EM1/H - High Stead, Street Lane

Object

Representation ID: 1363

Received: 12/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Mel Frances

There seems to be little advantages to building on this site but many disadvantages to destroying a greenfield site.

Object

Representation ID: 2198

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Jo Dix

Re EMI/H. As stated this land is green belt and walking down towards the site it sits in the landscape as green belt. Any houses built there would definitely spoil the view of the village as it sits in the landscape. Photo 1
Additionally the entrance to the site is on a very restricted lane. Cars and larger vehicles are often stuck as passing places are limited. There is also a blind corner as you turn right onto the road. As it is , it’s a dangerous place for pedestrians and more vehicles using this area would only compound that.Many walkers use this route when walking up to the moors. Photo 2

Presumably this housing is not affordable housing ? If the council were to stipulate either affordable or even experimental eco housing it would have more value as a new site in adding to the variety in the village

Support

Representation ID: 2232

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Alistair Flatman Planning Ltd

We fully support the proposed allocation of land at Street Lane, East Morton for housing. The site summary justifying the proposed allocation is also supported.

The site is available, suitable and achievable and is therefore considered to be deliverable in the short term.

Object

Representation ID: 4802

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Isobel Roberts

Have you seen how wide Street Lane is? This is too narrow to have more cars using it. Please wait until public meeting can take place before making and decisions. We have a right to be heard.

Object

Representation ID: 5487

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: CPRE West Yorkshire

In line with our comments on policy SP5, we object to the following site allocation:

EM1/H

Object

Representation ID: 7153

Received: 10/03/2021

Respondent: Jacqueline Jarvis

I strongly object to Bradford Council building houses on Greenbelt land. There are enough Brown field sites with abandoned buildings and unused warehousing that should be considered first. Also what about housing that is unoccupied by missing landlords? Why aren’t these compulsory purchased to start with? You never consider the infrastructure, roads, doctors, schools, sewage, increased traffic etc., when drawing up these plans and what if any will be social housing which is the most needed of all builds? NONE

Comment

Representation ID: 8633

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: East Morton Community Shop

Hi
As a resident of East Morton I support in principle the overall objective for the village ,which involves the development of a site on Street Lane on the northern boundaries of the village(EM1/H)
It would be good if this housing was 'affordable' or publicly rented accomodation and that design standards were of 'passiv house' standard.
I am,however,concerned about access to any such development which is up a very narrow lane with blind bends.
The road is used to access West Morton and as a top road to Silsden and Ilkley.The increased traffic would I think cause difficulties unless the road was widened close to the development.
Close to the proposed development the road often floods as water comes off surrounding fields.I guess this would also be a potential problem

Object

Representation ID: 16258

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Keighley Town Council

The draft plan does not give enough weight to the potential loss of this greenbelt site. The Impact Assessment doesn't recognise the relationship with the surrounding area.

EM1/H is separate from the more built-up part of East Morton, the assessment acknowledges the site appears to form part of a garden for a nearby residential property.

However, in reality the proposed site isn’t close to any neighbouring properties. Allowing this site to be developed, a site which could accommodate far more than the 7 dwellings outlined in the plan, would open up a real possibility of further urban sprawl.

Additionally, the narrow road at the access point leading to the proposed access point is not reflected in the impact assessment used to determine the suitability of the site.

The provision of 7 dwellings over the life of plan could be met by smaller single site plots or by infill opportunities that may arise.

Comment

Representation ID: 19884

Received: 01/04/2021

Respondent: Natural England

The site lies in proximity to the South Pennine Moors (Phase 2) SPA and has potential to lead to the loss of functionally linked land for SPA birds.

We welcome the approach taken in the draft plan, SPD and assessments to loss of functionally linked land.

The council has a copy of a model to identify the suitability of sites for SPA golden plover and recommend that allocations are screened against this dataset taking the following approach:

• Maximum Training Sensitivity plus Specificity (MTSS) layer: full survey for Golden Plover likely to be required. The WY Ecology Service SPA Bird Survey Methodology should be followed.

• Minimum Training Presence (MTP) layer or 10 Percentile Training Presence (10PTP) layer: scoping survey to determine if a full Golden Plover full survey required. A desk based survey may be sufficient for sites within the MTP whereas a walkover survey may be required for sites within the 10PTP;

• Not within an area of predicted presence: No survey required for Golden Plover.

Where loss of functionally linked land cannot be ruled out at this stage we recommend that allocation requirement text in the plan sets out survey and mitigation requirements clearly.

Object

Representation ID: 28257

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Member of Parliament (Conservative)

Green belt should not be considered for development as it is in contravention to Governments aims and objectives.
Local Authorities should maximise the use of brownfield sites before considering changes to Green Belt boundaries.
There are no exceptional circumstances to justify releasing sites from Green Belt protection. All other reasonable options to meet housing need should be considered.
Inadequate proposals have been presented with regards to upgrading local infrastructure to cope with proposed extra housing. and extra pressures on local services.
There is no clear vision to increase passenger capacity on local public transport. This is in contravention to the Governments Decarbonising Transport strategic priority.
No justification for the proposed housing numbers identified to warrant removal of areas of Green Belt.

Comment

Representation ID: 28777

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Environment Agency

Site in Flood Zone 1 ONLY
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: 29391

Received: 29/03/2021

Respondent: Historic England

See attachment for full representation
There are three Scheduled Monuments consisting of prehistoric cup, ring and groove marked rock carvings to the north west of the site, with the closest located around 85 metres from the site. Rombalds Moor is particularly rich in remains of prehistoric activity, with one of the densest concentrations of prehistoric rock carvings
in upland Britain.
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).

Object

Representation ID: 29517

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Elizabeth & Tim Walton

Number of people: 2

1) GREEN BELT
Proposals through Keighley and area district which is against Government and Bradford Council Green Belt and Zero Carbon Future policies resulting in sprawl, loss of identity, damage to wildlife, loss of natural views loss of green habitat and wildlife, pollution.