Consultation Question 96

Object

Representation ID: 77

Received: 11/02/2021

Respondent: Ms Kerri Brebner

If there’s one thing we’ve all learned during the pandemic, it’s that green spaces are important. Do not build houses on green belt between Shipley and Bingley, we need it. There will be more than enough empty business premises that can be converted into housing once this is all over.

Object

Representation ID: 350

Received: 21/02/2021

Respondent: Mrs Rhona Stevens

Main objection, new housing around Cottingley and Nab Wood proposed in current greenbelt. We will gradually lose the greenbelt altering character, environment, reducing grazing and altering drainage.
Proposals include 500+ new houses between sites off Glenview drive, bankfield and Marchcote Lane. If predominantly family housing, this will strain local school provision and increase traffic congestion even further.
The pandemic has fundamentally altered the need for office space. Longer term, numbers in office/working from home will take time to settle. I suspect former office space will become available . Repurposing this would be preferable - review required in ~5 years

Object

Representation ID: 507

Received: 25/02/2021

Respondent: Mr Neil Collins

Bradford has a plentiful supply of brownfield sites that have not been developed.
In her judgement dated 8/6/2020 in Aireborough Neighbourhood Development Forum vs Leeds City Council, Mrs Justice Lieven found that it was wrong to leave Green Belt sites in a development plan solely because the Council wished to reduce the numbers around the district proportionately. Green belt should be removed from the plan and brownfield sites built on first.
This judgement is surely just as relevant to Bradford.
Our Prime Minister's "Build Build Build" announcement on 30/6/2020 said brownfield building would be made easier to protect Green Belt. This should be bourne in mind and our Green Belt not built on.

Object

Representation ID: 817

Received: 06/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Lindsay Brook

Green space is needed

Object

Representation ID: 877

Received: 07/03/2021

Respondent: Dr Steven Maude

Strongly object to the current Plan as is, on the grounds of rushed consultation during the pandemic, making it more difficult for local engagement.

Object

Representation ID: 878

Received: 07/03/2021

Respondent: Dr Steven Maude

Adding clarification for previous objection:
* the Plan has a number of typographical errors,
* extensive use of green belt land in the West of Shipley,
* in light of the pandemic and changes to work, there may be commercial spaces that can be redeveloped (e.g. Hallmark Cards site, HMRC Tax Office),
* the Council should be leading with environmentally sound solutions to future challenges.

Object

Representation ID: 1187

Received: 20/02/2021

Respondent: Ms Cathy Wintersgill

Loss of green belt from sites identified
Development will create flooding
Impact on wildlife- owls and otters
Increase of pollution
Lack of infrastructure - schools, GPs
Brownfield sites are available in Shipley

Object

Representation ID: 1287

Received: 11/03/2021

Respondent: Mr David Pringle

There is no plan to construct the Shipley Eastern Bypass. No further development should be permitted until this infrastructure is complete. The main pinch point is at the junction of Saltaire Road (A657), Bingley Road (A650) and Moorhead Lane. Road traffic has been and continues to be at over capacity even though the junction was converted from a roundabout to traffic lights some years ago. There are existing consented but undeveloped schemes down the Aire Valley which will increase traffic volumes through the junction and these should be taken into consideration.

Object

Representation ID: 1633

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Kim Broadbent

Sh4, sh5 and Sh6 - the roads around these development sites are already extremely busy. Cottingley village primary school is very small and already has issues with parking and traffic around it. Class sizes are already very large. The development will provide housing and will stretch and reduce the quality of the services in the local area. These are green belt sites and are important for the look and feel of the area, reducing pollution and encouraging wildlife. These sections of greenbelt land are valued by residents and the development will destroy the wildlife in these areas and reduce the quality of life for locals.

Object

Representation ID: 3306

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr David Wilmshurst

Figure 5 Green Infrastructure Corridors does not include the land either side of Cottingley Cliffe Road between Cottingley and Nab Wood, despite the text of para 5.7.31 describing Nab Wood, which is part of this area, as an “ecological asset”. This land is an integral part of a “green lung” which extends into the city as far as Heaton Woods, and should clearly be included as part of the Green Infrastructure Corridor.

