SE20/H - Dean Beck Avenue

Object

Representation ID: 3735

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr C Duke

Objection to the allocation of this site for housing raising issues including relating to the combined effects with adjoining sites, EIA screening and scoping, site access, Bowling Tunnel, surface water, former landfill activates. Reference is made to a range of environmental impacts including on an important green corridor, impact on Odsal Wood / ancient woodland, on wildlife habitats, increased traffic, impacts on woodland and wildlife habitats, light pollution to the nearby LNR and impacts on the cycleway. Other brownfield site are said to be available.

Object

Representation ID: 3973

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr steven watkins

REF SE20/H - Dean Beck
Concerned about ground toxity issues of proposed site. Not suitable for housing and possible hazards for local people.
This area is already affected by local chemical plants(odours and noise) plus M606/62 road pollution and noise. NO more please.
M606 and chainbar really congested area and proposed access road not suitable for any more traffic.
Local schools/surgeries and public transport already overburdened .
Thanks

Object

Representation ID: 4100

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Ian McDougall

-Planning applications refused three times.
-Application incomplete and illegal flouting planning rules (Schedule 2) any contaminated land must have an environmental impact assessment not just a flora and fauna.
-Failure to implement Bradford Council policy which states all new developments will need to ensure that legal limits for NO2 are not exceeded. The roads that border this proposed development are borderline on these limits.
-This land was deemed to be green belt by the minister.
-Contaimated land - environmental impact assessment is a must but hasn't been implemented and there is no sign as to how the now compulsory NO2 limits will be kept below the legal limits.
1/the proposed entry to this site is less than 12 feet how will plant and machinery exit and enter
2/ major entry road to the site is only 18feet wide with cars always parked on it leaving 10 to 12 feet clear another logistical and pollution nightmare
3/The substrata of the soil is clay shale and slate mainly ideal for the gravitation of the leechates flow down from the tip which shares the same flood plain and contains arsenic mercury and asbestos
4/the cure remove the topsoil back up plan if it returns none
5/waste water and sewage plan for disposal from site divert it untreated to main sewer on dean beck
6/plan to protect houses from contamination use membrain used in other adjacent development which failed – houses deemed worthless
-Concerns about level of affordable housing on site being reduced
-Potential implications of contaminated land on lenders willingness to lend

Object

Representation ID: 4360

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Dorota Dybowska-Garth

REF SE20/H -Dean Beck
This M606 area is the main artery in and out of Bradford so if this gets congested it will affect the overall economy of the city.

- Local residents will be at risk from contaminants like arsenic and lead if this land site is disturbed.

- If 146 housed are approved this will put local residents in danger through a drastic increase in traffic and air pollution

. - Local surgeries, schools, pharmacies, public transport cannot currently cope with such a drastic demand.

Object

Representation ID: 4387

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Farooq Sheikh

REF SE20/H - Dean Beck

This piece of land should be left alone for the following reasons:

- It is part of our beautiful countryside south of Bradford and should not be spoiled through any development. In fact it should be part of the Green Belt as recommended by a minister back in 1959 and also by the secretary of state in 1972 when a housing application for this area was refused by his inspector.

- A Housing development will cause all sorts of problems in this already congested area next to the M606. This busy motorway is the main artery in and out of Bradford and we cannot afford to negatively impact our economy by increasing the traffic & air pollution which is already atrocious at peak times.

- Local surgeries, schools, pharmacies and public transport cannot currently cope with such a drastic demand from 145 new homes

Object

Representation ID: 4692

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Christine Greenwood

REF SE20/H
I object to houses being built on this land as we should be conserving green spaces.
The location would cause chaos for people travelling into Bradford on the M606.
Think of the environmental impact!!

Object

Representation ID: 4717

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Judy Woods Save our Heritage

Evidence also exists from residential properties existing on SE20/H - Dean Beck Avenue hat properties have subsided due to landfill and such sites are not sustainable by virtue of mortgage or viability in the housing . The site constraints on the site amount to endangerment https://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/18784322.families-state-panic-new-build-odsal-homes-currently-worth-nothing/

Object

Representation ID: 4817

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Steven Spencer

REF SE20/H - Dean Beck:
Bradford South is already densely over developed both by industry and residential. This plan would see an adverse impact on the environment affecting wildlife and human ability to enjoy what little green space the area has left. During the pandemic this as proved invaluable to well being as residents discovered the green spaces on their doorstep.
The impact on resources and services would also be great as existing medical centres and schools would struggle to cope.
There are safety issues with the Bradford to Halifax railway close by and also existing roads would be congested by the increased traffic generated, which would cause issues on the M606 and Staygate roundabout at peak times.
Bradford South needs it's Green Spaces Saving for future generations. Please help our environment and reject this plan.

