Site Assessment Update Report (Feb 2021)

Object

Representation ID: 2355

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Clive Brook Planning

We object to this evidence base document with regard to the way in which Green Belt Review criterion are introduced into the process at various stages and on certain other more limited issues which cumulatively lead to a need to review parts of the proposed seven stage process.

Object

Representation ID: 4838

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Todd Buchanan

Agent: Eric Breare Design

Land at Mytholmes Lane Haworth HA/006
Objection on behalf of and with his approval, the land owner. Not all the land should be rejected as a preferred site.
The bottom section of the site can be retained as Green Belt to reinforce the landscape setting
of the River Worth, which forms the boundary between Oakworth and Haworth.
This would form a roughly equal area of land to both sides of the river worth to separate the settlement areas.
The Green Belt is drawn too tight to the existing houses with no space for future expansion.
The land has two access points one down Mytholmes Lane and one from Hebble Row where the land has a road frontage.
The site is within 400M of a bus stop.
Plan by email blue land to be Green Belt with additional landscaping to form a stronger Green Belt boundary. Red development.

Object

Representation ID: 4889

Received: 22/02/2021

Respondent: Holden Gate Investments LTD

I am unaware of any good reason why my client’s land - SLA site NW/031A - should not enjoy residential development opportunity, given its location, virtually surrounded by residential and indeed scheduled to be developed as a single opportunity with adjacent land already in the draft for residential?

Object

Representation ID: 4908

Received: 11/03/2021

Respondent: Holden Gate Investments LTD

SE/098 - Wyke Mills, Huddersfield Road, Wyke

All I seek is this 8-acre site to be considered as a future potential residential or mixed residential/commercial opportunity. Although currently, various mill buildings, all tenanted, these buildings are elderly and the basis of occupation short-term. Furthermore, the land is now really a non-conforming user being surrounded predominately by either residential or woodland. All nearby land recently developed has been for residential purposes.

As I say, on behalf of the owners of this land, all I seek is your re-consideration of this superb potential residential opportunity as it is not included in the draft local plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) which was issued in February of this year. That seemed most surprising.

Object

Representation ID: 4953

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Banks Property

Banks Property objects to the conclusions of the assessment on Site BU/015 Land off Burley Bypass, Burley in Wharfedale, which has been rejected for employment allocation. Spatial policies in the Local Plan as currently drafted do not propose any increase in employment provision in Wharfedale. Site BU/015 Land off Burley Bypass is ideally situated to provide new employment land in Wharfedale, located directly on the A65 key transport corridor. Banks Property considers that the site is suitable to accommodate new, high quality employment development, and the reasons for non-allocation are capable of being mitigated through design.

Object

Representation ID: 5103

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Holden Gate Investments LTD

Objection to the failure to allocate site KY/039 (Banks Lane Riddlesden)

The land is about 3 acres and would be very suitable for residential development, given its frontage to a road and its south-facing orientation and the fact that it is abutting residential development on 3 sides.

I notice with some concern that this land was not allocated in your recent Draft Allocations Plan Document, issued in early February, for residential development and the purpose of this email is to ask if reconsideration to that could be undertaken so that in the next issue documentation, this land is proposed for residential development purposes for which it is ideally suited.

Object

Representation ID: 6030

Received: 01/03/2021

Respondent: Deborah Holmes

Agent: Rose Consulting

Rejection of site OA/001

1. The site provides an opportunity for the creation of a strong, defensible Green Belt boundary.

2. In isolation, site OA1/H constitutes an irregular protrusion into the Green Belt.

3. The reasons for rejecting the site are not substantiated and appear contrived.

4. As cited, my client is aware of no SWF issues. SuDS would remedy any problems.

5. The site could deliver a major positive effect on the health SA Objective. Minor positive effects were predicted for nearly all other socio-economic SA Objectives.

6. A HRA would be undertaken to ensure there are no significant effects on these protected sites.

7. Development would cause only very minimal landscape impact.

8. Heritage has been cited as a reason for rejection but it appears no HIA was carried out.

9. Its sustainable located adjacent to the settlement boundary within a reasonable proximity to services and facilities.

Object

Representation ID: 7247

Received: 10/03/2021

Respondent: David Hill LLP

•The landowners are keen to develop the site (HR/001) and confirm that it is available.
•Under the revised methodology for calculating the housing requirement Bradford will need to provide more housing than shown in the draft plan. This site could contribute to this.
•Previous scheme submitted to show access is feasible and an illustrative layout to show how the open space to the south of the site could be linked to the park to the west. The site would be deliverable if allocated.

