SH4/H - Glenview Drive, Bankfield Road, Nabwood

Object

Representation ID: 5586

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Lynn Clarke

I strongly object to the proposals to build on Greenbelt land at SH4/H. SH5/H and SH6/H. These natural areas need to be preserved to provide sustainable habitat for plants and animals, to help combat climate change and to allow residents and visitors to enjoy a natural environment like the banks of the river Aire. An additional 349 homes will contribute to traffic congestion and air pollution as the areas are too far away from local amenities so residents will resort to their cars. The A650 is a very busy road and rat running is already rife around the streets of Nab Wood. I believe there could also be flood risk for areas SH5/H and SH6/H. There are many brownfield sites and derelict industrial buildings in Shipley and Bradford and we should be looking to them to provide sites for housing. This could also help with the regeneration of city centres.

Object

Representation ID: 5599

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Aisha Thakker

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 this greenbelt land.

This site is not sustainable due to the following negative environmental impacts, all of which are strong reasons to oppose this allocation:
Loss of mature trees/woodland
Impact on water quality
Flood risk will increase downhill from the site.
Air pollution, carbon emissions 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: 5603

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Anna Thakker

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 this greenbelt land.

This site is not sustainable due to the following negative environmental impacts, all of which are strong reasons to oppose this allocation:
Loss of mature trees/woodland
Impact on water quality
Flood risk will increase downhill from the site.
Air pollution, carbon emissions 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: 5614

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Allen Donnison

I strongly oppose the construction of more houses on this green belt .There is already a problem with traffic in this area , long queues morning ,evening and school pick up times . Increasing the amount of houses will make this significantly worse .

Object

Representation ID: 5628

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Shanti Thakker

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 this greenbelt land.

This site is not sustainable due to the following negative environmental impacts, all of which are strong reasons to oppose this allocation:
Loss of mature trees/woodland
Impact on water quality
Flood risk will increase downhill from the site.
Air pollution, carbon emissions 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: 5639

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Kirran Shah

The site is greenbelt, was assessed recently by the council as being of high value as a buffer zone between urban areas of Heaton and Cottingley and providing boundaries to avoid urban sprawl. The council must first develop on existing brownfield sites before identifying greenbelt or other green space to build on. Bradford area does have brownfield sites available.
Ecological surveys should be carried out to identify the habitats and any protected species that could already have historic use of the site such as bat roosting in trees. Roe deer also use site.
This is a vital public amenity space in the local residential area with footpaths connecting from Nab Wood across to Cottingley and out towards wider countryside. It is not sustainable to build on this site before other brownfield sites particularly as roughly half of all the proposed greenfield land allocation is a product of low densities.

Object

Representation ID: 5714

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Victoria McCullough

I object to the proposal for the following reasons:

- Extra traffic volumes and queueing on all nearby roads will exacerbate levels of noise and air pollution for all within the locality.
- Loss of an amenity which allows community engagement with countryside experiences and within easy reach.
- Increased speed and volumes of surface water run off due to loss of water absorbing trees and greenery.
- new brownfield sites should be considered

Object

Representation ID: 5720

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Morag Booth

This is a large, open green space with a public footpath. It provides space for wildlife e.g. deer. It will add congestion to an already busy road and increase air pollution. There are no local shops or other amenities resulting in increased road traffic and pollution.

Object

Representation ID: 5754

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: 5763

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Roger Raper

Extending into the Green Belt now will set a precedent for further erosion of the Green belt in the future.

The local infrastructure cannot cope with existing traffic and drains on its resources.
Congestion will increase significantly with the new homes. - this is at odds with a proposed zero carbon future
The area targeted acts as a corridor for wildlife. Building upon it will mean a loss of habitat, loss of natural views, as well as a loss of agricultural land and loss of community identity.
All of the above are contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework.

Object

Representation ID: 5786

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Deepo Sohota-Kullar

I object to this application it will completely ruin the natural beauty of the area, the only links to nature are being proposed to be destroyed the impact of which affects the air we breathe and consume. People are coming into the area buying up property or land which is neglected to make a quick buck. Families have lived here many years taking pride in the area and enjoying the local neighbourhood, elderly population who keep active by walking locally will not have this access in their retirement to which they had planned on enjoying more during retirement. Council would be taking away a vital local resource that is of extreme value to locals. There are plenty of derelict building of character in Bradford that can be used for housing instead of destroying local nature, the world focus is on protection we need to do same.

