HA4/H - Ebor Mills, Ebor Lane

Object

Representation ID: 7163

Received: 10/03/2021

Respondent: Jacqueline Jarvis

I strongly object to Bradford Council building houses on Greenbelt land. There are enough Brown field sites with abandoned buildings and unused warehousing that should be considered first. Also what about housing that is unoccupied by missing landlords? Why aren’t these compulsory purchased to start with? You never consider the infrastructure, roads, doctors, schools, sewage, increased traffic etc., when drawing up these plans and what if any will be social housing which is the most needed of all builds? NONE!

Object

Representation ID: 15754

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Anne Arana

I object to building which infringes on the green belt and does not use the many brownfield sites throughout the district.

Cross Roads is misspelt as one word. And why is Cross Roads lumped with Haworth? The three villages of Stanbury, Haworth, and Lees & Cross Roads all have very different characteristics and identity.

Road are already congested, schools and doctors are over subscribed.

The plan states there are two schools in Haworth and two parks. This is not true. Lees Primary is in the village of Lees, which you call Cross Roads. Cross Roads park is a mile away from Haworth.

The proposals will adversely impact the environment and air quality.

Adverse impacts on tourism - even as a local resident I do not wish to drive through a "tunnel" of houses which is what is happening now at Oakworth and Bogthorn with the views across the valley obscured.

Object

Representation ID: 16506

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Anita Selby

Object to houses being built on greenfield or Green Belt sites when all options for new housing on inner town/city areas haven't been exhausted. Change plans to explore all brownfield options first.

Keighley town centre – lots of empty buildings. Could be converted to flats or dwellings. On the outskirts there are derelict areas that could be built on first without encroaching fields from the villages, or building in more desirable areas.

Object that proposals will be for 3/4 bed executive housing especially in villages. Does Keighley need all housing that is proposed?

Could consideration be given to building sheltered housing/wardened flats for the over 60s or some bungalows?

Reconsider plans to build on Green Belt and greenfield sites. Is against current thinking about climate change, preserving the environment, nature and wellbeing. Should cherish green/open spaces. Policy is Green Belt land should be protected and to prevent sprawl.

Do not object to the mill o being converted but object to housing proposed encroaching up the fields

Comment

Representation ID: 18237

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

HA4/H Ebor Mill
Planning permission is already agreed and work has started on the site.

Comment

Representation ID: 28694

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Environment Agency

Flood Zones 2, 3 and the current/draft 3b/3a(i) within site boundary .

There is to be no development with the 3b/3a(i) extent unless considered water compatible or essential infrastructure. Where this is the case the development must demonstrate no increase in risk to others, no loss of Functional Floodplain and suitable mitigation measures for use and the lifetime of the development.

Development on site should follow a sequential layout so as to prevent unnecessary development within Flood Zones 3b, 3 and 2 wherever possible. 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. Some SuDs principles such as storage ponds should not be solely relied upon within areas at risk of fluvial flooding as they may not be operational during a flood.

Development must be shown to be safe for the lifetime of the development. See the Adept Guidance of Access and Egress plans. Hazard ratings may need to be assessed as part of the proposal.

Mitigation such a proofing measures and raised Finished Floor Levels, must be set above the 1 in 100 plus Climate Change level for the site. Current Guidance is on .gov.

The applicant must ensure there is no increase in risk to others for the lifetime of the development (including climate change). Where on Greenfield sites compensatory storage must be actively sought.

Consideration must be made to making space for water and providing betterment in terms of flood risk management where ever possible. For development 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 likely these sites are going to show changes/increases in flood risk as a result of climate change.

The SFRA (to follow) is going to consider future flooding including future Functional Floodplain this may identify sites at more future risk than others which may affect its allocation or how development should be sequentially laid out on the site.

Comment

Representation ID: 29280

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Environment Agency

Sites that are adjacent to or include rivers and becks within their boundary must make full consideration of the value of these features for biodiversity and green-blue infrastructure, as well as the wildlife habitat network.

The existing biodiversity and green-blue infrastructure along these rivers/becks must be protected, and opportunity should be taken to enhance this Green-Blue Infrastructure including habitat enhancement to achieve 10% net gain in the riverine element of BNG.

As stated previously in relation to the policies, it is particularly important to recognise that rivers and becks cannot be replaced elsewhere, and that continuity of habitat along them is essential to maintaining and improving their ecological condition, and in maximising their contribution to green networks. These sites include (this is not a comprehensive list of all sites with rivers and becks):

o HA4/H Ebor Mills, Ebor Lane: Former mill adjacent to Bridgehouse Beck. Within the Worth Valley Green Infrastructure Corridor and important that existing green-blue infrastructure is retained and enhanced.

Object

Representation ID: 29436

Received: 29/03/2021

Respondent: Historic England

Site consists of the Grade II Listed Ebor Mill. Any development of this site should retain and sensitively convert the mill buildings and structures of interest. In addition, adjacent the bridge across the Bridgehouse Beck and 4-8 Ebor Lane are also Grade II Listed.
Development could harm elements which contribute to the significance of this designated heritage asset.

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).