NE4/H - Simpsons Green

Object

Representation ID: 8

Received: 08/02/2021

Respondent: Miss Kara Mallas

Concerns re. inclusion of SimpsonGreen NE4/H and it's impact on surface water runoff, the public amenity of the canal, and the local infrastructure.
Milman bridge & Apperley Lane are very congested, and dangerous for pedestrians, particularly on weekends. As one of the few wheelchair/pushchair accessible routes in the area, it is popular with families & those with limited mobility. Adding an additional junction to access this site would make an already congested stretch of road even more dangerous. Furthermore, an additional crossing over the canal would be required as currently the one crossing for pedestrians and traffic is not sufficient.

Object

Representation ID: 2329

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Dianne Green

Although this is not designated Green Belt it is a green field site and is a further encroachment on the green spaces in the area. This development along with other proposed schemes will also add significantly to the volume of traffic which is extremely high throughout this area. I note that certain junctions have been identified with regard to pollution but this doesnot paint the full picture of the impact on local residents and the schools.

Comment

Representation ID: 13586

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Canal & River Trust

The site is located on the non-towpath side of the Leeds & Liverpool Canal, owned and managed by the Trust.
The land is on a gradient that slopes down towards the canal. The construction of new buildings here could impose loading, that could impact the stability of this land, increasing the risk of land slip. To ensure that the Local Plan complies with the aims of paragraphs 178 (part a) from the National Planning Policy Framework, we advise that the development considerations should include the need for contextual information to demonstrate that the development will not result in land instability. Suggested text is provided below:
“Development will need to demonstrate that it will not impose adverse loading that could adversely impact land stability towards the canal”
At application stage, we advise that cross sections would be required to indicate the initial impact on slope stability. Further stability analyses may be required subject to the sections provided.
Our records also show that there is a culvert below the site, which also runs below the canal. We advise that consideration should be given towards ensuring that the development does not damage any underground watercourse here, as it could otherwise result in localised flooding.
The development considerations argue that mitigation is required to reduce the impact of development on the canal and listed building. We agree with this statement. The canal corridor is presently enhanced by existing vegetation on the bank where the development is proposed. We advise that any future development proposal should seek to retain these trees.
We note that the development considerations advise that design principles should be developed based on further investigation of contextual considerations, constraints, landscape, and an understanding of the canal side setting and heritage. Strengthening the established buffer between site and canal may well be the best approach. A landscape visual impact assessment would be required to recognise the value of the setting of canal, locks and make a reasoned evaluation and recommendations. Provisions for this could be included within the ‘Development Considerations’.
In line with the principles of paragraph 170 (part d) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), development on site should seek to minimise impacts on and provide for net gains to biodiversity. Given the vegetated nature of the site, there is a risk that development could harm biodiversity associated with the Green and Blue infrastructure along the canal. To ensure the Local Plan is effective and accords with the principles of the NPPF, we advise that the development considerations should require the provision of biodiversity assessments and enhancement strategies for the site.

Comment

Representation ID: 28784

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Environment Agency

Site in Flood Zone 1 ONLY - Close to canal.
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.

Object

Representation ID: 29027

Received: 25/05/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Liberal Democrats)

Number of people: 2

Site NE4/H :and adjacent to the canal off Apperley Road/Simpson Green should be removed from the allocation of housing. Particularly concerned about the impact on the heritage canal basin and properties.

Object

Representation ID: 29166

Received: 29/03/2021

Respondent: Historic England

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 undeveloped 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).