Object

Representation ID: 5814

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Thomas Willis

Site References: SH4/H; SH5/H; SH6/H
* These proposals will destroy precious green spaces and have a substantial, negative impact upon local air pollution and traffic.
* Bingley Road (to take a single example) is already shown to have dangerous levels of air pollution, and this will be exacerbated by the increased traffic associated with these proposals.
* These plans will put overwhelming pressure upon local infrastructure and services.
* As a local resident, I know how congested these roads already are, as well as the huge importance of the local greenbelt. I am worried about the impact upon surrounding roads, in terms of raised pollution and increased danger to children, as traffic spills over from the main roads.

Object

Representation ID: 5872

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Andrea Elliott

Green belt bad traffic wild life wooded area should be protected not enough schools in area traffic already horrendous

Object

Representation ID: 5877

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Rabia Fiaz

This proposed development will impact my physical and mental health as I use the green spaces a lot to relax, to walk, and I stay healthy by being able to experience this beautiful greenbelt and countryside views. The development goes against the government's national planning policy framework by infringing on my right to a healthy lifestyle.

The noise pollution, light pollution and fume pollution will negatively impact my health overall and my lung health in particular. I am appalled that this development also goes against the council's own strategy for movement towards a zero carbon future. There will be a loss of demarcation between shipley and bingley (thus we will lose a sense of separate identity) as well as a loss of privacy. I have read through the Government's National Planning Policy Framework and this proposed development contravenes various sections of that policy.

Object

Representation ID: 5879

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr David Caink

Not a good idea to build houses on a hill that is full of natural streams and very boggy.
I see that you agree that access via Cottingley Cliffe Road, is “unlikely to be suitable” due to heavy congestion presumably, well 164 houses with the traffic funnelled through Nabwood, will not be suitable either, already very busy at rush hour, with rat runs etc.
The council have recently refused a builder planning permission to build a load of houses here for exactly that reason.
Why not use the brown field sites in the area, which will help rejuvenate those areas.

Object

Representation ID: 5915

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Neil Lambert

Green belt. This should not be allocated as many brownfield sites available.

Object

Representation ID: 5950

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Dawud Fiaz

I am encouraged by the open greenbelt spaces and the landscape - to exercise. This proposed development will stop me from exercising and will have a negative impact on air quality. This development contravenes the Strategic Objectives (14 and 15) of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document of the Bradford Local Plan (Provide accessible and varied opportunities for leisure and recreation including access to the countryside and the utilisation of green infrastructure spaces and routes for walking and cycling)

- and also contravenes section E (Housing Site Allocation Principles) within the same document which refers to minimising building on Green Belts.

Eroding this Green Belt is unjustified - the proposed development also contravenes the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) because it will deny me my right to healthy, inclusive spaces (see Section 8 and para's 91 and 96)

Object

Representation ID: 5951

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Margaret Maude

Strongly object. The traffic is appalling. They use the road as a cut through and come speeding down.
More houses, more traffic to the constant traffic already charging through. Once again, any little piece of land that can be built on , is earmarked. Nab Wood Middle school was knocked down and suddenly houses appeared, changing the whole environment. Now you want to build more!
Why don't you - Use up any derelict properties, make them presentable and habitable before wasting money on building new boxes that look like a carbuncle on the remaining green belt we have left. We are entitled to have some green belt surely! and less traffic - not more!

Object

Representation ID: 5991

Received: 28/02/2021

Respondent: Mr and Mrs . Newton

Number of people: 2

The green field land has been used for grazing hay crops and silage.
There is an abundance of wildlife, roe deer, foxes, tawny owls, red kites and many species of small mammals and birds relying on this habitat, images attached.
Traffic congestion and anti social driving is already very serious and further traffic cannot be accommodated on such narrow roads and would be dangerous for families.
In addition to loss of habitat there is a real concern about loss of natural views leading to our house suffering devaluation as we would be overlooking an extensive development. We will lose our right to community engagement with countryside and lose our privacy.
There will be strong objection from this neighbourhood supported by councillors Martin Love and Kevin Warnes.
Consider viable alternatives such as brown field sites in Shipley or commercial premises that could be adapted for mixed residential/commercial purposes.