Object

Representation ID: 3419

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: CHILD E

Animals inhabit this magnificent piece of land, please don't destroy the fields because lots of unique animals will have nowhere to go.
The quiet roads in Nabwood will be busy and not safe for children and dog walkers. Dangerous and noisy cars will be driving up and down the roads as more people need to travel.
Worried about capacity of local school

Object

Representation ID: 3832

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Brenda Brown

This is valued open space used by the whole community in an area where there are few. Air quality is very poor in the area because of traffic pollution so it is vital to keep such areas for public health reasons. This land is designated as Recreation Open Space in the previous plan . I object to the space having this important designation removed. The land should remain as Open Space, with the typology of ‘Amenity Greenspace’ as defined in the Open Space Audit Feb 2021. The Draft Local Plan claims to protect open spaces when in fact it has removed our 1.3 hectares of open space from the map. We are already an area that has been shown to be deprived of green space. The Draft Local Plan worsens an already dire situation, decreasing the amount of greenspace while the policy states a need to increase it.

Object

Representation ID: 4080

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Cathy Wintersgill

(SH6/H & SH5/H & SH4/H) sites are areas that already suffer flooding. If fields are no longer needed for grazing they should be rewilded or trees planted to reduce flooding lower down the hill.

I have seen three different species of owls hunting in the fields (barn, tawny and little). The tawny owl is Amber listed, numbers are declining and are of concern. There are otters on the Aire near Branksome.

Where will these households find doctors or schools for their children? Local schools are already full. The infrastructure isn't there.

Pollution from cars will increase. Outside lockdown, traffic is at a standstill here at peak times. There is a big crack in the pavement above Stairfoot farm. In time the wall and pavement will presumably crumble into the field below due to pressure from the volume of traffic.

Brownfield sites are available in Shipley. These should be used instead.

Object

Representation ID: 4196

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Queen Mary University of London

The area is used by local residents, many of whom don't have a garden. With more traffic (and parked cars), there would be an increase in congestion. There would also be a negative impact on the physical and mental health of the community, and on wildlife, if the develoment went ahead.

Object

Representation ID: 4398

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Ludi Simpson

Under ‘Green Infrastructure, Ecology, Open Space and Flood Risk’, neither 5.7.32 (’80 sites of open space’) nor figure 6 (‘overview of open space’) includes what is currently in the RUDP designated as Wycliffe open space for recreation. Iinclude it. In the draft plan it is earmarked for Housing (SH3). Shipley is marked as lacking recreation space, and the map should be amended to include SH3 as open space for recreation. It would be best to designate it as Local Green Space.
In the Audit that informs the strategic policy it is suggested that natural and semi-natural space can compensate for the lack of urban areas of open green space for recreation. But the majority of that natural and semi-natural space is the Victorian cemetery next to Nab Wood Crematorium, which in no way serves as open green space for recreation. This should be a comment within the Shipley strategy.

Object

Representation ID: 4601

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Andrew Mason

Whilst I generally support the proposed plan for Shipley, particularly the redevelopment of existing brownfield sites and improving the town centre; there is still too much proposed development on greenfield sites, particularly SH3 to SH6. SH3 is an important open space for local people who live in flats and terraces with no gardens. SH4 to 6 have no local facilities and are therefore likely to generate more traffic, congestion and pollution on key routes. They are also too far away from public transport provision and cycling infrastructure is non-existent leaving people car dependent. Active travel and public transport use are the key to a sustainable future and I would like to see more cycling provision around Shipley to segregate cars and cyclists. The only good route at the moment is along the canal towpath. A cycle route down the Leeds Road to Shipley station would be useful as a start.

Object

Representation ID: 4762

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jessica Short

My objections to this planned proposal are as follows:
-Negative impacts on the local environment for plants and wildlife. Loss of habitat and food sources for mammals, bird life, moths, butterflies, amphibians and reptiles. Thus negatively impacting BMDC's Biodiversity Policy and Green Infrastructure Corridors.
-New houses mean of flooding downhill/downstream.
-More traffic means harmful rises air and noise pollution to wildlife. Resident's physical and mental health negatively impacted.
-Rise in vehicles means highly polluted roads aggravates asthma, COPD and all respiratory diseases.
-More pressure on already squeezed infrastructures eg school places, doctors, road maintenance, public transport, waste collection.

