TH8/HC - Thornton Road West

Object

Representation ID: 1088

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Tracy Walker

Don’t use our open space utilise the derelict mills in the city centre and stop them being victims of arson!

Object

Representation ID: 1391

Received: 13/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Tom Caulfield

This area is a beautiful rural area. The views from Hill Top Rd over this area are very special and building houses here will spoil that. Keelhams identity will also be spoiled. I'm sure that a similar development could be built else where in a less rural area.

Support

Representation ID: 1979

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Oliver Scurrah

This site would be suitable to develop providing there is still enough green space to provide a 'green corridor' for birds and animals, also walkers and cyclists. The fields to the south need to be preserved.

Object

Representation ID: 2088

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Linda Scurrah

Far too many houses on this site. Reduce the number, as it would impact on the sensitive habitats within 7km of the protected moors. No shops, public services or schools with places free (Keelham Primary no potential for expansion). Better to reduce number and develop sites closer to Thornton Grammar School. This site also has issues similar to Allerton Lane, which is an island on the green belt, cut off from schools and amenities. There is no provision for walking to school or shops and no footpaths, just a busy road too dangerous for children to cross. Potential for accidents.

Object

Representation ID: 2153

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Darren Parkin

Possible flood risk by development on this site, in addition to lack of school places nearby, a development of this size (and TH2/H) is simply not viable, due to local services already at breaking point with previous large scale developments in the area (one of which is still unfinished). There are far better brownfield sites (such as Woolcombers site in Fairweather Green) more suitable, that should be considered firstly. Electricity pylons on this site would also surely be an issue.

Object

Representation ID: 3035

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Sophie Hunt

Forms part of the bronte way. Should NOT be built on.

Object

Representation ID: 3076

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Stephen Winteridge

This site has been Green Field for more than 50 years, but there seems to be no consideration for the following:
It as obviously become a habitat for an abundance of wildlife, notably deer, owls, and ground nesting birds such as the Lapwing. Trees have also grown up, despite the developer having trashed the whole site several years ago by tipping. Its proximity to the South Pennines Designated Special Area of Conservation cannot be simply overlooked.
There is an underground culvert broken into in multiple places that runs the length of the site west/east taking surface water and mains sewerage from the surrounding countryside and from the housing above on Cragg Lane and Bottomley Holes
There is a footpath that runs north/south across the site, again conveniently obliterated by the developer.

Support

Representation ID: 3169

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Emily Scurrah

Support with some points to make. Although this is an area of 'scrub-land' , not really a green space or farmed land, it is still part of the 'Green Corridor' to the moors. There are too many houses planned here. Alternative suggestions provided. The issue of new builds as 'islands' cut off from schools, shops, local services etc is evident here. This might be like Allerton Lane build, the only way to get anywhere is by car - not good for climate change. Developers must provide: spaces for children to play, footpaths, traffic calming measures, road crossings.

Object

Representation ID: 5217

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Julia Parr

Objection to the number of proposed dwellings, this will be a huge estate and again is eating into Thornton's green space. If a lesser number were proposed I would not object.
Any buildings need to be in keeping with the rural agricultural aspect of the village, traditional materials, not artificial stone.
This build would greatly increase the volume of traffic on Thornton Road in both directions, this area is currently used a race track by lawless drivers. this would raise pollution levels.
Why has outline been passed for 250 houses prior to this consultation?
No facilities in this area, retail or otherwise which means inhabitants would need to use private transport for most likely short journeys.
If the full allocation of houses is given the go ahead, Thornton will no longer be a village but a small town!
current infrastructure in the village cannot provide for 600 plus extra houses

Object

Representation ID: 5237

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Nick Bewes

This is mostly industrial area, not really suitable for new houses.

Object

Representation ID: 5318

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Helen Marriott

Proximity to protected habitats. Negative impact of increased footfall and traffic.
Lack of access to adequate public transportation in particular means properties would appeal more to car owners, at least one car per household, more probably two, would see significant increase in traffic and air pollution.
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.
Reducing village to 'commuter' belt where majority of new residents are not actively engaged in the community.
With a bit of imagination (and attendant financing) this site would be ideally suited to becoming a 'country park' which would benefit the local community and remove pressure on the few existing open spaces and local footpaths.

