SH5/H - Bingley Road, Nabwood

Object

Representation ID: 28210

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Darren Marshall

Destruction of biodiversity, loss of flora, fauna, wildlife, agricultural land, views and amenity. Community identity will be diminished. No benefit from homes on green space. Potential brownfield sites review must be done

Local roads unsuitable to handle traffic increase due to road widths and roadside parking. Traffic lights needed at Bradford Road junction, which remains dangerous.

Lack of infrastructure (sewers, schools, GP, dentists, shops). Railway stations not within walking distance. Poor footpath/cycleway provision.

Will be impacts on surrounding road network from increased traffic including more congestion/queuing. Traffic lights will cause delay.

Will be increased risk of flooding due to higher river levels, increased surface water run-off, ground saturation and more water flowing into Nab Wood Beck. Culvert under Bradford Road cannot cope.

Carbon footprint not considered. Open space is a critical asset in supporting health/wellbeing. Green Belt boundaries can only be changed in fully evidenced/justified exceptional circumstances. SH5/H within World Heritage Site buffer. Contrary to Clean Air Zone. Traffic will exacerbate noise and air pollution levels.

Object

Representation ID: 28244

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Margaret Wright

Object to building houses on land next to the Mercure Hotel.

Flooding was bad in 2016. Water was coming from the river and fields. With future forecasts being wetter weather, building houses on these fields will not help the situation.

Trees should be left to help extra pollution on the main road caused by extra cars.

Concern how the main road is going to cope if the Cottingley and Branksome sites go ahead. It is very bad now especially at school times.

How are schools, doctors etc going to cope?

Have needed green spaces over the last 12 months.

Why not pull some of the derelict properties nearer to Bradford down and build affordable housing with some green areas made.

Object

Representation ID: 28310

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs B. Colley

Would like to object to the proposed development at the side of the Mercure Hotel.

This development will make it difficult for residents living on Branksome Drive to exit onto the A650.

Object

Representation ID: 28382

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr & Mrs P Linsley

Number of people: 2

Loss of established local habitats.
Loss of ability to engage with nature/wildlife
Bats will become endangered species/extinct.
Loss of open meadows, different trees/hedgerows.
Loss of local riverside with natural views which benefit and help maintain good metal/physical health.
Loss of agricultural land for crops/animals.
Loss of community identity, by elimination of green buffer zones separating Bingley, Cottingley, Saltaire and Shipley.
Effect on the local resident’s privacy in their homes, they will be overlooked by new houses and will experience a loss of natural light.
Development will compromise ground stability. Inadequate drainage for sewage/surface water, leading to saturated land and increases in flooding.
Lack of infrastructure: convenient transport links, walking/cycling routes, educational places and GP practices and dentists.
Inability to manage local volumes of traffic, traffic will only increase with increased residents.
Impact on air pollution.
Congestion on the arterial roads, junctions and the nearby roundabout, creating a safety issue.
Proposal contradicts Council Policy/Commitment to a zero carbon future and creating a clean air zone.
Alternative brownfield sites and vacant commercial premises which could be adapted for residential.
Impact on World Heritage Site of Saltaire.

Object

Representation ID: 28588

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Member of Parliament (Conservative)

Agent: Deborah Davies

SH5/H – Bingley Road, Nab Wood (140)

I object to the inclusion of this land because:

• It is green belt.
• Access to the site is poor.
• Concerns over flooding – the report acknowledges “part of the site to the north is within flood zone 2 and small areas of higher surface water flood risk”.
• Nearby roads are already congested.
• Development here would mean there is no clear boundary between Shipley and Bingley/Cottingley so it would go against the green belt principles of preventing neighbouring towns from merging into each other and checking the unrestricted sprawl in built up areas. The report acknowledges that “the site is one of the last areas of open landscape buffer between Shipley and Cottingley.”

Comment

Representation ID: 28732

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Environment Agency

Flood Zones 2, 3 and the current/draft 3b/3a(i) within site boundary

There is to be no development with the 3b/3a(i) extent unless considered water compatible or essential infrastructure. Where this is the case the development must demonstrate no increase in risk to others, no loss of Functional Floodplain and suitable mitigation measures for use and the lifetime of the development.

Development on site should follow a sequential layout so as to prevent unnecessary development within Flood Zones 3b, 3 and 2 wherever possible. 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. Some SuDs principles such as storage ponds should not be solely relied upon within areas at risk of fluvial flooding as they may not be operational during a flood.

