SW26/H - Abb Scott Lane, Low Moor

Object

Representation ID: 1497

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Michael Barraclough

There are two sites close to each other SW/088 and SW/066. Given the proximity of these two sites, the impact of building on both sites should be considered when reviewing the impact on the local community, roads infrastructure etc.

I object to this development, due to the loss of greenbelt land and the proximity of preferred option SW28/H which is a brown field site.

I have concerns that the new development will have a negative impact on the other woodland areas and the biodiversity around the new development site. There has to be a balance between maintaining the existing character of the community and any new development. This development is too close to the existing grade two listed buildings and other wooded areas.

Coal mining has historically been undertaken in the area, so subsidence could be an issue. You should know that this land floods in winter.

Object

Representation ID: 3397

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Neil Craig

Mine entry shafts in central area of the site and high risk mining activities elsewhere on the site. Southern area lies within 200m buffer zone of overhead powerlines. The whole site lies within designated Major Hazard Site (BASF and Solenis UK Industries). HSE would only advise limited development. Development should be restricted, Buffer zones incorporated around listed buildings, design, materials and layout should be in keeping with existing setting.
New dwellings should not affect open views of existing properties on Abb Scott Lane. Access to the dam, Judy Woods and existing rights of way should be maintained.
Conclusion
Access to and from the site must be fully investigated to understand the additional capacity forced on existing junctions.
Special attention should be placed on the health and safety concerns placed on people, flora and fauna by the proposed development.

Object

Representation ID: 3576

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr C Duke

Objection to the allocation of this site for housing raising issues including relating to combined impacts with other sites, impacts on listed buildings, possible mine entry shafts, undeclared masterplans, overhead power lines, HSE consultation zones, flood risk and potential breaches of the adjoining dam, housing densities, other potential sites such as Richard Dunne, lack of a comprehensive urban capacity study, and the New Homes Bonus scheme.

Object

Representation ID: 4195

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Craig Lupton

There would be a increase in traffic from the proposed development on to Abb Scott Lane, which is already extremely busy with dangerous driving a daily occurrence and increase the noise pollution to local residents.

Object

Representation ID: 4466

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Trevor Walsh

It will reduce the green belt

Object

Representation ID: 4567

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Leanne Craig

New dwellings should not affect open views of existing properties on Abb Scott Lane. Access to the dam, Judy Woods and existing rights of way should be maintained.
Conclusion
Access to and from the site must be fully investigated to understand the additional capacity forced on existing junctions.
Special attention should be placed on the health and safety concerns placed on people, flora and fauna by the proposed development.
Attention to detail as previous development SW28/H which borders the proposed development contains 22block built dwellings and 2 multi-story building not in keeping with the area and dry stone walls have not been constructed with original materials.

Object

Representation ID: 4610

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Judy Woods Save our Heritage

Planning Bias Drivers re Density /Number

The New Homes Bonus Scheme provides cash for areas that allow new homes to be built in their area. Government funding has been set aside for local councils that welcome new housing development, which they can spend to benefit their local community.
Under the scheme the Government matches the council tax raised from new homes for the first six years through the New Homes Bonus. Councils and communities work together to decide how to spend the extra funding - whether council tax discounts for local residents, boosting frontline services like rubbish collection or providing local facilities like swimming pools and leisure centres.To continue with the Local Plan which has not yet been adopted on the basis that Citizens have been fully consulted for the reasons given is therefore flawed

Object

Representation ID: 6165

Received: 04/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Joan Speight

Object to development on sites SW26/H, SW14/H & SW34/H as these are the only bits of green space left on the Estate.

Object

Representation ID: 17156

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Labour)

This site represents a further loss of countryside to the extent that it links the built-up areas of Low Moor more completely with those of Woodside.

All views of countryside will disappear from Abb Scott Lane.

In addition, the site lies within a 200m buffer zone of HT power lines to the south, and entirely within the middle tier consultation zone for a HSE designated Major Hazard Site (BASF and Solenis UK Industries).

Comment

Representation ID: 28920

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: 29248

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 the 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).