WI1/H - Crooke Lane

Object

Representation ID: 2410

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Sally Birch

There is a brownfield site already within the planning process at Spencers Mill. Why not approve that one in lieu of this? The geography for Spencer’s is better and is already submitted.

Support

Representation ID: 4289

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Katy Powell

This land is overgrown and an eyesore. It is surrounded by buildings and houses already, it has foundations for 3 houses already. Good access.

Object

Representation ID: 4435

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Maxine Hill

We have enough houses in the village and not enough facilities

Object

Representation ID: 4515

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Sarah Heywood

The village cannot handle anymore houses. The school, doctors and the shops are over crowded enough and the road going through Wilsden is also very busy

Support

Representation ID: 4712

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Alison Powell

Partially developed and left. An eyesore which needs improving. Not useful for anything as is.

Support

Representation ID: 4837

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Roland Powell

Number of dwellings proposed will not overburden area/services and land is currently unused and with village boundary, although access may be a problem.

Support

Representation ID: 4883

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr John Turton

Build close knit homes to get more from site

Object

Representation ID: 5348

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jane Pearson

Bradford promote using brownfield sites first, so why are Prospect Mill and Haven Farm (aka Chicken Factory in Harecroft) not being used in lieu of Green Belt land.
Single Road in and out of Wilsden is not sustainable for heavier traffic. One form entry at Wilsden Primary School 2021

Object

Representation ID: 5530

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Susan Griffiths

Wilsden is already a congested village the roads will not be able to cope with any more households with several cars each - it is going to ruin the village in my opinion

Object

Representation ID: 19731

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

Wilsden actually needs construction. Not more houses but employment opportunities.
The 130 more homes envisaged in the plan include WI1/H & WI3/H.

Existing sites have been approved for housing, so this refutes the excuse to build on greenbelt at WI2/H. Brownfield sites at Haven Farm, Station Road, Harecroft and Prosepct Mill, Main Street are ideal. This will all inevitably bring 260+ more cars into the equation.

Residents already feel the B6144 from Cullingworth and Main Street/Harden Road are similar to race tracks with scarce police resources (not already deployed to Bradford) unable to impact the dangerous situation.

Comment

Representation ID: 28720

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: 29491

Received: 29/03/2021

Respondent: Historic England

See attachment for full representation.
Part of the site is within the Wilsden Conservation Area. The southeast corner of the site is identified in the Wilsden Conservation Area Appraisal as providing a positive contribution to the character of the Conservation Area. Whilst the site is located outside of the boundary of the Saltaire World Heritage Site (WHS) buffer zone it is
within an area where tall buildings could affect its setting. The development of this area could harm elements which contribute to the significance of these designated heritage assets.
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).