SW5/H - Langberries, Clayton Heights

Object

Representation ID: 190

Received: 16/02/2021

Respondent: Miss Sophie Jawnyj

Green spaces are needed now more than ever for mental and physical well-being. Not to mention this green space is the habitat for so much wildlife.

There will be too much traffic and too much noise pollution, which again, will be bad for our well-being. Our planet needs green space.

Object

Representation ID: 194

Received: 16/02/2021

Respondent: Miss Sarah Collier

There’s lovely walks and scenery up there as we need to go on walks for our well being. There’s not many fields/greenery in Clayton now to walk on as it is. There’s also bad traffic on pasture lane with parked cars as it is due to terrace houses and no where else to park, as people have to give way to cars coming up and down the hill. Building more houses will put pressure on this.

Object

Representation ID: 205

Received: 16/02/2021

Respondent: Mr Luke Jawnyj

It’s very important to protect green belt land and protect Clayton as a village. There isn’t the infrastructure to support such a large development. City Centre to Clayton is already the most congested route out of Bradford. It can easily take almost an hour in rush hour. The roads in and out of the village are not large enough to cope with any more traffic. Schools and nurseries are already over subscribed.

Object

Representation ID: 228

Received: 17/02/2021

Respondent: Emalie Sowden

I object to this development as now more than ever green areas of land are a place of peace and serenity in this awful situation. Mental health is so important and going on long walks around green areas are so helpful at clearing your mind. Please consider this when taking away some people’s only form of peace.

Object

Representation ID: 229

Received: 17/02/2021

Respondent: Miss Jenna Walker

Building on this land will destroy the nature already there. It will also be disruptive to any wildlife using it as their habitats. The noise pollution will increase and also the air pollution in the area

Object

Representation ID: 230

Received: 17/02/2021

Respondent: Mrs Aimee Michallat

I object due to it being green belt land. Green spaces are essential for physical and mental well-being, now more than ever. It would be a disturbance to wildlife and only contribute to even more traffic within the area

Object

Representation ID: 245

Received: 17/02/2021

Respondent: Ms Louise McNicholas

Green belt land should be preserved to avoid urban sprawl. I do not believe that this is a sustainable form of development, which spread across 6-10 years will cause substantial harm to the farmland and wildlife habitats. This will also devalue houses in the surrounding areas, turning a prosperous, beautiful region of Bradford into another irreversibly urban and undesirable location. I therefore strongly object to this.

Object

Representation ID: 4252

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr John Fox

Unsustainable due to the potential impacts of flood risk and pollution to adjacent land cannot which cannot be mitigated. Also, given the surrounding topography makes surface water disposal in a controlled manner to local water courses an extreme challenge.
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 (access on to a busy main road); 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: 5490

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: CPRE West Yorkshire

In line with our comments on policy SP5, we object to these site allocations:

SW5/H
SW6/H
SW10/H
SW18/H
SW22/H
SW33/H

In particular, site SW33/H appears to be proposed for extremely low development density, which is unsustainable in any location and not compatible with the strategy. Our position is that sites that are not suitable for policy-compliant densities should not be allocated, irrespective of whether they are brownfield, greenfield or Green Belt.

Support

Representation ID: 21674

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: George Upite

Number of people: 2

Agent: Johnson Mowat

This response supports the inclusion of Site SW5/H (but note there is a separate objection to the non-identification of the remaining extent of Site SW5/H).

The SA indicates that the site is well located to provide residents with good access to jobs, services, transport and health facilities.

The sites are deliverable with a willing land promoter on board to ensure the sites come forward in the short term.

The Green Belt site specific assessment concludes that site SW5/H would have a moderate impact on the green belt. It is considered that with appropriate design and landscaping, that the exceptional circumstances of the need to meet the District’s housing requirement justify the release of the site.

In conclusion we support the identification of SW5/H (and the wider SLA parcel SW/10A) as preferred housing sites.

Once SW5/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.

Object

Representation ID: 21675

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: George Upite

Number of people: 2

Agent: Johnson Mowat

This representation objects to the non-identification of the remaining extent of Site SW5/H (SHLAA sites SW/010A).

The full extent of Site SW5/H is suitable for residential development and capable of contributing to the shortfall in housing land released (see objection to Policy SP8) over and above that identified on Site SW5/H.

The site is deliverable with a willing land promoter on board to ensure it comes forward in the short term.

The SA indicates that the larger site is well located to provide residents with good access to jobs, services, transport and health facilities. There is no explanation for the site not being included, when the SLA does not reject the site.

The Green Belt site specific assessment concludes that site 10/A would have a moderate impact on the green belt - with appropriate design and landscaping, the exceptional circumstances of the need to meet the District’s housing requirement justify the release of the site.

Comment

Representation ID: 28893

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: 29197

Received: 29/03/2021

Respondent: Historic England

See attachment for full representation.
Before allocating this site for development:
(1) An assessment needs to be undertaken of the contribution which this site makes to those elements which contribute towards the significance of the Listed
Building in its vicinity, and what impact the loss of this largely undeveloped site and its subsequent development might have upon their significance.
(2) If it is considered that the development of this site would harm elements which contribute to the significance of the Listed Building, then the measures by which that
harm might be removed or reduced need to be effectively tied into the Plan.
(3) If, at the end of the process, it is concluded that the development would still be likely to harm elements which
contribute to the significance of the Listed Building, then this site should not be allocated unless there are clear public benefits that outweigh the harm (as is required by NPPF, Paragraph 195 or 196).

Support

Representation ID: 30114

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Patchett Developments Ltd

Agent: Johnson Mowat

This response supports the inclusion of Site SW5/H (but note there is a separate objection to the non-identification of the remaining extent of Site SW5/H).

The SA indicates that the site is well located to provide residents with good access to jobs, services, transport and health facilities.

The sites are deliverable with a willing land promoter on board to ensure the sites come forward in the short term.

The Green Belt site specific assessment concludes that site SW5/H would have a moderate impact on the green belt. It is considered that with appropriate design and landscaping, that the exceptional circumstances of the need to meet the District’s housing requirement justify the release of the site.

In conclusion we support the identification of SW5/H (and the wider SLA parcel SW/10A) as preferred housing sites.

Once SW5/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.

Object

Representation ID: 30115

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Patchett Developments Ltd

Agent: Johnson Mowat

This representation objects to the non-identification of the remaining extent of Site SW5/H (SHLAA sites SW/010A).

The full extent of Site SW5/H is suitable for residential development and capable of contributing to the shortfall in housing land released (see objection to Policy SP8) over and above that identified on Site SW5/H.

The site is deliverable with a willing land promoter on board to ensure it comes forward in the short term.

The SA indicates that the larger site is well located to provide residents with good access to jobs, services, transport and health facilities. There is no explanation for the site not being included, when the SLA does not reject the site.

The Green Belt site specific assessment concludes that site 10/A would have a moderate impact on the green belt - with appropriate design and landscaping, the exceptional circumstances of the need to meet the District’s housing requirement justify the release of the site.