SE20/H - Dean Beck Avenue

Object

Representation ID: 2295

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Chris McGrath

Do not take away our only Green area, putting our children at risk through increased pollution and serious injury from more and more cars on our small streets.

Object

Representation ID: 2459

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Alan Saleh

Summary
1) Important part of green corridor for SE Bradford. Previously rejected for development by Minister.
2) Next to old tip. Potential hazard.
3) Clean air targets missed.
4) Potential flooding, run off from houses not to soakaway, pollution hazard.
5) Chemicals factories, potential hazard, wind direction.
6) Traffic problems on narrow local roads.
7) Poor & distant public transport.
8) Shops, health centres & primary schools distant or full.
9) Delicate local habitats. Loss of public amenity / access to countryside

Object

Representation ID: 2549

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Graham Fisher

REF SE20/H-Dean Beck
My objections to the earlier application 19/02602/MAF are still valid.

I would like to address the applicants challenges to the refusals in application 21/01137/MAF.
1. Highway Safety.
Site traffic will impose dangerous conditions for residents during construction and the nuisance of mud and dust, etc.
Traffic congestion, bad now, will increase once new residents move in.

2. Public Transport Accessibility.
Nearest bus stops from furthest Caddick houses are approx 800 metres. 508 bus from here only serves Leeds/Halifax.
Park and Ride scheme may not come to fruition. Bus stops for Bradford from Manchester Road approx 1.3 Km walk.
Nearest Supermarket 1.5 Km walk. Local buses from nearest bus stops are infrequent.

3. Contamination.
Re proximity of the tip, comments playing down risks, are unsafe statements in view of past incidents. The park and ride development
could create further risks.

Object

Representation ID: 2580

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Lynda Treece

Ref SE20/H Dean Beck.I object to the proposal to build housing on the green land south of Dean Beck area.
There is a lack of green space in this area, and development here will take away one of the few green lungs in South Bradford. It will add to pollution and noise. There is a lack of open play spaces for children in this area as it is - houses here will only add to the problem. Wildlife will be negatively affected, with habitats shrinking yerar on year. I believe this should remain as open space, to be enjoyed by local people.

Object

Representation ID: 2586

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Zain Shah

I strongly object to this consultation.There is documentary evidence that Bradford council should have made this site into Green Belt back in 1959 as per the advise of the Minister at the time, why has this been ignored? This site is a very odd area and one of the vey few open country left in this part of Bradford. It is right next to a very dangerous methane omitting tip and it would be criminal for this to be earmarked for housing. Planning has already been refused by an inspector back in 1972. There is currently an open case with the planning inspector which has not been decided and Bradford Council are by the looks of it inviting the developer to submit an identical planning permission to the one they had refused previously. I very strongly object to this. Please don't put peoples lives at risk like it already has been done with Rooley Croft and the shambles of a case which that is.

Object

Representation ID: 2587

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Arooj Syeda

Please do not build on this green space, it is dangerous to even dig near here due to the former Odsal Tip.

Object

Representation ID: 2589

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Arooj Syeda

SE20/H Dean Beck Avenue.

Object

Representation ID: 2590

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Zain Shah

I strongly object to this SE20/H, given on true and hard facts/evidence. This site should not be built on, period.

Object

Representation ID: 2717

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Peter Morrell

Ref SE20/H
This land should be Green belt. It is part of a swathe of green land to the South of Bradford comprising of woodland, grazing land, old council tip and golf course.

It appears that it has been allocated to housing because a planning application was in the pipeline. That application was turned down by the council and therefore the land should be considered as what it was before the housing plan. The land has been used for years for grazing cattle and horses and should be the same under the envelope of green belt.

Object

Representation ID: 3017

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Sheila Brennan

Contaminated land
Poor bus routes to schools and jobs
Small and dangerous acces roads already horrendous used as a cut through at busy times.
Not enough tests done on the earth to be dug up .
Concerns digging this land up and how this could impact on residents health.
Mine shafts and tunnels to name but a few below this former tip site.
BfdCouncil have not enough evidence what has been dumped on this site.

Object

Representation ID: 3018

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Tofeeq Ahmed

It is not good for the local residents/value of the area. It will affect wildlife and pollution a lot. The local schools/gp surgeries dont have space for more amount of people planned. The access is poor and will cause a lot of issues with traffic as well as risk of contaminents. This is a very bad idea and should be rejected as Caddick have no respect for the local residents/community and have shown this by not maintaining the property they propose to demolish which has been sore to look at since the beginning.

