BI1/H - Coolgardie, Keighley Road, Crossflatts

Object

Representation ID: 692

Received: 03/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Joseph Wood

This land offers the value of seperting the town of Bingley and the Suberban village of crossflatts this disconnection between areas adds a feeling of ruralness which means that people will more likely visit the area and move hear if it feels rural but near to city’s such as Leeds and Bradford it also provides land where deer , owl and pheasant are often sighted .

Object

Representation ID: 1206

Received: 10/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Andrew Wilkinson

Again! Greenbelt land should not be used for building. It is killing the area.Traffic has become a real problem.

Object

Representation ID: 2137

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Ann Cossavella

BI1/H Coolgardie, Keighley Road - this is bog land . It is part of Bingley North Bog you will never successfully build on this without huge amounts of underpinning.

Object

Representation ID: 2303

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Abigail Roberts

This is all boggy land so will easily flood and make flooding in surrounding areas worse

Object

Representation ID: 2774

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Judith Smithson

It is concerning to note that planners drawing up this proposal are not aware that this site is directly opposite a large secondary school of around 1900 students, ie Bingley Grammar School. Although it has “grammar” in the name, this is historical, and the school is a normal comprehensive school. There is considerable congestion outside the school at certain times of the day, which already causes significant problems, and with the proposal for 135 dwellings this could cause additional traffic issues. Better use for this land would be to provide additional facilities for the school (and thereby the community). Alternatively, as previously proposed in the Aire Valley plan a few years ago, this site should be used for office/light industrial accommodation to bring jobs into the town.

Object

Representation ID: 3090

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Thomas Walker

This is continued development on floodland in an area which is already under significant strain in the event of flood. Until flood defences are improved in the area such a development would be unsuitable and irresponsible and become a burden to when the area is already overstretched when the need comes to utilise flood defence.

Comment

Representation ID: 28703

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.