SH5/H - Bingley Road, Nabwood

Object

Representation ID: 4081

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Cathy Wintersgill

(SH6/H & SH5/H & SH4/H) sites are areas that already suffer flooding. If fields are no longer needed for grazing they should be rewilded or trees planted to reduce flooding lower down the hill.

I have seen three different species of owls hunting in the fields (barn, tawny and little). The tawny owl is Amber listed, numbers are declining and are of concern. There are otters on the Aire near Branksome.

Where will these households find doctors or schools for their children? Local schools are already full. The infrastructure isn't there.

Pollution from cars will increase. Outside lockdown, traffic is at a standstill here at peak times. There is a big crack in the pavement above Stairfoot farm. In time the wall and pavement will presumably crumble into the field below due to pressure from the volume of traffic.

Brownfield sites are available in Shipley. These should be used instead.

Object

Representation ID: 4145

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Richard Whiteley

This is currently Green Belt Land and should not therefore be built upon.

The land is grazing land and a home to wildlife as well as farm animals and gives a pleasant character to the valley at this point. Access to and from the site would be dangerous and add to the problems on a very busy and narrow part of Keighley Road. It is difficult already to turn right at the bottom of the New Close Road to head towards Saltaire. Cyclists find it difficult and dangerous to try to turn right up New Close Road from the Bingley direction. This development would only make matter worse. There is already a restriction on traffic turning right into the Mercure Hotel from the Saltaire direction, so even more traffic would be fed onto the adjacent roundabout, causing more danger.

Object

Representation ID: 4194

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Michelle Thorpe

OBJECTION TO PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLANS Ref SH5/H and SH6/H

1) Adverse impact to peak river levels and increase of flood risk to existing properties from surface water run off. Existing houses in the Branksome area have been affected by the run off from these fields in the past.
2) Increased volume of traffic and impact on air quality on an already busy stretch of road.
3) Habitat for wildlife including roe deer, foxes, rabbits and bats. Loss of amenity and enjoyment of existing greenspace for community wellbeing.
4) Schools within walking distance are already full.
5) Presence of viable brownfield sites in the area.

Object

Representation ID: 4208

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs denise munro

Having looked at the proposed plans for the building of 149 properties on this site I have major concerns as to how this will affect properties in the area. The area has seen 5 floods, 3 from the river and 2 from the beck. Streams run under the houses from the land you are planning on building on, once that area has houses on it where will the water that is normally soaked up by it go!?

My other concern is the air pollution and noise . We have already noticed a difference since the bypass was built!

The plans you have for other developments locally will also have an affect on properties lower down re floods, air pollution , traffic and noise.

Please think carefully before using this land!!

Object

Representation ID: 4255

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr david munro

Points to seriously consider before important decisions are made about building plans SH5/H and SH6/H that will affect a normally quiet rural community.
Flooding has increased substantially over the years when we have a sustained amount of rain. Building on these sites will seriously increased the risk to properties already affected and to those around them.
Traffic would massively increased so a normally quiet road would become a rat run and the extra pollution in the air in the valley would take longer to disperse.
Noise is also a concern as levels have already increased in the area since the bypass was built. Homes on the Branksomes have already been compensated for this which shows there is already a problem.
We have an amazing and diverse amount of wildlife that would be driven away by the noise and extra activity around this area.

Object

Representation ID: 4257

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Val Pelleschi

*In conjunction with SH6/H -use of this site for houses would spoil a rare amenity of Greenbelt- giving a sense of being near countryside & acting as an important separation between Shipley & Cottingley/Bingley.

*It would likely cause more problems with water runoff & is close to areas already experiencing periodic flooding.

*We need more housing. It must be balanced by protecting what little we have of greenspace. It's currently a feature of Bradford - to be able to see & be close to & access greenery, which is so beneficial to all our mental , as well as physical health.Brownfield sites should be maximized first

*Pedestrian access to amenities is along dangerous highway.

*This proposal will lead to unacceptable increases in traffic from home owners & delivery & service vehicles accessing an already busy & noisy main artery A650 - increasing Air & Noise pollution in this congested area.

Object

Representation ID: 4393

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Elizabeth Melsom

Traffic/pollution - the proposed would lead more cars in the area. The route in is unsustainable and wholly inadequate to service these houses. Nabwood is already a dangerous, rat -run, this will cause more congestion and pollution. The A650 is already hugely congested and noisy, adding more cars to this will only increase respiratory diseases and congestion.

Public services –there are not enough public service to support this new development. Most schools are oversubscribed; people will travel to school (more pollution). And police, fire and the NHS increasingly under pressure.

Habitat – the area is a substantial area for wildlife. And should be kept this way to support our bio-diveristy in the area.

Grazing – this was designated grazing land. Regenerate Bradford/Shipley by building on brown sites.

Object

Representation ID: 4403

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Chris Kalko

Bingley Road is already one of the most congested, polluting roads in the whole area, indeed its length down to Greengates is one of the most congested roads outside London. The addition of these houses will further exacerbate this problem.

This land is important greenspace and is designated as grazing area and provides important biodiversity to the surrounding area.