Object

Representation ID: 3026

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Zahira Hussain

I wish object to this application for the following issues;
This appears to be a further application to the one that has been reject. It’s disgraceful that this can be allowed on the same land and by the same developer. There is greater need for green space,.
This area has poor access, due to a lot of traffic,Which causes more pollution. There is enormous risk of contaminants on this land. Previous development that was built near by has caused detrimental damage to the properties and owners mental mental and wellbeing notwithstanding the financially loss. There is already insufficient local schools/surgeries and public transport within this area. Access to these facilities already difficult.
This application should not be allow to be put forward as it is undermining the views and previous objections submitted

Object

Representation ID: 3030

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Hamid Khan

It will be disaster with respect to pollution and traffic congestion. There are no doctor surgeries and the local school are already full to capacity.

Object

Representation ID: 3066

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Naveeda Ikram

Air quality control a concern with housing development.
Poor public transport infrastructure and high pressures on Schools and health services.
Land has potential contamination. Requires extensive investigation works and remediation before development. Issues of landfill in close proximity. Site contains former iron and coal pit landfill.
The close proximity to gateway M606 and a prime industrial area looses a quality gateway site.
The proposed park & ride has yet to be finalised and the housing development cannot be rendered suitable or not until the council finalises its plan. The developer is nethical and wants to back off from Legal obligations by reducing development from 150 to 146.
Concern about impact on house prices. The council has greater and wider role to its residents for good governance and quality, meeting needs of residents.

Object

Representation ID: 3073

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Silham Shahzad-Haider

Air quality control a concern with housing development.
Poor public transport infrastructure and high pressures on Schools and health services.
Land has potential contamination. Requires extensive investigation works and remediation before development. Issues of landfill in close proximity. Site contains former iron and coal pit landfill.
The close proximity to gateway M606 and a prime industrial area looses a quality gateway site.
The proposed park & ride has yet to be finalised and the housing development cannot be rendered suitable or not until the council finalises its plan. The developer is unethical and wants to back off from
Legal obligations by reducing development from 150 to 146.
Concerns about impact on house priced.
The council has greater and wider role to its residents for good governance and quality, meeting needs of residents.

Object

Representation ID: 3106

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr John Rhodes

The Scheme would cause harm to highway and pedestrian safety by virtue of increasing traffic flows on Rooley Crescent and Deanbeck Avenue, parts of which are totally unsuitable to safely accommodate such an increase. Significant weight is also attached to this harm.
The site is also not accessible to local services, doctors or schools. The routes are not attractive and safe for primary school children that would lead to crossing a busy highway and would lead to future occupants relying heavily on private car journeys to access shops, basic services, medical services and even local bus stops.
The attached document from LRJ planning which objected against the original appeal applies to this application and should be taken into account in its entirety.

Object

Representation ID: 3120

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Beverly Naylor

I think it’s ridiculas for such planning it’s already busy around this area people cutting through from station gate to rooley it’s suppose to be a nice quiet area which will be no more if this goes ahead, no school room doctor room the street are not big enough to cope with so much traffic also takeaway the view with all them houses I just hope you listen to every bodies reason for this not to go ahead thanks

Object

Representation ID: 3129

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Lee Fearnley

too much traffic on rooley ave already which BMDC are not willing to help with.
Results from their own survey
20th Wednesday to 24th Sunday November 2019.
Highest vehicles were recorded on Friday 22nd November 2019.
Eastbound 15,611 and Westbound 13,677 vehicles, total of 29,288 vehicles.
Eastbound 35 mph or less there were 9,665 vehicles recorded and Westbound 35 mph or less 6,308 vehicles recorded with a total of 15,973 vehicles.
Above 35 mph the 30 mph speed limit would be enforced if there was a speed camera present. So 13,011 vehicles were recorded higher than 35 mph, 44.4 %.
It breaks down as
40 to 45mph 7,941 vehicles,
45 to 50 mph 3,357 vehicles,
50 to 55mph 1,138 vehicles,
55 to 60 mph 423 vehicles
60 to 65 mph 152 vehicles.