Object

Representation ID: 7410

Received: 10/03/2021

Respondent: David Hill LLP

KY/151 - Long Lee Lane
•The landowners are keen to progress with developing the site and confirm that it is available.
•Under the revised methodology for calculating the housing requirement Bradford will need to provide more housing than shown in the draft plan. This site could contribute to this and it is noted it is identified as an ‘Alternative’. The site will not require Green Belt land to be released.
•It is noted that the site is described as not being achievable due to topography and landscape impact. Previous scheme submitted to show access is feasible and an illustrative layout to show how housing could be developed. It shows that topography will not prevent development. A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment for the site has assessed the landscape impact of the site. The site would be deliverable if allocated.

Object

Representation ID: 7483

Received: 10/03/2021

Respondent: David Hill LLP

•Objection to the failure to allocate site EM/004 - Street lane, East Morton
•The landowners are keen to progress with developing the site and confirm that it is available.
•Under the revised methodology for calculating the housing requirement Bradford will need to provide more housing than shown in the draft plan. This site could contribute to this and it is noted it is identified as an ‘Alternative’.
•It is noted in the SHLAA that the site is not suitable due to access and impact on conservation area. However, a design has been submitted which shows that access to the site is achievable and would not prevent delivery of the site. We would confirm that any proposed development would be designed with the setting of the conservation area as a primary consideration.

Object

Representation ID: 7518

Received: 08/03/2021

Respondent: Mr W Willan

Agent: Townsend Planning Consultants

Objection to the omission of land at Raikes Lane, Holme Wood from the Plan as a preferred option housing site. (SLA ref SE/062)

The site forms a logical extension into the green belt and does not conflict with green belt purposes defined by the NPPF

The Council in preparing their new Local Plan are required to examine the current allocations as contained on the current proposals map, this is an appropriate time to examine the Green Belt. It is considered that the Council should reassess their approach to the site.

The representation site forms a coherent extension to the settlement and is available and deliverable for housing (subject to its reallocation as part of the Local Plan). The
Bradford District Local Plan representation site was previously identified as part of previous development proposals and identified as an area to potentially be removed from the Green Belt.

The allocation of the site will deliver necessary housing, whilst also strengthening the Green Belt in the area. The site is deliverable in the short term and, therefore, should be brought forward for development.

Object

Representation ID: 16865

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Avant Homes

Agent: ID Planning

(Page 24/25)
-Object to the proposed rejection of site IL/044.
-We support the proposed allocation of site IL/044 and adjacent site IL/012 to provide a mix of new housing in a sustainable location.
-IL/044 not assessed as part of a Green Belt Parcel.
-An assessment of both sites IL/012 and IL/044 against Green Belt purposes should be undertaken.
-Distribution of new homes to Ilkley is not sufficient to support its growth and focus as a principal town over the Plan period.
-The release of three sites (two on the eastern site) from the Green Belt is insufficient to ensure the protection of the Green Belt boundary beyond the plan period.
-The distribution to housing to Ilkley should be increased and additional sites should be identified to provide sustainable housing.
-Additional safeguarded land sites should be identified to protect the Green Belt boundary beyond the plan period.
-No known constraints to the physical delivery the site.
-Sites are in flood zone 1 and access could be gained from Skipton Road.
-Development would result in encroachment into the countryside but the Council has recognised there are exceptional circumstances through the release of three sites around the town to meet housing need.

