SH12/H - Crag Road

Object

Representation ID: 215

Received: 16/02/2021

Respondent: Ms Kirstin Sawyer

This small pocket of green land should be preserved and improved as part of a green corridor in this densely populated areas for the sake of people’s health and well-being.

Object

Representation ID: 2603

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. Loss of vital green space and loss of visual amenity for immediate residents and wider community.

Object

Representation ID: 4127

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Madeline Holloway

Several semi-natural habitats are present within this site, including grassland, tall ruderals, scattered and dense scrub, mature deciduous woodland and, of course, Bradford Beck which bisects the site. It is possible that this relatively large site (5.02ha) may qualify as a Local Wildlife Site (LWS), passing the criteria used by West Yorkshire Ecology, such as a variety of habitats together with a range of notable plants, to categorise it as such.

Please can you ensure that a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Report (PEAR) is available for this site before placing it on the proposed housing allocation. On current information I believe that such a proposal would result in major habitat loss, with an associated major loss of local biodiversity, and the site should therefore be removed from the housing proposal.

Object

Representation ID: 5561

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Rachel Kipling

This loss of habitat and biodiversity needs to be avoided, there are otter in the area and space around bradford beck is already significantly constrained. If development does take place the site should be split to provided a true buffer of at least 10m for a high quality habitat and water corridor, not only for a renaturalised beck (being invested in here and upstream), but for green blue infrastructure for people desperately in need of spaces for health and wellbeing. Works should not cause deterioration of water quality, habitat and biodiversity.

Support

Representation ID: 5926

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Neil Lambert

Brownfield. Would love to see quality affordable housing for nearby residents if possible

Object

Representation ID: 6141

Received: 01/03/2021

Respondent: Friends of Northcliffe

Housing development near Shipley Station (SH12/H) will provide negative impact on an already very busy road corridor.

Object

Representation ID: 8124

Received: 02/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford Urban Wildlife Group

•Site intersects the Northern Gasworks High Pressure Pipeline and National Grid Electricity Transmission.
•It is a grassland habitat network and part of the green infrastructure corridor and linear park from Bradford city centre to Shipley along Bradford Beck.
•Information has been provided about the biodiversity of the site.
•Enclosed is updated information regarding the big field adjacent to the station.
•Not opposing development on an area nearer Crag Road on opposite side to the Beck.
•East Field should be removed from the plan to show the importance of Nature Conservation.
•Campaign to include a clause in the Environment Bill to give legal backing to more space for nature.
•In Lockdown the importance of natural world and green areas for walking, nature and mental health.

Comment

Representation ID: 27758

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: National Gas Transmissions

Agent: Avison Young

The proposed development site is crossed or in close proximity to National Grid assets.
Details of the sites affecting National Grid assets are provided below.
275Kv Underground Cable route: BRADFORD WEST - KIRKSTALL A 275Kv Underground Cable route: ELLAND - KIRKSTALL A

Plans showing details of the site locations and details of National Grid’s assets is attached to the submission

Guidance on development near National Grid assets Electricity assets & Gas assets is attached to the submission

Comment

Representation ID: 28739

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Environment Agency

Flood Zones 2, 3 and the current/draft 3b/3a(i) within site boundary.

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: 29275

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 SH12/H Crag Road: Bradford Beck flows through the site.

Support

Representation ID: 29319

Received: 29/03/2021

Respondent: Historic England

The site is within the Saltaire World Heritage Site (WHS) buffer zone. The development of this area could harm elements which contribute to the significance of the World Heritage Site. 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, the Development Considerations and Constraints & Opportunities identified for this site in the Draft Local Plan need to reflect those in the AAP. However, if there have been any significant changes to the sites circumstances since its allocation in the AAP that we are not aware
of, or the development proposed is significantly different (e.g. in terms of land use, density, scale, developable area etc.), the Council should undertake a Heritage Impact Assessment of the site as part of the Evidence Base to the emerging Local Plan.
add the following additional Development Consideration to the site pro forma: ‘High quality architectural and sustainable design to contribute to the placemaking
and sustainability principles, and safeguard and enhance the setting of the Saltaire World Heritage Site.’