Object

Representation ID: 12317

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Gleeson

Agent: Peacock and Smith

Proposed enlargement of preferred option site to include additional land to the east within the green belt.

Object

Representation ID: 13363

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Jac Morton

Yet another greenfield site. A housing estate of this scale will have a huge impact on the open space, which is a key characteristic of Thornton Village, and will forever change the identity of a settlement with a cultural significance that sees many tourists from all over the world visiting. Many people that move to Thornton, do so because of the open spaces and history.

This site, 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 into a large housing estate.

Furthermore no consideration has been given to the impact on current residents. GP surgeries are already at capacity, local schools are at capacity and traffic already an issue during rush hour.

Object

Representation ID: 15451

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Lesley Schofield

The site is currently designated as Green Belt.

The Bronte Way public footpath, which is a draw for tourists and has high cultural significance, runs along north of site and would be impacted upon.

Development of the site would have a high impact on the Bronte landscape.

The site is within a Green Infrastructure Corridor.

The site is located within the 7km buffer of the SPA/SAC.

Comment

Representation ID: 17301

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: The Great Northern Railway Trail Development Group

TH8/HC - Site allocation of land west of Thornton for 250 dwellings. This site needs to link directly to the route of the Great Northern Railway Trail in accordance with strategic policies on sustainable travel. This is an opportunity to follow through with investment in infrastructure as an essential part of the housing scheme. This site is the largest of the site allocations in Thornton and would be isolated from the rest of the village. It is crucial that a sustainable travel route is established using the Trail.
We made this key point was made when the planning application was discussed at committee. Again, Bradford planners failed to recognise the importance of the Trail in considering this planning application.

Comment

Representation ID: 19899

Received: 01/04/2021

Respondent: Natural England

The site lies in proximity to the South Pennine Moors (Phase 2) SPA and has potential to lead to the loss of functionally linked land for SPA birds.

We welcome the approach taken in the draft plan, SPD and assessments to loss of functionally linked land.

The council has a copy of a model to identify the suitability of sites for SPA golden plover and recommend that allocations are screened against this dataset taking the following approach:

• Maximum Training Sensitivity plus Specificity (MTSS) layer: full survey for Golden Plover likely to be required. The WY Ecology Service SPA Bird Survey Methodology should be followed.

• Minimum Training Presence (MTP) layer or 10 Percentile Training Presence (10PTP) layer: scoping survey to determine if a full Golden Plover full survey required. A desk based survey may be sufficient for sites within the MTP whereas a walkover survey may be required for sites within the 10PTP;

• Not within an area of predicted presence: No survey required for Golden Plover.

Where loss of functionally linked land cannot be ruled out at this stage we recommend that allocation requirement text in the plan sets out survey and mitigation requirements clearly.

Comment

Representation ID: 27743

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: National Gas Transmissions

Agent: Avison Young

The proposed development site is crossed or in close proximity to National Grid assets.
Details of the sites affecting National Grid assets are provided below.
4ZZ ROUTE TWR (122 - 157): 400Kv Overhead Transmission Line route: BRADFORD WEST – PADIHAM YW ROUTE: 275Kv Overhead Transmission Line route: BRADFORD WEST – ELLAND

Plans showing details of the site locations and details of National Grid’s assets are provided.

Guidance on development near National Grid assets Electricity assets & Gas assets is provided.

Comment

Representation ID: 28764

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: 29925

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Bridge View Developments Ltd

Agent: Bradley Stankler Planning

TH8/HC

Comment on Green Belt Function: N/A
General Comment: Large site within defined built up limits with outline planning permission for 250
dwellings.
Draft Local Plan Estimated Gross Capacity: 250
Evidence Based Conclusion On Suitability & Capacity: 250 dwelling capacity