TH11/H - South of Hill Top Road and East of Close Head Lane

Support

Representation ID: 175

Received: 15/02/2021

Respondent: Mr David Benson

Development at this site would be unlikely to result in a significant effect, either positive or negative- debatable!
A sensitive site design, which incorporates green infrastructure, will be required to mitigate any impact on the Green Infrastructure corridor and the wider landscape, the site may be screened by trees from Thornton Cemetery.
Ensure environmental protections around habitats

Object

Representation ID: 876

Received: 07/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs M Lyman-Carter

This is not just a request for 30 there is also a request TH10/H which is for 27 houses ,increasing the traffic on a already busy road . On average each house hold will have 3/4 resident which will need the already stetch doctors and schools in the area . The is also a popular walking route and will impact on safety of this road .

Object

Representation ID: 1091

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Tracy Walker

Don’t use our green belt open spaces utilise all the brown field and derelict mills in the inner city

Object

Representation ID: 1393

Received: 13/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Tom Caulfield

This is just another site that will be the start of this whole area becoming a huge housing development and will ruin the areas rural appeal and also destroy Thornton's village identity.

Object

Representation ID: 3038

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Sophie Hunt

Object to building in green belt areas, especially ones that will create extra pressure on narrow country roads and traffic through village

Object

Representation ID: 3171

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Emily Scurrah

Too many houses planned and too many issues here. Quote:
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 the south of the site.
• Development of the site would have a moderate impact on the landscape.
• The site is within a Green Infrastructure Corridor.
• The site is located within the 7km buffer of the SPA/SAC.
• Moderate slope north to south.
• Site has poor accessibility due to poor bus services, steep topography and distance to some local services.
You've said it all - the impact would not be moderate.

Object

Representation ID: 3549

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Ann Gabriel

Development along Hill Top Rd is not conducive to reduction of emission targets.
No one living in these houses would access the village on foot - they would all use their cars, add to traffic congestion in Keelham village and the pinch points at Wicken Lane

Object

Representation ID: 5176

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 field/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: 5245

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Nick Bewes

TH10/H is too close to this development and Hill Top Road isn't suitable for more traffic to come up from the village

Object

Representation ID: 5276

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.
30 houses plus 11 on lower field 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 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 build be in keeping?
Have the council considered other brown field areas in the village, the question is why has Thornton had an allocation of 600 plus houses, when all other south pennine villages have far fewer numbers! It will be a small town.

Object

Representation ID: 5294

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 field/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: 8154

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: CPRE West Yorkshire

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

TH3/H
TH9/H
TH11/H

Object

Representation ID: 13359

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 (quoted for reference below).

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.

Object

Representation ID: 15454

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 the south of the site.

Development of the site would have an 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.

Site has poor accessibility due to poor bus services, steep topography and distance to some local services.

Roads are narrow and not suited to increased traffic.

Comment

Representation ID: 28767

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: 29928

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Bridge View Developments Ltd

Agent: Bradley Stankler Planning

TH11/H

Comment on Green Belt Function: Site is an agricultural field in open countryside. Any residential development would be encroachment into open countryside.
General Comment: Sloping site detached from main built up area, crosssed by Bronte Way footpath.
Draft Local Plan Estimated Gross Capacity: 30
Evidence Based Conclusion On Suitability & Capacity: NIL capacity as site is in open countryside. Development would be encroach into open countryside and would lead to adverse landscape impact