SW14/H - Fenwick Drive, Woodside

Object

Representation ID: 206

Received: 16/02/2021

Respondent: Mr Luke Jawnyj

Too close proximity to Judy woods and Royds Hall. It Isn’t On a high frequency bus route as stated.. only one bus an hour. Fenwick Drive/Royds Hall Lane and their junctions with Halifax Road not suitable for additional traffic.

Object

Representation ID: 393

Received: 22/02/2021

Respondent: Linda Chapman

I live on the Woodside estate and it is already overpopulated with no school places and houses that are already run down and in need of doing up.The site of the proposed plan is one of the only green areas left on this estate and it is already av un down area. New housing wont improve this area it will make it worse.Unemployment and drink and drug problems are rife and adding more housing and more people will bring it down even further. These areas need enhancing not more degredation.

Object

Representation ID: 395

Received: 22/02/2021

Respondent: Mrs Andrea Cain

The infrastructure in the area will not support 200 houses on Fenwick Drive, the schools and Doctors are over subscribed as it is, as for frequent bus route, the buses are 1 an hour, brown belt land should be utilised first and foremost not green land, I know it is technically not green belt but it is beautiful green fields that will be torn up. it is also too close to the natural and beautiful Judy Woods. We also have enough traffic on our roads as it is.

Object

Representation ID: 729

Received: 04/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Ngaire Broadbelt

Damaging to wildlife & their habitats, local school full, high traffic problems, flood waters, spoiling the appearance, new homes too close to pylons, old mines underground

Object

Representation ID: 909

Received: 07/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Lindsay Hellewell

(Local Plan Team have merged the 2 submissions received which were specific to this site into 1 submission- summarised below)
Land is crucial to the well-being of and enjoyed by everyone in the area and for miles around - walkers, fishermen, horse riders, sledgers
Land contains abundance of wildlife, beauty and has historic significance
Drainage does not cope
Proximity to woods and listed buildings
Pylons and associated health risks
Increased traffic
Hedgerows and protected habitat
Abundance of wildlife regularly seen and heard - Frogs, Newts, Damsel flies, a variety of insects, butterflies and Bees. Bats, kestrels, sparrow hawks, Owls, Woodpeckers, long tailed tits, greenfinch and goldfinch. We are being discouraged from building hard patios etc due to flood risk and now you propose to cover the fields in buildings. This is so important to us all. Please reconsider. Look for brown field.

Object

Representation ID: 953

Received: 08/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Michael Krelle

This proposed site is unsuitable to be used for any housing plans due to the fact that it is and will remain a flood plane which is overlooked by high voltage electricity cables
The cost to divert the power lines underground would render any development unaffordable
Also the planned site is pasture land for livestock,wild geese and flocks of swans

Object

Representation ID: 1032

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Christopher Maskell

The area is very wet and unsuitable for building besides ruining every ones outlook in surrounding area.

Object

Representation ID: 1214

Received: 10/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Rory Fitzpatrick

The road infrastructure is not suitable nor safe for these homes to be built and poses risk to pedestrians as well as children in the area, for example local parks.

There is risk posed to local wildlife of which there are protected species (bats)

The land on which these homes are planned is known to have previously been coal mines making the homes potentially unsafe.
The quality of life in the area will also be diminished.

Object

Representation ID: 1243

Received: 10/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Jamie Hainsworth

I believe the area planned is more sustainable to the community rather than extra housing I am worried building more housing will affect the crime rate of the area more traffic which may meen more injuries to our children and affect the local areas mental health as the green land wooded area is a escape from been in a overpopulated city and is enjoyed by more than the area of Woodside people do travel to the area for the Greenland

Object

Representation ID: 1314

Received: 11/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Beverley Frost

I disagree due to the following reasons; this will cause too much disruption to transport especially school runs as Woodside Academy is extremely busy already at drop off/pick up times so adding additional traffic building the dwellings won't help towards this. Further to this as you can see there is only 1 school on the map for the selected area, where would the children go from the new dwellings The area is a natural beauty spot and to take this away and spoil with houses and disrupt the natural setting of our countryside.

Object

Representation ID: 1494

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Michael Barraclough

I object to any housing development on site reference SW/034A and SW/034B, preferred option SW14H.

There are a number of different reasons for my objection, these are fundamentally based on loosing such a large area of greenbelt land and the impact this will have on the local community and the quality of life for the existing residents.

I object to the loss of agricultural land which is currently being farmed, when there are other brown field and non agricultural sites available for new housing developments.

I have concern the new development will have a negative impact on the other woodland areas around the new development site.

If I read the plan correctly, not only are you proposing to build on woodland and farming land, it looks like you are building on the grassland adjacent to Fenwick Drive. You are therefore, planning to remove all our green space, which is unacceptable.