Development must be shown to be safe for the lifetime of the development. See the Adept Guidance of Access and Egress plans. Hazard ratings may need to be assessed as part of the proposal.

Mitigation such a proofing measures and raised Finished Floor Levels, must be set above the 1 in 100 plus Climate Change level for the site. Current Guidance is on .gov.

The applicant must ensure there is no increase in risk to others for the lifetime of the development (including climate change). Where on Greenfield sites compensatory storage must be actively sought.

Consideration must be made to making space for water and providing betterment in terms of flood risk management where ever possible. For development 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 likely these sites are going to show changes/increases in flood risk as a result of climate change.

The SFRA (to follow) is going to consider future flooding including future Functional Floodplain this may identify sites at more future risk than others which may affect its allocation or how development should be sequentially laid out on the site.

Object

Representation ID: 28884

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Pauline Penn

Will impact on quality of life

Loss of natural habitat, agricultural land, opportunities to engage with wildlife & natural riverside views

Detrimental impact on residential amenity (loss of privacy; overlooking; loss of natural daylight).

Lack of infrastructure will be exacerbated (public transport; walking/cycling routes; school places; GPs; dentists).

Ground stability often compromised (inadequate drainage (sewerage/surface water); over-saturated land; heightened flood risk).

Existing inability to cope with traffic will greatly increase with extra vehicles (more air pollution from queuing traffic; bottlenecks on arterial roads, junctions & nearby roundabout; compromised highway safety).

Loss of community identity caused by loss of Green Belt separating Bingley/Cottingley/Saltaire/Shipley.

Questionable real benefits from loss of Green Belt in return for limited housing most of which won’t be affordable.

Good presence of viable alternatives (brownfield sites in Shipley; vacant commercial premises that could be adapted).

Non-compliance with Council policy on achieving net zero carbon and Clean Air Zone

Within Saltaire World Heritage Site buffer zone.

Object

Representation ID: 28885

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Rodney Bell

Will impact on quality of life

Loss of natural habitat, agricultural land, opportunities to engage with wildlife & natural riverside views

Detrimental impact on residential amenity (loss of privacy; overlooking; loss of natural daylight).

Lack of infrastructure will be exacerbated (public transport; walking/cycling routes; school places; GPs; dentists).

Ground stability often compromised (inadequate drainage (sewerage/surface water); over-saturated land; heightened flood risk).

Existing inability to cope with traffic will greatly increase with extra vehicles (more air pollution from queuing traffic; bottlenecks on arterial roads, junctions & nearby roundabout; compromised highway safety).

Loss of community identity caused by loss of Green Belt separating Bingley/Cottingley/Saltaire/Shipley.

Questionable real benefits from loss of Green Belt in return for limited housing most of which won’t be affordable.

Good presence of viable alternatives (brownfield sites in Shipley; vacant commercial premises that could be adapted).

Non-compliance with Council policy on achieving net zero carbon and Clean Air Zone

Within Saltaire World Heritage Site buffer zone.

Object

Representation ID: 28908

Received: 07/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs E.M. Toas

The lower part of Branksome Drive area has experienced severe flooding in recent years (Boxing Day 2015; Storm Christophe 2020).

Has the fact that land/properties adjacent to the developments flood regularly been taken into consideration? There must be a significant increase in surface water run-off generated by them, particularly as the land is sloping and concrete foundations and roads will cover a large area of land that currently acts as a natural sponge. The increased surface water will work its way downhill towards the River Aire and contribute considerably to river levels during heavy/prolonged rain.

Residents struggle to exit onto Bingley Road and often have to queue to reach the roundabout at the top of the by-pass. Has consideration been given to current infrastructure and its ability to cope with additional houses, people and cars?

Understood services (schools, doctor’s, dental surgeries) are full to capacity and just meeting existing needs.

Object

Representation ID: 28919

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Andrea Ingram

Will impact on quality of life

Loss of natural habitat, agricultural land, opportunities to engage with wildlife & natural riverside views

Detrimental impact on residential amenity (loss of privacy; overlooking; loss of natural daylight).

Lack of infrastructure will be exacerbated (public transport; walking/cycling routes; school places; GPs; dentists).