Object

Representation ID: 5057

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Green Party of England & Wales

In line with other objections to similar sites, this site should not be included as there is clear evidence that not enough consideration is being given to more suitable brown field sites.
Housing on this site would be overly dependent on cars and fails to meet the aspiration of the plan to build less car dependent communities as it is not close to local retail, schools or doctors and is poorly served by public transport links. The proximity to the motorway and the air pollution consequences of this should discount it as a site for housing.
Significant concerns remain over the health aspects of this site given its proximity to chemical works in Low Moor.
There area in south of Bradford is seeing a disproportionate amount of allocation of green spaces

Object

Representation ID: 5211

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Silham Shahzad Haider

Objection for the following reasons:

- it’s a gateway to Bradford - may cramp plans for park & ride;
- contamination, former mining area, toxic gases;
- impact on wildlife;
- existing facilities already under pressure - buses limited, GP and schools,
- traffic and pollution.
- Bradford residents need social housing not private developers;

Object

Representation ID: 5268

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Moira I

Se20/H dean back
First there is error the application 21/02237/MAF and letter states application for 146 homes and here it states 145
The develops should be stopped. We do need private development here. There’s lots of pressures within the authority as we stand and we are in the lowest with health, education , quality sir zones, life span. This area had bad public transport, there’s no pavements on staightgate lane . Expect logistics are expanding. Bradford council had told us No money for cctv camera, traffic spending cameras and no street lighting funding. The gutters are blocked and back land always flooded. There’s big erected masts in that land
I object to this resubmission by private develop, they went to appeal and keep wasting public tax payers money and resources.

Object

Representation ID: 5417

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Darryl Brennan

SE20/H
There is not enough evidence what will be unearthed from this old tip which lets off methane gas still . New properties built on Rooley Croft directly at the side have been told they are worthless , gases are still coming up into their houses . People can not sell them . Bfd Council have still not adopted that road yet and you wonder why.
Site next to a motorway and as very conjested roundabout where emergen vehicles struggle to get to the m606 onto m62 where there are traffic accidents daily.
Access road for heavy machinery and vehicles only small with a bling bend at the top of the hill. This would be very dangerous for the children who play out on this street , it wont be long before a tragedy happens as dean beck avenue is used as a cut through to avoid staithgate roundsbout .

Object

Representation ID: 5418

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Saqib Shah

The land in question is the economic corridor to the city. The developers application was declined by the technical officers of the BMDC on the grounds that the plans for the park and ride facility were not finalised and it would be difficult to allow a development in such a case. There is high level of arsenic in the soil and a previous development resulted in escape of methane gas. The site is next to one of the largest tips in the UK with agent orange present. Planning committee declined the planning as there was high risk of arsenic seeping into this land and the developers failed to offer any safeguarding contingencies for such a debacle. M606 is the only main route feeding the city and by allowing a private development on this land the city will choke itself of any future developments economic as well as natural expansion.

Support

Representation ID: 12316

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Caddick Land

Agent: Peacock and Smith

SE20/H Dean Beck Avenue

The site is available (in the control of a developer) and suitable for development; there are no constraints that cannot be addressed or mitigated for.

The edge-of-settlement location is considered to be a highly sustainable, adjoining existing residential development along the northern boundary. The site’s accessibility and sustainability credentials are also set to improve following the delivery of the adjacent Park and Ride scheme.

We support the Council’s allocation of site ref: SE20/H – Dean Beck Avenue, subject to the minor comments and minor clarifications highlighted above.

Object

Representation ID: 13459

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Woodland Trust

Conclusion

The Trust is concerned about the potentially adverse impacts that the proposed site allocations will have in relation to areas of ancient woodland within and/or adjacent to site allocations. Ancient woodland should not be included in areas that are allocated for development, whether for residential, leisure or community purposes as this leaves them open to the impacts of development.

The Woodland Trust objects to the inclusion of the below site allocations as they are likely to cause damage and/or loss to areas of ancient woodland within or adjacent to their boundaries. For this reason, we believe the sites in the table overleaf are unsound and should not be taken forward. Secondary woodland should also be retained to ensure that ecological networks are maintained and enhanced.

Object

Representation ID: 19247

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Dr Gwyn Lllewellyn

Inadequate attention paid to the presence of several major hazard sites. In particular no mention is made in 5.3.37 of the 2 Solensis sites at the former BASF facility in Low Moor - a re-drafting of the hazard map fig 11 is also required.

Life expectancy for the area is just 56 years - this needs investigation. It is certainly not a place for 145 houses (the close number proximity to Caddick Land’s 146 house proposal is not lost).

Regarding the first two incarnations of Caddick Land’s proposal (19/02602/MAF) some 250 individual, written oppositions were lodged along with a 400 signature petition.

Inspector V.C. Radmore, JP,ARICS, MRTPI who was appointed by the Secretary of State in 1972 - his report quashed an application for house-building on the same site as covered by the SE20/H designation. He berated Bradford Council for not enacting the Minister’s recommendation in 1959 to include the land into a green belt.

Comment

Representation ID: 19904

Received: 01/04/2021

Respondent: Natural England

We note that the following allocations are on land which may be best and most versatile agricultural land. The plan should safeguard the long term capability of such land (NPPF para 170).
In order to inform the sustainability appraisal and ensure an accurate assessment of the impact of the plan on soil resources we recommend that allocations over 5ha, or at least those over 20ha, have ALC surveys undertaken in order to determine the ALC grade and help inform master planning and soil handling going forward.

The sites lies on or in close proximity to woodlands and trees identified in the ancient woodland and veteran trees inventories.
NPPF para 175 sets out a strong presumption against development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees). Natural England and the Forestry Commission have produced standing advice on ancient woodland, ancient and veteran trees.

Comment

Representation ID: 28970

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.