Object

Representation ID: 17397

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr & Mrs . Pyrah and Saunders

Number of people: 4

Agent: ID Planning

SE/070 - The site has been rejected as a potential housing allocation on the grounds of its proximity to hazardous installations. We object to the rejection of the site.
This representation is supported by evidence from the HSE which concludes that the site falls within the middle zone of the hazardous installation where residential development is classed as Level 2 sensitivity where the HSE don’t generally advise against development. In addition, a range of consultant reports conclude that there are no technical constraints which would prevent the delivery of housing on the site. Site SA/070 should therefore be allocated for housing

Object

Representation ID: 17670

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Bannister Investments Limited

Agent: ID Planning

These representations are made in relation to two sites, Land to the north of Banner Grange (BU/005) and Bradford Road (BU/014) in Burley in Wharfedale. We object to sites BU/005 and BU/014 being rejected as preferred housing allocations.
We consider the sites should be allocated as Preferred Housing Allocations to support the delivery of sustainable housing in the Local Growth Centre of Burley in Wharfedale. The sites are available and deliverable for development in the short term.
There are no known physical constraints that would prevent the development of these sites for residential use and we support the allocation of revised site BU/005 and BU/014 in the Local Plan to provide additional housing to meet identified local needs.

Object

Representation ID: 18105

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Eric Breare Design

-Object to the rejection of OX/001 and the allocation of the site as Local Green Space.
-Site history of being allocated for housing development following an appeal to the Local Development plan (UALP).
-The planning inspector stated that its development should be guided by a Design Brief to be produced by CBMDC, pre PPG3.
-This land was re-allocated as Village Green Space.
-SHLAA assessment described as :- “Village green-space notation does not represent the site as it has no public access and does not contribute in any way to the setting of the area. Slightly sloping grubby field between houses”.
-When the site is judged by the development team on its own merit, the site should not be Local Green Space. It is only following consultation with the Parish Council that this designation is allocated.
-Site does not meet the criteria for Local Green Space as set out in the Oxenhope Neighbourhood Plan. Local Green Space designation should only be used where the site is demonstrably special and holds local significance because of its beauty, historic significance, recreational value and richness of its wildlife. There are no special features to the field.

Object

Representation ID: 18412

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Charles Ratcliffe

Object to the rejection of site OX/001.
•Site has a history of being allocated for development in the past but was reallocated as Village Green Space in the last plan (RUDP).
•The site should not be Local Green Space. The SHLAA indicated that the site has no public access, does not contribute to the setting of the area and does not fulfil the village greenspace designation.
•The site does not meet the Local Green Space criteria.
•There are no special features which make it beautiful, no public access for recreation, it is not of historic value, is not rich in wildlife and is too large a parcel of land to be allocated for LGS.
•The site at Cross Lane has more beauty and significant as a LGS site. It has a number of special features: hedgerows, trees, nesting birds, watercourse etc.
•The site at Crossfield Road should not be identified for development as it undermines the Green Belt designation and sets a precedence for Green Belt erosion.
•Development of this site with a sensitive design provides an opportunity to enhance the conservation area. Any flood risk and ecological impact could be mitigated.
•Site would be accessed from Denholme Road and there is a bus stop adjacent to the site. The site would have positive effects on the socio-economic SA Objectives.

Object

Representation ID: 24282

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

Rejected sites:
The Willows site on Hainsworth Road (SI/006A) has just been approved for a further 44 homes. This is despite the site failing to match the criteria set by a different part of the Planning Department and the site been placed on the Rejected Sites document within the Proposed Local Plan. This is wholly conflicting and clearly different Planning officers hold quite different views on what is an appropriate site for development. This does not give confidence to the planning process nor the content of the Proposed Local Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 24893

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: CEG Land Promotions Ltd

Agent: Lichfields

REFERENCE TO BU2/H
We note the process by which the Council is required to assess and compare reasonable alternative sites, and the screening criteria for initially rejecting any sites which are not reasonable or realistic options – i.e. where it is unlikely that development on that site is achievable (paragraph 4.2). It is considered that the fundamental issues associated with delivery of this site referenced above suggest that it should have been initially screened out as not being a reasonable or realistic site in accordance with the methodology adopted within the Site Assessment Update Report (February 2021).

In particular, the table at paragraph 4.3 presents a number of ‘Screening Criteria’ which are to be applied and which are considered to render sites unsuitable for allocation. This includes ‘Green Belt sites which are not adjacent and contiguous to the built up area and or could not reasonably form an acceptable urban extension’.

Object

Representation ID: 24894

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: CEG Land Promotions Ltd

Agent: Lichfields

We note that the more detailed proformas and analysis which sit behind the conclusions reached for rejected sites as set out within (this report) have not been made available for comment as part of this consultation on the evidence. CEG reserve the right to view and comment on this information, which is pertinent to the strategy of site selection to meet the local housing apportionment, when these are made available.

