SH13/H - Regent House

Showing comments and forms 1 to 7 of 7

Support

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 387

Received: 22/02/2021

Respondent: Mrs Dominique Gaspar

Representation Summary:

I would like to see the entire area around Dockfield Road redeveloped. Converting buildings that are no longer in use makes sense. This area is well serviced to public transport, walking and cycle paths.

Support

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 2166

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Stephanie Lewis

Representation Summary:

The is an already developed site with good road access suitable for housing development.

Support

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 4772

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Robert Flitcroft

Representation Summary:

I support the use of former industrial sites for housing stock.

Support

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 5551

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Alexandra Butler

Representation Summary:

Not on green belt land
Will not disrupt wildlife

Support

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 5928

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Neil Lambert

Representation Summary:

Brownfield. Beautiful bridge and conversion would be wonderful.

Comment

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 28740

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Environment Agency

Representation Summary:

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.

Support

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 29322

Received: 29/03/2021

Respondent: Historic England

Representation Summary:

The site is within the Saltaire World Heritage Site (WHS) buffer zone and the Leeds and Liverpool Canal conservation Area. The Leeds and Liverpool Canal Bridge Number 208, a Grade II Listed Building, is immediately south of the site. The site contains a complex of substantial and distinctive non-designated mill and warehouse buildings. 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. 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.