SW33/H - Land off Buckingham Crescent, Clayton

Object

Representation ID: 4172

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Mike Pitts

This space is in greenbelt and is important as a part of the green corridor formed by the Bradford Beck/Clayton Beck valley. All areas like this should be protected from development.

Object

Representation ID: 4304

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 (Bradford Road is extremely busy at peak times); 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: 4371

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Alison Shepherd

Please remove this site from the development plan. It is part of the vital green corridor for wildlife in the area. Also it would impinge on a currently unspoilt skyline. Most importantly it would increase the flooding risk to the houses on the Middlebrook estate by removing greenfield soakaway.
These houses flooded internally for the 1st time ever in Feb 2020 and any change in the area which causes more water to flow into Clayton Beck or Pitty Beck is unfair to existing residents. Builders will argue that they can compensate for lack of soakaway, but it practice they cannot. Deep lane has been closed for some time due to instability of the land. Therefore there is a danger of landslides if the land is disturbed. Please do not allow any building on this site.

Object

Representation ID: 8170

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: 23648

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Tim Metcalfe

Agent: Johnson Mowat

S33/H is capable of contributing to what we believe to be an identified shortfall in housing provision in the Plan.

SA - indicates a major negative associated with the development of land but this is an inevitable consequence of developing a greenfield site. It is our client’s position that impact on biodiversity and geodiversity can be managed and any impact mitigated for through considered design.

The SA confirms SW33/H is well located to services including schools & health.

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.

In order to preserve the rural character and setting of the conservation area, SW33/H will look to retain any key open spaces - our clients will be looking to develop areas where there is ‘less than substantial harm’ (acceptable) and where ‘no heritage impacts’ have been identified.

There are no known viability issues.

There are no environmental constraints associated with the site that cannot be dealt with via appropriate design.

The development of SW33/H would form a logical extension to the urban edge.

Support

Representation ID: 23651

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Bob Price

Agent: Johnson Mowat

S33/H is capable of contributing to what we believe to be an identified shortfall in housing provision in the Plan.

SA - indicates a major negative associated with the development of land but this is an inevitable consequence of developing a greenfield site. It is our client’s position that impact on biodiversity and geodiversity can be managed and any impact mitigated for through considered design.

The SA confirms SW33/H is well located to services including schools & health.

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.

In order to preserve the rural character and setting of the conservation area, SW33/H will look to retain any key open spaces - our clients will be looking to develop areas where there is ‘less than substantial harm’ (acceptable) and where ‘no heritage impacts’ have been identified.

There are no known viability issues.

There are no environmental constraints associated with the site that cannot be dealt with via appropriate design.

The development of SW33/H would form a logical extension to the urban edge.

Support

Representation ID: 23654

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Ian Price

Agent: Johnson Mowat

S33/H is capable of contributing to what we believe to be an identified shortfall in housing provision in the Plan.

SA - indicates a major negative associated with the development of land but this is an inevitable consequence of developing a greenfield site. It is our client’s position that impact on biodiversity and geodiversity can be managed and any impact mitigated for through considered design.

The SA confirms SW33/H is well located to services including schools & health.

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.

In order to preserve the rural character and setting of the conservation area, SW33/H will look to retain any key open spaces - our clients will be looking to develop areas where there is ‘less than substantial harm’ (acceptable) and where ‘no heritage impacts’ have been identified.

There are no known viability issues.

There are no environmental constraints associated with the site that cannot be dealt with via appropriate design.

The development of SW33/H would form a logical extension to the urban edge.

Support

Representation ID: 23657

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Stewart Blair

Agent: Johnson Mowat

S33/H is capable of contributing to what we believe to be an identified shortfall in housing provision in the Plan.

SA - indicates a major negative associated with the development of land but this is an inevitable consequence of developing a greenfield site. It is our client’s position that impact on biodiversity and geodiversity can be managed and any impact mitigated for through considered design.

The SA confirms SW33/H is well located to services including schools & health.

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.

In order to preserve the rural character and setting of the conservation area, SW33/H will look to retain any key open spaces - our clients will be looking to develop areas where there is ‘less than substantial harm’ (acceptable) and where ‘no heritage impacts’ have been identified.

There are no known viability issues.

There are no environmental constraints associated with the site that cannot be dealt with via appropriate design.

The development of SW33/H would form a logical extension to the urban edge.

Comment

Representation ID: 28927

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: 29251

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 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).

Support

Representation ID: 29719

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bellway Homes Limited

Agent: Barton Wilmore

Bellway Homes Limited, who are one of the largest housebuilders in the country, has a firm interest in the site and is preparing to develop it. There is a willing landowner who wishes to see the site developed and a national housebuilder who have the means to ensure it comes forward in the plan period. Bellway Homes Limited have undertaken a thorough analysis of the market in the local area and are confident that there is sufficient interest in the area to justify the development of the site.

As such, the site is both available and achievable as per the tests of the NPPF.

As noted in the proforma, there are several potential access options and Bellway Homes Limited will be commissioning a highways consultant to confirm the most appropriate location for access and it is considered that this work can be provided to the Council prior to the Publication version of the Local Plan.

Bellway Homes Limited are aware of matters such as proximity to listed buildings, conservation areas and the open landscape, however, these matters can be addressed through sensitive design of any future residential development.

The development of the site would not lead to urban sprawl or the coalescence of settlements and would lead to minimal encroachment into the countryside. It is considered to represent a logical extension to Clayton and would round off the settlement, not breaching the northern most extent of built development in the settlement as a whole. As such, the land is no longer considered to meet the five Green Belt purposes and it should be released.

Comment

Representation ID: 29720

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bellway Homes Limited

Agent: Barton Wilmore

In terms of the proforma for the site, our Client is generally in support of the information provided by the Council, however, they would question the timescales which have been applied. The Council considered the site is deliverable between years 6 and 10 of the Local Plan, however that is considered to be overly conservative.

Bellway Homes Limited would be able to deliver this site within the first 5 years of the plan period. As noted above, they are a national house builder which has the means, expertise and finance to make an immediate start at the site and to deliver housing early in the plan period.