SW6/H - Highgate Grove, Clayton Heights

Showing comments and forms 1 to 9 of 9

Object

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

Representation ID: 4259

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr John Fox

Representation Summary:

The potential impacts of flood risk and pollution to adjacent land cannot be mitigated. The surrounding topography makes surface water disposal in a controlled manner an extreme challenge and in reality, unsustainable.
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.

Object

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

Representation ID: 4638

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

Representation Summary:

This site is on Green Belt land and the development would have a significant impact on the area.

The access road is unsuitable and normally congested by parked cars. This size of development would very quickly cause problems that are unsolvable.

Object

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

Representation ID: 5672

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

Representation Summary:

This site is on Green Belt land and the development would have a significant impact on the area.
The access road is unsuitable and normally congested by parked cars. This size of development would very quickly cause problems that are unsolvable.

Object

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

Representation ID: 8166

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: CPRE West Yorkshire

Representation Summary:

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.

Object

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

Representation ID: 11248

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Clayton Heights Action Group

Representation Summary:

SW36/HC & SW6/H

The comments below are made on behalf of all the residents in the immediate area.

The junction at Highgate Road and Linfield Terrace(LF) is at present dangerous. It is nearly a blind corner bending back at approximately 45 degrees from the main road.

This is not obvious on the map and MUST be visited and viewed to appreciate the problem.
The terraced houses along LF have no garages therefore on street parking is prevalent effectively making LF a one lane street.

This area has a high amount of OAPs who care for their grandchildren, young families with children and walkers/joggers en route to Horton Country Park all of whom feel relative safe due to the current low volume of traffic.

The high and unacceptable volume of HGVs and the increase in car and service vehicles during construction WIIL increase the possibility of minor/major or FATAL traffic accidents.

Support

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

Representation ID: 21700

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: George Upite

Agent: Johnson Mowat

Representation Summary:

This response supports the inclusion of Site SW6/H (but note our separate objection to the non-identification of the remaining extent of SW6/H).

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

The green belt site specific assessment concludes that the site would have a moderate potential impact on the green belt. There are exceptional circumstances to justify the site's release for development.

There are no known viability issues the site could deliver the full S106 requirements.
There are no environmental constraints associated with the site that cannot be dealt with via appropriate design. The development of SW6/H (and the wider SLA parcel SW/10B) would form a logical extension to the urban edge.

The site (and the wider SLA parcel SW/10B) will contribute to the identified shortfall in housing land released (see objection to Policy SP8)

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

Object

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

Representation ID: 21701

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: George Upite

Agent: Johnson Mowat

Representation Summary:

This response objects to the non-identification of the remaining extent of Site SW6/H (see SHLAA site SW/010B) but note we have separately supported the part which has been allocated.

The full extent of Site SW6/H / SW010B is suitable for considered residential development and of contributing to our identified housing shortfall over and above that identified on Site SW5/H.

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

The Green Belt site specific assessment concludes that Site SW/10B would result in a moderate impact on the Green Belt in this location. Following a comparative review of Assessments for SW6/H and SW/10B there is no logical reason to justify the Council intention not to Allocate SW10B.

The site is deliverable and there are no known viability issues and there are no environmental constraints associated with the site that cannot be dealt with via appropriate design. The wider site would form a logical extension to the urban edge.

Comment

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

Representation ID: 28894

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.

Support

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

Representation ID: 29198

Received: 29/03/2021

Respondent: Historic England

Representation Summary:

A large group of Grade II Listed Buildings associated with the former North Bierley Union Workhouse, then subsequently Thornton View Hospital, is located 200 metres to the north-east of the site.
We welcome the inclusion of a reference to the proximity of these designated heritage assets as a Constraint in the sites pro forma, and that the Development Considerations highlight that a sensitive design and layout will be required to avoid or minimise the impact of development on them. This will alert potential developers of the need to take account of those elements which contribute to their significance, and ensure that they are not harmed by development proposals.