Ground stability often compromised (inadequate drainage (sewerage/surface water); over-saturated land; heightened flood risk).

Existing inability to cope with traffic will greatly increase with extra vehicles (more air pollution from queuing traffic; bottlenecks on arterial roads, junctions & nearby roundabout; compromised highway safety).

Loss of community identity caused by loss of Green Belt separating Bingley/Cottingley/Saltaire/Shipley.

Questionable real benefits from loss of Green Belt in return for limited housing most of which won’t be affordable.

Good presence of viable alternatives (brownfield sites in Shipley; vacant commercial premises that could be adapted).

Non-compliance with Council policy on achieving net zero carbon and Clean Air Zone

Within Saltaire World Heritage Site buffer zone.

Object

Representation ID: 29307

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).

Object

Representation ID: 29497

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Oliver Shillingford

•Access to Branksome Drive is via a junction on to a major road. Development at the site would increase the use of this junction making it increasingly dangerous to road users. Exiting Branksome Drive at peak times is already a massive issue. Development will exacerbate this issues and increase the risk of traffic collisions.
•The Council is committed to green air zones/cutting pollution. However, these developments would be in direct contest to this. Currently there is not a lot of air pollution around Branksome Drive but new development would change this.
•Currently the views from properties on Branksome Drive look directly into fields. This is positive for mental health – especially important during the lockdown. This needless development will ruin the beautiful view, drive down house prices and reduce privacy with properties being overlooked by the new development.
•The River Aire is close to the proposed sites. Branksome Drive has previously been flooded. Climate change and rising water levels will make this worse.
•Development will remove factors contributing to ground drainage (trees/fields) increasing flood risk to existing and new development. This is unacceptable.
•Other reasons to reconsider these areas include: loss of wildlife habitats, loss of open green belt and agricultural land for a questionably beneficial number of houses, detrimental impact on nearby residential privacy.

Object

Representation ID: 29502

Received: 23/08/2021

Respondent: Laura Gorman

•Cumulative impact of traffic from SH4/5/6 would put the road system under so much pressure traffic jams would be continual. There would need to be significant improvement to infrastructure.
•Serious flooding in 2015. Proposed plan would increase the likelihood of flooding with little effectively being done to mitigate the impact. Land currently acts as a flood barrier.
•Acknowledged that there are a number of small waterbodies. This plus surface water already contributes to flooding which will be increased with the development of SH4/5/6.
•Site is Green Belt. The NPPF indicates that the aim of Green Belts is to prevent urban sprawl and the essential characteristics are their openness and permanence. The proposals for SH4/5/6 are contrary to this.

Object

Representation ID: 29680

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Susan & Billy Scott

Number of people: 2

•Only green space left between Shipley and Bingley.
•Area is rich in wildlife.
•Houses bought in this area for views, open space and wildlife
•Area is needed for health and well-being, open views, river walk and wildlife.
•How will grassland and trees be protected? Loss of local agricultural land.
•Drainage is a concern. Area known for flooding. Building will put extra strain on the existing insufficient drainage systems. As well as the dwellings at the bottom of Branksome Drive/Grove, other properties will have more chance of flooding.
•A650 is already busy. More pollution will be caused with more vehicles.
•The Council is committed to lowering air pollution with a Clean Air Zone. How will this be accomplished with 180+ houses each with two cars?
•The side roads will become rat runs/bottlenecks.
•Branksome Drive/Road is a cul-de-sac and has the inability to cope with more traffic and heavy vehicles.
•Turning right from Branksome Drive will be even more dangerous with another 180+ houses.

