SH4/H - Glenview Drive, Bankfield Road, Nabwood

Object

Representation ID: 4951

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Ian Corker

Increase in local traffic will be a problem during and after development as site cannot be accessed fromCottingley Cliffe Road. Glenview Drive is not large enough to accommodate this level of traffic particularly during construction. Increased traffic would impact on Bankfield Road up and down the hill degrading clean air. Difficult to get onto A650 and Cottingley Cliffe Road already. Improvements must be made to avoid impact on the World Heritage Site and the buffer zone.

Destruction of Green Belt. Destruction of ecological habitats of local wildlife. I have concerns regarding flooding further down hill as this land would no longer slow rain water flow downhill. Long way from train stations. Increase in population putting more strain on already full local schools. More suitable sites are available.

Object

Representation ID: 5008

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Sandra Bell

I object to the housing allocation on this open green space that I often enjoy walking through.

The proposal to change the green belt boundary is not in line with the National Planning Policy Framework which states brownfield sites must be considered first and sustainable patterns of development must be followed 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: 5051

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Tony Bosworth

This is a beautiful green space that I value highly and often walk through. The proposal to change the green belt boundary is not in line with the National Planning Policy Framework. This states that brownfield sites must be considered first and sustainable patterns of development must be followed if green belt land is released. The Council must 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 for housing 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: 5064

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr SELWYN ODDY

I am a long term resident of Cottingley and feel that the SH4/H, SH5/H, SH6/H AND CO1/H proposals, together, will lead to;
Increased congestion.
'Rat running'.
Increased accidents.
Difficult/dangerous access.
Reduced air quality.

Object

Representation ID: 5076

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Paul Barrett

I live within sight of the proposed development area. It is worth noting that in the past twelve months, I have seen thirty-nine different species of birds in the immediate area, including various raptors, redwings, fieldfares and the Red Listed starlings, linnets and mistle thrushes.
Also seen foxes, deer and a stoat. Reports of badgers and hedgehogs.

Notwithstanding the destruction of Green Belt land, Paragraph 175 of the National Planning Policy Framework states:

a) if significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused;
c) development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees) should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists;

Object

Representation ID: 5098

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Ramona Sikorski

I object to this development.
The loss of yet more green space and natural habitats for wildlife.
Increased pollution affecting air quality.

Object

Representation ID: 5135

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Gillian Priestley

I object to the proposals for the area SH4/H for a number of reasons - the site is currently classified as Green Belt and one of the last remaining areas in Nab 'Wood'. There is also a Grade II listed building (New Close Farm) which is quite possibly one of Shipley's oldest buildings/barns that borders the proposed site, this green area is also home to numerous wildlife species. there is often have deer passing as well as foxes, and countless species of birds and raptors too. From a traffic perspective our road is not very wide at all with houses either side and cars parked on the road makes it single way most of the time - with all the proposed new houses using Glenview Drive as the main throughway would, in my eyes, be inconceivable, let alone getting machinery and construction vehicles through!

Object

Representation ID: 5136

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Suzanne Convery

The Proposal to change the Green Belt boundary contravenes the NPPF which states that Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances. All available brownfield sites should be considered first. The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental aim of Green Belt Policy is to prevent Urban Sprawl which is known to be detrimental to the environment and communities leading to additional noise and air pollution. The White Paper Planning for the Future states that Green Belt would be part of the protected category.
Below are strong reasons to object the proposal:
Significant air pollution (CAZ).
Increased traffic demands & highway safety concerns.
Impact on wildlife habitat, biodiversity, & ecosystem.
Impact on health/mental wellbeing.
Increased noise, air, & light pollution.
Unknown risks from excavation of the land & impact on existing properties
Concerns re loss of light & overshadowing.
Potential of increased crime in the area.

Object

Representation ID: 5141

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Go Beyond Consulting

I object to the proposed development due to the following considerations:
• Avoidable loss of greenbelt. (Much brown-field with development potential has been omitted from this plan)
• Worsened Air quality
• Loss of heritage value
• Loss of Habitat
• Too far from central services and amenities.
• Undesitable Urban sprawl.
I have attached a supplementary document explaining my objections in more detail.

Object

Representation ID: 5144

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Robert Prior

I wish to register my objection to the proposal SH4/H (Nab Wood).

Building on this greenbelt site contradicts the Feb 2019 National Planning Policy to prevent the sprawl of such developments impinging on the characteristics of such sites.

The damage to the ecological balance of the area and the effects on local wildlife, integral to this area and which residents have enjoyed for years by adding to their quality of life and mental health, would be irreparably damaged.

