SH9/H - Shipley Tax Office

Support

Representation ID: 385

Received: 22/02/2021

Respondent: Mrs Dominique Gaspar

Developing this site for housing fits into other uses in the area and makes sense given it already has a large structure there (ie it's not green space) I would like to see some community space as well as retail as part of this development.

Support

Representation ID: 1225

Received: 10/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Sophie Vanicat

Good that the site is to be used for housing but the development needs to include good quality communal areas encouraging active travel and including play areas. Need to take up opportunity to further enhance the biodiversity of the site, for example creating ponds or wetlands or other green infrastructure- which can be resilient to any surface water flooding or fluvial flooding from the River Aire.

Support

Representation ID: 1229

Received: 10/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Ciarán McInerney

I support this site only if the trees, flooding and riverside-care development considerations are honoured. I would suggest that the plans are drawn to further accommodate the flood risk, perhaps by raising all dwellings (see the Ilkley Lawn Tennis & Squash Club building as an example). Also, the concerns over air quality and riverside character would benefit from an ecological and hydrological redesign. The site has potential to be an attractive and regenerative green space in the heart of Shipley - let's not miss this opportunity

Support

Representation ID: 2164

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Stephanie Lewis

This is a suitable area for developing housing, it is an area with good transport, road access and amenities, importantly it is not an area that is used by others, or an area of environmental value

Support

Representation ID: 2536

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Sharon Flitcroft

This large area could be turned from a brownfield site into residential housing & provide a large number of the new homes Bradford Council is trying to provide. Currently it stands empty (or very nearly empty) and would be an ideal site to provide the additional housing needed. It is in a picturesque area next to the canal near Saltaire so would be a desirable place to live, and the transport links & roads are already there.

Object

Representation ID: 2602

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Mark Fielding

1. Housing density too great already. The area is overdeveloped.
2. Lack of infrastructure to support development.
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 pollution in an already over polluted area
5. Impact on World Heritage Site buffer zone.

Support

Representation ID: 4769

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Robert Flitcroft

Development on this site would be welcomed in order to prevent it from becoming another site of dereliction. As a site of previous development, the impact on the area would be less significant that consuming a greenfield location.
The area already has a good infrastructure in place (access roads, drainage etc) and would be able to accommodate the increase in road traffic accessing the location.

Object

Representation ID: 4939

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Barbara Kelly

This does seem ripe for development BUT it's in the flood plain. whenever there is a lot of rain this area floods. Housing on here would only exacerbate the problem.
Drainage is an issue. May affect water quality in the area
Access is a problem - traffic feeds into the main road A6308 and Air pollution levels may increase
Reduces amenity for walkers as it is so close to the river.
Not close to shops and medical facilities.
Not sure what you do with this site. I'm aware it has been investigated before for building a church and was rejected because of the high water table.

Support

Representation ID: 4964

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Ian Corker

Needs to be used for something, rather than being empty and unused.

Support

Representation ID: 5097

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr andrew sykes

Build loads of houses here.
It's ideal:
Brownfield, great road access, great rail access.
Make sure they're flood proof though.
Do this. Not Baildon.

Support

Representation ID: 5251

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Dr Fiona Thompson

This seems an ideal location for high density housing, if flood risks can be effectively mitigated. It is close to local amenities and transport links but residents would have many amenities within walking distance.

Support

Representation ID: 5521

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Frances Guy

Support with proviso that the riverbank habitat and public access to the riverbank is protected/enhanced and that building(s) are of same quality as adjacent flats but no higher so as not to impede the view of Saltaire and Salts Mill from the North/East. But also concerned that the public transport infrastructure is nowhere near adequate to support occupiers, the majority of whom will presumably wish to commute to Leeds or elsewhere.

Support

Representation ID: 5547

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Alexandra Butler

Not green belt land.
Will not destroy woodland or disturb natural wildlife in the area

Support

Representation ID: 5746

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Morag Booth

This is a large, former commercial site which, if redeveloped, will bring people nearer to the town centre and hence benefit local businesses.

Support

Representation ID: 5845

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Martin Priestley

I believe that sites like this are exactly the sort of places that the council should be looking at for redevelopment. This is a popular area, and the supply of housing often struggles to keep up with demand, so new housing stock would be welcomed. My only concern would be that any proposed development should be of an architectural quality that befits its proximity to the World Heritage site, and that care should be taken not to endanger that UNESCO status that Saltaire currently holds.

