HR2/H - South Walk

Support

Representation ID: 3388

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Harden Village Council

Harden Village Council does not oppose the development if this site in principle but suggests that access might be better achieved from Wilsden Road via HR1/H and the east part of rejected site HR/013

Object

Representation ID: 4811

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr John Pollard

South walk will require significant improvement as will access onto Long lane.

Object

Representation ID: 4957

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jane Baxter

Green belt land getting eaten up once again. Access to this field is not viable as a one Lane track leading onto a main road - buildings either side preventing widening of access. The main road already suffers from increasingly large amounts of traffic - putting more houses in the village will only add to current problems, Traffic calming measures installed are less than useless - and lower down the hill is a constant bottleneck - an accident waiting to happen with a school and a zebra crossing en route. The village school cannot increase current intake - any children moving to the village would have to be educated elsewhere. Little chance of new housing helping local businesses as this has not happened with recent builds. There is no “affordable” housing being built and far too many “executive” style homes in what was a small mill village.

Object

Representation ID: 5092

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Marcia McGrail

This site will increase the traffic volume, noise and pollution on Long Lane that is already at capacity and is unsustainable and unconcionable. Living on Long Lane has become frustrating and property in this area has been difficult to sell for that reason.
Already, vehicles bouncing over that ridiculously ineffective speed hump - except to increase the noise - is appalling & the notion of increasing by potentially 10 more vehicles from this site alone is distressing.
The existing fragile infrastructure of the village appears to count for nothing as more and more housing means more and more out of village journeys for shopping, entertainment etc.

Object

Representation ID: 19724

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: 28712

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: 29429

Received: 29/03/2021

Respondent: Historic England

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 the World Heritage Site.
Development on this site is unlikely to be built to a height that would be visible from the World Heritage Site, and thereby impact upon the Outstanding Universal Value of Saltaire. However, given that this is highlighted as a risk in the Saltaire World Heritage Site Management Plan (2014) it would be prudent to identify it as a development consideration in the Local Plan pro forma for this site.
Site HR2/H, add the following additional Development Consideration to the site pro forma:
‘Development must avoid impacting upon the Outstanding Universal Value of the Saltaire World Heritage Site through affecting long distance views of the Site.’