SE42/E - Staithgate Lane South

Support

Representation ID: 984

Received: 08/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Labour)

Ward Councillors fully support this site

Object

Representation ID: 4714

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Judy Woods Save our Heritage

This site formes an important Green Corridor and when taken in conjunction with SE40/E and SE42/E and when taken in conjunction with existing housing presents significant Environmental Impact to Odsal Woods a Deciduous semi ancient woodland (Odsal Wood) immediately north-west of site.

The infrastructure and Highway is limited by geographical constraints and it is unclear whether the site access will necessitate structural attention to crossing the Bowling Tunnel or through existing residential area with all of the impact considered in an EIA Screen Constraints and Opportunities

The site is a landfill location and a significant proportion of the site is within a landfill buffer . Significant Constraints are associated with landfill to ensure Environmental Regulations are complied with .

Object

Representation ID: 4724

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr C Duke

Objection to the allocation of this site for employment use raising issues including relating to EIA screening and scoping, combined impacts with other sites, to its position within the outer HSE zone, to site access, obstructed access, Bowling railway tunnel, former mining and landfill, surface water / water bodies. Reference is made to a range of environmental impacts including on water quality, on a green corridor, on nearby heritage assets, on priority wildlife habitats, on locally designated nature sites, on deciduous woodland, on open space. Other brownfield site are said to be available.

Comment

Representation ID: 28948

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.