HR1/H - Chelston House

Object

Representation ID: 1345

Received: 12/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Rebecca Boocock

There is lots of wildlife on this site - deer, badgers, foxes, rabbits and bats, owls etc this land is green belt and as such should not be built on this field as you would cause damage to lots of wildlife that have there homes there. Foxes have had there sets in this field along with badgers and deer regularly live on this field too there are also many bats and owls in the trees on this site which have tpo's on them. The access to this site is on a bend on a fast road and would also cause accidents when trying to get out from this site. A better area would be the field at the bottom of north walk road or either of the sites on long lane where there is not as much wildlife and is not greenbelt land and is also nearer too the school.

Object

Representation ID: 1347

Received: 12/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Stuart Boocock

I would like to put in my objection to building on this site the houses would destroy the wildlife on this greenbelt site we watch the deer every morning that live in the field we also watch the foxes play and bring up there young in there dens they have in this field every year along with badgers, owls and bats which live in the trees in this field which are beautiful and have TPO's on them and should not be destroyed as they are hundreds of years old. Much better areas to build would be long lane near the school or off north walk as they are nearer facility and also do not have the wildlife living on them these houses would be on a bad bend on a fast road accidents would happen greenbelt land should be protected and animals that live on it

Object

Representation ID: 1350

Received: 12/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Isabel Boocock

I would like to put in my objection to building on this site the houses would destroy the wildlife on this greenbelt site we watch the deer every morning that live in the field we also watch the foxes play and bring up there young in there dens they have in this field every year along with badgers, owls and bats which live in the trees in this field which are beautiful and have TPO's on them and should not be destroyed as they are hundreds of years old. Much better areas to build would be long lane near the school or off north walk as they are nearer facility and also do not have wildlife living on them these houses would be on a bad bend on a fast road accidents would happen our greenbelt land should be protected the animals that live on it

Object

Representation ID: 1400

Received: 13/03/2021

Respondent: Mr John Pratt

This land slopes to the rear of properties in Chelston Park, Harden. There is already a considerable problem with gardens flooding towards the bottom of this site during periods of heavy rain. I can only imagine that the problem will become more serious if 15 more properties are build on the land to the rear of this site.

Object

Representation ID: 3630

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Sarah Mobey

This site should not be developed without consideration and assessment of the following:
1) habitat to species of birds, butterflies, bats, owls and deer
2) watercourse flowing to its western edge with a wooded boundary of mature trees and hedges
3) 3 veteran healthy mature and sizeable specimens of tree should be subject to TPO assessment
4) Roman archeological significance in land adjacent braes castle should be considered
5) 500 metres from ancient woodland and impacts on extra surface water should be assessed
6) Local environment in terms of biodiversity and flooding risk needs detailed assessment
7) The housing for 0.67ha site is 15 units, 10 higher than the larger site of 0.91ha at South Walk which is for 5 units. Existing housing near Chelston Park / Wilsden Road is detached homes whereas South Walk is semi detached so unit allocation based on housing stock / density should be reassessed.

Object

Representation ID: 5091

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Marcia McGrail

This site is Green Belt - once it is gone, it is gone. Where does it stop? Till there's so little left, we all give up?
Harden is a small village and deserves to remain so. Wilsden & Harden will eventually lose their distinctive characteristics due to the continual erosion of respective village boundaries.
The option should be to strengthen existing boundaries, not utilise a creeping land grab policy that the villagers object to.
This could easily be a community garden - growing locally sustainable foods for the village and beyond.
The increase in traffic volume, noise and pollution on a small community with a near capacity road structure is unsustainable and unconcionable.The government's 'every bit of space matters' campaign seems .

Object

Representation ID: 5480

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: CPRE West Yorkshire

In line with our comments on policy SP5, we object to these site allocations:

HR1/H
HR3/H

Support

Representation ID: 7138

Received: 10/03/2021

Respondent: David Hill LLP

We are pleased to see that the above site is allocated for housing in the Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021. The landowners are keen to progress with developing the site and we would like to confirm it’s availability.

We note that the site appraisal states that there could be a minor adverse effect on the setting of the Grade II* Listed Building ‘Harden Hall’. We would like to confirm that any proposed development would be designed with the setting of this heritage asset as a primary consideration. We also note that the appraisal states that there is potential to create a stronger boundary to the green belt and would look to achieve this through good design.

Comment

Representation ID: 9515

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: Judith Lindley

HR1/H Chelston House

This is on the grounds that there is already a very large amount of traffic in Harden and this will most certainly add to the throughput of vehicles. I would request that if building was to proceed at these sites Bfd Council implements far more effective traffic calming measures. The stretch of Road between Goit Stock Terrace (Harden Beck) and the roundabout in the centre of Harden has a problem with speeding cars/vehicles. No traffic calming measures are in place such as an illuminated sign warning when speeds are over the limit. As a resident near this main road it is both noisy and dangerous and any more housing will just add to the problem.

Object

Representation ID: 19723

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

My personal experience of Long Lane, Harden, was the catalyst for getting involved in local politics.

Of the several greenbelt sites proposed to be built HR/1H, HR2/H, HR4/H the one on the western end of the village with 40 houses HR3/H would cause the most problems. There is poor access to public transport, necessitating daily use of 80+ more cars, they would in the main turn right onto B6249 Long Lane heading past the school for Bingley.

There is already congestion and queues on Sundays. On week days there will be tail-backs right out of the village!

Comment

Representation ID: 28711

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: 29428

Received: 29/03/2021

Respondent: Historic England

The site is located around 200 metre north of the Grade II* listed Harden Hall and adjoins the non-designated Braes Castle to the north. Whilst the site is located outside of the boundary of the Saltaire World Heritage Site (WHS) buffer zone it is within an area where tall buildings could affect its setting. The development of this
area could harm elements which contribute to the significance of these designated heritage assets.
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).