HR3/H - Long Lane

Showing comments and forms 1 to 11 of 11

Object

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 2333

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Mr John Barry Whitaker

Representation Summary:

I understood that the site has not been recommended by the Parish Council and is not part of their local plan.

Some 30 years ago this site was proposed for development and after consultation it was agreed by the Council that it was in an area of outstanding natural beauty and should remain as green belt.

The land is good quality farm land and has recently been re-seeded. It is in the country’s interest to protect farmland so we can strive for self sufficiency.

Building on the field would add to traffic on Long Lane, which is a problem at the best of times due to traffic calming and parked cars. At rush hour this regularly backs up to the Rycroft turnoff adjacent to the site.

There are other sites with better access and inferior quality farm land which could be better utilised.

Object

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 3394

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Harden Village Council

Representation Summary:

Harden Village Council objects to the development of this site on many grounds including encroachment into the Green Belt, loss of vista towards Goitstock, significant major impact on the openness of the Green Belt, poor acces to public transport , loss of richness of wild life and no obvious compensatory improvements to access the Green Belt.

Object

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 3665

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Derek Barker

Representation Summary:

I wish to object to the proposal for 40 more houses on Long Lane , Harden.
Another fifty(est ) cars on Long Lane will cause chaos on an already congested and narrow road.
It will also cause further potentially dangerous situations and accidents.
Long lane is already heavily used by lorries and HGV’s travelling between Halifax Road and Bingley and further building will exacerbate the situation.

Object

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 3789

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Sally Birch

Representation Summary:

Impact on natural boundaries
Too much sprawl
Poor public’s transport
Narrow roads can’t accommodate more cars

Object

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 5094

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Marcia McGrail

Representation Summary:

This site should not even be on a development plan as it is Green Belt. Which appears to count for nothing. Why call anything Green Belt if it is to be redesignated at a whim? The BMDC plan appears to be 'see a field, build on it', regardless of existing residents' quality of life.
A development of 40 houses on Long Lane will add a potential 80 cars on a road system already at capacity.
Together with the other sites, this will add a potential 120 plus vehicles to Long Lane/Harden's residents' frustration with the levels of traffic.
This is appalling planning - actually it is no planning at all.
Another erosion of village boundaries. Allow a strengthening of boundaries? Until the next field? Until Harden meets Cottingley?

Object

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 8156

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: CPRE West Yorkshire

Representation Summary:

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

HR1/H
HR3/H

Comment

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 9516

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: Judith Lindley

Representation Summary:

HR3/H Long Lane
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

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 19725

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

Representation Summary:

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!

Object

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 28596

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Member of Parliament (Conservative)

Agent: Deborah Davies

Representation Summary:

HR3/H – Long Lane (40)

I object to the inclusion of this site because:

• It is green belt
• Poor access
• Poor public transport
• The report acknowledges there would be a “major impact on openness”.
• There is a Grade II listed farmhouse close by.

Comment

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 28713

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Environment Agency

Representation Summary:

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

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 29430

Received: 29/03/2021

Respondent: Historic England

Representation Summary:

See attachment for full representation
The site is close to a number of Grade II listed buildings and structures, most notably Ivy House Farmhouse to the south-east and Hill End Farmhouse to the north-west, along with the Grade II listed Hostel Stone opposite the site at the junction with Ryecroft Road. 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.
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).