ST4/H - Rear of Holly Fold

Object

Representation ID: 299

Received: 19/02/2021

Respondent: Mr Roger Lambert

This site presents excessively costly problems which a small housing development could not attempt to overcome - power lines to go underground, numerous very active springs, almost impossibly steep gradients. Please revert this proposal to Green Belt.

Object

Representation ID: 1054

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Robert Rycroft

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

Comment

Representation ID: 1056

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Sharon Almond

Green belt land should not be considered for development.

Building on Green Belt land is in contravention to the Government’s aims and objectives. The fundamental aim of the Government’s Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. The Government’s policy on protection for the Green Belt is set out in chapter 13 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which clearly states the importance of Green Belt land and emphasises that when protecting the Green Belt, local authorities should maximise the use of suitable brownfield sites before considering changes to Green Belt boundaries.

The NPPF demands that there should be “exceptional circumstances” before Green Belt boundaries can be changed and states that inappropriate development is harmful to the Green Belt and should be approved only in “very special circumstances”.

It is my own personal view that green belt land should be protected from any development.

Object

Representation ID: 1111

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Joel Griffiths

ST4/H is clearly on greenbelt land. There should be exceptional circumstances to allow development on greenbelt land. I am unaware of any exceptional circumstances in this case. In addition, access to this development will inevitably be via Sutton Lane. This is already a dangerous road due to the lack of pavements. Increased traffic will make this more dangerous. The road is used by many pedestrians including some who attend one of three schools in Sutton. Pedestrians also use this road for access to Airedale Hospital.

Object

Representation ID: 7202

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: 8171

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: CPRE West Yorkshire

We’ve not been able to visit this site (ST1/H) ourselves but it has been brought to our attention based on the concerns from local groups. In addition to our comments on SP5, we would object to this site allocation. The gross density of the dwellings at ST1/H is much lower than we advocate, and is likely to achieve well below the HO2 minimum of 35 dpha net. As stated in the council’s report, 19% of the site is in 3b flood zones which causes concern for proposed development on this land.

In line with our comments on policy SP5, we also object to the site allocation, ST4/H.

Comment

Representation ID: 24289

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

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

Comment

Representation ID: 28624

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.