SW18/H - Fall Top Farm, Brook Lane, Clayton

Object

Representation ID: 598

Received: 01/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Chris Scurrah

This site cannot be developed without a significant negative impact on a) the historic landscape of The Thornton and Clayton Valley and b) destruction to habitat for wildlife and plants. Also, the valley has been used for walking by families during lock-downs and has had a huge benefit to health and well-being during COVID. This area over looks and connects to The Bronte Way and links to the Sus-Trans railway line walk. It would be a great benefit to the health and well-being of the communities in South West Bradford to create a 'Landscape' status of protection throughout the valley, as was the case a couple of decades ago. Nature Trails for families and local schools could be developed with benefits for health, leisure, recreation and education.

Object

Representation ID: 4297

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 Brook Lane); 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

Representation ID: 7136

Received: 10/03/2021

Respondent: David Hill LLP

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.

Object

Representation ID: 7950

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Steven Vaughan

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

Representation ID: 8168

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.

Object

Representation ID: 21755

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Patchett Developments Ltd

Number of people: 2

Agent: Johnson Mowat

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

Representation ID: 21760

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: George Upite

Number of people: 2

Agent: Johnson Mowat

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

Representation ID: 28907

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: 29246

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
Buildings in its vicinity, and what impact the loss of this 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 Buildings, 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 any of these Listed Buildings, 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).