SH6/H - Bankfield Farm, Nabwood

Object

Representation ID: 5346

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Richard Smyth

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

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

Object

Representation ID: 5410

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Owen Wray

I have spotted a wide range of wildlife in and around this site. Weasels and otters recently seen. It’s only 15m south of the River Aire when flooding is already a problem on Branksome Drive and beyond into Leeds.
The impact on houses in the Branksome’s and those further down the valley will blight too many lives. Please reconsider including this valuable green belt and ancient footpaths

Object

Representation ID: 5447

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Sabah Ishaq

Less green space
Poorer air quality
More traffic

Object

Representation ID: 5461

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Deborah White

This piece of land is precious greenfield, green belt with flood risk from it's close proximity to the river at the lower part. Disruption to the land, with extra demands on drainage, could be catastrophic. The physical & aesthetic impact of housing so close to the riverside paths would be detrimental to wildlife & path users. Traffic & air pollution in the area is already bad. Access onto the busy main road would be difficult & potentially hazardous. The proximity of a housing development & access road to the neighbouring hotel & it's mature grounds, already squeezed by the Bingley ByPass, would be detrimental. There would be insufficient school, GP & dental provision for new residents & a lack of retail & recreational facilities in the area.

Object

Representation ID: 5504

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jane Caink

Loss of green belt and natural habitats. Area is already a flood hit area. Main Road already a grid locked road at school/rush hour. Infrastructure will not cope with increased traffic etc

Object

Representation ID: 5529

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Frances Guy

Valuable Green Belt.

Object

Representation ID: 5542

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Alexandra Butler

Loss of trees
Effect on listed buildings and conservation area
Layout and density of building
Design, appearance and materials
Landscaping
Road access
Demolishing natural wildlife habitats
Green belt

Object

Representation ID: 5554

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Rachel Kipling

This greenbelt site should not be built on before all brownfield sites in Bradford are exhausted. This loss of habitat and biodiversity cannot be justified (there are otter, bats and deer in this area). In addition, the area is a long way from, reliable public transport and will inevitably contribute to car use and already high levels of traffic and air pollution will increase. Building so close to the river aire is unsustainable considering how much the river has moved in its flood plain just upstream at Bingley playing fields.

Object

Representation ID: 5576

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Rebecca Grice

I feel the proposed application would have a detrimental impact on the wildlife, environment and landscape in this area. It’s one of the only remaining green areas left in the vicinity. Bats, deer, sparrow hawks, herons all frequent the locale. I have concerns too about the added traffic around the Branksome Drive, Nab Lane area. We have lots of fast moving traffic around this area and pull outs at junctions and multiple bus stops. There have been very many road traffic accidents on this stretch of road and an increase in traffic would certainly add to this. There is also not enough infrastructure to deal with additional housing.

Object

Representation ID: 5711

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Farah Ayub

Loss of green space and wildlife
Increased risk of flooding to houses in Branksome drive - this site acts as a flood plain

Object

Representation ID: 5726

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Morag Booth

This is a large, open green space which forms a barrier between Shipley and Cottingley. If lost it will mean that the two areas merge further contributing to urban sprawl. 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: 5730

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: 5766

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Kirran Shah

The site sits within the CAZ car therefore air pollution targets will be more difficult to achieve. This is contradictory and cannot be called sustainable to build and add further air pollution in a climate emergency, when there is already a high level of traffic and air pollution.There is no shop within a ten minute walk and the site is not within short walking distances of train stations to provide public transport and counteract car usage in the valley. The old stone walled footpaths are quiet spaces acting as a amenity for local people of all ages and also protecting wildlife in the fields nearby. The trees act as 'sinks' for absorbing sound and air pollution from the dual carriageway and so contribute to better health outcomes for local residents. The junction to the main road will require rebuilding to ensure improved safety and reduced traffic levels, pollution and accidents.

Object

Representation ID: 5825

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Martin Priestley

This land is right next to the River Aire, and concreting over the land will significantly alter the local drainage basin, speeding up run-off and increasing flood risk further downstream. Removing the deciduous trees on the site would further weaken this side of the river bank, and again alter water run-off. The trees also form a natural barrier for local residents, helping to mitigate traffic noise from the A650 Bingley Bypass, and but also help to alleviate some of the air pollution. This is greenbelt land, and it is situated in a very prominent position on the approach to Cottingley and Shipley on the A650. Allowing development on this site would have a significantly detrimental affect the character of the area.

Object

Representation ID: 5840

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Lee Grice

Same as before, the need to retain green land for the flora and fauna, ie animal highways, plus not to mention the extra traffic, pollution and flood water cramming a load more houses on would cause..

Object

Representation ID: 5892

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr David Caink

IT’S A FLOOD PLAIN, YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS!!!!!!
It will be impossible for house owners to get insurance, so no one in their right mind will buy these houses.
FORGET IT, AND DROP THIS RIDICULOUS IDEA NOW.
Why not use those brown field sites instead, of which they’re are many, to help rejuvenate those run down areas.