Object

Representation ID: 4907

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Hazel Wilmshurst

Figure 5 Green Infrastructure Corridors does not include the land either side of Cottingley Cliffe Road between Cottingley and Nab Wood, despite the text of para 5.7.31 describing Nab Wood, which is part of this area, as an “ecological asset”. This land is an essential part of a “green lung” which extends into the city as far as Heaton Woods, and should categorically be included as part of the Green Infrastructure Corridor.

Object

Representation ID: 5150

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Rachel Kipling

Use of green sites (SH2, 3,4,5,6,7,11,12)or development is not sustainable (there are plenty of brown sites that must be used first in line with CBMDC policy) and leads to loss of habitat and connectivity regardless of the quality (this can be enhanced!). There is a health and wellbeing impact from removal of green spaces from a community however informal they are, people of Shipley cannot afford to lose these areas. Sites SH 4,5 and 6 are not near train stations and will inevitably increase car use on already congested, polluted roads. In these areas there is already surface water flooding and development will increase these issues. SH3 is a community asset for children to play and families meet, where there is very little other greenspace for children. In addition it provides walking routes that avoid the heavy polluted pavements. It is a breathing space in this urban area.

Object

Representation ID: 5519

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford Cycling Campaign

Bradford Cycling Campaign is disappointed by the lack of specific proposals for new walking and cycling infrastructure within the Shipley section although we do support the suggested improvements that exist. We are pleased that the crossing for Leeds Road is mentioned in the plan as a solution as this is well overdue. Detailed provision for reducing severance and flow and a description of active travel flows that exist and where new potential can be created is needed. To achieve real impact, the plan needs to make these things a focus of design instead of just “encouraging” a shift towards active travel without a clear means of achieving it. We strongly suggest that active travel routes need to be made preferable to driving options if you are to see any modal shift. The CROW principles of directness, safety, comfort and attractiveness will be key (or a similar tested methodology).

Object

Representation ID: 5810

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Neil Lambert

I just want to say that the Green Belt is sacrosanct. I would accept the fact that we have to build on the green belt if there are no brownfield sites. Therefore:

Innovation is the key. I worked on Windfarm policy and no one thought the market would take off. It did because HMG put in the necessary framework for it to thrive. Just saying to a developer “Here’s a green field” is not innovation. Lister Mills was a great example of innovation - you should be testing the market. Stakeholder events etc. Venture capitalists and asset managers. The market can help you.

Prioritisation. I would propose a set of allocations that need to be completed before other allocations. This means you actually hit your target of HMG allocations but means the most impoverished areas get completed first.

Object

Representation ID: 5920

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Margaret Maude

CONSULTATION PERIOD & USE OF GREEN SITES
It is an absolute disgrace that at the time of fighting a pandemic, the consultation period is not extended, especially as some residents do not seem to be fully informed. Maybe they had other important things to worry about! The decision to think about building on green sites, which are now becoming fewer, when derelict buildings are scattered around Bradford, is a disgrace. The lack of information in the time of a pandemic is shameful.

Comment

Representation ID: 7142

Received: 11/03/2021

Respondent: Dr Val Harris

more re Shipley, no mention of Northcliffe Woods - over half of which is in Shipley and is a ASMW; much of Northcliffe is a local wildlife site; there is very little flat land in NC park as the Council have found recently trying to fit in outdoor gym equipment. The idea that it can become a major sports area is a joke because of its steepness, and also local consultations have shown that people do not want any more sports facilities here, they want toilets and the place left for informal exercise and a quiet space for people to walk and clear their heads.