Object

Representation ID: 3539

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr C Duke

Objection to the allocation of this site for housing raising issues including relating to its greenfield status, to site density, to the New Homes Bonus scheme, to Boundary Commission Reviews, to overhead power lines, mineshafts, overshadowing and impacts on lighting within school classrooms, access, to legal constraints, and to infrastructure. Reference is made to a range of environmental impacts including on Judy Woods / a Bradford Wildlife site. Other brownfield sites are said to be available.

Object

Representation ID: 3815

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Judy Woods Save our Heritage

This site which appears to be dis proportionally over burdened with Housing Number and Population Density compared to other areas cf Buttershaw and other potential sites such as the demise of Richard Dunne and Odsal Stadium .
Out of the site allocations in the area 85% of the housing numbers are for Woodside Area alone .

Object

Representation ID: 4474

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Trevor Walsh

Strongly takes away our Greenfield but also creates more traffic for a already very busy road it would be chaos

Object

Representation ID: 5712

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Ryszard Dziemianko

In Public Health and Landscape 2013 “responsibility for public health moved” “to local authorities”. The drastic green space loss from this development will be detrimental to the mental “health and wellbeing” of the residents of Woodside. The popular walk in the area from Royds Hall Lane to Royds Dam would be adversely affected, impacting on physical health due to reduced opportunities for exercise. Heath issues are associated with housing underneath 400KV power lines.
Existing roads are unsuitable for the extra traffic from another 300 homes (Meadway and Fenwick are already access only routes), posing additional hazards to local children, especially pupils at Woodside school.
Land to be developed between Royds Dam and Royds Hall Lane has many undocumented mine workings. Therefore, homes built on this land would be substandard due to significant risk of subsidence.
The proposed development will have significant negative environmental impact on nearby Judy Woods

Object

Representation ID: 6164

Received: 04/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Joan Speight

Object to development on sites SW26/H, SW14/H & SW34/H as these are the only bits of green space left on the Estate.

Object

Representation ID: 7355

Received: 07/03/2021

Respondent: Christine & Roy Lancaster

Number of people: 2

object to the proposed building on land at Royds.
Beautiful Green landscape used by many walkers, dog walkers and access to Judy Woods would be ruined
Used by horseriders
The school also use it for lessons.
It will effect many of the birds and wildlife
It is believed the land has many mineshafts and also prone to flooding
The roads round the school are already overflowing with traffic. Cars park on corners and on grass verges and paths
When taking children to school you cannot see oncoming traffic for parked cars, making it unsafe to cross ITS AN ACCIDENT WAITING TO HAPPEN We have already seen roads blocked by cars parents fighting with each other about which car should move and give way
If emergency services need to use this route at school times they would not be able to get through.
Could our school accommodate the new intake at the school?

Support

Representation ID: 7517

Received: 10/03/2021

Respondent: David Hill LLP

We are pleased to see that the above site is allocated for housing in the Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021. The landowners are keen to progress with developing the site and we would like to confirm it’s availability.

We note that the site appraisal states that there could be a minor adverse effect on the setting of the Grade II* Listed Building ‘Royd’s Hall’. We would like to confirm that any proposed development would be designed with the setting of this heritage asset as a primary consideration.

Comment

Representation ID: 7952

Received: 12/03/2021

Respondent: Fiona & David Robinson

Number of people: 2

You are looking at building homes on the land opposite Woodside Academy SW14/H SW34/H SW25/H This is a beautiful green belt area. Which is in short demand in Woodside. Why do you need to build on green belt when there is brown land in Bradford. What about all the derelict property, mills etc. How is the school going to manage with all the extra families. The road is like a racetrack as it is. How is the drainage going to manage there is a big pond at the bottom of the field 7/8 months. We don’t need another big eyesore in this area.

Object

Representation ID: 8115

Received: 02/03/2021

Respondent: Mr & Mrs S & T Kerr & Laughlin

Number of people: 2

We have concerns regarding the proposal of houses to be built which will affect the loss of trees and wildlife, the development would cause increased pressure on existing traffic, highway safety due to school very near, parking, I trust these points will be taken into account in determining the application.

Comment

Representation ID: 10630

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Stephen Hall

Regarding the plans for building lots of houses down opposite Woodside primary school on Fenwick drive, apart from the increased traffic danger to all the school children and adult pedestrians it will mean that Meadway will become a far worse 'rat run' than ever.
At the moment when driving up or down Meadway it is a minor miracle nobody has been seriously injured with rat runners speeding up and down, and with the number of houses being proposed to be built, this will only get worse.
When our houses were built (by Mcleans) they were supposed to make Meadway wider, but as soon as they built our estate that never happened.
I know that it is far too late to do anything about that side of it now (Macleans went bust years ago) but as mentioned above, with a lot of increased traffic it will become a death trap.

