NE22/E - Walkhill Farm, Apperley Lane

Object

Representation ID: 2320

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Dianne Green

I question the building of sites for employment given the number of empty employment sites around the area and the city that already exist. This is yet another green open space that will be taken away from the area. Why isn't the council making better use of its available resources or re-purposing them? This is particularly relevant given the effects of the pandemic and how businesses will be operating now they know they do not need the same spaces to operate from.

Support

Representation ID: 17119

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Caddick Developments Ltd

Agent: DPP Planning

We support the allocation of sites NE22/E and NE23/E and agree with the indicative site areas and capacities.

We also support the assessment that NE22/E provides an opportunity to strengthen access links between the road network, railway station, and NE23/E and therefore is of strategic importance to the region.

We would suggest that a better form of development would be achieved if an element of class C3 residential development was included in the allocation.

Object

Representation ID: 18078

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Harworth Group & Nufarm UK Ltd

Agent: Johnson Mowat

At 31.55 ha representing 45% of the total employment land supply, the ‘Esholt Strategic Employment Area (SEA)’ is disproportionate to the overall distribution of employment land, the nature/sector of the uses indicated, and the suitability of the location for large numbers of HGV movements.

The SEA is located approximately 10km from the motorway network (M606)

Site NE23/E currently subject to a planning application does not therefore require an allocation to deliver employment development of an appropriate nature.

There is no justification for the allocation of site NE22/E (4.94 ha) other than its location between site NE23/E and the A658 Harrogate Road.

Sites NE22/E and NE23/E do not serve to meet the demand from occupier businesses and inward investors for employment development sites that are located close to the motorway network.

Draft Policy EC1 part D should be omitted (i.e. to omit sites NE22/E and NE23/E as employment allocations) and the proposals map amended accordingly.

Comment

Representation ID: 28778

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.

Comment

Representation ID: 29021

Received: 25/05/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Liberal Democrats)

Number of people: 2

Site presents a major opportunity to deal with the threat from climate change and pollution of seas/waterways.

It is the largest/most important site in the Plan. It goes some way to outlining what future generations can expect but is not detailed enough or linked through to existing green spaces/waterways to give residents confidence in the benefit of the outcomes.

Development framework reads more like an advertising specification than how it will make a real contribution to the planet’s health, reducing global warming and technical innovation required to ensure nothing from sewerage waste enters the river or atmosphere. Challenging to be more specific however Council must do more to ensure this is what it will achieve.

Schedule of works shows building starting this year without detailed masterplan being available. This must address visual aspect of development. Extensive tree canopy providing visual amenity must be protected.

There is some housing proposed with significant environmental benefits. Providing developers develop the scheme to the standards stated then we are supportive.

Comment

Representation ID: 29024

Received: 25/05/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Liberal Democrats)

Number of people: 2

This site sits at the entrance to the Strategic Employment Site at Esholt. It can only be brought forward for development if it forms part of the overall master-plan, has an enhanced plan for environmental improvements and enhances the setting of the listed property. This has the potential to be a significant gateway site.

Object

Representation ID: 29163

Received: 29/03/2021

Respondent: Historic England

In order to demonstrate that the allocation of this area is not incompatible with the requirements of the NPPF, as part of the Evidence Base underpinning the Plan there needs to be an assessment of what contribution this area makes to those elements which contribute to the significance of these heritage assets and what effect the loss of this site and its subsequent development
might have upon their significance.

Before allocating this site for development:
(1) An assessment needs to be undertaken of the contribution which this site makes to those elements which contribute towards the significance of the
Conservation Area and Listed Buildings in its vicinity, and what impact the loss of this site and its subsequent development might have upon their significance.
(2) If it is considered that the development of this site would harm elements which contribute to the significance of the Conservation Area and Listed Buildings,
then the measures by which that harm might be removed or reduced need to be effectively tied into the Plan.
(3) If, at the end of the process, it is concluded that the development would still be likely to harm elements which
contribute to the significance of the Conservation Area and any of these Listed Buildings, then this site should not be allocated unless there are clear public
benefits that outweigh the harm (as is required by NPPF, Paragraph 195 or 196).

Comment

Representation ID: 29671

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Leeds City Council

Other key sites the plan proposes to allocate will result in encroaching into the green belt: NE22 and NE23/E – Apperley Bridge/Esholt.

These sites have an ongoing planning application on them which Leeds City Council are in dialogue on through the planning application consultation process, raising issues on impact on greenbelt, air quality, traffic impacts, etc) and we wish these discussions to continue through that process and also through the duty to cooperate, where appropriate.

Comment

Representation ID: 29714

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Keyland Developments Ltd

Agent: Barton Wilmore

It is noted that the Council have prepared a Local Area Strategy and Plan for the Apperley Bridge/Esholt (Former Filter Beds – Waste Water Treatment Works) site (Sites NE22/E and NE23/E). Our Client owns site NE23/E but have no control over site NE22/E and the Council must note that no agreement is in place to develop these sites collectively and site NE22/E must demonstrate that it can be accessed and developed independently of our Clients site.