CC2/H - Former Bee Hive Mills, Smith Street

Comment

Representation ID: 28806

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Environment Agency

Flood Zones 2, 3 and the current/draft 3b/3a(i) within site boundary.

There is to be no development with the 3b/3a(i) extent unless considered water compatible or essential infrastructure. Where this is the case the development must demonstrate no increase in risk to others, no loss of Functional Floodplain and suitable mitigation measures for use and the lifetime of the development.

Development on site should follow a sequential layout so as to prevent unnecessary development within Flood Zones 3b, 3 and 2 wherever possible. 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. Some SuDs principles such as storage ponds should not be solely relied upon within areas at risk of fluvial flooding as they may not be operational during a flood.

Development must be shown to be safe for the lifetime of the development. See the Adept Guidance of Access and Egress plans. Hazard ratings may need to be assessed as part of the proposal.

Mitigation such a proofing measures and raised Finished Floor Levels, must be set above the 1 in 100 plus Climate Change level for the site. Current Guidance is on .gov.

The applicant must ensure there is no increase in risk to others for the lifetime of the development (including climate change). Where on Greenfield sites compensatory storage must be actively sought.

Consideration must be made to making space for water and providing betterment in terms of flood risk management where ever possible. For development 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 likely these sites are going to show changes/increases in flood risk as a result of climate change.

The SFRA (to follow) is going to consider future flooding including future Functional Floodplain this may identify sites at more future risk than others which may affect its allocation or how development should be sequentially laid out on the site.

Support

Representation ID: 29118

Received: 29/03/2021

Respondent: Historic England

The Goitside Conservation Area is included on the Heritage at Risk register. The development of this area could harm elements which contribute to the significance of this designated heritage asset. 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.
In order 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 broadly reflect those in the AAP, taking account of the change in the site boundary.

Comment

Representation ID: 29936

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Harworth Group PLC

Agent: Rob Moore

A significant proportion of the city centre sites carry risk and if relied upon Bradford may not be able to deliver the quantum of housing envisaged. Our summary assessment of these sites is set out below (Table 1 – Savills City Centre Housing Supply Site Assessment):

CC2/H - Multiple applications in 2005 and 2007 failed to deliver development. Undeveloped for housing through last property cycle. Existing leaseholders. No clear evidence site is viable.