SW1/H - Back Fold, Clayton

Object

Representation ID: 371

Received: 22/02/2021

Respondent: Mrs Rachel Burnham

I live in the conservation area. The area is already not supported to uphold the historic nature of the buildings. No enforcement of wooden doors and windows. The area suffers with traffic and is used as a short cut for commuters. Constant traffic and conflicts due to the narrowing of the Lane. Surface water is atrocious. Drains constantly blocked . No regard for established agriculture in the area. Town End Road is a Lane. The area has an established bat community in the old buildings. The bus route is atrocious. Parking is a grave issue already. Too built up already

Object

Representation ID: 397

Received: 22/02/2021

Respondent: Mrs Carol Kitson

The local doctors and dentist are already struggling to keep up with the demand of patients. The schools will not have enough places once all the proposed housing developments around the different parts of Clayton are finished. Townend Rd is a nightmare already with the traffic volume which is now most of the day not just at peak times. More food shops and recreation areas are needed to accommodate all the families.

Object

Representation ID: 795

Received: 05/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Rosanna McDermott

Clayton does not have the infrastructure to accommodate the amount of proposed houses being built. Traffic at the roundabout has already increased with the new housing.

Object

Representation ID: 4232

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr John Fox

The potential impacts of flood risk and pollution to adjacent land cannot be mitigated. Also, given the surrounding topography makes surface water disposal in a controlled manner to the Hole Bottom Beck an extreme challenge and in reality, unsustainable. Indeed, any planned surface water discharge in this manner is likely to exacerbate flooding issues downstream at Fairweather Green where residents are already impacted.
Add to this the impact of additional loading placed on the existing public sewer system already under stress demonstrated by the need for additional attenuation facilities having to be put in place to accommodate recent developments.
Add into the mix: increased traffic congestion, access and highway safety issues (key challenge through T-Pot Spout); Additional pressure on schools, health centres and other key infrastructure & the further loss of an important social amenity & further damage to the area’s character, wildlife, and environment.

Object

Representation ID: 4414

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Alison Shepherd

The main objection to this site is the removal of natural soakaway which increases the flood risk for Clayton Beck. Several homes on the Middlebrook estate flooded internally for the 1st time in Feb 2020. If water currently pools on this site in bad weather, there will be even more water added to the beck if the site is developed. Access along Deep Lane would also not be acceptable as the noise and pollution would impinge on what is currently a very quiet valley. The beautiful skyline of Clayton Beck valley would be ruined.

Comment

Representation ID: 28889

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: 29196

Received: 29/03/2021

Respondent: Historic England

See attachment for full representation.
Historic England considers that the HIA has undervalued the contribution which this site makes to the rural setting and significance of the Conservation Area. The buildings fronting Town End are largely C18 but it is likely that they replace earlier medieval buildings on the site. They appear to follow the trace of medieval burgage plots and it looks as though the fields to the rear and their stone boundaries formed the limit of the medieval burgage. As this is the only remaining area of the historic village where this can still be appreciated, they make a positive contribution to the character and significance of the Conservation Area. This also remains the last vestige of the rural setting of the historic settlement that remains
free of development. The development of this site, as allocated, is likely to result in considerable harm to the setting and appreciation of the Conservation Area.
a) Delete this allocation entirely.
or
b) Delete the northern part of this site (illustrated as causing harm to heritage assets in the Heritage Impact
Assessment);
and
c) Amend the first Development Consideration in the site proforma for this site to read: “A low density scheme utilising appropriate and sympathetic scale, design and
materials is required which minimises impact on landscape character and heritage assets.”

Support

Representation ID: 30113

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Patchett Developments Ltd

Agent: Johnson Mowat

This response supports the inclusion of Site SW1/H.

Site SW1/H will contribute towards the housing need in Bradford South West. The site lies in a sustainable location, close to existing services and facilities. It is available, suitable and deliverable.

The Sustainability Appraisal confirms SW1/H is well located to provide residents with good access to shops, jobs, buses and cultural spaces, with particularly good access to schools and health facilities.

SW1/H sits adjacent to the Clayton Conservation Area and is in proximity to a number of Listed Building. In order to preserve the rural character and setting of the conservation area, SW1/H will look to retain the identified key open space.

There are no environmental constraints associated with the site that cannot be dealt with via appropriate design. The development of SW1/H would form a logical extension to the urban edge.

Over the last 5 years our client has been actively promoting SW1/H

Once SW1/H is ‘Allocated’ our client will be looking to submit a planning application almost immediately. In this context the Delivery Timescales should be amended to 0 – 5 years.