Add to this the already oversubscribed local services such as schools will not be able to cope with this amount of extra users.

Object

Representation ID: 4405

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Julie George

Flooding has occurred on a number of occasions - I feel any further building would severely affect the ground stability and drainage, leading to a heightened flood risk.

As I know that Bradford council has declared a climate emergency, building new houses on this green belt area would cause higher air pollution, more traffic and bottle necks in areas close to this green belt of land.

Object

Representation ID: 4424

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Sakinah Chunara

way too much traffic will be caused , there is already a massive build up of traffic in saltaire since thr round about was taken away and this will only become worse building homes in an area thats already built up. It will also ruin the view and cause the house prices in that area to drop.

Object

Representation ID: 4485

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Caroline Blount-Shah

Branksome Drive and Grove are not suitable as an access route for proposed new housing on the lower field below Bankfield Farm. Where the side road Branksome Drive joins the A650 main road visibility can be hampered by cars parked in the lay-by by the garage and near the corner. Access to and from the side roads is made harder because vans and cars are parked on the narrow road. Further down the road is narrower on the bend leading to the Grove and we believe that there is no capacity to increase vehicle traffic here. The site falls within the CAZ and currently has high levels of air borne pollutants. The council has statutory responsibilities to monitor and improve air quality and has approved the new CAZ which will have a positive effect on air quality along the A650 route. Houses should not be built within the CAZ.

Object

Representation ID: 4490

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Hannah Moody

I strongly object.
Severe flooding caused by surface water run off has affected houses despite being up hill away from where water collects. Removing the absorbent fields will certainly exacerbate this on Branksome Drive/Grove but also further down river.

Pollution will increase at a time when Bradford council have committed to improving air quality. Hundreds more vehicles will be on a road (A650) that is already at a rush hour standstill.

Bats, deer, foxes and other wildlife reside in the area.
Access via Branksome Grove/Drive would be inadequate as there are cars parked solidly along both road sides and there is no way it could accommodate heavier traffic. There is already a dangerous corner on Branksome Drive.

A valuable area to walkers would be permanently destroyed and discourage people from being active at a time when the council are promoting good health.
Poor access to rail links/shops.

Object

Representation ID: 4511

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Aoife Aston

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: 4538

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Gavin Moody

This site is unsuitable for development. It is greenbelt and should not be repurposed, there are abundant brownfield sites. The land slopes noticeably towards the river and there have been numerous flooding events which could only be intensified by removing absorbent fields creating further pressure on drains, the beck and surface run-off. Development would contravene the council’s commitment to climate change. The A650 is already clogged throughout the day, further traffic and lights would make this worse intensifying air pollution. This does not meet the requirement to leave biodiversity in a better state. Deer, Bats, Foxes and other wildlife use the fields daily and would be negatively affected.
Access via Branksome Drive and Grove would be dangerous, the drive is too narrow and is already dangerous due to parked cars. Developments should encourage public transport use and walking, this will do neither stations are too far away and paths unsuitable.

Object

Representation ID: 4565

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Austin Hulley

I object based on the grounds of additional traffic congestion, access and reduced air quality.

Traffic between the bypass roundabout and Cottingley primary school is always congested and/or backed up on Bradford Road/ Cottingley Cliffe rd and Cottingley New Rd. On nearby roads and you can actually taste the car fumes in the air some days.

If I drive the congestion is already significant in the morning and evenings. On economic grounds the congestion makes travel to the better paying jobs in Leeds more difficult, especially managing around school times, even with before and after school care provision. Also would the houses actually be affordable and of a reasonable size for the average earner?

Object

Representation ID: 4626

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:
Impact on water quality
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: 4653

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Thomas Simcock

The footpath that runs through the site is regularly used for the purposes of exercise and enjoyment of the countryside. Local green space is vital for people’s physical and mental wellbeing and this would be significantly reduced by this development. This is one of the last areas of countryside separating Shipley and Cottingley.

Developing this site would also have a negative impact on wildlife, for example I have seen Little Owl and Redwings using this site.

This development lies within the Green Belt, which is supposed to check the sprawl of built-up areas. One of the purposes of Green Belt is to prevent neighbouring towns from merging. This development would be to the detriment of that.

A lot of extra traffic would be generated, which would increase air pollution within the Clean Air Zone. Local roads already become very congested at peak times. Flood risk is also a concern.

Object

Representation ID: 4678

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Chris Gilmour

Adverse impact on house prices, standard of living and child safety.
Flood risk - there is already significant and regular flooding on Branksome Grove and Branksome Drive. The river will not cope with additional surface run off. Can developers guarantee that building work will not increase the risk of flooding?
Infrastructure - there is already a lack of amenities in the area including GPs, dentists, schools and public transport
Wildlife - the site is home to deer, bats, owls, heron, foxes to name but a few.
Local roads - Branksome Grove and Drive are unsuitable for the increased traffic flow as well as undoubted traffic issues on the main road.
Environment - contradicts the plan for Clean Air Zone. Ignores the climate emergency. Falls within the World Heritage Buffer Zone.