Object

Representation ID: 11086

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs E Roberts

SW14/H - I object and express my concerns.

The Plans will reduce the value of our properties.
Loss of views.

Effect the wildlife in this area, there is lots of wildlife here.

Traffic is horrendous in this area at school times and will become worse with cars parking on Lingdale Road, Dunnington Walk, Fenwick Drive and Eaglesfield Drive.

Emergency services unable to get through,

Buses unable to get through.

We know more houses need building but not where traffic will become a big problem.

I myself hope that these plans do not go ahead.

Support

Representation ID: 11282

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Peter Martin

Agent: Athena Planning and Development

SW14/H
The landowners of Royds Hall Farm continue to be supportive of the allocation of Site SW14/H and are seeking the allocation of Site SW/034B for housing development. SW/034B is located directly adjacent to allocated Site SW14/H, is contiguous to the built up area and would form an acceptable and sustainable urban extension which could significantly contribute to the housing requirement for the Royds and Wibsey local area and support the transformational change and regeneration of Woodside. The landowners are working with BMDC Estates on the establishment of a Collaboration Agreement for the future marketing and sale of SW14/H and are committed to bringing these sites forward for development.

Site SW14/H was first identified for development in the Replacement Unitary Development Plan, with planning permission for 276 units granted in 2007 (07/041547/REM).

Comment

Representation ID: 11573

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Yorkshire Wildlife Trust

This site lies near to Judy Woods, Local Wildlife Site, and ancient woodland (irreplaceable habitat) which should be protected from direct and indirect impacts of development, including increases in footfall and other disturbance as a result of increased population in the local area.

Object

Representation ID: 13183

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Dorothy Sadowski

Existing roads are insufficient to cope with extra traffic. Routes along Meadway and Fenwick Drive are already access only, demonstrating the need for traffic control. Extra traffic from this development equals additional hazard to local residents, particularly at school times where there is no allocated parking area.
The Proposed land between Royds dam to Royds Hall Lane is known to have poorly documented, abandoned mine workings resulting in possible subsidence.
Health issues are related to high voltage power lines which overhang the proposed development.
The Development, excessive in scale given its location, will have a significant negative environmental impact on Judy Woods.

Object

Representation ID: 13460

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Woodland Trust

Conclusion

The Trust is concerned about the potentially adverse impacts that the proposed site allocations will have in relation to areas of ancient woodland within and/or adjacent to site allocations. Ancient woodland should not be included in areas that are allocated for development, whether for residential, leisure or community purposes as this leaves them open to the impacts of development.

The Woodland Trust objects to the inclusion of the below site allocations as they are likely to cause damage and/or loss to areas of ancient woodland within or adjacent to their boundaries. For this reason, we believe the sites in the table overleaf are unsound and should not be taken forward. Secondary woodland should also be retained to ensure that ecological networks are maintained and enhanced.

Object

Representation ID: 17155

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Labour)

The site is in close proximity to the Judy Woods Local Wildlife Site. It is difficult to see how it could be possible to develop this site without significant damage to local wildlife and the ecosystems.

Development will have an adverse impact on the setting of Royds Hall and the approach to it.

The majority of the site lies within a 200m buffer zone of HT power lines to the south. The eastern part of the site, lies within the outer tier consultation zone for a HSE designated Major Hazard Site

There is also a high risk for former coal mining activities including possible mine entry shafts.

The local infrastructure is not capable of sustaining a development of this size. Meadway in particular is narrow and not suitable for even the current levels of traffic.

This site is neither suitable nor sustainable.

Comment

Representation ID: 19917

Received: 01/04/2021

Respondent: Natural England

The sites lies on or in close proximity to woodlands and trees identified in the ancient woodland and veteran trees inventories.

NPPF para 175 sets out a strong presumption against development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees). Natural England and the Forestry Commission have produced standing advice on ancient woodland, ancient and veteran trees.

Comment

Representation ID: 27709

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: National Gas Transmissions

Agent: Avison Young

The proposed development site is crossed or in close proximity to National Grid assets.
Details of the sites affecting National Grid assets are provided below.
SW14/H 4ZZ ROUTE TWR (001 - 122): 400Kv Overhead Transmission Line route: MONK FRYSTON – PADIHAM

Plans showing details of the site locations and details of National Grid’s assets is attached to the submission

Guidance on development near National Grid assets Electricity assets & Gas assets is attached to the submission

Comment

Representation ID: 28902

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.