KY17/H - Former Church of Christ the King, Bradford Road, Riddlesden

Showing comments and forms 1 to 6 of 6

Object

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 1373

Received: 12/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Mel Frances

Representation Summary:

I have objected to this development in the past. The cherry trees in particular are beautiful and continue the line of those along Bradford Road creating amazing colour and habitat.
The church building should be refurbished and not demolished to just allow for a large number of probably ugly box houses that pop up at great speed without any thought for their impact on wildlife or to how a place looks.
This development could impact on wildlife on the canal.
I'm getting very upset reading all of these planning applications - the thought of losing green space and historical buildings is really depressing.

Object

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 6811

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Caroline Holder

Representation Summary:

•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

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 7151

Received: 10/03/2021

Respondent: Jacqueline Jarvis

Representation Summary:

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

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 13659

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Canal & River Trust

Representation Summary:

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.

Comment

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 28651

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Environment Agency

Representation Summary:

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

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 29398

Received: 29/03/2021

Respondent: Historic England

Representation Summary:

The site adjoins the Leeds Liverpool Canal Conservation Area and consists of the former Church of Christ the King and its grounds. 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.’