Object

Representation ID: 5919

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Neil Lambert

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

Object

Representation ID: 5963

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Margaret Maude

I object strongly object. Again there are enough houses for the town of Bingley and the village of Cottingly to cope with. Will there be any farms left or safe places to go out on a good day.
These plans would cause
too much traffic
too much pollution
not enough schools, Doctors to cope with more people,
Certainly the extention to the consultation period should, and still should, be extended. We are the residents who have to live with anything enforced upon us. It is only fair that our views MUST be listened too. I strongly object to these proposals!

Object

Representation ID: 6112

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Rob Johnson

SH5/H and SH6/H I think these lots would reverse the good work done by the bingley bypass - lead to massive congestion around the intersection with the roundabout which will be dangerous. There are no local amenities to support additional needs of housing. The schools are full already. The land is on flood plains and a known flood risk area. Additionally the proposed works would destroy the natural habitat which includes ancient trees and valuable native species including voles, otters, badgers, owls and newts. I strongly object to the proposed local plan on these grounds.

Comment

Representation ID: 6144

Received: 01/03/2021

Respondent: Friends of Northcliffe

Part of the housing development below the Bankfield Hotel (SH6/H) is close to the river which floods regularly

Object

Representation ID: 6554

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Eileen Hogg

Building on sites SH5/H & SH6/H will increase flooding. Please see this article by UK Construction: https://www.ukconstructionmedia.co.uk/features/flooding-uk-housing/
The government has pledged to 'build back better, greener, faster' https://www.gov.uk/government/news/pm-a-new-deal-for-britain How is building on the last Green Belt between Shipley and Bingley 'better and greener'?

Object

Representation ID: 7536

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: 8009

Received: 08/03/2021

Respondent: Steve Pickles

The site is green belt - The ‘need for development’ is not a sound enough (exceptional) reason when councils develop their local plans.
Branksome Drive flooded on Boxing Day 2015- the site has flood risk but the assessment should be extended to include existing homes which have a flood management plan
Surface water run off will increase from the sites development which will risk beck and river levels and existing homes. The drainage system on Branksome Drive is vulnerable now
Farmland and wildlife habitats will be lost and not easily replaced if the site is developed.
Biodiversity will not be enhanced - the land supports deer, otters, bats, kestrals, red kites, herons, pheasant; fungi and bacteria
The development will impact the Clean Air Zone (CAZ) and increase road traffic as residents will depend on cars and add further congestion to Bingley Road.
Services such as schools, doctor’s and dental surgeries are already full to capacity
How affordable would they really be- SUDs etc would add to development costs

Object

Representation ID: 8108

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Angela Ackroyd

I strongly object to the proposed dwellings at March Cote Lane C01/Hand new proposed housing around Bingley SH6/6 & SH5/H which are once again eating into the precious greenbelt of the district. More than ever during the pandemic, this greenbelt has become a haven for local residents, being able to access open green spaces rich in endangered wildlife on our doorstep is something to treasure and that children should be able to enjoy. It is to the Councils shame that brown field sites that the council could adopt are overlooked because they are not as appealing to the developers - it is time for the council to wake up and put the residents of Cottingley and Bingley first and save our fields! Schools, doctors, dentists in the area are all currently over subscribed and the roads congested and dangerous. Time to rethink!

Object

Representation ID: 8120

Received: 03/03/2021

Respondent: Mr & Mrs A Hird

Number of people: 2

We strongly object to any house development on grazing land between Branksome Drive and Branksome Grove. There has been a large increase in traffic in the area over the years, so 100 plus houses with all their motors would bring the Bradford road to a standstill as well as the pollution.

Object

Representation ID: 8123

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: 8182

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: 8185

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.

Object

Representation ID: 8632

Received: 11/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Amanda Holloway

I would like to strongly OBJECT to the proposed building on sites SH5/H, SH6/H and SH4/H
My OBJECTIONS are
1 FLOODING GROUND STABLILITY and DRAINAGE. Branksome Drive is already a well known FLOOD zone & was victim of total house flooding in Dec 2015 whereby residents vacated their houses for up to 12 months. The residents are under constant stress as potential floods in Jan and Feb of 2021 already ! The Government is trying to prevent further areas of flood risk so it's seems ludicrous when there are so many other sites available.
2 INABILITY to cope with traffic volumes as well as linking to highway safety on busy A650. Roads around the area already queuing at peak times
3 LOSS OF WILDLIFE bats are seen widely in the area regularly and are a protected species
4 LOSS OF community identity... with the elimination of the GREEN BELT
5 Loss of Habitat
6 Non complience with zero carbon policy
7. Air Pollution
8. Detrimental Impact on existing properties

Object

Representation ID: 10008

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Shelley Fielden

I object to SH4/5/6 due to loss of green spaces for the local area. The impact the development will have on wildlife habitats, existing flooding issues and air pollution is significant. Similarly the infrastructure to support such development does not exist and would increase pressure on already stretched schools and health services. The traffic impact of any further development would be significant in Saltaire which given the existing rates of air pollution exceed current targets would only deteriorate further. Brownfield sites should be prioritised, similarly consideration should be given to traffic routes and how neighbouring areas would be impacted negatively by any such development.