Consultation Question 103

Object

Representation ID: 5708

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Andrew Clark

Traffic from the proposed development through Cottingley Village onto March Cote Lane goes through Coppy Close. Coppy Close with parked vehicles already has unsited access from March Cote Land and Rycroft Avenue and does require vehicles to reverse back if the there is already a vehicle already entered Coppy Close. Additional traffic will only exacerbate an existing safety problem.
Surface water off the proposed development already floods onto March Cote Lane creating a hazard particularly in winter conditions. Surface water from land south of March Cote Lane further up the lane enters a culvert which runs under the front gardens down towards Cottingley Beck. During the 2020/21 winter this culvert could not carry this water, which lifted the manhole cover and flowed down March Cote Lane, creating very hazardous conditions in winter conditions. Any surface water from the development directed to this culvert will only add to the problem.

Object

Representation ID: 5716

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Brian Grabham

Cottingley was built with criminally negligent drainage and sewerage. For some of us this means a high risk of severe flooding after any any heavy rainfall. I expect that any further building uphill will only serve to make the current situation, desperate for some of us, much worse. Also I would expect road access to the estate, which currently is quite poor at peak times, to deteriorate further. I thought the Greenbelt land was there to improve ou quality of life.

Comment

Representation ID: 15492

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Highways England (Yorkshire & North East Team)

It is not considered that locating development within the
settlements within Cottingley, on their own, will have a severe impact on the capacity, operation and safety of the SRN, and this will be identified through the transport evidence base being prepared by the Council / the individual assessment of the transport implications of the sites by the sites’ promoters.
However, the quantum of sites forms part of a wider cumulative impact within Cottingley and the rest of the development aspirations within the Plan could severely impact the SRN, and this cumulative impact will need to be established by the Council and considered by Highways England.

Object

Representation ID: 17176

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Jones Homes (Yorkshire) Limited

Agent: Savills (UK) Ltd

As set out within this representation and its appendices, the land at Hazel Beck would be a wholly appropriate site for sympathetic residential development with appropriate ecological mitigation possible.

The site specific Green Belt assessment for the proposed allocation at Marchcote Lane identifies that it
has a ‘moderate potential impact’ on the Green Belt whereas we identify the land at hazel Beck as having
only a very weak contribution to the purposed of the Green Belt as set out within national Policy, the land
at Hazel Beck is therefore sequentially preferable in terms of Green Belt impact.

Recommendation 13: The Housing allocation at CO1/H should be included as part of the housing delivery
strategy for Cottingley however in order to meet the needs of the District it is essential that additional sites
are allocated in the local vicinity. We strongly recommend the allocation of the land at Hazel Beck (CO/006) as an appropriate and deliverable site for residential development.

Comment

Representation ID: 28978

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

Doesn’t take into consideration, already granted planning permission at Sun Inn pub for 18 properties

Object

Representation ID: 29697

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Persimmon Homes (West Yorkshire)

Agent: Barton Wilmore

Persimmon objects to the exclusion of site CO/011 as a proposed housing allocation, as it is a deliverable site which is suitable, available and achievable.

The only reason the Council have rejected the site is because it is not adjacent to the urban area, however , in reality that clearly isn’t case.

The reference to the site being detached from the urban area is somewhat of a misleading statement as that is clearly not the reality on the ground, as it adjoins Cottingley Village Primary School. However, due to a quirk of the planning system, it falls on the wrong side of a line drawn on a plan (settlement boundary) and for the purposes of planning is deemed to be detached from the urban area. It would be entirely logical for the school to be incorporated into the settlement boundary and had this been the case, the only reason for rejecting the site would disappear.

Persimmon have provided technical documentation (assessments re highways, landscape, ecology and flood risk) which demonstrates that the site is available, achievable and suitable and represents a deliverable housing site.

The Sustainability Appraisal (SA) which has been undertaken for the site demonstrates it scores well and only has a negative (red) assessment on a single question – 3 (land & buildings) on the basis that the development would result in the loss of a greenfield site. This is exactly the same as the site which the Council
are proposing to allocate – CO/002. Interestingly, site CO/002 has 2 red assessments, and as such could be assumed to be the worse performing of the two sites.

Object

Representation ID: 29698

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Persimmon Homes (West Yorkshire)

Agent: Barton Wilmore

Objection to the rejection of CO/011

Whilst we consider that site CO/011 is more appropriate than site CO/002 and should replace it is the only allocation in the village, we note that it is identified as an ‘alternative’ site. If the Council progress the Local Plan as proposed, we advise that site CO/011, which is only rejected because it does not adjoin the settlement boundary, is allocated as safeguarded land. The Council will need reserve land over the plan period as inevitably, not all allocated sites will come forward and having
safeguarded sites will help maintain a 5YHLS over the plan period.

Given that the Council are planning for a shortfall of 9,000 homes across the plan period as they are not accounting for the 35% uplift as required by the standard method, we strongly suspect that the Council will need additional sites to meet this significant shortfall. As the site is identified as an ‘alternative’, we anticipate it will be allocated in this event.