SH4/H - Glenview Drive, Bankfield Road, Nabwood

Object

Representation ID: 4595

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Susan Wybranska

Adverse effect on air quality with 200 extra cars passing through residential area combined with traffic from proposed NW19/H - not in line with Bradford's zero carbon commitment. Loss of green recreational space which is vital for health of community. 'Priority woodland' containing 2 TPO's, gives area its name and identity, provides vital habitat for wildlife. including protected species. Inadequate infrastructure: target area Primary schools currently oversubscribed, health facilities, amenities and services outside target area. B6269/A650 heavily congested at peak times; Bankfield Road, Glenview Road, Nabwood Drive and Nabwood Grove already increasingly busy with through traffic, raises road safety issues for pedestrians and bikers (speeding, careless driving), crossroads causes accidents. Unique setting for 17C Grade 2 listed farm building, a heritage asset, will be lost. Water bodies and mines will require costly investigation - Glenview Road already has drainage issues. Brownfield sites need full consideration before Green Belt is altered.

Object

Representation ID: 4597

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Austin Hulley

Objection due to traffic increase.
Additional pressure on junctions exiting nabwood onto cottingley cliffe road and/or Bradford road. 20mph onto a 40mph road.
Additional traffic and 20mph speed limits not being followed.
Air quality
Affordability of homes on the site for average income in the area.
Additional congestion on cottingley cliffe road and bradford road especially near the primary school.

Object

Representation ID: 4618

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Edward Convery

The proposal to change the Green Belt boundary contravenes the National Planning Policy Framework Paragraph 136 states that Green Belt Boundaries should only be altered where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified. All available brownfield sites must be considered first. Inappropriate development is by definition harmful to the Green Belt. The Council need to allocate housing developments to available brownfield sites across the Local Plan area (such as Valley Road) instead of releasing Green Belt Land.
The site is not sustainable owing to the negative environmental impact. These are strong reasons to oppose this allocation.
Increased flood risks.
Impact on water quality
Increased pollution.
Loss of Green Belt which is used by families for Mental & Physical wellbeing.
Impact on significant wildlife.
Historical importance.
Poor Public transport and amenities locally.

Object

Representation ID: 4620

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Andrew Priestley

I strongly object to this development of semi rural green belt land. Development priority must be given to the numerous derelict brownfield sites across Bradford and revitalise these run-down areas before our precious green belt can be considered. This specific area performs a vital function in the local drainage basin, absorbing excess rainfall, and building here will worsen the risk of severe flooding both locally in lower Nab Wood and further down the the Aire valley. The housing development would permanently destroy woodland habitats and diminish local biodiversity on the edge of our city. Further development in this area will worsen the already severe traffic congestion on both Bradford Road and Cottingley Cliffe Road, as well as encouraging further dangerous ‘rat runs’ through Nab Wood. Development of 164 houses would add further pressure to local services, where the schools are already oversubscribed, and health centres and dental surgeries already overstretched.

Object

Representation ID: 4624

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Heather Lumley

The proposal to change the green belt boundary is not in line with the National Planning Policy Framework which states greenbelt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances - available brownfield sites must be considered first and there is a need to promote sustainable patterns of development if green belt land is released. The Council needs to allocate housing to more brownfield sites across the Local Plan area (such as at Valley Road) instead of releasing greenbelt land.

This site is not sustainable due to the following negative environmental impacts. All are strong reasons to oppose this allocation:
Loss of mature trees and woodland
Impact on water quality
Flood risk will increase downhill from the site.
Air pollution and noise from additional cars
Loss of local greenspace that is important to residents’ wellbeing
Poor access to public transport (poor bus service) and local shops and services

Object

Representation ID: 4632

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Darren Smith

I object to the proposed plans: - the road infrastructure isn't capable of coping with the plans
- the traffic is already bad and a nightmare at times to get our own car out of our drive, this will be made worse with potentially another 300+ cars going through nab Wood. The air pollution these will also bring and the traffic during construction
- the impact on the wildlife that live on this land and have done for many years
- the land is boggy with no where for the water to go which will be made worse if the land is built on
- the local schools are already oversubscribed
- the impact on the mental well being of the neighborhood
- the views which are enjoyed by many
- keeping the land greenbelt

Object

Representation ID: 4634

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Kirsty Elliott

The proposal to change the green belt boundary is not in line with the National Planning Policy Framework which states greenbelt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances - available brownfield sites must be considered first and there is a need to promote sustainable patterns of development if green belt land is released. The Council needs to allocate housing to more brownfield sites across the Local Plan area (such as at Valley Road) instead of releasing greenbelt land.



