ME2/H - Derry Hill

Object

Representation ID: 1635

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Alan Elsegood

Bradford Council has ignored the evidence of flood risk on this site, the difficulty of access to/from main traffic routes, and the necessity of road access through the village to get to jobs, rail services and secondary schools. Permitting development here (already granted and underway) makes a complete mockery of this after-the-fact consultation. The Council has inflicted an eyesore upon this previously popular area of grazing land and recreational opportunity. The site has been turned into a sea of mud (which the flooding and drainage evidence predicted) and which will continue to cause overcharging of the drainage facilities in this village. The properties authorised are not what the village needs and will only serve to bring more commuters into the village and onto the roads into Leeds and Bradford.

Object

Representation ID: 4376

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

After many objections and legal battles with regard to this housing development, it has been given the go ahead. However, I still refute that there are any special circumstances under which this development should proceed and continue to object to the development.

Object

Representation ID: 5259

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Chris Steele

Site will potentially lead to increased flooding in the area. Any new properties are unlikely to be affordable and will be out of character with the older properties on the lane. Transport infrastructure for roads and rail will be inadequate. Parking at the station is currently full by early rush hour (at least in pre-pandemic times) and developments in Otley will also lead to increased demand. This is the 'green' end of the village and any development will destroy the transition to countryside and negatively impact the character of the village.

Object

Representation ID: 7807

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

Comment

Representation ID: 19893

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.

Comment

Representation ID: 19914

Received: 01/04/2021

Respondent: Natural England

We note that the following allocations are on land which may be best and most versatile agricultural land. The plan should safeguard the long term capability of such land (NPPF para 170).

In order to inform the sustainability appraisal and ensure an accurate assessment of the impact of the plan on soil resources we recommend that allocations over 5ha, or at least those over 20ha, have ALC surveys undertaken in order to determine the ALC grade and help inform master planning and soil handling going forward.

Comment

Representation ID: 28619

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: 29426

Received: 29/03/2021

Respondent: Historic England

The site is located on the south side of Menston close to the Menston Conservation Area. The development of this area could harm elements which contribute to the significance of this designated heritage asset.
The Council has a statutory duty under the provisions of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act, 1990 to pay “special attention” to “the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance” of its Conservation Areas.
The site proforma for this site makes no reference to the sites proximity to the Conservation Area, or to the need to ensure that those elements which contribute to the significance of this designated heritage asset are not harmed by development.
Site ME2/H: a) Add a reference to the sites proximity to
Menston Conservation Area under the Constraints and Opportunities section of the site pro forma.
b) Add the following additional Development Consideration to the site pro forma:
‘Consider the impact of development on the setting of the Menston Conservation Area and appropriately avoid/minimise any harm caused.’