SW4/H - Brook Lane, Clayton

Showing comments and forms 1 to 6 of 6

Object

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

Representation ID: 4243

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr John Fox

Representation Summary:

Another unsustainable site. The potential impacts of flood risk and pollution to adjacent land cannot be mitigated.
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; 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.

Support

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

Representation ID: 7135

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: 19897

Received: 01/04/2021

Respondent: Natural England

Representation Summary:

The site lies in proximity to the South Pennine Moors (Phase 2) SPA and has potential to lead to the loss of functionally linked land for SPA birds.

We welcome the approach taken in the draft plan, SPD and assessments to loss of functionally linked land.

The council has a copy of a model to identify the suitability of sites for SPA golden plover and recommend that allocations are screened against this dataset taking the following approach:

• Maximum Training Sensitivity plus Specificity (MTSS) layer: full survey for Golden Plover likely to be required. The WY Ecology Service SPA Bird Survey Methodology should be followed.

• Minimum Training Presence (MTP) layer or 10 Percentile Training Presence (10PTP) layer: scoping survey to determine if a full Golden Plover full survey required. A desk based survey may be sufficient for sites within the MTP whereas a walkover survey may be required for sites within the 10PTP;

• Not within an area of predicted presence: No survey required for Golden Plover.

Where loss of functionally linked land cannot be ruled out at this stage we recommend that allocation requirement text in the plan sets out survey and mitigation requirements clearly.

Object

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

Representation ID: 21754

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Patchett Developments Ltd

Number of people: 2

Agent: Johnson Mowat

Representation Summary:

CBMDC states the sites “can be accessed directly from Brook Lane or via Ferndale but Brook Lane is substandard on its approach to main road at Baldwin Lane which will need mitigating”.

However, concerns about the suitability of Brook Lane to deliver additional vehicles are longstanding. The 2004 RUDP Inspector concluded that access could only be achieved by constructing a new road from Baldwin Lane, on land at present within the Green Belt”

A highways technical appendix and assessment is supplied. This examines the significant issues relating to the width of highways and pedestrian walkways, pinch points along Brook Lane and visibility issues at the Baldwin Lane and Brook Lane junction.

CBMDC has suggested that a new road serving SW/3H, SW4/H and SW18/H could be created using land within SW22/H. We indicate that the land required to achieve this option and across which a road would have to cross i.e. the land following the railway tunnel is in the control of Charles Patchett who does not give consent for it to be used. The option and therefore the sites are therefore simply not deliverable.

Object

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

Representation ID: 21759

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: George Upite

Number of people: 2

Agent: Johnson Mowat

Representation Summary:

CBMDC states the sites “can be accessed directly from Brook Lane or via Ferndale but Brook Lane is substandard on its approach to main road at Baldwin Lane which will need mitigating”.

However, concerns about the suitability of Brook Lane to deliver additional vehicles are longstanding. The 2004 RUDP Inspector concluded that access could only be achieved by constructing a new road from Baldwin Lane, on land at present within the Green Belt”

A highways technical appendix and assessment is supplied. This examines the significant issues relating to the width of highways and pedestrian walkways, pinch points along Brook Lane and visibility issues at the Baldwin Lane and Brook Lane junction.

CBMDC has suggested that a new road serving SW/3H, SW4/H and SW18/H could be created using land within SW22/H. We indicate that the land required to achieve this option and across which a road would have to cross i.e. the land following the railway tunnel is in the control of Charles Patchett who does not give consent for it to be used. The option and therefore the sites are therefore simply not deliverable.

Comment

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

Representation ID: 28892

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.