BI6/H - Marley Court, Crossflatts

Support

Representation ID: 1758

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Atis Krumins

I support the development of this site. Previously flats were here- the land is suitable and fit for development. Incommunities will provide high quality affordable homes, much needed on this site.

Object

Representation ID: 4696

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Matthew Walke

Extensive wildlife habitat.
Poor road links.
Increase in road traffic cannot be supported on local roads.
Local Schools already full and unable to support additional demand.
Local Doctors will not be able to cope with additional demand.

Object

Representation ID: 6534

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Ann Cossavella

BI6/H Marley Court, Crossflatts - all three within breathing distance of the proposed incinerator at Marley there will be considerable health implications for all these new residents, as there are for all those living in Bingley.

Comment

Representation ID: 13594

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Canal & River Trust

The site is at a lower level to the canal, which is supported above the site by an 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 poor visual impact on outward views from the canal. Consideration should be given in the policy text to the need for an active frontage to the canal, which would help to ensure that the development has a positive relationship with the canal and will accord with the principles of emerging policy DS2 with regards to the relationship of development to Green Infrastructure.

Comment

Representation ID: 28708

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.

Support

Representation ID: 29387

Received: 29/03/2021

Respondent: Historic England

The site is located adjacent to the Leeds Liverpool Canal
Conservation Area. The development of this area could harm elements which contribute to the significance of this designated heritage asset. Whilst we welcome the inclusion of a reference to the proximity of this designated heritage asset as a Constraint in the sites pro forma, we consider that the first bullet point under the Development
Considerations for this site should be amended to be worded more positively. , replace the first bullet point
under the Development Considerations for this site with the following:
‘Development should conserve and, where possible, enhance those elements which contribute to the significance of the Leeds Liverpool Canal Conservation Area.’