SW2/H - Westminster Avenue

Showing comments and forms 1 to 7 of 7

Object

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 3794

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Steven Vaughan

Representation Summary:

I am opposed to any building to include SW/005 SW/045. This is the only area that you can walk and experience minimal housing. Building here will change and damage the sky line down the Clayton / Queensbury valley for ever.
Early morning there is an abundance of wild life, deer, badgers and hawks all these will be pushed away for good by incursion. Not only the animals but people who have lived in this area all their lives. This area has been an asset through recent times mentally to a lot of people for and for exercise.
The traffic outside lock down can not cope up through Clayton roundabout. Their is also a lack of services such as doctors and schools. Please exhaust brownfield sites first and then move to those were nature is less affected. The recent site built by Barrets in SW005 has already diminished the area.

Object

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 4234

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr John Fox

Representation Summary:

Already up for planning. The potential impacts of flood risk and pollution to adjacent land continues to be disregarded. 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 (visual splays onto the Avenue); 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

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 5298

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Angela Newbold

Representation Summary:

I strongly object to the proposed development of SW2/H - Westminster Avenue Clayton. I understand that a planning application for this area, has already been submitted. Feedback on the Council website from more than 200 objectors / residents, demonstrates overwhelming evidence that this plan should be refused. Planned access to the site via Westminster Drive, is in no way practical, bearing in mind the width of the road, and the expected increase in domestic, and no doubt business traffic. Flooding problems have been experienced in the Phase 1 development, and will no doubt be apparent within this plan. The loss of green space is unacceptable, and brown sites within Bradford, ( in accordance with Government policy), should be utilised much more, especially since changes to all our lives, post COVID 19.

Support

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 7133

Received: 10/03/2021

Respondent: David Hill LLP

Representation Summary:

We are pleased to see that the above sites are allocated for housing in the Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021. The landowners are keen to progress with developing the sites and we would like to confirm their availability.

Comment

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 21750

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Patchett Developments Ltd

Number of people: 2

Agent: Johnson Mowat

Representation Summary:

Site is subject to a planning submission by Barratt Homes proposing 70 dwellings. This would take the total number of dwellings off the cul‐de‐sac to 144 dwellings without a secondary point of access or an emergency access.

Although acceptable for the proposed quantum, further residential development from this single point of access is not considered to be acceptable and contrary to the Leeds Street Design Guide and emerging Leeds Transportation SPD (assuming this is also to be retained as Bradford Highway’s guidance document in the future).

The proposed site layout meets its south western boundary in two locations - a private drive and secondly an adopted shared surface turning head.

Therefore, even if the issues above did not exist, there is no suitable connection to the boundary of this site that would facilitate access to any wider development sites bounding this site, as the internal roads would not meet the required standards of a larger development for either a Type 1 or 2 street, with any cul‐de‐sac also being significantly longer than that permitted.

Comment

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 21757

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: George Upite

Number of people: 2

Agent: Johnson Mowat

Representation Summary:

Site is subject to a planning submission by Barratt Homes proposing 70 dwellings. This would take the total number of dwellings off the cul‐de‐sac to 144 dwellings without a secondary point of access or an emergency access.

Although acceptable for the proposed quantum, further residential development from this single point of access is not considered to be acceptable and contrary to the Leeds Street Design Guide and emerging Leeds Transportation SPD (assuming this is also to be retained as Bradford Highway’s guidance document in the future).

The proposed site layout meets its south western boundary in two locations - a private drive and secondly an adopted shared surface turning head.

Therefore, even if the issues above did not exist, there is no suitable connection to the boundary of this site that would facilitate access to any wider development sites bounding this site, as the internal roads would not meet the required standards of a larger development for either a Type 1 or 2 street, with any cul‐de‐sac also being significantly longer than that permitted.

Comment

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 28890

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Environment Agency

Representation Summary:

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.