SH10/H - Land to north and south of Dockfield Road

Comment

Representation ID: 143

Received: 13/02/2021

Respondent: Ms Wendy Robinson

Needs survey for Japanese Knotweed.

Support

Representation ID: 386

Received: 22/02/2021

Respondent: Mrs Dominique Gaspar

Housing development and mixed use development would be of great benefit to this part of shipley. I would like to see more brownfield sites in Shipley developed.

Support

Representation ID: 1230

Received: 10/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Ciarán McInerney

I only support this is riverside character is maintain and ecological and hydrological perspectives are at the forefront of further planning; the flood risk is too great, otherwise.

Support

Representation ID: 2165

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Stephanie Lewis

This is a suitable area for development, it has good road access and amenities and has previously been built upon, provided it is flood proof this is a reasonable area for development.

Support

Representation ID: 4771

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Robert Flitcroft

Repurposing formally developed sites should be welcomed.

Support

Representation ID: 4966

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Ian Corker

Good place for regeneration.

Support

Representation ID: 5257

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Dr Fiona Thompson

This seems an appropriate use of this site despite the area being a very mixed area of residential and business. The flood risk would need to be mitigated. Good transport links and the opportunities identified are worthy of support.

Support

Representation ID: 5729

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Morag Booth

This will help improve the area.

Support

Representation ID: 5923

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Neil Lambert

Good Brownfield site.

Comment

Representation ID: 13591

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Canal & River Trust

We note that the red line plan drawn to accompany the description is inaccurately plotted, and may need correcting.
The southern part of the site fronts onto the towpath of the Leeds & Liverpool Canal.
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.
There is a risk that, due to the topography on site, redevelopment could result in a backward facing residential estate style development that would have a poot visual impact on outward views from the canal. The inclusion, within the development considerations, of the need for the development to provide a high quality frontage to the canal is welcome, as it may help to make the plan more effective in providing for an appropriate design.
The Trust maintain our towpaths to a steady state, and additional contributions may 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. The existing inclusion of text in the development considerations addressing this requirement should help to mitigate against this risk.

Object

Representation ID: 28737

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Environment Agency

Site is identified to be either wholly, or most of, in the current/draft 3b OR 3a(i) - Site is in FZ2 and 3 and most of the site is impacted by the current 3ai extent. The draft 2019 3b affects site

This is a key aspect of conversation as part of the pending SFRA update as such no allocations should be made in these areas 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.

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.

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.

Comment

Representation ID: 29273

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 SH10/H Land to north and south of Dockfield Road: adjacent to Bradford Beck and River Aire.

Support

Representation ID: 29314

Received: 29/03/2021

Respondent: Historic England

The site is within the Saltaire World Heritage Site (WHS) buffer zone and adjacent to the Leeds and Liverpool Canal Conservation Area. The Leeds and Liverpool Canal Bridge Number 208 is located 60 metres from the sites south-east corner. The development of this area could harm elements which contribute to the significance of these designated heritage assets. The site is currently allocated for development within the Bradford City Centre Area Action Plan (AAP), adopted in December 2017. The
principle of allocating this site, for the nature and scale of
development set out in the APP, has therefore been recently established as part of the Local Development Plan for Bradford District. In order to safeguard these heritage assets, we would expect the Local Plan requirements for this site relating to the conservation
and enhancement of the historic environment to, as a minimum, reflect those set out in the AAP. Consequently, we welcome that the Development Considerations and Constraints & Opportunities identified for this site in the Draft Local Plan reflect those in the AAP.