SH2/H - Carr Lane

Object

Representation ID: 858

Received: 07/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Daniel Spencer

The proposed building would devalue our property.
We are concerned about the traffic in the area, as Carr lane is a busy road the addition of houses would increase this.
We are concerned about noise pollution, the additional houses would mean more people which in turn creates more noise.
We value access to green spaces and this site, although overgrown is a good size field. It is a quiet pocket away from the main town centre and big estates the addition of houses here would spoil the view of the landscape.
Development would destroy this view.

Object

Representation ID: 1220

Received: 10/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Ciarán McInerney

I would suggest that the plans are redrawn to accommodate rather than remove the mature trees. Mature plant life is not exchangeable with immature plant life, from hydrological, ecological, ground-stability, and aesthetic perspectives.

Object

Representation ID: 2592

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Mark Fielding

1. Housing density too great already
2. Lack of infrastructure
3. Impact on access to amenity for existing residents I.e. schools, health centres
4. No environmental impact assessment - this is the wrong sort of development in the wrong place. Additional population equates to more traffic, more air polution in an already over polluted area.
5. Loss of visual amenity.

Object

Representation ID: 3016

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mr John Murgatroyd

The policy of the government is to go green, I am sure you have land and in other places that you could utilise , like west bowling where there is land that has been derelict for years !!!!!

Support

Representation ID: 3156

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Laura MacDonald

I am not personally familiar with this site, however it is in a strong location to produce housing which could be both attractive and eco friendly. A station is relatively nearby as is a lovely cycle route going into Bradford. Please consider making it low car, perhaps with limited parking and 2 car club spaces, plus bike parking. Please also ensure that active travel is prioritised via sensible attactive and safe connections to nearby walking/cycle ways. Please also engage the best of your marketing people to pitch this eco living as exciting and modern. I live this way and can confirm that I live better for it. I have also lived in brownfield eco housing in London and loved it.

Support

Representation ID: 5241

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Dr Fiona Thompson

This seems an appropriate use of land, relatively close to local amenities and transport links.

Comment

Representation ID: 28728

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: 29303

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).

Object

Representation ID: 30236

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Rachel Kipling

Use of green sites (SH2, 3,4,5,6,7,11,12)or development is not sustainable (there are plenty of brown sites that must be used first in line with CBMDC policy) and leads to loss of habitat and connectivity regardless of the quality (this can be enhanced!). There is a health and wellbeing impact from removal of green spaces from a community however informal they are, people of Shipley cannot afford to lose these areas. Sites SH 4,5 and 6 are not near train stations and will inevitably increase car use on already congested, polluted roads. In these areas there is already surface water flooding and development will increase these issues. SH3 is a community asset for children to play and families meet, where there is very little other greenspace for children. In addition it provides walking routes that avoid the heavy polluted pavements. It is a breathing space in this urban area.