Object

Representation ID: 4683

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr David Tomlinson

ground stability and drainage (including heightened flood risk on branksome drive) the trees and fields soak up water better than concrete.
loss of habitat / natural views, traffic ! its bad enough trying to get out of the junction of a650 this will increase. detrimental impact on nearby residential amenity, loss of privacy, loss of daylight. the inevitable increased river levels in wet season events will impact quicker and harder at the existing flood sites and go on to newly affect many innocents further down river.
please do not pass this planning, this is a beautiful place, we do not have enough greenland.

Object

Representation ID: 4702

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Matthew Walke

Extensive wildlife habitat.
Poor road links.
Increase in road traffic cannot be supported on local roads.
Local Schools already full and unable to support additional demand.
Local Doctors will not be able to cope with additional demand.
Its part of the Green Belt, with plenty of brownfield sites available.

Object

Representation ID: 4720

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Dr Benjamin Stern

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: 4747

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Rosie Jakob

This area has an abundance of wildlife and has already been impacted by the by-pass. The area provides vital habitat for British wildlife as well as offering welcome positive impact on the local community. It is a popular area for walking and offers a feeling of wellbeing and escape from the city. The area is already prone to significant flooding and further building on this site will lead to increased flood damage. Alongside this, the additional traffic and congestion will cause further harm to the extended area with regard to environmental damage and impact on wildlife and human mental health.

Object

Representation ID: 4750

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jayne Brown

Access to the main road is tricky and dangerous. Traffic on this road is very busy and congested. Pollution will increase.
Flooding in this area is proven. These houses will only increase the flooding risk to houses further down. Houses below will be at major risk of flooding.
There is no school serving this area.... if plans for cottingley go ahead the places will be reduced at cottingley primary. Children in this area do not get into saltaire school as catchment area is small. Children would need to be driven further away to find a place only increasing pollution and congestion.

Object

Representation ID: 4754

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jayne Brown

As with other objections. There is no school serving this area. Proposed other developments mean that children will need to be driven to school as spaces will be limited at cottingley. This area is in the catchment area for saltaire but children do not get in because spaces are limited.
Pollution and traffic in this area is horrendous. Access to this site is difficult and on a busy main route.
Flooding is a reality for houses further down and to say that the houses are in flood zone 1 is ridiculous. Houses on branksome drive are living in fear each year of flooding and building on green land above will only increase that risk.
There are no shops or GP surgeries close by. People will need to drive to access these services increasing traffic and pollution

Object

Representation ID: 4765

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jessica Short

My objections to this planned proposal are as follows:
-Negative impacts on the local environment for plants and wildlife. Loss of habitat and food sources for mammals, bird life, moths, butterflies, amphibians and reptiles. Thus negatively impacting BMDC's Biodiversity Policy and Green Infrastructure Corridors.
-New houses means higher risk of already flooding area.
-More traffic means harmful rises air and noise pollution to wildlife. Resident's physical and mental health negatively impacted.
-Rise in vehicles means highly polluted roads aggravates asthma, COPD and all respiratory diseases.
-More pressure on already squeezed infrastructures eg school places, doctors, road maintenance, public transport, waste collection.

Object

Representation ID: 4799

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: 4920

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Barbara Kelly

Area subject to regular flooding - see Environment agency website
Will add to big problems with traffic on the already congested A650
Air quality impacted.
More cars = more pollution= reduction in air quality - unlikely to achieve CAZ here!
Not close to public transport or shops - can't walk to any
Loss of wildlife habitat and trees
Green field site and a green barrier between Shipley and Bingley
This area is much used by walkers, photographers and others taking their leisure, esp in lockdown

Object

Representation ID: 4924

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Hazel Wilmshurst

object on the grounds of:
- destruction of green belt
- increased traffic on an already busy section of Bradford Road and the consequent increased negative impact on air quality, as acknowledged
- local primary and secondary schools are already full and over subscribed so when taken into consideration with other proposed developments (SH4/H, SH6/H, CO1/H, NW19/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, smaller mammals and varied birdlife.

Object

Representation ID: 4961

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Ian Corker

Increase in local traffic will be a problem during and after development as site only accessed from Branksome Drive. Increased traffic would impact on already difficult task to get onto A650. 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 as this land would no longer slow rain water flow downhill. Increase in population putting more strain on already full local schools. More suitable sites are available.

Object

Representation ID: 4982

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Elizabeth Pimperton

This area is already prone to flooding, increase surface run off due to hard surface of a housing development will likely increase the river levels.
There is a lack of infrastructure, local schools are already oversubscribed and this will affect school places in this and other local areas, potentially meaning pupils have to travel further to school. No nearby shops or station, increasing car usage at a time we really need to make travel sustainable. Even as a confident regular cyclist I choose to avoid the main road here as it feels very unsafe due to traffic volume and speed.
Loss of Greennbelt land and biodiversity that that brings, affecting water table, wildlife, trees and hedges. The site contradicts BMDC to become a CAZ, the extra traffic created with exacerbate levels of noise and air pollution. Land use and house requirements need to be re-evaluated post pandemic, not decided now.