SH1/H - East Victoria Street
Support
Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021
Representation ID: 381
Received: 22/02/2021
Respondent: Mrs Dominique Gaspar
I am happy to support development of sites which make use of derelict buildings which are currently an eyesore in the community. Transport, walking and cycle routes are also excellent here so this is a very suitable site indeed.
Support
Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021
Representation ID: 1126
Received: 10/03/2021
Respondent: Ms Tamsin Treasure-Jones
I support this development of a brownfield site and the conversion of what is currently a building in poor repair. I do wonder whether it would also be possible to also do something with the Works Site across the road (see highlighted area on the image that I have uploaded with this comment). This Works site looks unused to me. It has a nice location and a development here could complement both the proposed SH1/H development and the Victoria Mills development already done opposite it. There may be a good reason why this site has not been considered, but I am adding it here just in case it has been overlooked.
Support
Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021
Representation ID: 1219
Received: 10/03/2021
Respondent: Mr Ciarán McInerney
If housing is needed, this is a good site because it is serviced by amenities, low flood risk, not in a green belt, and will require that owners find alternatives to having their own vehicles.
But I have not seen consideration of where owners might might park their vehicles given that access is not available. If vehicles can access the site, then this development might remain empty because it isn't a feasible site.
Support
Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021
Representation ID: 1419
Received: 13/03/2021
Respondent: Ms Stephanie Knight
Near to shops and public transport and not destroying green space. However, car parking and road network need improvement
Support
Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021
Representation ID: 2535
Received: 20/03/2021
Respondent: Mrs Sharon Flitcroft
This building has been unused & derelict for a number of years & it would be good for it to be developed & turned into residential dwellings.
Support
Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021
Representation ID: 2866
Received: 21/03/2021
Respondent: Mrs Clare Buckley
I fully support building on brown field sites and areas that would be improved by housing.
Support
Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021
Representation ID: 3151
Received: 22/03/2021
Respondent: Miss Laura MacDonald
I support the development of this area of central Shipley, and think that its location, with nearby green areas, station and canal, and the heritage nature of what is there, mean it could generate housing which is both high quality, desirable, low cost and friendly to families and the environment. I hope that the old mill buildings will be re-used. Towns which cherish their heritage in this way and prioritise active travel and low car living, tend to keep their value. Shipley has made substantial mistakes in disregarding heritage and quality landscapes in the past, but it is not too late to change this for the future.
Support
Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021
Representation ID: 4104
Received: 23/03/2021
Respondent: Mrs Val Pelleschi
Good to see brownfield sites like this being considered.
Could help to repurpose the whole area to include relaxed living space, hopefully to be sensitive to nearby WHS
Support
Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021
Representation ID: 4760
Received: 24/03/2021
Respondent: Mr Robert Flitcroft
Development of this site would be welcomed in order to make use of a derelict former industrial building
Support
Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021
Representation ID: 4936
Received: 24/03/2021
Respondent: Mr Ian Corker
Looks a good place to regenerate.
Support
Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021
Representation ID: 5234
Received: 24/03/2021
Respondent: Ms Helen Bowman-Wray
Excellent use of a brownfield site
Support
Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021
Representation ID: 5450
Received: 24/03/2021
Respondent: Ms Frances Guy
If environmental & WHS considerations are met as outlined, this could be a considerable improvement to the area which is currently run down and an eyesore.
Support
Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021
Representation ID: 5793
Received: 24/03/2021
Respondent: Ms Caroline Blount-Shah
This planned development has great potential to contribute to the regeneration of the canal side area creating demand for services such as shops bars and community facilities and making it a busy and safe place. It is near the station so people could live in the flats or apartments who mainly use public transport. Careful planning is needed to ensure the development including the outside spaces such as walkways, benches, information boards and planting etc is attractive, architect designed. Waste water must be treated carefully (this is mentioned in the plan). It is a historic building so the architect will need to be carefully selected and must be a firm who has experience of authentic and sensitive renovation of industrial buildings.
Support
Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021
Representation ID: 5897
Received: 24/03/2021
Respondent: Mrs Jessica Short
It is not a green belt area
Support
Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021
Representation ID: 5942
Received: 24/03/2021
Respondent: Mr Neil Lambert
Brownfield. Renovation would be fantastic for the area.
Comment
Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021
Representation ID: 13587
Received: 18/03/2021
Respondent: Canal & River Trust
The site offers a good opportunity in principle to benefit the canal side through the restoration/retrofitting of the existing building and development of the site. Due to the heritage value of the existing building, which is characteristic of the former industrial use of the canal and helps to complement the Saltaire World Heritage Site buffer zone, we advise that conversion of the building should be sought over its replacement and redevelopment.
We advise that careful redevelopment of the site is required to minimise the prominence of any parking or service areas, which would be to the detriment of the waterside location.
The site borders a canal basin, and we advise that consideration should be given to minimising any adverse loading or vibrations during and post construction that could damage the canal. Measures to protect the canal could be included within the ‘Development Considerations’. Suggested wording is provided below:
“The development will need to be designed to minimise any adverse loading onto the canal”
Comment
Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021
Representation ID: 28726
Received: 24/03/2021
Respondent: Environment Agency
Site in Flood Zone 1 ONLY - Close to canal.
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
Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021
Representation ID: 29302
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).