SW34/H - Meadway, Wibsey

Support

Representation ID: 1500

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Michael Barraclough

Location Woodside not Wibsey.

As you are planning to build on the tarmac land and leave the children’s play area as it is, I support the development subject to the widening of Meadway.

This tarmac area was the site of the youth club. Since the youth club was demolished the site has served no purpose, and has become a site of anti social driving by quad bikes and off road bikes.

Meadway is a class B road and currently struggles to support the existing volumes of traffic. Currently, residents have to park on grass verges so that they do not block the road. It is currently not possible for a van and car to pass each other on Meadway without the vehicle coming up Meadway having to drive onto the grassland. This development should only go ahead if Meadway is widened from the new development to the bottom of Meadway.

Object

Representation ID: 3639

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr C Duke

Objection to the allocation of this site for housing raising issues including relating its description as being within Wibsey, to previous land disposals, to former coal mining activity. Reference is made to a range of environmental impacts including on group TPO’s, on Judy Woods, Brow Woods, ancient woodland, loss of public open space.

Object

Representation ID: 4464

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Trevor Walsh

Take away our woodland

Object

Representation ID: 4558

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Judy Woods Save our Heritage

The Consultation Timings and Methodology are Flawed

Object

Representation ID: 6163

Received: 04/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Joan Speight

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

Comment

Representation ID: 7951

Received: 12/03/2021

Respondent: Fiona & David Robinson

Number of people: 2

This is a beautiful green belt area. Which is in short demand in Woodside. Why do you need to build on green belt when there is brown land in Bradford. What about all the derelict property, mills etc. How is the school going to manage with all the extra families. The road is like a racetrack as it is. How is the drainage going to manage there is a big pond at the bottom of the field 7/8 months. We don’t need another big eyesore in this area.

Object

Representation ID: 8114

Received: 02/03/2021

Respondent: Mr & Mrs S & T Kerr & Laughlin

Number of people: 2

We have concerns regarding the proposal of houses to be built which will affect the loss of trees and wildlife, the development would cause increased pressure on existing traffic, highway safety due to school very near, parking, I trust these points will be taken into account in determining the application.

Object

Representation ID: 11085

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs E Roberts

SW34/H - I object and express my concerns.

The Plans will reduce the value of our properties.
Loss of views.

Effect the wildlife in this area, there is lots of wildlife here.

Traffic is horrendous in this area at school times and will become worse with cars parking on Lingdale Road, Dunnington Walk, Fenwick Drive and Eaglesfield Drive.

Emergency services unable to get through,

Buses unable to get through.

We know more houses need building but not where traffic will become a big problem.

I myself hope that these plans do not go ahead.

Object

Representation ID: 13461

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Woodland Trust

Conclusion

The Trust is concerned about the potentially adverse impacts that the proposed site allocations will have in relation to areas of ancient woodland within and/or adjacent to site allocations. Ancient woodland should not be included in areas that are allocated for development, whether for residential, leisure or community purposes as this leaves them open to the impacts of development.

The Woodland Trust objects to the inclusion of the below site allocations as they are likely to cause damage and/or loss to areas of ancient woodland within or adjacent to their boundaries. For this reason, we believe the sites in the table overleaf are unsound and should not be taken forward. Secondary woodland should also be retained to ensure that ecological networks are maintained and enhanced.

Object

Representation ID: 17159

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Labour)

The majority of the above comments regarding SW14/H also apply to SW34/H. It borders important woodland areas and is in close proximity to the Judy Woods Local Wildlife Site with the same impacts of development as above.

In addition, the site sits on Meadway, a narrow residential street unsuitable to carry further traffic.

Comment

Representation ID: 19918

Received: 01/04/2021

Respondent: Natural England

The sites lies on or in close proximity to woodlands and trees identified in the ancient woodland and veteran trees inventories.

NPPF para 175 sets out a strong presumption against development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees). Natural England and the Forestry Commission have produced standing advice on ancient woodland, ancient and veteran trees.

Comment

Representation ID: 28928

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.