HR4/HC - Braes Castle, Long Lane

Showing comments and forms 1 to 6 of 6

Support

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

Representation ID: 3395

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Harden Village Council

Representation Summary:

This site has a long standing and frequently renewed planning permission for 4 houses so is supported. The access onto Long Lane has been upgraded as required by the most recent grant of planning permission.

Object

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

Representation ID: 4812

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr John Pollard

Representation Summary:

The access onto Long Lane is inappropriate for a new housing development with insufficient capacity to improve it. It also exacerbates the traffic issues on Long Lane caused by parked vehicles.

Object

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

Representation ID: 4975

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jane Baxter

Representation Summary:

Access is the major problem here. Narrow one track Lane with very restricted view when emerging onto the main road due to cars parked on both sides of the main road. Also difficulties for pedestrians. When walking down the hill cars emerging from this lane cannot be seen and they cannot see you until you step onto the lane itself. If numerous cars are going to be entering and exiting this lane it could cause major issues.

Object

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

Representation ID: 5096

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Marcia McGrail

Representation Summary:

This site, in and of itself, would seem reasonable but BMDC do not appear to have considered the cumulative effect of HR1/H, HR2/H, HR3/H & HR4/HC on the already near capacity road system as it pertains to increased volume of traffic, road congestion, noise, pollution, decreased quality of life for exisiting residents who already have to live with high volumes of traffic, both local and through traffic. A traffic census should have been conducted before these impractical, agregious plans were proposed.
The bridge at the Malt and Long Lane itself are totally unsuitable for increased volumes of traffic.
The request to submit alternatives is disengenuous at best.

Object

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

Representation ID: 19726

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!

Comment

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

Representation ID: 28714

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.