Support

Representation ID: 5922

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Neil Lambert

Brownfield site

Comment

Representation ID: 13588

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Canal & River Trust

The site is at a lower level to the canal, which is supported above the site by a shallow embankment. The site would be vulnerable to any breach or leakage from the canal. We therefore advise that any future planning proposals should consider the risk within the flood assessment, including any mitigation to reduce the risk of flooding in the event of any breach. We advise that this risk should be included within the development considerations to ensure that this risk is appropriately identified and mitigated against.
Changes to levels on site also have the potential to impact the stability of the embankment. To ensure that the Local Plan complies with the aims of paragraph 170 and 178 from the National Planning Policy Framework with regards to stability, we advise that the development considerations should include the need for contextual information to demonstrate that the development will not result in land instability. Suggested text is provided below:
“Development will need to demonstrate that it will not adversely impact the embankment supporting the canal above the site”
At application stage, we advise that cross sections would be required to indicate the initial impact on slope stability. Further stability analyses may be required subject to the sections provided.
The development would introduce a significant new population next to the canal, likely to utilise the canal towpath for leisure and active transport. The Trust maintain our towpaths to a steady state, and additional contributions would likely be required from new development to accommodate the needs of new residents, and to prevent any deterioration of the towpath surface associated with additional usage. Consistent with the wording for site SH10/H, we advise that the development considerations should include reference to the need to “Contribute to appropriate and proportionate improvements to the canal towpath”.
Redevelopment of the site could alter outward views from the canal. Wording concerning the need for a heritage statement and mitigation is therefore welcome, as it would help to make the plan more effective in ensuring that redevelopment complements the canal corridor and Saltaire World Heritage Site Buffer. Reference to the local wildlife corridor associated with the Leeds & Liverpool canal, and aims to retain trees on site, should help to ensure that impacts to biodiversity are considered and mitigated against.

Support

Representation ID: 18391

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mapeley STEPS Limited

Agent: Montagu Evans LLP

The HMRC Site has a draft allocation for approximately 266 dwellings, the largest residential allocation in Shipley. The site is a brownfield site, in a sustainable location with limited constraints and is deliverable within the plan period.
The site has the potential to accommodate a range of flexible spaces and a mix of house types, including houses, flats and specialist housing and accommodation for older people, in accordance with the strategic priority to provide a mix of new family homes. The appropriate housing mix and density will be informed by detailed design and engagement with the Local Planning Authority.
The site owners have commenced initial pre-application discussions with Bradford Council and the Environment Agency. The site is currently within Flood Zone 2 and part Flood Zone 3. Through robust technical assessment, careful design and continued pragmatic engagement, an appropriate design solution will ensure the site can safely accommodate new residential development.
Any future site specific policy for Site SH9/H should include flexibility to enable a mix of residential uses, in order to deliver the strategic priorities identified in the local plan, and a high quality and healthy place.
Overall the strategic policies and draft allocation of site SH9/H in the draft Bradford District Local Plan 2038 are supported. Mapeley STEPS Limited welcome the allocation of the site for residential purposes, as a sustainable location which can deliver an appropriate density and mix of dwellings to suit an identified local need, including specialist housing and accommodation for older people.

Comment

Representation ID: 28736

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Environment Agency

Flood Zones 2, 3 and the current/draft 3b/3a(i) within site boundary - Site fully in FZ2 and 3 and contains small section of current 3ai and draft 2019 3b extents

There is to be no development with the 3b/3a(i) extent unless considered water compatible or essential infrastructure. Where this is the case the development must demonstrate no increase in risk to others, no loss of Functional Floodplain and suitable mitigation measures for use and the lifetime of the development.

Development on site should follow a sequential layout so as to prevent unnecessary development within Flood Zones 3b, 3 and 2 wherever possible. 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. Some SuDs principles such as storage ponds should not be solely relied upon within areas at risk of fluvial flooding as they may not be operational during a flood.

Development must be shown to be safe for the lifetime of the development. See the Adept Guidance of Access and Egress plans. Hazard ratings may need to be assessed as part of the proposal.

Mitigation such a proofing measures and raised Finished Floor Levels, must be set above the 1 in 100 plus Climate Change level for the site. Current Guidance is on .gov.

The applicant must ensure there is no increase in risk to others for the lifetime of the development (including climate change). Where on Greenfield sites compensatory storage must be actively sought.

Consideration must be made to making space for water and providing betterment in terms of flood risk management where ever possible. For development 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 likely these sites are going to show changes/increases in flood risk as a result of climate change.

The SFRA (to follow) is going to consider future flooding including future Functional Floodplain this may identify sites at more future risk than others which may affect its allocation or how development should be sequentially laid out on the site.

Comment

Representation ID: 29272

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Environment Agency

Sites that are adjacent to or include rivers and becks within their boundary must make full consideration of the value of these features for biodiversity and green-blue infrastructure, as well as the wildlife habitat network.

The existing biodiversity and green-blue infrastructure along these rivers/becks must be protected, and opportunity should be taken to enhance this Green-Blue Infrastructure including habitat enhancement to achieve 10% net gain in the riverine element of BNG.

As stated previously in relation to the policies, it is particularly important to recognise that rivers and becks cannot be replaced elsewhere, and that continuity of habitat along them is essential to maintaining and improving their ecological condition, and in maximising their contribution to green networks. These sites include (this is not a comprehensive list of all sites with rivers and becks):

o SH9/H Shipley Tax Office: Adjacent to River Aire and Leeds-Liverpool Canal.

Object

Representation ID: 29311

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).