ST3/HC - West of Green Lane

Showing comments and forms 1 to 8 of 8

Support

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

Representation ID: 298

Received: 19/02/2021

Respondent: Mr Roger Lambert

Representation Summary:

Please rejig the current outline permission so that vehicular access is from the NE corner i.e. via the Miller housing site and across Green Lane. This will benefit the appearance of Eastburn main road - and be safer, and discourage crime

Object

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

Representation ID: 1053

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Robert Rycroft

Representation Summary:

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

Object

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

Representation ID: 2018

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Paul Whitlam

Representation Summary:

Ref site ST3/HC
You already know of issue's with waste water on the junction Green Ln & Lyon Rd which has been at capacity for over 15-20yrs. Miller homes have added 157 new properties into this junction which hasn't been connected correctly causing more issue's (YW aware but signed off more capacity) The sewage hits a 90 degree bend at this point heading west along Lyon Rd. This is a combined sewer so all the surface water goes in this direction - your plan already stat's "ISSUE" ???
Already this junction is not managing the volume yet you want to add even more ??? I have been in very regular contact with YW since Miller Homes made this connection 4 yrs ago. The builders don't give a dam if you approve this connection. All of Green Close's waste is connected further along Lyon Rd away from this "at Risk Point"

Object

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

Representation ID: 5898

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Sarah Curran

Representation Summary:

The proposed building site in Eastburn is the only open greenfield site left in the village which isn't on a flood plain or used as farm land. It provides vital support for wildlife and hosts a number of ancient trees. Replacing this with concrete would severely affect the houses below the plot in terms of both view and water logging. The fields below the site are waterlogged for a large portion of the year already. The proposed entrance to the plot is via an old peoples home and industrial estate which is far from ideal.

Object

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

Representation ID: 7201

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!

Object

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

Representation ID: 7946

Received: 12/03/2021

Respondent: Sylvia Walker

Representation Summary:

Site is greenfield and green belt. Green belt should not be considered for development.
It contains 30 tree preservation orders
Brownfield sites should maximise the use of brownfield sites first
No exceptional circumstances for why this site has been considered

Comment

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

Representation ID: 24288

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

Representation Summary:

Outline permission has already been given.

Comment

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

Representation ID: 28623

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.