QB6/H - Station Road west/Sharket Head Close

Support

Representation ID: 4627

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

This site is on Green Belt land and the existing line of trees parallel to Station Road should be maintained and/or Improved. There is a relatively small number of houses proposed and with a sensitive design wouldn’t impact the area as an extension to Sharket Head Close.

An access route to/from Station Road should be completely avoided given that it leads to the Great Northern Trail and potential Queensbury Tunnel conversion. This unadopted road is already in dire condition and is frequently used by walkers, runners, cyclists and horses. If access was to be put onto Station Road then my support would change to an objection.

Support

Representation ID: 5636

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

This site is on Green Belt land and the existing line of trees parallel to Station Road should be maintained and/or Improved. There is a relatively small number of houses proposed and with a sensitive design any impact to the area as an extension to Sharket Head Close should be relatively minimal.

Object

Representation ID: 8146

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: CPRE West Yorkshire

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

QB1/H
QB4/H
QB5/H
QB6/H
QB8/H
QB9/H

Our recommended approach to density would mean that it should not be necessary for all of these sites to be allocated in order to meet the settlements development needs.

Support

Representation ID: 13317

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mitre Residential LPP

Agent: DPP Planning

We support the allocation QB6/H but also object as we consider that the allocation should be extended to include the adjacent field as part of the Wider Site. i.e the full SHLAA site QB/011

Comment

Representation ID: 28773

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: 29447

Received: 29/03/2021

Respondent: Historic England

The site is adjacent to the Queensbury Conservation Area and close to a number of number of Grade II Listed Buildings to the south of the site, including Victoria Hall. The development of this area 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).