This site is not sustainable due to the following negative impacts:

Loss of mature trees and woodland

Loss of habitat for local animals

Flood risk will increase downhill from the site.

Air pollution and noise from additional cars

Schools within area are already over subscribed

Poor access to public transport (poor bus service) and local shops and services

Object

Representation ID: 4636

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Frank Hyland

This development would destroy much needed and enjoyed green space in the area. Given the access proposed via Glenview Road, the effect of building this huge number of houses will be to double the amount of traffic on Nabwood Drive and Ashfield Road. The latter is already used as a "Rat-run" and terminates in a very dangerous junction with Moorhead Lane. There is a children's nursery on Ashfield Road where parents already have to contend with busy traffic, morning and evening, including cars travelling at well in excess of the local speed limit. This ill thought out development is unacceptable. As a resident of many years standing I am totally opposed to the scheme which, if it goes ahead, will destroy the amenity we and our children have known.

Object

Representation ID: 4681

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Thomas Simcock

I regularly use the footpath that runs through the site for the purposes of exercise and enjoyment of the countryside. Children, including members of my family, use the route to walk to and from school, enabling them to connect with nature on a daily basis. Local green space is vital for people’s physical and mental wellbeing and this will be significantly reduced by this development. Developing this site will also have a negative impact on wildlife.

This development lies within the Green Belt, which is supposed to check the sprawl of built-up areas. The National Planning Policy Framework states that the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. This development would be to the detriment of all of that.

I am also concerned that a lot of extra traffic would be generated, which would create congestion and increase air pollution within the Clean Air Zone.

Object

Representation ID: 4685

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Rebecca Binnion

I object to these plans as this would create excessive traffic to add to the problems already experienced in and around the area, the infrastructure does not support this level of housing.
The site is home to many types of wildlife and it's an important space for people to use. Wild deer can often be seen here.
Local schools are already too full and this would make the problem worse.
This site should be protected so that the local towns and villages do not merge into one.
More cars around us would mean greater pollution not to mention to problems the building would cause while under construction.
There are plenty of derelict sites in Bradford that can be used leave these spaces alone.

Object

Representation ID: 4688

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Adam Neaves

Specifically in relation to site SH4H. This site contains large mature trees with obvious wildlife and specifically owl occupancy, the loss of which should be fought as vehemently as any forestry loss. The open green space is a known corridor for the wild deer population between the two greenbelt corridors to the north and south of the site. With vehicle access limited to Glenview Drive and no access likely from Cottingley Road, the increase to traffic down-hill via Nab Lane and both down- and up-hill via Nab Wood Drive will put additional strain on already awkward junctions and increase traffic on roads already blighted by speeding shortcut seakers.

Object

Representation ID: 4704

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Angie O'Keefe

We are writing to object strongly to the proposed housing development SH4/H ( 5/6) and CO1/H, published in the local development plan, to build 164 and 155 houses respectively on Green Belt land. We wish to object in the following grounds:
1) Traffic
2) Air pollution
3) Green belt and green space development
4) Public Transport and Local Shops & Services
5) Loss of heritage
6) Schools and infrastructure
7) Habitat and bio-diversity
8) Environmental
9) Mental and Physical Health and Wellbeing
10)Timeline
Please see uploaded objection letter for further information.

Object

Representation ID: 4713

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Nick Chapman

As outlined in my representation, I am strongly opposed the proposed development for a variety of reasons. Specifically, the inevitable increase in traffic and resulting further deterioration of air quality, the loss of green space and destruction of plant and wildlife habitats, the increased risk of flooding, insufficient school provisions in the local area, and the mismatch in density of the proposed development compared to adjacent areas.

