ST2/H - Aireburn Avenue

Object

Representation ID: 374

Received: 22/02/2021

Respondent: Mr James Graham

The existing water pressure on Aireburn Avenue is very poor as it stands and with the addition of 120 dwellings below our house (ST1/H) and the further 22 dwellings next to it (ST2/H) I believe this would stop the water flowing to our house completely. Has any work been undertaken to identify this problem and would any upgrade to our supply be carried out?

Object

Representation ID: 426

Received: 24/02/2021

Respondent: Mrs Anna Graham

Water pressure is extremely low on Aireburn Avenue so additional housing would exasserbate this issue.
Main road so possible traffic flow issuse, particularly as this stretch of land is on a main road, adjacent to a set of busy traffic ligths, and within direct proximity of a primary school were many cars at the side of the road to collect, drop off school children.

Object

Representation ID: 1051

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Robert Rycroft

Inappropriate use of land. No consideration for local infrastructure or other impacts on the environment.

Object

Representation ID: 1587

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Ian Greenwood

22 is to high a density. Such development would look out of palace with the housing in that area.
Increased traffic at Station Road/B6265 junction.

Object

Representation ID: 2271

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Helen Farrer

Whilst i do not object in principle to the development of this site as it forms a natural infill to some degree the stated text is inaccurate as there is no exiting field access to the north east corner . The existing field access for this parcel of land is to the north west corner . The existing track access to the houses on Aireburn Avenue is privately owned and not available to access this site.

Object

Representation ID: 2365

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs June Alice Wormald

There is no existing access to site at north east corner or onto Aireburn Avenue which is a private lane. There is site access at the north west corner.

Object

Representation ID: 2798

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Suzanna Nicholson

Any development would have considerable negative impact on the residents of Aireburn Avenue, such as dust and excessive noise. My work would be negatively impacted by the excessive noise.
Steeton, Eastburn and Silsden is saturated with new developments.
Steeton does not have the infrastructure to sustain more families and their vehicles; the roads are already heavily congested, schools are full and it is all but impossible to get an appointment with a local doctor due to them being overwhelmed. PLEASE study normal (not lockdown) traffic levels and pollution.
This is an irreplaceable meadow with wildflowers in summer.
I urge you to reconsider this proposal based on the negative impact of residents, pressure on infrastructure and the local environment.

Object

Representation ID: 7200

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: 24287

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

This is a steep sided area and will affect the local landscape character in Steeton. I think this is more over development for the village.

Comment

Representation ID: 28622

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.

Support

Representation ID: 29415

Received: 29/03/2021

Respondent: Historic England

The site is located 150 metres to the east of Steeton Conservation Area. However, given the topography of the site and the surroundings fields, along with the intervening area of woodland to the west, development of this site is unlikely to impact on the setting of the Conservation Area.
However, we welcome the inclusion of a reference to the proximity of the Conservation Area as a Constraint in the sites pro forma, and that the Development Considerations highlight that development proposals should consider and mitigate any impacts on its setting. This will alert potential developers of the need to take account of
those elements which contribute to their significance, and ensure that they are not harmed by development proposals.