Based on the above conclusions, none of these sites should be considered for allocation in future iterations of the emerging plan.

Support

Representation ID: 27472

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Persimmon Homes (West Yorkshire)

Agent: Lichfields

Site SI/003 - Persimmon’s land holding also includes part of Site SI/003: Brownbank Lane.
We note that the more detailed proformas and analysis which sit behind the conclusions reached for rejected sites as set out within the Site Assessment Update Report have not been made available for comment as part of this consultation on the evidence and despite our requests these have not been made available. Persimmon reserve the right to view and comment on this more detailed information when this is made available.

In summary, it has been demonstrated with reference to the emerging site masterplan, and technical consideration of matters of access, landscape and heritage, that the Council’s conclusions regarding the unsuitability of parts of SI/003 for allocation are unfounded.

SEE FULL REP FOR ASSESSMENT OF HOW TECHNICAL ISSUES AND CONSTRAINTS TO BE ADDRESSED.
A comprehensive masterplan has been prepared which demonstrates how non-Green Belt land within the settlement limits of Silsden can be sensitively developed to deliver 260 new homes, alongside additional wider benefits including the ability to facilitate an eastern relief road should this be deemed necessary, and the creation of a permanent and defensible Green Belt boundary.

Support

Representation ID: 27480

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Persimmon Homes (West Yorkshire)

Agent: Lichfields

Rejected Site SI/006

The only other non-Green Belt site (apart from site SI/003) to be rejected for allocation is site SI/006. This is a former safeguarded site. The reasons for non-allocation include access; protected hedges; landscape impacts; and flood risk (part).
We are aware that access to this site is severely constrained and that there is limited prospect of upgrading the access, which would require third party land. It is therefore not considered that this site comprises a comparable or more favourable site over SI003 and/or SI/004. This site has not been subject to assessment in the SA, suggesting that CBMDC do not consider this site as a potential allocation.

Object

Representation ID: 29912

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Bridge View Developments Ltd

Agent: Bradley Stankler Planning

•Site TH/022 was identified in a previous draft of the plan for housing with the only constraint on its suitability being Green Belt.
•The site represents an opportunity for allocation within a Local Growth Centre in accordance Polices SP1-3, SP5 & SP8.
•The site is located within Thornton, which is an identified Local Growth Centre;
•The site is well related to the existing built area with well-defined physical boundaries;
•Unlike other draft allocated sites, the site performs little Green Belt function;
•The site is demonstrably sustainably located and given the need to release additional Green Belt sites to meet the identified housing land requirement, its allocation for housing development in the Plan period, should be a priority;
•There are no technical infrastructure reasons preventing the site making an early contribution to meeting housing land requirements.
•Assessment confirms that the site fails to perform any of the purposes of including land within the Green Belt as set out in the NPPF and makes no contribution to the openness. Consideration should be given to the removal of the site from the Green Belt in accordance with Policy SP5:
•Check the unrestricted sprawl of urban areas: The site is contained by strong, defensible boundaries. Development of the site as proposed will not lead to the extension of the built-up area beyond existing development boundaries.
•Prevent neighbouring towns from merging: Allocation of the site as proposed will not lead to any neighbouring towns from merging.
•Assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment: The site is separated from the wider urban edge by a strong belt of mature trees. The site is therefore more closely related both visually and physically to the urban area.
•Preserve the special setting of historic towns: Allocation of the proposed site will have no significant impact on any heritage asset. Development of the site can take into account the need to protect the setting of the listed building adjoining the site to the north.
•Assist in urban regeneration: The Local Plan strategy encourages regeneration within the urban area, wherein the site is located.
•The new Green Belt boundary should follow the existing field boundaries and substantial tree belts. These are easily recognisable, defensible and clear boundaries on the ground and will lead to a more robust long-term defensible boundary between the urban area and wider Green Belt.
•The site is located in a highly sustainable location with access to public transport and a wide range of facilities within walking distance.
•Site is related visually and physically to adjoining development. It represents an opportunity to provide a greater choice of market housing.
•Site makes no material contribution to the character of the area.
•The site would make a significant contribution to meeting the shortfall in housing land.
•Site is not within an area liable to flooding.
•North Cliffe Lane would be able to accommodate the additional traffic generated. Highway safety will not be a constraint to the site’s development.
•No trees within the main body of the site. Those important boundary trees worth of retention can be accommodated as part of the site’s development, forming the new Green Belt boundary.
•A buffer will be required to retain the setting of the listed buildings at Hoyle Ing House.
•Gas, electricity and drainage are available adjacent to the site. SUDS techniques will be explored.
•Site is available, suitable and deliverable.
•The site satisfies the release criteria for housing sites.
•The draft plan is currently unsound and it is requested that Site TH/022 be a preferred allocation for development.

