ME1/H - Bingley Road

Object

Representation ID: 689

Received: 03/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Jeremy Jackson

Site is inappropriate due to available road access through Derry Hill and connecting residential roads which will also further increase road traffic through Menston and the conservation area in particular. The flooding concern raised by previous submissions also hasn't been addressed. The continuing loss of green belt and the lack of alternative green space provision isn't addressed either.

Object

Representation ID: 1614

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Alan Elsegood

This site is Green Belt, and should be left as such. Access to Derry Hill if this was permitted would be extremely hazardous, and access through the adjacent site (currently under construction) would only generate more through-traffic. CBMDC continues to ignore the clear evidence that this site and the higher ground contains acquifers and stores groundwater. In times of heavy rain this leads to an overload of Menston's Victorian drainage system and flooding downstream. This is a totally unsuitable site for development.

Object

Representation ID: 4375

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

I object to this development for several reasons:
• it is located within the green belt
• the site is far removed from local transport routes; bus - 400m and rail - 800m
• these distances will encourage the use of motorised vehicular transport, both to the nearest location of where public transport is available or direct to the person's elected destination
• the local road and rail infrastructure is already full to capacity and unable to cope with the present pressures placed upon it, even before the Sun Lane housing development begins, and this development would further exacerbate this impractical situation
• Similarly, the local education and health provision is also at full capacity and will be overwhelmed by this housing development.

Object

Representation ID: 4584

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

ME1/H - Bingley Road (40)
Objection to the inclusion of this site based upon:-
• Currently designated as Green Belt.
• Poor pedestrian and bicycle access.
• Poor public transport connectivity.

Although allocation of Site ME1/H takes no regard of the topography whatsoever and it lies within the green belt and consists of a north-facing steep hillside. It is within 2.5km of the South Pennine Moors, currently being used for sheep farming, overlooking the village. It’s development would overshadow the existing settlements lower down the hillside particularly in Hargrave Crescent and Derry Lane as well as impacting on the SSSI and SPA. It conflicts with Policy SP9 Climate Change, Environmental Sustainability and Resource Use.

Object

Representation ID: 4727

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Menston Parish Council

Although allocation of Site ME1/H may appear reasonable in a desktop exercise, it lies within in the green belt and consists of a north-facing steep hillside, within 2.5km of the South Pennine Moors, currently being used for sheep farming, overlooking the village and it’s development would overshadow the existing settlements lower down the hillside particularly in Hargrave Crescent and Derry Lane as well as impacting on the SSSI and SPA. It conflicts with Policy SP9 Climate Change, Environmental Sustainability and Resource Use.

Object

Representation ID: 5267

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Chris Steele

This seems part of a piecemeal divide and conquer strategy, where a site has been parcelled up for different developers. The adjacent fields are already under development and the site is subject to flood risk. A clear green boundary and distance must be maintained to the houses on Hargreave Crescent with shielding with trees and hedgerows and green spaces.

Object

Representation ID: 5482

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: CPRE West Yorkshire

In line with our comments on policy SP5, we object to the site allocation ME1/H.

Comment

Representation ID: 19892

Received: 01/04/2021

Respondent: Natural England

The site lies in proximity to the South Pennine Moors (Phase 2) SPA and has potential to lead to the loss of functionally linked land for SPA birds.

We welcome the approach taken in the draft plan, SPD and assessments to loss of functionally linked land.

The council has a copy of a model to identify the suitability of sites for SPA golden plover and recommend that allocations are screened against this dataset taking the following approach:

• Maximum Training Sensitivity plus Specificity (MTSS) layer: full survey for Golden Plover likely to be required. The WY Ecology Service SPA Bird Survey Methodology should be followed.

• Minimum Training Presence (MTP) layer or 10 Percentile Training Presence (10PTP) layer: scoping survey to determine if a full Golden Plover full survey required. A desk based survey may be sufficient for sites within the MTP whereas a walkover survey may be required for sites within the 10PTP;

• Not within an area of predicted presence: No survey required for Golden Plover.

Where loss of functionally linked land cannot be ruled out at this stage we recommend that allocation requirement text in the plan sets out survey and mitigation requirements clearly.

Object

Representation ID: 21620

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

Objection to the inclusion of this site based upon:-

• Currently designated as Green Belt.
• Poor pedestrian and bicycle access.
• Poor public transport connectivity.

Object

Representation ID: 28599

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Member of Parliament (Conservative)

Agent: Deborah Davies

ME1/H - Bingley Road (40)

I object to the inclusion of this site because:
• It is green belt
• Poor public transport provision.
• The report acknowledges there is “poor pedestrian and bicycle access.”

Comment

Representation ID: 28618

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: 29425

Received: 29/03/2021

Respondent: Historic England

The site is located on the south side of Menston on Derry Hill overlooking the Menston Conservation Area some 250 metres to the north. The development of this area could harm elements which contribute to the significance of this designated heritage asset.
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).