SH6/H - Bankfield Farm, Nabwood

Object

Representation ID: 3633

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Charlie Gilmour

Impact on house prices, standard of living and the safety of children.

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.

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
Environment - contradicts the plan for Clean Air Zone. Ignores the climate emergency.

Object

Representation ID: 3916

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr LAURENCE Waite

The traffic on that roads at rush hour is really bad and adding another 49 houses will not help the situation. We also need to keep as much green space for wildlife as we can.

Object

Representation ID: 4000

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Joana Tavares

1. Loss of natural views, agricultural land and wildlife.
2. Loss of community identity.
3. Traffic noise and volume issues.
4. Detrimental impact on nearby residential amenity.

Object

Representation ID: 4031

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Pete Chambers

This land is green belt - it would be awful to take it away. Bingley Road and amenities, GPs, schools etc. already oversubscribed. Stop filling in the tiny and much needed green spots in built up areas - build a new town with schools etc instead.

Object

Representation ID: 4083

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: 4409

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Julie George

As a resident of a street where 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 - both for the street I live on and likely newly affect streets further down river.
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: 4417

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Sakinah Chunara

Building on this green belt site will cause more traffic, disrupt wildlife habitats,ruin the views for residents and passers by. Why build in an area that is already very built up? there are many other brown sites and empty abandoned homes that can be repurposed .

Object

Representation ID: 4494

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Hannah Moody

I strongly object.
Severe flooding caused by surface water run off has affected our house 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: 4512

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: 4539

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: 4568

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. When walking on nearby roads 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: 4628

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 natural areas
Flood risk
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: 4655

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: 4682

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Chris Gilmour

Impact on property in terms of house price, impact on standard of living and safety of children.

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: 4703

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: 4722

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: 4748

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. I strongly object to this area being built on.

Object

Representation ID: 4751

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jayne Brown

Access to this site is on a steep road that is difficult to get out of. Traffic through Nabwood is already used as a speeding cut through already and would massively increase pollution and risks.

Where will these children go to school?
Nabwood does not have a primary school and relies on spaces available at Cottingley. Proposed developments in Cottingley already make this difficult. Saltaire is already oversubscribed.

There are no local services in Nabwood. No GP or shops. People would need to drive from the site to access services increasing traffic and pollution.
There is no regular bus route near this site.

There are no parks in Nabwood. We walk through those fields or near them to school. We regularly spot wildlife and deer in the fields where the houses are proposed.

Object

Representation ID: 4766

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 mean of flooding downhill/downstream.
-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: 4847

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Susan Fulton

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

Object

Representation ID: 4925

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, SH5/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, otters, smaller mammals and varied birdlife.

Object

Representation ID: 4926

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Barbara Kelly

Green belt should not be built on until all brownfield sites have been used
No shops or other amenities close by
public transport an issue
Access difficult apart from possibly up to the A650 which brings pollution and you are unlikely to achieve CAZ and the traffic congenstion will be dreadful.
Huge loss of amenity along the river Aire - this are is much used by walkers and photographers
Also likely to flood - see environment agency website
Loss of habitat for plants and animals
Loss play space for children and families
A long way from medical services of which most are in Shipley, some distance away

Object

Representation ID: 4960

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Ian Corker

Increase in traffic will be a problem during and after development Difficult to get onto A650 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. Increase in population putting more strain on already full local schools. More suitable sites are available.

Object

Representation ID: 4995

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Elizabeth Pimperton

Access to site is off an already busy road, and is poor access to the current housing. The increase in demand for school places will cause difficulties with already oversubscribed school. This will result in children having to travel further to school, and most likely increase the number of kids being driven to school. Too far from train stations and walking/cycling not a good option from location therefore the majority of residents will no doubt rely on car use even for local journeys.

The development will reduce biodiversity in the area and increase the noise pollution and reduce air quality when we are supposed to be signed up to a CAZ. Change in land use and increased run off from hard surfaces of the development will increase flooding risk in an area already prone to flooding.

Object

Representation ID: 5067

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr SELWYN ODDY

I 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: 5201

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr R B Donkin

Yet another vindicative assault on the greenbelt aimed at destroying the unique local character of Shipley. The planners list so many reasons why this development is bad idea. Of course none of that matters to Bradford Council. You idiots are building on a floodplain, destroying natural habitats and precious historic landscapes, reducing air and water quality. Rather than turning excess retail space close to Shipley centre into flats within walking distance of transport links and local amenities, all that Bradford Council cares about is wrecking the local environment here in Shipley. Can't wait until Airedale breaks away.

Object

Representation ID: 5214

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: 5278

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Linda Heppinstall

Loss of protected GreenBelt and community identity NabWood would merge into 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 it is sustainable to build on this site before other brownfield sites in the area are utilised. Loss of wildlife habitat. Insufficient infrastructure No rail stations within walking distance All local schools GPs dentists are full. No shops locally. Unacceptable increase in air pollution through traffic congestion/vehicle emissions in a CAZ. Could increase the risk of surface water and flooding. Impact of so many new houses, increased pollution, noise, loss of habitat and amenity will have detrimental effect on existing house values and quality of life for existing residents

Object

Representation ID: 5286

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Ben Wray

This proposed development will remove a green belt buffer zone between the separate settlements of Nab Wood and Cottingley urbanising an important section of green belt land. I fear that this development will impact on the enjoyment of an important area of green space have a detrimental effect on the air quality, flooding risk, wildlife, traffic and noise of the area The likely impact of increased traffic will cause further congestion and troublesome junctions close to the Bingley relief road and the large and busy roundabout very close to the site

There will be a marked increase in water run off from the additional hard surfaces this development will bring with it. this is likely to worsen the flood risk to the houses on the Branksomes and dump more water in the river and the beck.

Object

Representation ID: 5304

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Go Beyond Consulting

I object to the proposed developments (SH5/H and SH6/H) due to the following considerations:
• Avoidable loss of greenbelt. (Much brown-field with development potential has been omitted from this plan)
• Inappropriate development within the World Heritage Site Buffer Zone.
• Undesirable Urban sprawl (This is the attractive greenspace that divides Shipley from Cottingley and Bingley).
• Loss of landscape value/character and views.
• Worsened Air quality
• Loss of Mature trees, TPO trees, and wildlife habitat
• Too far from central services and amenities.
• FLOOD risk and
• FLOOD exacerbation downstream.
• Access problems, nuisance and loss of views to existing residents of Branksome Drive.