developments Ltd

Agent: WSP Indigo

Support for the preferred option allocation CC31/E but objection to the text relating to the access. The current access from Godwin St / Princess St should be promoted as the preferred vehicular access arrangement. The access preferred within the draft Local Plan from Hall Ings severely constrains the deliverability of the site and is therefore contrary to the NPPF.

Comment

Representation ID: 28802

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.

Support

Representation ID: 29109

Received: 29/03/2021

Respondent: Historic England

The site within the City Centre Conservation Area and close to Bradford Town Hall, a Grade I Listed Building. The site is also opposite the Bradford War Memorial, Victoria Memorial and Alhambra Theatre, all of which are Grade II Listed Buildings. The development of this area could harm elements which contribute to the significance of these designated heritage assets. The principle of allocating this site, for the nature and scale of
development set out in the APP, has therefore been recently established as part of the Local Development Plan for Bradford District. To safeguard these heritage assets, we would expect the Local Plan requirements for this site relating to the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment to, as a minimum, reflect those set out in the AAP. Consequently, we welcome that the Development Considerations and Constraints & opportunities identified for this site in the Draft Local Plan reflect those in the AAP. If there have been any significant changes to the sites circumstances since its allocation in the AAP that we are not aware of, or the development proposed is significantly different (e.g. in terms of land use, density, scale, developable area etc.), the Council should undertake a Heritage Impact Assessment of the site as part of the Evidence Base to the emerging Local Plan.