The already insufficient protection from flooding in the affected area would be further compromised by this development.

Local infrastructure, including roads, schools and local medical services, are already stretched and would not cope with additional population and traffic, regardless of how the site would be accessed.

I am also disappointed by the poor timing of the proposals, with no public meetings possible due to the pandemic.

Object

Representation ID: 5145

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Dr Fiona Thompson

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: 5177

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Linda Heppinstall

Loss of protected GreenBelt and community identity NabWood would merge into New Brighton/Cottingley. The Council hasn’t demonstrated any exceptional circumstances to build on protected GreenBelt and must first develop every available existing brownfield site before identifying greenbelt to develop Loss of wildlife habitat in unique and important scrubland/wooded area Detrimental impact on Grade2/Grade2* buildings in close proximity to the site Existing PROW must be maintained Insufficient infrastructure No public transport adjacent to site All local schools GPs dentists are full No shops No rail station within walking distance people will use their cars instead creating an unacceptable increase in air pollution through traffic/vehicle emissions in a CAZ Steep site underrun by old mine workings/underground watercourses building here could result in landslip and flooding further downhill and on A650 The impact of 164 new houses increased pollution noise loss of habitat and amenity will have detrimental effect on existing house values

Object

Representation ID: 5183

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr R B Donkin

Totally inappropriate development on green belt land. Destruction of historic context of listed buildings. Reduction in air quality thanks to position next to major road. Increased road traffic and more road deaths thanks to position. Reckless destruction of woodland and other habitats. Yet another nail hammered into the World Heritage site coffin by the Council. Destruction of habitat links including risk of damage to feeding grounds of protected bats. All this has been noted by the planning staff and - as usual - ignored. Thanks to COVID and the internet there is plenty of spare retail space within walking distance of Shipley center which should have been converted into flats which are in high demand thanks to the easy commute to Leeds and Bradford centres. Instead, the Council decides to vindictively destroy green belt land here in Shipley.

Object

Representation ID: 5187

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Nora Whitaker

I am concerned about traffic around Avondale Road area which is at dangerous levels now and with the prospect of another 300 cars being added to Nab Wood as a result of the Glenview development this will be much worse as they cut through to avoid Saltaire. I’m also concerned about the destruction of the green belt and effect on wildlife in this time. The development will adversely the mental health of people in the area with added traffic volumes and fewer places to walk.

Object

Representation ID: 5307

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: CJ Weaver

It is the greenbelt.
It is a greenfield site rather than brownfield development.
Mature trees and woodland would have to be removed with consequent loss of wildlife habitat. Replacing with saplings is still detrimental to the environment.
There is no direct access to it, causing congestion on adjoining roads.
Air quality of the area would be adversely affected.
Adjacent listed buildings would be adversely affected.

Object

Representation ID: 5310

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Alexa Hafferty

It is against community initiatives
It doesn't support local people with schools and nurseries
It doesn't represent sustainable development.
It would destroy an area of biodiversity which could not be replaced for generations, if ever.
It would be detrimental to the mental and physical health of a large number of people.
It would pose an increased flood risk in an area already prone to flooding and ground saturation.
It would cause the loss of natural views which enjoyed across a wide surrounding area.
The proposed entry route to the new development is entirely unsuitable for additional cars and the traffic that this would create. There would be a significant increase in air pollution and noise pollution detrimental to the quality of life and the health of residents.
This green space demarcates the communities of Nab Wood and Cottingley. Losing this space would cause of a loss of community identity.

Object

Representation ID: 5344

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Richard Smyth

I feel that the greenfield developments proposed for Shipley are problematic. Where these developments abut areas of (relative) socio-economic deprivation, like SH3/H, they deprive residents in an already intensively developed area of beneficial green spaces, and threaten to worsen already-shocking levels of air pollution (it's all very well reducing school traffic, but it's less helpful when small children have to walk to school through choking, harmful road fumes). In greenbelt areas, they would disrupt already-frail green corridors and cause unpredictable - but irreparable - harm to wild habitats.

You may not be aware that Shipley and the surrounding area is regularly featured in The Guardian newspaper's widely-read Country Diary. These developments would jeopardise this kind of positive press for an otherwise unappreciated part of the world - and could in fact attract negative publicity.

