TH1/HC - Hill Top Road (2)

Support

Representation ID: 172

Received: 15/02/2021

Respondent: Mr David Benson

Development at this site would be unlikely to result in a significant effect,- debatable
Please ensure sensitivity and protection around Hedley lane track if possible

Object

Representation ID: 590

Received: 01/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Chris Scurrah

For a development of just 11 houses, the obstacles developers would need to overcome would be enormous. Access would destroy a historic network of paths and byways used by locals. It would be better to add the 11 to a larger site. TH8 could be extended.

Object

Representation ID: 1030

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Sean Dillon

This is another example of the council taking an easy option when it comes to planning for new homes, and will have a detrmental effect on any attempts to utilise the Brontë connection to make the village more attractive to both tourists and potential house buyers alike

Comment

Representation ID: 1073

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Matthew Thompson

Thornton doctors and dentists are past breaking point capacity, getting in to see them is impossible due to the amount of households already in Thornton. Congestion on Thornton Road is already bad; around the coop it is getting dangerous due to the number of people trying to park, the infrastructure in the village can not cope with any more houses being built.

Object

Representation ID: 1080

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Tracy Walker

Don’t use our green open space, use the brown field sites and old mills that are continually being victims of arson

Object

Representation ID: 2712

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Frances Soames

The infrastructure and access is not sufficient for the volume of traffic that this housing would bring. Thornton Road and Hill Top roads are busy roads which struggle to contain the volume of traffic now.

Object

Representation ID: 3025

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Sophie Hunt

The infrastructure is not in place to support this kind of development

Object

Representation ID: 5137

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Julia Parr

Access track is not suitable for vehicular access even with improvements which would mean encroaching on adjacent green belt field.
11 houses on a sloping site which does have run off water from hill Top road, not suitable
no public transport other than 1 bus per hour
increase in use of Hill top Road for car ownership
junction at James street and Hill top already far too narrow and difficulties in winter
other access is towards keelham with a school
already too busy with omega lorries and build up of traffic
traditional historic houses around in black face stone, would any potential be in keeping?

Object

Representation ID: 5151

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Helen Marriott

Increased risk of water run off affecting lower buildings and roads lower due to reduced capacity of land to absorb water.
Proximity to protected habitats. Negative impact of increased footfall and traffic.
Increase in traffic leading to traffic log jams, particularly at peak times and during road works and bad weather.
Inability of local infrastructure; roads, schools, doctors, dentist, public transportation and limited leisure facilities to cope with any increase in demand.
Destruction of unique character and heritage of village.
Unnecessary destruction of green belt when should be developing empty properties and brown field and derelict sites first.
Negative impact on local economy as village less attractive to visitors, particularly walkers.
Reducing village to 'commuter' belt where majority of new residents are not actively engaged in the community.
Increased threat to livestock from 'out of control' dogs. Increased volume of dog faeces fouling local footpaths, pavements and other habitats.

Object

Representation ID: 5224

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Nick Bewes

The junction with Hill Top road and James Street isn't suitable for more cars and vans to use to access the new development.

Object

Representation ID: 12369

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Manny McKenzie

Damaging effect development would have on rural character of Thornton, especially along the Bronte Way.
Loss of attractiveness for visitors to birthplace of the Bronte Sisters.
Effect for overseas visitors who invariably comment on the delightful rural views they encounter during visits and walks in the area.
Industrial, rural, and literary heritage should be preserved.

The Council should adopt building standards that all new homes should comply with, insulation standards at Passiv House or carbon neutral level. For inner city brownfield sites, the margins between cost of development and sale price might be slim, the added costs of building to Passiv House standards (10 - 15%) might make this uneconomic. However, use of available grants/subsidies for energy efficient housing, would make such housing affordable. In desirable areas these building standards would be less of an issue, given the lifetime savings on utility bills.
These building standards would mark Bradford an environmentally aware/climate-responsible city and increase it's attractiveness.

Object

Representation ID: 13356

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Jac Morton

Sites; TH1/HC, TH9/H, TH10/H, TH11/H

Stated in your plan as separate sites - they are in fact in very close proximity and border each other. There would be a housing estate of 118 houses.

These sites, in combination with the others proposed, will create 3 large new housing estates and adversely affect the character of Thornton Village, which is listed in the RUDP, 12.43 & Policy NE3.

They will change the landscape of a rural village, turning it instead into a large housing estate.

Alongside the damage that will be done to the village, no consideration has been given to the impact of the current residents. Local GP surgeries are already at capacity, local schools are also at capacity and traffic already an issue during rush hour.

Comment

Representation ID: 28757

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.

Comment

Representation ID: 29918

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Bridge View Developments Ltd

Agent: Bradley Stankler Planning

TH1/HC
Comment on Green Belt Function: N/A

General Comment: Long-standing committed site with outline planning permission, expiring July 2021. Sloping site requiring access improvements.

Draft Local Plan Estimated Gross Capacity: 11

Evidence Based Conclusion On Suitability & Capacity: 11 dwelling capacity as per planning permission, but doubts as to deliverability as the junction of Hill Top Road and Wiken Lane is substandard, requiring improvement.