Object

Representation ID: 6146

Received: 01/03/2021

Respondent: Friends of Northcliffe

The proposed site for housing development below Cottingley Cliffe Road (SH4/H) gets very wet for 2/3s of the year. Management of excess water into surface drains into the river will add to exisiting flood risk.

Object

Representation ID: 6729

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Naved Khaliq

•This proposed scheme seems to have little thought/consideration.
•Access to the scheme is through two narrow residential streets that are used as a rat run to access the bypass, the amount of traffic that would ensue from another 200/300 vehicles, from the pollution and the very real risk to the large number of children walking to and from schools.
•A scheme of this size on greenbelt land which is doing a valuable job of soaking large amounts of rain water which would end up causing massive issues of flooding for residents of nabwood and branksome which already has severe problems of flooding.
•The proposed area already has a wood, a number of trees under tree preservation orders and to the wildlife that populates this.
•Review and reject this proposal. Look to the numerous brownfield sites before destroying what little greenbelt land is left.

Object

Representation ID: 7025

Received: 02/03/2021

Respondent: Louise and Martin Forbes

Number of people: 2

Increased traffic flow, through an area that already has dangerous driving happening, commonly used as a rat run...my son was almost run over by a driver who missed him by inches, trying to cut through from Bingley road to cottingley Cliffe Road, and he also overtook myself going up bankfield drive breaking the speed limit....no policing of this and no traffic calming measures have fixed it.
Detrimental effect on wildlife, foxes and roe deer that live and breed in the area.
Concerns over land drainage as the area has a number of natural occurring springs that may exacerbate the run off of water causing further flooding. An apparently increasing problem at present.
Lack of access to cottingley Cliffe Road for additional traffic from the site all to leave via nab wood.. onto a dangerous steep incline especially in winter.
Lack of school accommodation already reduced as pupils attend from inner Bradford.
Air pollution from additional traffic.

Object

Representation ID: 7212

Received: 10/03/2021

Respondent: Keith & Carol Brown

Number of people: 2

SH4/H and generally in and around the Shipley area.
1) The timing and speed of this consultation process:
2) List of Brownfield sites and vacant retail units in and around Shipley:
a) Tax office area, Saltaire
b) Disused former garden centre at Hirstwood locks.
c) Carneige Hall at the bottom of Carr lane,Shipley, unused for many years.
d) Valley road, previously residential being kept aside for possible road widening, and land to the side of the new fire station in the same location.
e) unused new builds for retail, there is one such building near the site of the old fire station and all empty properties and retail units in Shipley.
f) Although not in Shipley there is the site which was the old magistrates building in Bingley
h) Building and land abutting Dockfield road opposite the Carnegie site.
I) the site of the old public house, now knocked down, opposite Crossleys scrapyard.
3) Conservation of Trees, wild life and green belt.
There is a TPO 165 which extends into the trees on this particular plot of land SH4/H .
It is a very important habitat for wildlife: birds, owls, Deer; Foxes, Stoats, weasels, hedgehogs, and badgers butterflies & moths; hunting ground for bats, frogs, toads, snakes
4) Increase in traffic - road too narrow & used as rat runs. Increase in road safety issues.
5) Pollution and Air Quality on A650 and bypass
6) Flood risk. The land is always very wet and boggy after heavy rainfall.
Impact n heritage assets / farm buildings.
7) Impact on woodland
8) Local facilities ie schools over subscribed: medical practices, dentists and more public transport.
10)not to be in line with national planning policy and need to prove there are exceptional circumstances to release land from green belt.

Comment

Representation ID: 7275

Received: 11/03/2021

Respondent: Darren Stanley

We have so many problems with cars now if you plan for another unwanted 164 houses that another potential 400 cars I can see a death role massively of humans and animals rising.

