QB7/H - Fleet Lane

Object

Representation ID: 181

Received: 15/02/2021

Respondent: Miss Rebecca Poole

The development of the site would cause considerable distress and negatively impact wellbeing. We chose this area due to the open space and air benefits, therefore additional traffic would cause considerable long term pollution effects and noise disruption. I am concerned about the additional traffic on the mini roundabout, it would become very dangerous with the increase in traffic 260 additional homes brings. It's with great appreciation, I ask that any application to build on this land is rejected, considering the needs of the existing residents.

Object

Representation ID: 211

Received: 16/02/2021

Respondent: Mr Robert Pandolfi

My concerns are school intake in the area, traffic in fleet lane , noise and environmental impact, maybe less houses? Understand need for houses but this many?

Object

Representation ID: 234

Received: 17/02/2021

Respondent: Mrs Gillian Seed

This will further compound existing issues. Fleet Lane is narrow, it is almost impossible to negotiate in vehicles at peak times from either end. New Park Road is narrow and the Chapel Lane junction is a scene of many" near misses" for cars already. These roads are rat runs already . The number of houses would have a significant impact on local infrastructure which already struggles . Green space will be lost which is critical to the health and wellbeing of the local population. Access points to the site from Fleet Lane are limited . Old Guy Road is narrow.

Object

Representation ID: 2264

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Trevor Rhodes

I object to the plan to build 260 homes on Old Guy Road/Fleet Lane.
Access to the site will involve travel on roads that are unsuitable for the increase in vehicles not to mention the construction wagons which will cause the residents great concern with current on street parking limiting Fleet Lane in particular to one way.
Access to both roads from the main roads is also unsuitable.
With the Golf Club agreeing to make the course available for housing it must be more beneficial to all the residents of Queensbury and will be less disruptive as it provides access from the main road.

Object

Representation ID: 3375

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Louise Dawson

Fleet Lane is too narrow to enable safe or easy access into such a large new housing development. Fleet Lane also has a narrow blind bend in it and a small busy primary school at one end. Increasing traffic on Fleet Lane especially given the other extra traffic from housing developments QB1/H and QB2/H would make the exit of Fleet Lane near the primary school very dangerous and further increase congestion. The placement of so much housing so close to an oversubscribed school would potentially displace current residents from being able to use it, which is unethical. There would be a negative impact on homes on Fleet Lane; reducing house prices, obliterating rural views and increasing pollution, noise and congestion.

Object

Representation ID: 4630

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

This development is too large for the Green Belt area and Fleet Lane would be overwhelmed by this development.

Fleet Lane is already under extreme strain through parking and anti-social driving. It would be overwhelmed by this development and there is little opportunity to improve the road to ease the ongoing issues. It is also heavily used by vehicles and pedestrians from two schools, Foxhill Primary School at one end and Shibden Head Primary Academy at the other. The road is narrow at the Foxhill Primary School end and is heavily congested with parked cars from the junction with Foxhill Grove to the junction with the A647.

The impact of this number of houses on local services and amenities would be significantly detrimental.

Object

Representation ID: 5052

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Dr Andrew Dawson

Fleet Lane does not provide a suitable location for significant house building within Queensbury for a number of reasons including:
The Foxhill park end of Fleet Lane is already difficult to negotiate and therefore dangerous, in particular when leaving Fleet Lane via that route. It is very difficult to see traffic coming from either direction on the main road. Additional traffic from a larger number of houses will make this significantly worse.
There is a blind bend at the same end of Fleet Lane by the kennels that consistently causes issues with traffic, especially when children are being picked up or dropped off at the primary school.
Fleet Lane is too narrow to provide a suitable entrance to an estate.
Noise and pollution increases due to the proposed houses and the cars that will inevitably come with them will be significant, especially near Foxhill primary school.

Support

Representation ID: 5087

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Barratt Homes and David Wilson Homes Yorkshire West

Agent: Sheppard Planning

This representation supports the allocation of land at Fleet Lane, Queensbury (Ref QB7/H)

A slight density increase to 30dph could deliver some 330 homes, and increase the amount of affordable housing delivered, which would assist the Council with moving closer towards meeting the “urban uplift” element of the “Standard Method”, which is a basic and now integral part of the methodology that is not currently being provided for in the Plan.

(Additional statement provided)

Object

Representation ID: 5637

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

This development is too large for the Green Belt area and Fleet Lane would be overwhelmed by this development.
Fleet Lane is already under extreme strain through parking and anti-social driving. It would be overwhelmed by this development and there is little opportunity to improve the road to ease the ongoing issues. It is also heavily used by vehicles and pedestrians from two schools, Foxhill Primary School at one end and Shibden Head Primary Academy at the other. The road is narrow at the Foxhill end and is heavily congested with parked cars from the junction with Foxhill Grove to the junction with the A647.
The impact of this number of houses on local services and amenities would be significantly detrimental.

Comment

Representation ID: 28774

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.