NW19/H - Bingley Road/Long Lane, Heaton

Object

Representation ID: 223

Received: 16/02/2021

Respondent: Ms Kirstin Sawyer

This area is part of a precious block of green land used by this local community for health giving walking, bird-watching, playing etc. I see foxes, deer and birds etc on this land which is vital for my mental health and well-being and can walk there from my house thus reducing carbon emissions from driving in order to walk.

Object

Representation ID: 237

Received: 17/02/2021

Respondent: Mr Keith Norton

The main reasons for my objection are:
Green belt is supposed to be green belt! The current land is a fantastic golf course and driving range which is a real asset to this part of Bradford. We need to keep our open spaces and protect them not build on them. The current land use encourages exercise and well being.
Extra traffic on Bingley Road/Long Lane will be substantial- 300 houses means this could be 600 cars extra every rush hour!
Schooling- where will all the additional school children go to school? Bradford schools are busy enough as it is.

Object

Representation ID: 624

Received: 02/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Gavin Conway

This is a wonderful greenbelt land with a 9-hole golf course bringing enjoyment to very many people. It is the only public golf in the area.

Object

Representation ID: 2130

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Susan Beedham

The land suggested is in the Greenbelt and is a very attractive There are already plenty of houses in the surrounding area, please do not build all the remaining fields and woodland, destroying the natural beauty of the countryside.

Object

Representation ID: 3315

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr David Wilmshurst

I object on the grounds of:
- destruction of green belt, providing a “green lung” extending into the city via Heaton Woods
- increased traffic on an already busy section of Bingley Road and the consequent increased negative impact on air quality
- local primary and secondary schools are already full and over subscribed so when taken into consideration with other proposed developments (SH4/H, SH5/H, SH6/H, CO1/H) (a total of 808 proposed properties) local schools provision is not adequate. The same applies to local GP and dental surgeries and shops.
- danger to wildlife, including deer, fox and varied birdlife.
- No account is taken of the additional impact on the green belt and traffic volumes of the proposed new crematorium on Long Lane.

Object

Representation ID: 3966

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Barry Essam

There are 395 homes currently being developed across Bingley Road at the former Hallmark-Cards site. The new crematorium will be built on Long Lane.
There are a further 9 sites within the draft plan that feed into the route from Bingley Road/Toller Lane junction down Cottingley Hill to the roundabout by the Mercure Hotel (Bingley Road/A650). These sites add up to more than 1200 dwellings. Add in the 395 approved for the Hallmark Cards site and we have 1600+ dwellings. This brings 3000+ vehicles onto that route. Where are the school places, doctor surgeries etc. to cope with this increase. Will Bradford Royal Infirmary be expanding to cater for all of these people? What plans are there for putting road and bus infrastructure in place service these sites. This site is definitely not within 400m of a high frequency bus network.

Object

Representation ID: 4070

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Dr Fiona Thompson

I am a member and frequent user of Express Golf at Shay Grange. Whilst I recognise the need for housing, using this space would remove an important element of recreation. Many golf courses are prohibitively expensive and elitist but Express Golf is the opposite thus creating accessible leisure facilities that attract a diverse range of local people and some who travel specifically. Outdoor pursuits are linked to physical and mental wellbeing and certainly my experience of golf is that it supports my wellbeing which has been affected detrimentally when the course has been closed due to lockdown. The site itself is affected by the water levels and is exceedingly wet at different times of the year - recent drainage has had to be put in on the driving range. Plus this is Green belt land which should be protected according to the National Planning Policy Framework.

Object

Representation ID: 4940

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Hazel Wilmshurst

I object on the grounds of:
- destruction of green belt, providing a “green lung” extending into the city via Heaton Woods
- increased traffic on an already busy section of Bingley Road and the consequent increased negative impact on air quality
- local primary and secondary schools are already full and over subscribed so when taken into consideration with other proposed developments (SH4/H, SH5/H, SH6/H, CO1/H) (a total of 808 proposed properties) local schools provision is not adequate. The same applies to local GP and dental surgeries and shops.

Object

Representation ID: 5952

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Neil Lambert

Greenbelt. Many of the poorest people in the district use this space. Memberships at golf clubs are £20 a round and is unaffordable for a lot of people. £3 for 60 balls helped me get into the game. It’s a great green space and once it’s gone it’s gone forever. The are plenty of brownfield spaces throughout the area.