Object

Representation ID: 30118

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Caroline Blount-Shah

Number of people: 2

•Green Belt land should be valued and used as a last resort.
•Brownfield used instead. Other brownfield sites could be used e.g. Canal Road (demolished flats), higher part of land that was Nab Wood Middle School.
•Impact on areas of biodiversity and wildlife. Biodiversity surveys are required due to the proximity to the South Pennine Moors SPA/SAC.
•The sites are the last areas of greenspace between Shipley and Bingley – impact on identity and landscape character.
•The narrow river path with walls ‘Old Way’ should be retained
•Adjacent habitats are at high risk of being degraded.
•Presence of Curlews and Red Kites on the site and circle over the large fields.
•Well used footpaths with beautiful views (including toward St Ives).
•Trees to the north of houses on Branksome Drive have pending TPOs.
•Climate change -protect greenspace and biodiversity, to help reduce climate heating.
•Trees along the edges of the sites provide habitats and form a green corridor.
•Trees/hedgerows/scrubland play an important role in absorbing carbon emissions, reducing NOx and absorbing noise pollution.
•Used as a last resort for the provision of smaller high quality eco homes
•Flood risk issues
•Concern of residents on Branksome Drive/Grove that their low-lying houses/gardens will be flooded. The proposed sites currently act as a sponge and hold rain water back. Development will cause runoff from buildings/patios/parking areas meaning the land underneath will no longer hold back water.
•The side roads leading to Glenview Road are all quiet and narrow.
•Speed limits and traffic calming. Accidents at the junction of Glenview Road and Bankfield Road as it is steep with poor visibility.
•The Council has a statutory responsibility to monitor and improve air quality and has approved the new CAZ - linked to childhood diseases.
•Reduce demand for vehicles and improve safe routes to school/work, including improving public transport as well as building/promoting cycling/walking routes.

Object

Representation ID: 30230

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Kim Broadbent

Sh4, sh5 and Sh6 - the roads around these development sites are already extremely busy. Cottingley village primary school is very small and already has issues with parking and traffic around it. Class sizes are already very large. The development will provide housing and will stretch and reduce the quality of the services in the local area. These are green belt sites and are important for the look and feel of the area, reducing pollution and encouraging wildlife. These sections of greenbelt land are valued by residents and the development will destroy the wildlife in these areas and reduce the quality of life for locals.

Object

Representation ID: 30234

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Andrew Mason

Whilst I generally support the proposed plan for Shipley, particularly the redevelopment of existing brownfield sites and improving the town centre; there is still too much proposed development on greenfield sites, particularly SH3 to SH6. SH3 is an important open space for local people who live in flats and terraces with no gardens. SH4 to 6 have no local facilities and are therefore likely to generate more traffic, congestion and pollution on key routes. They are also too far away from public transport provision and cycling infrastructure is non-existent leaving people car dependent. Active travel and public transport use are the key to a sustainable future and I would like to see more cycling provision around Shipley to segregate cars and cyclists. The only good route at the moment is along the canal towpath. A cycle route down the Leeds Road to Shipley station would be useful as a start.

Object

Representation ID: 30243

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Kirkgate Centre

Green Spaces

Green space is important for wellbeing/mental health as Shipley is densely populated where few houses have gardens. Spaces have been a life-saver during the last year.

A number of areas in the Plan identified for housing are green space/Green Belt land - a loss of 1.3ha.

Will have a detrimental effect on families and health, especially when there is a shortage of open space. JSNA recognises that having access to green space has many benefits for the community.

Terminology requires clarification, e.g. describing Dockfield site as “mixed use”.

Why build in flood risk areas where land is saturated and drainage is not adequate. Plan does not include reference to effect on existing residents and what resolutions will be put in place.

Will impact on wildlife/eco-systems, particularly sites SH4/H & SH5/H. Bats fly through SH3/H

Brownfield sites not being fully exploited - would minimise the impact of building on greenfield sites. Potential sites include Shipley Hospital and Valley Road (where there used to be housing).

Object

Representation ID: 30245

Received: 08/02/2021

Respondent: George Holmes

The proposed developments in Nab Wood (SH4-6) are completely inappropriate. They would destroy significant green space, which is lacking in this area, including land in green corridors. The local infrastructure, particularly roads, cannot sustain new developments of this size

Object

Representation ID: 30262

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Rachel Belk

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.

Object

Representation ID: 30267

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: 30269

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Lydia Sharman

Traffic
Major concern due to the no of vehicles using Bankfield Rd as a rat run from Cottingley Cliffe Road down to the A650. This makes roads in the area dangerous. As a parent this a grave concern which additional traffic as the result of development of site SH4/H will only exacerbate.
Air Pollution
The significant increase in cars for this development circa 300 (plus SH5/6) would result in a significant rise in Air Pollution,. Air improvement must be a key consideration given the impact ‘poor’ air quality can have on the quality of lives of residents, in particular the young and elderly.
The lack of supporting infrastructure. ‘Good’ schools are also full, the plan makes no reference to addressing this.
Greenbelt site
In existence to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land open. The plans SH4/5/6 do nothing to support the principals of these sites and contravene their very purpose.