Object

Representation ID: 7276

Received: 07/02/2021

Respondent: Miss Sharon Kogut

I would strongly like to disagree with above planning permission. The woods have so much wildlife living there. From owls to deers. The wood land is part of nab wood, and should not be ruined by more houses. These beautiful woods are part of our views from nab wood drive.

Object

Representation ID: 7534

Received: 10/03/2021

Respondent: John Fearnley

All these site are in the Green Belt. Little by little the Green Belt is being eaten away. Soon there will be nothing ‘green’ left. Cottingley is a wonderful place to live. (sadly over the years I have witnessed the Green Belt being slowly eroded). It has so many advantages one of which is the Green Belt which surrounds the village. All the residents value the open countryside. People are able to ‘breathe’ in Cottingley. Proposals to build near The Bankfield Hotel and in Nab Wood would also impact on Cottingley and further erode The Green Belt. The proposed new Crematorium at the top of Nab Wood is also to be built on Green Belt.

If these proposals go ahead, unfortunately, I would implore Bradford Council to at the very least ensure that there is plenty of “social housing” amongst the new build.

Object

Representation ID: 7711

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Kevin McAllister

In particular I object to SH4/H. This is a greenfield protected site, with significant benefit to the local community. The local area here already struggles with traffic congestion, pollution and Nab Wood is increasingly a rat run with traffic calming measures introduced in recent years. There are several large sites in the immediately adjoining areas (shay grange golf , hallmark cards , Cottingley, Bankfield farm) which will result in almost 1000 homes being built in a very small area . The local plan has set targets on arbitary ward boundaries without considering collective impact on a local neighbourhood such as nab wood.

Object

Representation ID: 8011

Received: 08/03/2021

Respondent: Jan Pickles

Loss of Green belt will create urban sprawl- Development is not a sound exceptional circumstance
Site has been assessed for flood risk but the impact of development on surrounding areas also has to be considered - Increased surface water run off will contribute to the levels of the River Aire, Cottingley Beck and other small tributaries in the area in heavy and prolonged rain and increased risk of flooding to the Branksome Drive area
Impact on local environment
Loss of farmland and wildlife habitat which supports deer, otters, bats, kestrals, red kites and several other bird species; and removing plants, fungi and bacteria found on a well established green, scrubland site.
Impact the Clean Air Zone - residents will depend on cars to access services and amenities and congestion Access to SH4/H as suggested is via narrow, residential streets whos population already has difficulty getting out onto Bingley Road.
Schools, doctor’s and dental surgeries are already full to capacity
How ecologically sound and affordable will the houses really be?

Object

Representation ID: 8121

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Anne Ashton

I object to proposals SH4/5/6/7 as they will result in increased traffic on an already struggling transport link around Bradford Road and the Bankfield area. This will cause a reduction in the air quality which is already below the recommended standard. There will be a reduction in green spaces for residents use and the adverse impact on local habitat and wildlife. Flooding in the area is already an issue and these developments will not improve the situation and adversely impact drainage. With nearly an extra 400 houses in a small area no account has been taken for the demand on infrastructure such as health practices and education. Local secondary schools are oversubscribed currently with few local children gaining a place at Titus Salt school for example, despite this being included in the planning as a school providing for the area, leading to increased distances travelled for education.

Object

Representation ID: 8183

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: CPRE West Yorkshire

The sites proposed for Shipley, like many other sites across the district, are proposed to be built within green belt land and at a density of around 26dpha, a figure much lower than the HO2 minimum of 35 dpha, and even more inconsistent with our position set out in policies SP4, SP5 and SP8.

Moreover, site SH4/H is proposed for land which is expected to be within a Proposed Clean Air Zone. Whilst this site allocation mentions there are potential for some positive effects for the area, such as improvement to the local economy, there are some concerns.

Sites SH5/H and SH6/H are also proposed to be, at least in part, within the Proposed Clean Air Zone and both have elements of woodland along their boundary. There is the risk of flooding at these sites too as sections of the land is within flood Zone 2. As the last buffer of land between Cottingley and Shipley, it is important to maintain this open landscape. Development on this land would result in the removal of a significant amount of woodland, which would be a major harmful impact.