Object

Representation ID: 30069

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Clive Brook Planning

Rejected site TH/013
Site specific submission for land at Spring Holes Lane, Thornton. (TH/013) Considers that a residential allocation of this land for a development of circa 58 dwellings. Will contribute to towards an enhanced requirement in Thornton (800 to 825 dwellings).

Some of the proposed greenfield and brownfield sites are subject to a variety of constraints and/or environmental requirements to accommodate reducing their combined capacity by around 100 dwellings.

Disagree with the overall conclusion reached in this site specific Green Belt assessment that the site has a major potential impact on the Green Belt.

Relationship of the site with Thornton Recreation Ground to the south west and the sports fields to the west presents opportunities for environmental improvements and appropriate landscaping

Disagree with the SA assessment against criterion 3 -Land and Buildings as the loss of a relative small area of greenfield land does not justify a major adverse impact rating.

Object

Representation ID: 30071

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Clive Brook Planning

Rejected site EM/005
Request that the Council’s officers re-consider this site (EM/005) as a preferable, or additional, allocation to EM/007 as it brings a much wider range of benefits given its potential and its superior sustainability performance. It is also capable of making a meaningful contribution to market and affordable housing and to meeting the higher component of the full objectively assessed housing need which should be distributed to this Local Service Centre. This in conclusion would help to resolve the two key settlement issues identified for the village.

Object

Representation ID: 30072

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Clive Brook Planning

Rejected site IL/015
Site specific submission for land in my client’s ownership to the south of Slates Lane and west of Coppywood Drive.

Proposal involves five dwellings with remainder of the site being retained in the Green Belt with proposed environmental enhancements in the retained field areas.

Presents an ideal opportunity for a small housebuilder or self-build projects - will help provide the variety of site opportunities being sought in policies HO4, HO6 and the innovation sought in policy SP8.

Area closely attached to a residential outlier cell washed over by the Green Belt. Could be resolved by taking this part of Curly Hill out of the Green Belt along revised boundary lines which closely follow the urbanized curtilages of houses in this cell and along the west to east highways forming the District boundary (Slates Lane and the linked section of Carters Lane). Would provide a clear, logical and highly defensible boundary.

Object

Representation ID: 30075

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Clive Brook Planning

Rejected site IL/020A
The exclusion (and subsequent allocation) of this site (IL/020A) from the Green Belt is justified in relation to the exceptional circumstances which apply to the housing need, requirement and supply at this Principal Town and the need for a range of sites including small deletions from the Green Belt where this can logically be achieved in association with adjacent nearby changes, as is the case in these particular location and site circumstances.

Object

Representation ID: 30125

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Dewar Planning Associates

Site KY/105 The site is highly sustainable, suitable, and immediately available to meet some of the housing
needs of the district and all the local demand in Keighley for the plan period. It will help to address
the planned distribution of housing land, as set out by the Council, helping to demonstrate a robust
housing supply to meet Bradford’s housing delivery targets, whilst also providing a range of housing
types and sizes to meet the identified long-term needs of the local area as part of a sound and planled approach.

Object

Representation ID: 30192

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Peter Martin

Agent: Athena Planning and Development

Objection to the failure to allocate site SW/034B for housing.

The Green Belt and Landscape
• The deletion of the green belt in this location is justified, the site is deliverable and developable and would assist with meeting housing need including affordable housing need across Bradford South West.
• The development of SW/034B will not affect either the character or openness of the green belt.
• The implementation of a landscape framework for both SW14/H and SW/034B could serve to both frame and screen views into and out of the site, enhancing its key characteristics and that of the surrounding area.
• The development of SW14/H and SW/034B would enable a clear and defined edge of the built up area to be established.
• None of the defining elements of the South Bradford area would be affected by housing development at SW/034B.
• Unlike the other preferred options for housing development which involve development in the green belt, the development of SW/034B would not give rise to significant impacts on the South Pennine Moors SPA and SAC.
• Key elements of the South Bradford Landscape Character Area could be enhanced and strengthened by the implementation of appropriate boundary treatment including new native trees and hedgerows.
• Linkages to existing green infrastructure and open space could be enhanced.


