KY30/H - Beck Street/Bridge Street

Comment

Representation ID: 28671

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Environment Agency

Site in Flood Zone 1 ONLY - Site is in FZ1 but with current 3ai extent? Site adjoins FZ2 and 3 and the 2019 draft 3b extents so is subject to change following updated SFRA.

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.

Comment

Representation ID: 29261

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Environment Agency

We note that the following sites offer opportunity to open up lengths of previously culverted watercourse, with benefits to Green-Blue Infrastructure and Biodiversity Net Gain. We would like to see this listed within the paragraphs on opportunities and development considerations, and wish to see the opening of these watercourses promoted as a benefit to the environment and a contribution to green space and the Wildlife Habitat Network:

o KY30/H Beck Street/Bridge Street: vacant land formerly occupied by a mill. As stated an opportunity to incorporate Green Infrastructure, but also to include significant improvement to blue infrastructure by opening up North Beck, using the beck as a feature on site with public access such as a pocket park.

Object

Representation ID: 29402

Received: 29/03/2021

Respondent: Historic England

The site is located within the Keighley Town Centre Conservation Area and to the rear of the Grade II listed Hattersley Crescent. A number of other Grade II listed buildings, including Keighley Shared Church (of St Andrew and Temple Street Methodist), are close to the
northern boundary of the site. The development of this area could harm elements which contribute to the significance of these designated heritage assets.
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).