KY20/HC - Redwood Close

Object

Representation ID: 5203

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Helen Allen

Long Lee/Thwaites Brow cannot sustain more housing. Local amenities, doctors, schools etc do not have capacity. Access is already difficult, on both main road into town/Coney Lane and narrow residential streets.
It is doubtful that the sewerage systems would be able to cope with additional housing.
This is a rural area, green fields and these need to remain to protect the natural habitats and wildlife. This area is already overdeveloped, and it is vital that the council maintains its integrity as a rural area and not build more. Green space has a benefit on health and mental wellness for the people who live here as well as those who can easily visit from more heavily developed areas nearer the town centre.
We are on the edge of the Yorkshire dales and local affinity lies with there, not an urban city environment.

Object

Representation ID: 5503

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Christine Graham

KY20 is a greenfield site. Access to the proposed development would be via a narrow elongated cul-de-sac from an equally narrow set of roads. Visibility would be poor as vehicles would have to manoeuvre around a very tight corner. This is another land in-fill and the green space would be lost if it was to become urbanised. Set high in the village setting new houses would look out of keeping with the remainder of the dwellings and become a 'blot on the landscape.' The traffic from this site would exit onto Long Lee Lane via Cherry Tree Rise, the junction of which is already compromised by the new development of 62 dwellings currently under construction.

It should be noted that the primary school is situated on Cherry Tree Rise and there is a high level of traffic at school times.

Object

Representation ID: 5617

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jayne Bootland

This area cannot sustain more development. The local school would not be able to manage extra children, which there will be as this housing is aimed at being affordable for young families. Access would be extremely difficult, narrow residential streets would not be able to cope with heavy plant traffic. The main road into Keighley is already extremely busy and coney lane and railway line cannot take more traffic.
This is a rural area, not an urban area and needs the green space which is in short supply in the area. Keeping green space is important for the wildlife and environment as well as for the people who live here.

Object

Representation ID: 7079

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: Patricia Rawson-Chad

Number of people: 6

We OBJECT to new houses been built in long lee and thwaites brow.
The bridge which is our main route in and out, can not handle the traffic already, it will be made 100% worse
The problem is, housing got denied, but Bradford council as approved it them self's now.
No one in long lee or Thwaites brow want any more houses.

Object

Representation ID: 7182

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!

Object

Representation ID: 13210

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: David & Valerie Caven

Number of people: 2

- Lack of local amenities
- Very poor transport links - Low Bridge at Coney Lane is inadequate increased traffic and the bus service is only hourly, despite locals lobbying the bus company.
- Loss of greenfield/belt sites – erosion of character
- No evidence of local demand for extra houses

Object

Representation ID: 16293

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Keighley Town Council

KY20/HC is a large greenfield site with proposed housing of 45 dwellings.

Access to this site would be via a narrow, elongated cul-de-sac from an equally narrow set of roads. Visibility would be poor as vehicles would have to manoeuvre around a very tight corner. This is another infill, and the green space would be lost if it was to become urbanised.

Object

Representation ID: 17483

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Julian Thomas

KY20/HC is a large greenfield site with proposed housing of 45 dwellings, where access would be via a narrow cul-de-sac leading from a narrow set of roads, impacting on visibility for drivers. The traffic from this site would exit onto Long Lee Lane via Cherry Tree Rise, where the junction is already impacted by the new development of 62 dwellings on Park Lane.

Object

Representation ID: 28267

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: 28654

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.