Quality of life already affected enough thanks

Object

Representation ID: 3136

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Amanda Lyons

REF SE20/H - Dean Beck.
This is a much needed green space which needs to be kept, not destroying more green belt land. Developing it would cause pollution and possible contamination. There are not enough doctors and school places for local families already without added such a huge development.

Object

Representation ID: 3150

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Robert Leek

The area is very congested as it stands. There isn't really a good public transport system in that area as it stands, increasing the population is going to increase an area already congested with vehicles. This will only add to the pollution in the area. Also with the old tip being close by, I can only imagine any building work would disturb hazardous waste and further contaminate the grounds around the area. Have no lessons been learned from the previous buildings that were built at the back of the stadium? Some of which are still currently worthless due to the foundations not being properly sealed. I understand the need for new housing in Bradford but the proposal would further damage the area if the original ruling was to be overturned.

Object

Representation ID: 3160

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Leanne Naylor

REFSE20/H Dean Beck

Traffic. Pollution. Not enough local school.

Object

Representation ID: 3201

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Marya Mahony

SE20/H. I object to this planned housing on Shetcliffe Lane. It is a danger for local residents due to increased traffic on an already unsafe road for pedestrians, and disabled people using mobility aids. Lack of gp surgery as provision is worse than ever due to closure of gp surgery on Tong Street. The local shopping facilities are poor and the bus service is inadequate for those without transport. The proposed housing estate design is poor with limited access for cars and pedestrians. There are dangerous and unresolved pollution issues in the land. Too few schools and nurseries for an increasing population. The lack of open land is a rejection of the needs of the local population. The fact that COVID is, and has been higher in Tong and Holmewood is a reflection of the housing and land poverty within the area. Building further crowded housing is a Council disgraceI also object to the difficulty I have had in using this form of communication. And also object to the fact that only three days is allowed to make my views known. Call this democracy, a Labour Council should be ashamed of adopting such tactics!!

Object

Representation ID: 3241

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Nusaybah Khan

It will cause too much traffic in the area and increase the pollution. This is a quite residential area with more houses there will be too much traffic which will cause distruptions.

Object

Representation ID: 3307

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Nasrat Khan

Too much traffic in an area not built for this amount of traffic
Already been rejected on basis of contaminants in area
Debacle with rooley croft and residents left with houses not of value
Not enough schools to sustain development.

Object

Representation ID: 3396

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Lindsey Hodges

Far too much traffic and pollution in this area, also the land is contaminated with many products which the council has no record of as they were never legally allowed to be dumped there, the pollutants were being dumped there in the middle of the night because they were not allowed to dispose of them there legally.

Object

Representation ID: 3409

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Dave Ramsden

The traffic is already horrendous now I don’t think I need 300 cars a day plus passing my house it’s going to be a joke

Object

Representation ID: 3451

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Lynn Saleh

1. Clean air targets would be missed.
2. Green corridor compromised and turned down by Secretary of State.
3. Construction traffic, initially then further traffic from 145 new houses.
4. Potential leachate from the old tip.

Object

Representation ID: 3570

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Ilyas Khan

Increased traffic.
Not enough doctors surgeries schools etc in this area.
Already been rejected because of contaminated land
Rooley Croft debacle underhand tactics by developers to count traffic volume in lockdown.
Other areas that could be developed and help the Bradford community

Object

Representation ID: 3572

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Hasan Khan

It would increase traffic. Has previously been rejected due to contaminated land. Not enough schools, doctor surgeries and other essential services to cater to an increasing population in the area. The whole rooley croft situation in which houses where left valueless due to land being contaminated and underhand tactics used by developers. Other areas are also available for development and that would better help Bradford through regeneration of its inner city helping Bradford local communities.

Object

Representation ID: 3607

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jill Whiteley

Ref SE20/H - Dean Beck. I wish to object in the strongest possible terms to the proposed development. There is Limited Access to and from the site. The Health, safety and mental well-being of current residents is a major concern. Public services are already oversubscribed. Noise. Infestation of vermin. Pollution. I understand there is evidence to suggest this site should have been made green belt back in 1959 on the advice of the minister and the council chose to ignore this. A report into the houses built on Rooley Croft were considered to be worthless and the Council chose to distance themselves from any blame and point the finger at the developer. Clearly lessons have not been learnt. Given the strength of feeling amongst residents, I am sure the Minister for Housing, Communities & Local Government would be most interested in this development and indeed the National press.