The Settlement Strategy

• The allocation of SW/034B is in compliance with the BDLP settlement hierarchy and would notably assist and support the regeneration of Woodside.
• The site is well contained by existing development and lies within a sustainable location accessible by a high frequency bus network and within close proximity to Low Moor Rail Station unlike other preferred allocated sites.
• The principle of housing development in this location has already been considered acceptable with the identification and allocation of the adjacent site SW14/H.
• Small scale developments across the Royds and Wibsey area do not present the same opportunity for transformational change (as required by Policy SP3) at Woodside as SW/034B.
• Development in this location would provide residents with improved access to jobs, services, transport and health and education facilities when compared to other preferred housing sites.

Heritage
• The setting and grounds of Royds Hall is predominately to south of the Hall itself, where the development of SW14/H and SW/034B to the north cannot be seen.
• The impact on the setting of Royds Hall has already been impacted by the allocation and future development of 276 units at SW14/H.
• There will be no significant harmful impact upon the existing farm steading as a result of SW/034B as any such impacts could be suitably mitigated by the implementation of an appropriately landscaped development layout.

Sustainability Appraisal
Looking at the SA scoring it is considered that SW/034B performs better (in particular on biodiversity and geodiversity and accessible services) than other green belt sites which have been identified as preferred options for housing development. On biodiversity and geodiversity, critically, whilst all seven of the preferred sites together with SW/034B will result in the loss of greenfield land, all seven of the preferred options following the Habitat Regulation Appraisal (HRA) screening process have been identified as likely to trigger significant effects on the South Pennine Moors Special Protection Area (SPA) / Special Area of Conservation (SAC). The development of Site SW/034B would not give rise to such significant landscape impacts.

Object

Representation ID: 30218

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr John Waddington

Agent: Eric Breare Design

•Object to the rejection of OX/001 for development and its allocation as Local Green Space.
•Site was previously allocated for housing following an appeal to the Local Development plan.
•The Inspector stated the development should be guided by a Design Brief but this was not produced before PPG3 was released requiring brownfield sites to be developed first. Greenfield sites were given a release date but the government then required the Council to work on a RUDP. This land was allocated Village Green Space.
•Site put forward in the SHLAA and described as: “Village green-space notation does not represent the site as it has no public access and does not contribute in any way to the setting of the area. Slightly sloping grubby field between houses”
•Site is only designated Local Green Space following consultation with the Parish Council.
•The site does not meet the criteria for LGS as set out in the Oxenhope Neighbourhood Plan.
•There are no special features that give it beauty, no public access for recreation. Historic value is provided by the reservoir tower not from the adjacent field that does not contribute to the setting. The wildlife is not rich, the nesting bird are not identified. Site is too large to be designated LGS.
•The site at Cross Lane has more beauty and significance as a LGS. That site has more special features and is richer in wildlife.
•Also wrong to identify Green Belt site at Crossfield Road over this site as it undermines the Green Belt and sets a president for further Green Belt erosion.
•The site presents an opportunity for development with a sensitive design to mitigate any impact on the Conservation Area. A flood risk assessment and ecology survey would be carried out and mitigation measures provided. Open Space would be provided.
•The site is on a bus route with a stop adjacent to the site. Safe access could be provided from the wide frontage on Denholme Road. Some positive effects are predicted for a range of SA Objectives.

Object

Representation ID: 30221

Received: 04/03/2021

Respondent: Your Architect Ally

SHLAA Site reference NE/062 should be considered for housing.

It is sustainable, deliverable, accessible and ideal for the kind of small, innovative housing development that is going to be needed as we adapt to a post-Covid world. It is connected to an existing community but adjacent to a large area of open land.

It is of a size that is unlikely to appeal to a volume housebuilder but perfect for a small forward thinking developer or self builder(s) to demonstrate the way forward for housing.