Object

Representation ID: 4725

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Dr Benjamin Stern

Location next to Grade II listed building. The local environment is essential inthe setting of this building
Loss of habitat
Loss of natural views
Lack of infrastructure
Inability to cope with traffic volumes
Presence of viable alternatives
Non-compliance with council and national policy (green belt, net-zero carbon)

Object

Representation ID: 4746

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Rosie Jakob

This is a Green Belt area and is home to a multitude of wildlife that would be significantly disrupted by this proposal causing harm to the environment and to the proven wellbeing of people. These fields absorb significant water levels protecting the local area from flooding. The additional impact of traffic and congestion will further impact on the health of those in the local area. I would strongly object to this area being built on and the damage it would cause to the area

Object

Representation ID: 4753

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jayne Brown

Schools places limited at local schools. Nabwood does NOT have a primary school and children attend cottingley. Proposed developments there means spaces will not be available. Saltaire scatvjment area is small due to number of people living close. Children will need to be driven further away to access schools
Access to the site due to pollution and numbers of cars already driving through nab wood.
No shops/ Gp/ buses meaning people would need to drive to get to these increasing traffic
No park in Nabwood
Pollution is high in these areas
Local wildlife spotted on walks to school including deer on a regular basis

Object

Representation ID: 4755

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Sam Seward

Development of this site would mean the loss of valuable green space for wildlife and agriculture.
It would increase noise and light polution in a greenbelt area. Views across the fields will be taken away from residents who overlook this site. The River Aire has flooded in this area in recent years, 2015 being the worse case. This development can only increase flood risk with added run off water from a site which is steeply sloped towards the river.
Increased traffic in a heavily congested area which is to become part of a CAZ in January 2022.
The current traffic levels are very high and the transport options are not supported by adequate active travel infrastructure.
Location of this site is not reasonable walking distance to a railway station.
Branksome Drive/Grove is not suitable to use for access to this site as it is too narrow.

Object

Representation ID: 4774

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Elizabeth Milner

I object to SH4/5/6 due to loss of agricultural land and green spaces for all current residents of the local area. The impact it will have on wildlife habitats and the worsening of existing flooding / draining issues is a major concern. Infrastructure is not there. Lack of local primary schools and other amenities will result in existing amenities under more pressure for all local residents. Other brownfield sites should be used

Object

Representation ID: 4780

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jennifer Netherwood

1.The proposed site is in the green belt, and is therefore protected from development by the NPPF
2.Insufficient local school places available
3.Adverse effect on air quality and noise pollution,
4. Adverse effect on biodiversity
5. Adversely affects the setting of two listed buildings and increased flood risk
6.Size of proposed development is disproportionate to that of the existing residential area
7. Timing of consultation period during a pandemic and national lockdown measures undemocratic
8. Funding allocated by the government to help develop brownfield sites
PLEASE PRESERVE THE GREEN BELT AND PROTECT ALL OUR FUTURES

Object

Representation ID: 4784

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Katy Jubbs

This development would significantly effect the wildlife and green spaces of the local area which should be protected. It will also increase the traffic in the local area and be an eyesore to current residents. We must protect areas of natural beauty, we need these more than ever for the environment and the biodiversity of the land. I strongly object to this development which clearly only seems to care about profits!

Object

Representation ID: 4790

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Margaret Adams

Greenfield site.. Available brownfield sites should be considered first and use 8765 empty residences in Bradford.Against National policy framework
Greatly Increased traffic and air pollution. The access to the site is very narrow especially for site traffic.Bradford council is supposed to have policies to reduce air pollution How does this fit in with its Joint health and well being strategy? In the recent pandemic this area was very important for the mental and physical wellbeing of local residents
Destruction of habitat and biodiversity. The area is home to Roe deer,badgers, foxes, flora etc. It is so lovely to be able to enjoy all of these.
Historical importance of buildings New Close farm which is next door to the site. Saltaire is a world heritage site!
Local Primary schools are full, secondary schools also in great demand and waiting times for doctors appointments
long before extra demand from development.

Object

Representation ID: 4801

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Lucy Shaw

Bradford has plenty of brownfield sites that should be priority for development, I’m aware some have been earmarked for development, but there are plenty other brownfield sites! The Council has not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances to build on protected Green Belt.
This is a flood-prone area, and this land provides much-needed water absorption.
The schools in the immediate vicinity cause severe traffic congestion at drop-off times, and I worry about the air quality for those children attending already. The local roads would really struggle with all the proposed local development sites within the local area creating more cars on these roads and harming air quality.
The strain on local amenities, as doctors, dentist and schools are already at capacity!

