SE30/H - Bierley Lane, Bierley

Object

Representation ID: 4734

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr C Duke

Objection to the allocation of this site for housing raising issues including relating to its greenfield status, impacts on Bierley Woods and need for a major buffer to protect the woodland from the effects of light pollution / urban impacts, former mining activities, loss of public open space. Other brownfield site are said to be available.

Object

Representation ID: 4735

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Judy Woods Save our Heritage

This is a large Greenfield site impacting on the Bierley wood nw corner.Which will require a major buffer to protect the woodland from light pollution and other urban impacts .The site should have regard to any pubic footpaths leading to the woodland which should be preserved .Other brownfield sites are available under sequential policy tests.This is a major application that would require a environmental impact. There are reported mining risks on site. The POS Should not be used as for
onsite provision and s106 should be used to create and enhance the woodland buffer to minimise any effect

Support

Representation ID: 17123

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Countryside Properties Yorkshire

Agent: DPP Planning

In respect of question 84 which relate to and Bradford SE allocations Countryside Properties Yorkshire wholly supports the allocation known as SE30/H.

We agree that the Site is ideally suited for housing as it is located adjacent existing built-up area with good access to public transport, schools, employment, cultural/amenity spaces, and health facilities. Providing housing on the Site would therefore contribute to the District’s acute housing need as identified within the Plan and supporting evidence base.

Comment

Representation ID: 28981

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.