SE19/H - Westgate Hill Street Tong

Object

Representation ID: 3661

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Philip Sutcliffe

he green belt was set up to stop urban expansion. In the case of
Bradford, to stop it becoming part of Leeds. Bradford planning office
being completely undemocratic wishes to pour cement and tarmac all
over the green belt in Tong. The reason I say undemocratic is as
follows. ~There has not been one survey, or opinion poll taken in
Bradford, which agrees with Bradford councils views on building on
green belt. In fact approx 90 % of population of Bradford totally
disagree with Bradford councils housing and road plans. However, the council which claims
represents the people is acting like a fascist state.

Your new road and housing plans directly effect my Grade II house and
land. However, you have not had the decency to contact me over the
last 10 years. I doubt you care less about me than the environment and
the creatures that need it.

Object

Representation ID: 8260

Received: 12/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Mary Wallace

Green Belt exceptional circumstances have not been demonstrated, no appreciation of cultural, historical, recreational or environmental aspects.
No consideration of the effects of the pandemic and Brexit. The 2021 census should inform future planning policy
No information provided on road impact. New road building is inconsistent with the Council’s declaration of a climate emergency in 2019. Concern that road will release further development sites, increase air pollution and traffic.
Area provides access to green space for walking, running, cycling and horse-riding etc. Its development will impact health
Area is biodiverse and home to hundreds of threatened species. No assessment of the impact of development on the environment, especially on ancient woodland at Black Carr and Kit Woods. Building in it would be an ecological disaster.
Development will lead to flooding further down the valley. Flood risk assessment is vital.

Support

Representation ID: 28140

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Hallam Land Management

Agent: Johnson Mowat

HLM supports the inclusion of Sites SE19/H, SE46/H, SE47/H, SE48/H and SE37/E

The sites are deliverable, with a willing land promoter on board to ensure collectively the sites come forward as a comprehensive development.

Appendix 1 provides an Opportunities and Constraints Plan, which has informed the preparation of an illustrative Masterplan (Appendix 2). This together with the Transport and Access Appraisal at Appendix 4 illustrates how the sites can deliver a comprehensive urban extension, which has been designed to take account of the existing topography, incorporates appropriate access points, including a roundabout within the site to allow access to the proposed employment allocation to the east (SE37/E).

Whilst the Holme Wood South Urban Extension is not reliant on the delivery of the South East Bradford Access Road, the Urban Extension will contribute to the facilitation of the potential new strategic highway as a long-term aspiration.

HLM are confident that the development considerations contained in the individual Site Details in the Draft Local Plan are achievable. The initial Masterplan work provides confidence that Holme Wood South is capable of delivering a well-designed urban extension.

Comment

Representation ID: 28969

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: 29665

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Leeds City Council

The proposed allocations around the Holmewood area, encroaching into the green belt to the south of Tyersal and to the west of Drighlington, raises concerns.

Firstly, concerning the general encroachment and reduction of the strategic green belt gap between Leeds and Bradford; secondly the significant amount of green belt land that is required for release for 5 proposed housing sites for 1,447 new homes. The sites are SE45, 31, 13, 18/H and SE46, 47, 48/H and non-green belt site SE19/H and thirdly the overall impact of these sites and significant housing numbers on infrastructure provision in Leeds.

In setting exceptional circumstances for the release of these sites Leeds City Council would wish to see justification that all other options have been exhausted for housing in other locations within the settlement hierarchy.

It is also understood that Bradford City Council’s position is that the highway improvements as shown on the interactive map for Wakefield and Tong Road are sufficient to support the number of houses proposed. We wish to reserve our position on this until further evidence / information is provided through further consultation and duty to cooperate discussions.