KY14/H - Bradford Road, Riddlesden

Object

Representation ID: 1595

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Barry Carter

I understand that this land is owned by the National Trust, which does not sell land for development. Its use would therefore require compulsory purchase and thus attract attention and objections disproportionate to the small size of the plot.

Object

Representation ID: 3007

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Tony Caffrey

Essentially the proposed housing development will constitute a blight on the outlook of my house. I could have bought a bungalow anywhere but it was the open views that prompted this particular choice. Once this is lost the house will retain little particular attraction with subsequent loss of value.
In addition, that you propose to build on a site which borders on a flood plain will cause technical problems difficult to surmount and which will add substantially to construction costs if defenses are to be adequate, and with serious consequences for all involved if they prove inadequate due, not least, to financial economies.

Object

Representation ID: 4476

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs D Staniforth

Access to primary schools are limited and not within easy walking distance and not on a regular bus route. Oversubscribed primary schools could lead to pupils having to travel out of district. This could increase the number of cars being used and contribute to increasing levels of pollution in the area. Frequent flooding from river up to the current boundary wall at times. River walk from East Riddlesden Hall will not be pleasurable if houses are along the whole of the site of it. This in turn could reduce the number of visitors to the area impacting on money being spent in the the town. Wildlife in the area could be drastically impacted.

Object

Representation ID: 6808

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Caroline Holder

•No good reason identified for building on these sites.
•Building on Green Belt can only be done in exceptional circumstances –these are not identified.
•Plenty of brownfield sites that can be developed without ruining green space.
•Area critical to wildlife/wellbeing. With Covid lockdowns the need for spaces for exercise is obvious.
•Is it money orientated? Destroy greenspaces to make it look as rubbish as Bradford.
•Council does not care for our area.
•This is a wonderful town with problems which we’re trying to fix. We have a great community. Greenspaces are loved/used considerably. We have litter pickers, toad patrollers, people who look out for the countryside/neighbourhoods. Council doesn’t care about our community, green spaces or what we want.
•Council is contravening the Green Belt planning laws.
•Look at the alternatives, people who live here/love this area, the people who need green spaces.
•Only giving until 24th March smacks of manipulation.

Object

Representation ID: 6998

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Steve Vink

This site lies in a Green Infrastructure Corridor (paragraph 5.12.40): "The corridors also give a strong connection between the urban area and the surrounding countryside"
By constructing on this site you would be enclosing Bradford Road in buildings and blocking the view to the valley and the vast panorama up to Haworth and beyond. The number of walkers, runners, cyclists and travellers who benefit from this view daily is significant, especially as this is the last panorama of the Aire valley before you enter the urban area of Keighley.
Please consider my points with respect to the health and wellbeing not only of local residents but of visitors and travellers through the area.

Object

Representation ID: 7146

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: 19889

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: 21020

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Jane Dixon

- impact on greenfield/greenbelt sites and visual amenity
- topography
- flood risk along the bottom half of the site
- impact on wildlife
- availability- land donated to the National Trust and use for recreation and local communities
- Impact on traffic, congestion and air quality
- Impact on local services- education

Comment

Representation ID: 28648

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Environment Agency

Site in Flood Zone 1 ONLY - Adjoins FZ2 and 3 aswell as the draft 2019 3b extent

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: 29003

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: National Trust

We note that the Council is proposing to carry forward the above housing allocation into the Local Plan.

The proposed site is owned by NT and is currently used as grassland forming part of the setting of East Riddlesden Hall.

The site forms part of the conservation plans for the property and we therefore strongly oppose the proposed housing allocation of this site.

The site is not available for development and is therefore not deliverable or developable, which is contrary to paragraph 67 of the NPPF.

The site will not be released for development and we therefore request that this proposed allocation be deleted from the Local Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 29395

Received: 29/03/2021

Respondent: Historic England

The site is less than 200 metres from the Grade I Listed East Riddlesden Hall & Barn and seven other Grade II Listed buildings and structure associated with it. The development of this area could harm elements which contribute to the significance of this designated heritage asset.
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).