Object

Representation ID: 4839

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Shelley Fielden

I object to SH4/5/6 due to loss of green spaces for the local area. The impact the development will have on wildlife habitats, existing flooding issues and air pollution is significant. Similarly the infrastructure to support such development does not exist and would increase pressure on already stretched schools and health services. The traffic impact of any further development would be significant in Saltaire which given the existing rates of air pollution exceed current targets would only deteriorate further. Brownfield sites should be prioritised, similarly consideration should be given to traffic routes and how neighbouring areas would be impacted negatively by any such development.

Object

Representation ID: 4845

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Susan Fulton

Shipley is a very busy town with excellent transport links and is a popular residential area. There is a high volume of traffic throughout most of the day on the main roads and increasingly on minor roads despite traffic calming measures.The present Shipley residents NEED, USE and VALUE their green spaces. These are a lifeline to parents and children and all residents who value areas free of traffic to walk and sit. Building new homes will increase traffic and remove valuable clean air zones.

Object

Representation ID: 4876

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Pamela Parker

It’s a green belt land and on an already rat run

Object

Representation ID: 4881

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Naim Butt

Objection for the following reasons:

• Loss of green belt. There are plenty of brownfield sites available.
• There is already a shortage of green spaces in this populated area which would be made worse.
• Ignores the fact that the land has already been identified for further woodland.
• The proposal would bring another 300 plus cars. Impacts on narrow steep roads off Glenview Rd.
• Impact on air quality.
• Will exacerbate drainage issues

Object

Representation ID: 4893

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Rachael McMorrow

The reasons for our objection are:

Development on greenbelt should be a last resort - other areas should be considered.
Increased traffic on already busy and dangerous roads in a residential area.
Air pollution is already at illegally high levels in Shipley/Saltaire (particularly the junction of Bingley Road and Saltaire Road) and this has been acknowledged by the Council. The development(s) in the area will only make it worse - the proposal also acknowledges this.
Lack of educational infrastructure - local schools are already oversubscribed
Loss of greenspace.

Object

Representation ID: 4912

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Barbara Kelly

Greenfield site - you should be looking at brownfield first.
sloping site, drainage poor, possible remnants of mine workings.
Access issues to the site
Will add to the already difficult traffic situation on Cottingley Cliffe Rd
Land is used for animals for grazing by the Ludbrooke Farm

Object

Representation ID: 4921

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Hazel Wilmshurst

I object on the grounds of:
- destruction of established woodland with Tree Preservation Orders including No 165, and naturally developing mixed woodland with negative impacts on the response to the climate emergency, reduction in biodiversity and achieving the government target of increasing woodland cover by 12% by 2060.
- increased traffic on quiet residential streets already used as rat runs, with many speeding cars; near accidents and unsuitable for construction traffic; negative impact on air quality as acknowledged
- impact on wildlife from large mammals (deer, fox, badger), birdlife (sparrow hawk, merlin, tawny/barn owls) and bats.
- local infrastructure - document claims positive effect re education, but that’s not the case when considered with other proposed neighbouring developments (SH5/H, SH6/H, CO1/H, NW19/H), with a total of 808 properties, when local primary and secondary schools are already full and oversubscribed. Same question applies to GP, dental surgeries and local shops.

Object

Representation ID: 4943

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Elizabeth Pimperton

Develop would destroy local biodiversity, loss of trees, hedges, wildlife habitats.
Access to the site through Glenview Road will significantly increase the amount of traffic going through Nabwood and Moorhead. There is very limited public transport close to the site and the majority of residents will see it as too far from facilities to use sustainable methods of travel.
There report states this as a good location due to proximity to schools, however without an increase in school places locally this will have a negative effect on other areas of Nabwood and Moorhead. Most of the local schools are already oversubscribed and an increase in kids will exacerbate this problem.
Develop would destroy local biodiversity, loss of trees, hedges, wildlife habitats. Potentially affect watercourse and lead to an increase in flood risk in the valley with is already prone to flooding. Greenbelt is there for a reason.