NE19/H - Land east of Harrogate Road, Greengates

Object

Representation ID: 2546

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Karolyn Whitley

Local resources insufficient. Spoils natural habitat. Noise pollution of build. Traffic conditions already dangerous and transport networks cannot cope.

Object

Representation ID: 2562

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Mr John Reed

These houses will overlook existing properties.
This area is suffering with too many new build areas. I am aware of the improvements to the main road junction, but if you keep approving more and more houses the improvements won’t make any impact. We also have deer in the fields on some days. Surely with all of the retail units becoming empty, new build properties should use all of the brown belt land available.

Object

Representation ID: 2582

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Nori Jagdev

It is part of greenbelt and it would destroy wild life area. This area is overcrowded and far too busy and is becoming a danger with high volumes of speeding traffic. With reference to the house building increase you jeopardise our health and wellbeing.
Concentrate on brown field areas for building.
Instead of increasing the number of housing in general, why not think of ideas on how to stabiles population growth.
We need more schools, Doctor / Dentist surgeries and local community centres etc

Object

Representation ID: 5491

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: CPRE West Yorkshire

In line with our comments on policy SP5, we object to this site allocation.

Support

Representation ID: 17160

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: The Norris & Holmes Families

Agent: Savills

We fully support Preferred Allocation NE/19

We would however like to clarify a number of points raised within the Site proformas.

1) We disagree that the development can only be accessed from the east. Access would be taken from Valley View Drive located within the new development situated to the south of the site.

2) Flooding / Sustainability Appraisal - all proposed residential dwellings will be located within Flood Zone 1 and there is potential for the site to provide improvements to the surface water flooding near the site.

3) The development will be sensitive to the conservation area woodland / environmental designations.

4) The sloping of the site - we have had a Topographical Survey commissioned to help us to understand site levels and inform the site access.

Delivery timescales we would consider the site is developable over the 0-5 year period

Comment

Representation ID: 28799

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.