SE4/H - Spen View Lane/Shetcliffe Lane, Bierley

Object

Representation ID: 4737

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Judy Woods Save our Heritage

Cluster of listed buildings within the centre and western edge of the site and further analysis is required on heritage impact.
• The site has some drainage issues in part and evidence of potential surface water flooding along eastern edge.
• Small area within the north west of the site within high risk former mining activities area with further investigation required.

Object

Representation ID: 4950

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Green Party of England & Wales

My principle objection is linked to Lockwood Farm.
This is a greenfield site with poor transport links - road and public transport based. Nothing in the local plan addresses how the infrastructure in the area would cope with additional houses and why a greenfield site is being allocated before brownfield - infill sites which are more sustainable.
I would also ask for SE/008 to be reconsidered as it is poor quality green land that attracts unsocial behaviour and fly tipping whilst proving limited community benefit. Including sites like this would reduce demands on greenbelt allocations in Holmewood.

This is green field site and there has not been sufficient examination of brownfield sites in the area to justify it's inclusion in the plan at this stage.

Object

Representation ID: 4989

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Green Party of England & Wales

This is green field site and there has not been sufficient examination of brownfield sites in the area to justify it's inclusion in the plan at this stage.

Support

Representation ID: 17124

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Countryside Properties Yorkshire

Agent: DPP Planning

The Site would constitute a logical continuation of the existing policy position for the site as safeguarded land in the RUDP.

As the RUDP was adopted in 2005, it is now considered that the housing needs within the District have increased and justifies the need to allocate the Site rather than retain it as safeguarded land.

We agree that the Site is ideally suited for housing as it is located adjacent existing built development with good access to public transport, schools, employment, cultural/amenity spaces, and health facilities.

There would be no significant adverse effects of the Site being developed. The Council assessment of the Site refers to a number of issues and opportunities including the listed buildings on the Site, some drainage matters, and a small area to the northwest which lies within the high-risk former mining activity area. All of these can be overcome through good design and layout that the provision of appropriate mitigation measures.

Comment

Representation ID: 28954

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.

Object

Representation ID: 29177

Received: 29/03/2021

Respondent: Historic England

See full rep in attachment.
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 Listed
Building 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 Listed Building, 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 Listed Building, 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).