BI5/H - Crossley Wood Road, Gilstead

Support

Representation ID: 2184

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Rosalind Dawson

I support development here providing it is primarily affordable, low cost and rented housing. In addition, great care is needed to protect the canal and its environment, Crosley Wood and the neighbouring green fields.

Object

Representation ID: 3525

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Jan Taylor

Building 93 homes only 20m from an SSSI certainly does not live up to the spirit of encouraging biodiversity. There would be huge worries about the impact of such a large development on the biodiversity and ecology there. Air quality will inevitable diminish with the increased cars in that small area.
The canal is a popular place for visitors to the district, walkers and other leisure pursuits, and to build houses along that stretch, right up to the canal, would be detrimental to the visual amenity of the area.

Support

Representation ID: 4697

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Thomas Simcock

If the building of houses is necessary in the local area, I would consider this one of the most suitable of the sites in the area. I believe housing development should be avoided in the Green Belt and focussed on sites such as this, which until recently contained flats and has a low value as a wildlife habitat, as far as I am aware. Care should however be taken to minimise the impact of any construction on the neighbouring woodland.

Object

Representation ID: 4843

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Jacob Lakin

The site backs on to Prince Of Wales Park. The development will be detrimental to the beauty and nature of the park. Also Eldwick does not have the amenity and resource to cater for more housing

Comment

Representation ID: 13593

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Canal & River Trust

The allocation site is situated at the top of a principle cutting to the Leeds & Liverpool Canal. We advise that development on the site needs to ensure it does not create a surcharge onto the cutting, which could otherwise result in land instability.
To ensure that the Local Plan complies with the aims of paragraphs 170 and 178 from the National Planning Policy Framework with regards to stability, we advise that this constraint should be identified in the Local Plan. We also 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 impose loading on the canal cutting that could otherwise result in land instability”

Comment

Representation ID: 19919

Received: 01/04/2021

Respondent: Natural England

Natural England notes that allocation BI/026 / BI5/H lies in very close proximity to Bingley South Bog Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).

We welcome the reference in the plan to a site requirement for an ecological assessment to identify impacts on the SSSI but recommend that the allocation requirements should be clear that permission will only be given if impacts on the SSSI can be avoided or adequately mitigated for.

Comment

Representation ID: 28707

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Environment Agency

Site in Flood Zone 1 ONLY - Close to canal.
Mitigation should be set above the 1 in 100 plus cc level for the site as suitable for the proposed vulnerability classification (EA standing advice should cover this).

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.

For developments 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 possible the sites within close proximity to Flood Zones 3b, 3 and 2 may be subject to future risk identified within the SFRA (to follow) which may affect its allocation or how development should be sequentially laid out on the site.

Consideration must be made to making space for water and providing betterment in terms of flood risk management where ever possible.

Object

Representation ID: 29385

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).