Object

Representation ID: 7030

Received: 02/03/2021

Respondent: Louise and Martin Forbes

Number of people: 2

Impact on Wildlife
Increased traffic and air pollution that will already have increased from a crematorium going in there.traff8c pulling out onto congested Bingley Road towards haworth Road.
Trees being taken down that help with wildlife, air pollution,
Impact on schooling

Object

Representation ID: 8141

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: CPRE West Yorkshire

In line with our comments on policy SP5, we object to these site allocations:
NW7/H
NW8/H
NW9/H
NW10/H
NW13/H
NW19/H - Considering the recognition of the site’s parkland setting, in our view the site is unsuitable for development at sufficient density to constitute sustainable development, and it should not therefore be allocated

Comment

Representation ID: 11587

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Yorkshire Wildlife Trust

This site lies immediately adjacent to Heaton Woods, Northcliffe Woods and Old Spring Woo Local Wildlife Site and ancient woodland (irreplaceable habitat). As such all proposals should avoid any direct or indirect impacts and work to retain, enhance and improve connectivity between these areas of woodland.

Object

Representation ID: 13462

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.

Comment

Representation ID: 19915

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.

Object

Representation ID: 27093

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Persimmon Homes (West Yorkshire)

Agent: Lichfields

Green Belt Site Assessment:

While we fully support the allocation of the site for residential development we disagree with the Council's green belt assessment for the site.

The Council’s assessment concluded that, overall, the site is located in a moderate performing Green Belt parcel and development of the site would result in major impact on the fundamental aim and essential characteristics of Green Belt in this location.

However, for the reasons set out above, it is considered that the impact upon the Green Belt has been overstated.

Notwithstanding this it is noted and supported that Council has clearly deemed that, in the context of the acute housing need and the absence of alternative sites, the benefits of developing this site for housing outweigh any harm to the wider Green Belt in this area.

As described in our comments in Table 3, the site adjoins an existing built up area to the east and is close to a range of uses and, although the site largely lacks built form, the topography and tree cover mean it is not particularly visible or prominent. The land is contained by physical boundaries to the north and east and will be largely self-contained.

It is considered that strong new Green Belt boundaries can be formed to prevent further development or sprawl, and this would continue to be the case should the additional land identified in Annex 2 be included as part of a future allocation.

Support

Representation ID: 27094

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Persimmon Homes (West Yorkshire)

Agent: Lichfields

The site is located within a sustainable location with easy access of a good range of local services and public transport services.

Draft Policy SP5 acknowledges that Green Belt releases are required in order to meet the future housing requirements within Bradford. It is considered that the proposed removal of the site from the Green Belt and allocation for housing is justified and appropriate and that this would not prejudice the five purposes of the Green Belt as set out in the NPPF.

The site assessment demonstrates that the site has no significant technical constraints which would prevent its delivery for housing development.

The site (if expanded - see below) could accommodate up to 470 dwellings, providing a substantial contribution to the identified housing need, whilst responding to the site constraints, retaining key existing landscape features as well as incorporating public open space and new landscaping.

The site is available and deliverable now and would make an important contribution towards meeting the housing requirements of the District.

In light of the above, the proposed allocation NW19/H is supported and should be taken forward in the Draft Local Plan. It is also considered appropriate to extend the allocation to the north east and south east of the site and west of Shay Lane.

Comment

Representation ID: 28859

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.

Object

Representation ID: 29271

Received: 29/03/2021

Respondent: Historic England

See attachment for full representation
Before allocating this site for development:
(1) An assessment needs to be undertaken of the contribution which this site makes to those elements which contribute towards the significance of the Listed Buildings in its vicinity, and what impact the loss of this undeveloped site and its subsequent development might have upon their significance.
(2) If it is considered that the development of this site would harm elements which contribute to the significance of the Listed Buildings, then the measures by which that harm might be removed or reduced need to be effectively tied into the Plan.
(3) If, at the end of the process, it is concluded that the development would still be likely to harm elements which contribute to the significance of these Listed Buildings, then this site should not be allocated unless there are clear public benefits that outweigh the harm (as is
required by NPPF, Paragraph 195 or 196).