Object

Representation ID: 7210

Received: 10/03/2021

Respondent: Keith & Carol Brown

Number of people: 2

SH4/H and generally in and around the Shipley area.
1) The timing and speed of this consultation process:
2) List of Brownfield sites and vacant retail units in and around Shipley:
a) Tax office area, Saltaire
b) Disused former garden centre at Hirstwood locks.
c) Carneige Hall at the bottom of Carr lane,Shipley, unused for many years.
d) Valley road, previously residential being kept aside for possible road widening, and land to the side of the new fire station in the same location.
e) unused new builds for retail, there is one such building near the site of the old fire station and all empty properties and retail units in Shipley.
f) Although not in Shipley there is the site which was the old magistrates building in Bingley
h) Building and land abutting Dockfield road opposite the Carnegie site.
I) the site of the old public house, now knocked down, opposite Crossleys scrapyard.
3) Conservation of Trees, wild life and green belt.
There is a TPO 165 which extends into the trees on this particular plot of land SH4/H .
It is a very important habitat for wildlife: birds, owls, Deer; Foxes, Stoats, weasels, hedgehogs, and badgers butterflies & moths; hunting ground for bats, frogs, toads, snakes
4) Increase in traffic - road too narrow & used as rat runs. Increase in road safety issues.
5) Pollution and Air Quality on A650 and bypass
6) Flood risk. The land is always very wet and boggy after heavy rainfall.
Impact n heritage assets / farm buildings.
7) Impact on woodland
8) Local facilities ie schools over subscribed: medical practices, dentists and more public transport.
10)not to be in line with national planning policy and need to prove there are exceptional circumstances to release land from green belt.

Object

Representation ID: 12077

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Lesley McGorrigan

I am writing to object to the planning proposals for 1322 new dwellings in Shipley:

1. Loss of green sapce

2. All proposals are for private developers to build. The area needs affordable housing which should be provided by the Council.

3. Bradford has nearly 8000 empty properties, 500 of these have been empty for five years. The council needs to purchase and renovate the many derelict mills

5. Shipley / Saltaire Road - road traffic and pollution is already at an unacceptable level.

6. The Airedale line train service is sub-standard and overcrowded. Sometimes I have had to wait on the platform at Saltaire for the third train to arrive before being able to get on. Your proposals do not address transport issues.

7. Re: SH3H: The Wycliffe - It is outrageous that you would propose licencing a corporation to fill that space (landfill) with houses.

Object

Representation ID: 13714

Received: 21/05/2021

Respondent: Sylvia Gomersall

- From the list of possible developments on the website, that the intention is for almost every inch of empty or green space in the whole of Shipley, to be built on.
- The result being an unbroken sea of houses everywhere we look.
- No parks, no play areas, no trees.
– looking at the numbers of houses to be built on each site, that there will be no spaces for gardens
impact on infrastructure- doctor, schools, shops
- why is this necessary, where are all the people coming from to live in these houses?

Comment

Representation ID: 15443

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Highways England (Yorkshire & North East Team)

It is not considered that locating development within the
settlements within Shipley, 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 Shipley 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: 16556

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr David Wilmshurst

I wish to object to proposed developments on Green Belt land around Shipley, that is proposals SH4/H, SH5/H, SH6/H, CO1/H and NW19/H, totalling 808 proposed properties.
There are various other proposals close to this area as well. In the plan each development is analysed in isolation rather than taking any account of their combined effect on the area.
Increased traffic and congestion on already busy roads, increased pollution.
Local primary and secondary schools are already full and oversubscribed.
Ecologically, these five proposed developments will have a devasting effect on the local environment, removing a significant amount of Green Belt constituting parts of the Green Infrastructure Corridor.
the Council should look at maximising the use of brownfield sites for housing.

Object

Representation ID: 16732

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Shipley Town Council

Welcome a number of sections (see attached document) relating to reinforcing the importance of Shipley town centre and town centre enhancements and conserving heritage / World Heritage Site.

Conditional support for some proposals - Dockfield Road proposals will need to include local amenities such as local shops, medical and school places; Employment Zone and Business Development Zone - no increase in vehicle movements; and developments will need to demonstrate net biodiversity gain.

However concerns as follows:
- The delivery of 1,200 new homes - more housing can be developed on brownfield and under-utilised sites in the town centre and that the density of housing can be increased to remove the need for the Green Belt and greenfield sites.
- Promoting the town as an important transport hub - reword so that Shipley is an important public transport and active travel hub.
- Shipley Eastern Relief Road - We object to this. All road building leads to an increase in road traffic.

Disappointed by the lack of specific proposals for new walking and cycling infrastructure.

Detailed provision for reducing severance and flow and a description of active travel flows that exist and where new potential can be created is needed.

Object

Representation ID: 18168

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Raymond Wilkes

I am also concerned that there are so many plans to infill green areas of Airedale and other parts of Bradford.

Particularly alarming are the plans around the Shipley/Bingley border where there appears to be little consideration of the visual/noise impact on surrounding footpaths, and the loss of ’buffer zone’ and Green Belt space- much of it in an area known locally for its flood risk!