Object

Representation ID: 5355

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Miss sajda naz

Massive adverse affect on traffic/congestion as roads in area have not been designed to cope with approximately 164+ more vehicles.
Increased traffic/congestion means more moronic driving putting our children's lives at risk. Children will not be able to cross roads or play outside safely.
Bradford Council often fails to grit (the very steep) Bankfield Rd during winter making it an ice rink. 164+ more cars attempting to drive up/down is putting property and people at risk.
It will not be easy for emergency services to access the area via Glenview Drive.
The area is home to foxes, birds, rabbits and a small herd of deer. The development will kill off the fauna completely.
Nab wood residents will be robbed of walking in a rural location a short walk away from their homes. The area will no longer sing with birdsong. Our COVID isolated lives will become even more miserable/depressed.

Object

Representation ID: 5409

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Deborah White

This is a greatly valued, sloping area of mature grassland & trees, well-used by local people for walking & dog walking. The location next to a busy main road & behind existing housing would create additional traffic congestion & encourage rat-running through Nab Wood. There would insufficient room in local schools, GP practices & a lack of other local amenities for a housing development of the proposed size.

Object

Representation ID: 5430

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Sabah Ishaq

Loss of green space
More traffic
Loss of habitat for wildlife
Reduction in air quality

Object

Representation ID: 5473

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jane Caink

Access to area is down small cul de sac. Local roads will not cope with increase in traffic. Loss of green belt and natural habitats. Cottingley Cliff Road already a grid locked road at school/rush hour. Infrastructure will not cope with increased traffic etc. Planning already refused previously. :and has many natural springs.

Object

Representation ID: 5507

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Hasan Ishaq

1) Creates more traffic for people that already live in this area
2) Access via glenview road? No consideration for the people that live on that road whatsoever.
3) Loss of green space and wildlife
4) Devalues the area. Nab wood is known to be quiet and green, not crowded and busy
5) I have seen this happen to numerous areas throughout the district and all it causes is traffic and noise.
6) if you want to make this a less desirable place to live, make sure you reduce the council tax too
7) more cars on the streets is unsafe for children to play outdoors

Object

Representation ID: 5510

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Delice D’Ivoire Ltd

Because there is barely any heritage site left in Bradford. So we need protecting what’s left in Bradford

Object

Representation ID: 5527

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Frances Guy

Valuable Green Belt.

Object

Representation ID: 5533

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Marie Lamont

This is a valuable piece of greenfield land, used to enhance the health and wellbeing of local residents. The footpath create a link with local walls.

The building on this would impact on local residents, with further air pollution leading to reduced health of local resident.

Cars will add noise pollution and diminish safety of the local area for residents to walk and bike

I wouldn’t concerned if amenities can support this increase in people.

We are in a climate crisis please do not act in this destructive way. We need to value our green spaces and not lose them

Object

Representation ID: 5539

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Rachel Kipling

This greenbelt site should not be built on before all brownfield sites in Bradford are exhausted. This loss of habitat and biodiversity cannot be justified. In addition, the area is a long way from, reliable public transport and will inevitably contribute to car use and already high levels of traffic and air pollution will increase. There is an increased risk of downstream flooding from increased run off from hardstanding. Culverting of watercourses should not take place and risks deterioration of Water quality, habitat and biodiversity.

Object

Representation ID: 5540

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Alexandra Butler

Green belt land
Pollution
Noise disturbing natural wildlife
Increased traffic/ pollution from vehicles Loss of trees
Effect on listed buildings and conservation area
Layout and density of buildings
Design, appearance and materials
Landscaping
Road access

Object

Representation ID: 5558

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Gareth Medd

I object because these proposals will negatively affect:
1. The greenbelt
2. Traffic and pollution
3. School places
4. Health services
5. House values
What efforts will the council make to actually secure developer contributions to infrastructure, health and education. Despite the increased house building in the area, I have not seen significant contributions. It is almost like this hasn't happened.

Object

Representation ID: 5584

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Carole King

Destruction of natural habitat. Increase in traffic and congestion.

Object

Representation ID: 5585

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Rachel Belk

I disagree with SP5’s stated incontrovertible case for loss of this amount of greenbelt, citing ‘exceptional circumstances’ (NPPF paragraph138). The pandemic must have increased brownfield site availability through altered working patterns and business changes: this should be revisited and the Valley Road site considered.

SH4/H (and SH5/H, SH6/H) should not be included because the site is then no longer stratified, but considered equal to brownfield. Greenbelt is likely to be preferentially developed over brownfield because of greater profitability rather than prioritising benefit to wildlife and residents. Development of all three skews massive change to one small geographical area.

SH4/H is not sustainable development. There are significant negative environmental impacts that could not be mitigated:
Major habitat loss (likely qualifies as a Local Wildlife Site);
Water quality;
Local and downhill flood risk;
Additional traffic safety impact and pollution;
Loss of greenspace impact on wellbeing;
Poor public transport, amenities and school spaces.