KY36/H - Long Lee Lane

Object

Representation ID: 1667

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Bob Smith

I do not consider the plot suitable for development as: the Long Lee area is already well developed with numerous developments in progress and significant land earmarked for development; there are restrictions on access to Park Lane due to the narrow bridge crossing the River Worth at Coney Lane; the site suffers flooding and development would increase surface water runoff; the site access would be close to an already difficult junction at Harden Lane/Long Lee Lane which would potentially exceed the level of traffic which could be safely managed at this junction

Object

Representation ID: 5206

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: 5553

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Christine Graham

This is a greenbelt site. Land which is there for a purpose. To prevent urban sprawl. Long Lee and Thwaites suffer from urban creep from Keighley due to over development which has occurred over the years. Once unattached villages Long Lee and Thwaites have been sucked into Keighley Town. Due to its proximity to the Crag there is excess water running through this site. It is located exactly opposite to a proposed greenfield site thereby removing green space from both sides of this road. Access would be particularly difficult as it is on the junction of Long Lee Lane and Harden Road and would cause problems for traffic emerging from another junction. Residents who live in properties adjacent to this land already experience egress difficulties due to poor visibility.

Object

Representation ID: 5622

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: 6865

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Glenys Simmonds

I am writing to voice my objection to the building of houses on Green Belt land, particularly in the Long Lee & Thwaites Brow area of Keighley. This area is already over-populated and has very little in the way of services. Also I do not think the schools would cope with all the extra students this will produce, let alone drainage and sewage problems. Green Belt land was protected and not supposed to be built on as far as I am aware but Bradford Council seem to have disregarded this. There is already building happening on what was farmers land on Long Lee Lane. Enough is enough!

Our surrounding areas of Keighley have the most lovely open aspects and beautiful scenery, which Bradford Council does not care about as Keighley has always been a 'poor relation' under Bradford Council control.

Object

Representation ID: 7081

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: 7185

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: 8161

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: CPRE West Yorkshire

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

KY2/H
KY7/H
KY15/H
KY35/H
KY36/H
KY40/H

Object

Representation ID: 16295

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Keighley Town Council

The site at KY36/H is on greenbelt and is there for a purpose.

Long Lee and Thwaites Brow suffer from urban creep from Keighley due to the number of developments that have occurred over the years. Once they were villages in their own right but now Long Lee and Thwaites Brow have been sucked into Keighley. Due to its proximity to the crag, there is excess water running through this site. It is also exactly opposite to another proposed site, thereby removing green space from both sides. Access is particularly difficult as it is right on the junction of Long Lee Lane and Harden Road and could cause difficulties for traffic emerging from another junction.

Object

Representation ID: 17485

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Julian Thomas

KY36/H is on greenbelt. Long Lee and Thwaites Brow already suffer from urban creep and due to its proximity to the crag, there is excess water running through this site. It is located exactly opposite to another proposed greenfield site, and would remove green space from both sides of this road.

The junction of Long Lee Lane and Harden Road is one of the busiest junctions in the village as traffic from the village itself and surrounding areas (including Bradford) use this as the main access and exit routes to and from Keighley. The proposed development would increase this traffic and in turn have a negative impact on an already busy junction.

Support

Representation ID: 18277

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Stuart Brook

Agent: Heritage Planning Design Ltd

Identification of the site (ref. KY36/H) as a preferred housing allocation is strongly welcomed.

However see objection to the reduced area of the site compared to that proposed and consider the number of dwellings on the reduced site is unrealistic.

Comments are made relating to the SA, HRA and green belt assessment.

Object

Representation ID: 28269

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: 28677

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: 29404

Received: 29/03/2021

Respondent: Historic England

Whilst the site is located outside of the boundary of the Saltaire World Heritage Site (WHS) buffer zone it is within an area where tall buildings could affect its setting.
Development on this site is unlikely to be built to a height that would be visible from the World Heritage Site, and thereby impact upon the Outstanding Universal Value of Saltaire. However, given that this is highlighted as a risk in the Saltaire World Heritage Site Management Plan (2014) it would be prudent to identify it as a development consideration in the Local Plan pro forma for this site.
add the following additional Development Consideration to the site pro forma:
‘Development must avoid impacting upon the Outstanding Universal Value of the Saltaire World Heritage Site through affecting long distance views of the Site.

Comment

Representation ID: 29868

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Stuart Brook

Agent: Heritage Planning Design Ltd

The site boundary previously proposed by my Client extended further to the south, in-line with the rear gardens of properties accessed via Green Acres and the site area was 0.64 ha (refer to Deliverability Questionnaire). However, the DLP boundary is in-line with Bradleigh Close, which reduces the site area to 0.24 ha.

On the larger 0.64 ha site it was estimated that around 24 dwellings could be delivered, which equates to 37.5 units per ha. However, the DLP indicates that 13 dwellings could be delivered on the smaller 0.24 ha, which equates to a density of 54.2 dwellings per ha. The delivery of 13 dwellings on this site might be unrealistic, whilst complementing the character of the area.

It is respectfully requested that the site is extended back to 0.64 ha, which will enable the delivery of more affordable housing and greater benefits.

Comment

Representation ID: 29871

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Stuart Brook

Agent: Heritage Planning Design Ltd

Green Belt

It is agreed that the site makes a low contribution towards the purposes of the green belt and that many other sites in the local and wider area make a greater contribution. As stated above, the site should be extended back to 0.64 ha.

Other Considerations
As my Client owns further land to the south some green belt enhancement, such as planting beyond the southern boundary, would be achievable.

Support

Representation ID: 29885

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Kathleen Simpson

Agent: Heritage Planning Design Ltd

Identification of the site (ref. KY36/H) as a preferred housing allocation is strongly welcomed.

However see objection to the reduced area of the site compared to that proposed and consider the number of dwellings on the reduced site is unrealistic.

Comments are made relating to the SA, HRA and green belt assessment.

Comment

Representation ID: 29887

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Kathleen Simpson

Agent: Heritage Planning Design Ltd

The site boundary previously proposed by my Client extended further to the south, in-line with the rear gardens of properties accessed via Green Acres and the site area was 0.64 ha (refer to Deliverability Questionnaire). However, the DLP boundary is in-line with Bradleigh Close, which reduces the site area to 0.24 ha.

On the larger 0.64 ha site it was estimated that around 24 dwellings could be delivered, which equates to 37.5 units per ha. However, the DLP indicates that 13 dwellings could be delivered on the smaller 0.24 ha, which equates to a density of 54.2 dwellings per ha. The delivery of 13 dwellings on this site might be unrealistic, whilst complementing the character of the area.

It is respectfully requested that the site is extended back to 0.64 ha, which will enable the delivery of more affordable housing and greater benefits.

Comment

Representation ID: 29890

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Kathleen Simpson

Agent: Heritage Planning Design Ltd

Green Belt

It is agreed that the site makes a low contribution towards the purposes of the green belt and that many other sites in the local and wider area make a greater contribution. As stated above, the site should be extended back to 0.64 ha.

Other Considerations
As my Client owns further land to the south some green belt enhancement, such as planting beyond the southern boundary, would be achievable.