SH6/H - Bankfield Farm, Nabwood

Object

Representation ID: 10073

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Darren Marshall

I object to plans to build on Bankfield / Branksome SH5/H and SH6/H, for the reasons below. I feel that building on this site will be detrimental to both the specific green belt land and will affect neighbouring Shipley and Bingley. The main concern for me is flooding. In recent years, it has only taken a few hours of heavy rain for the River Aire to reach dangerous flooding levels. And this is not too far away around the Wagon Lane/Cottingley Bridge area of Bingley, but also in recent years we’ve seen the River Aire flood and affect Leeds. Green areas should be preserved and not replaced with tarmac and concrete where rainfall simply runs off into watercourses and doesn’t get chance to soak away.

Object

Representation ID: 10108

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Carolyn Robinson

With reference to the above planning for housing on the land near the former Bankfield Hotel I would like to object on the following points:

* The increase of traffic which would cause overly heavy at rush hour'

* Access roads to said houses could cause accidents and traffic queues

* Green belt supports animals and plants which need to be saved - plant trees instead of building houses

* Convert derelict buildings and mills before building on green belt

* Drainage is a problem in the Cottingley area with many houses having problems with constricted drainage

My main concern is the volume of traffic on the road to Saltaire which is already congested at peak times

Object

Representation ID: 10503

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Helen Walaszewski

Development on would be detrimental to area, used as grazing land and is home to wildlife.
Previously used for growing, barley and silage.
Loss of green belt where people walk and enjoy the views/open spaces, a little bit of countryside where people can gain health benefits.
Increased volume of traffic, air pollution, (CAZ is proposed for this area), already have heavy traffic on the A650, the proposed houses would be in direct line to this pollution.
Rat runs on Branksome are foreseeable - Impact from increase in traffic in a quiet residential area where children play is issue.
Problem of double parking
Branksome - hazardous exit onto the A650 made worse by increased traffic, careless parking obstructs this junction
Roads are overused/deteriorating.
Flooding would worsen as development removes the fields/trees.
Brownfield sites in Shipley should be used first.
Don't develop the little amount of green belt available. Loss of benefits to people’s health/well-being

Object

Representation ID: 10677

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: 10735

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Elizabeth Milner

I object to SH4/5/6 due to loss of agricultural land and green spaces for all current residents of the local area. The impact it will have on wildlife habitats and the worsening of existing flooding / draining issues is a major concern. Infrastructure is not there. Lack of local primary schools and other amenities will result in existing amenities under more pressure for all local residents. Other brownfield sites should be used

Object

Representation ID: 11000

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Ian 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. Longitudinal study required by environment agency and other professional bodies to evaluate proposed development on resultant river discharge rates.

2) Increased vehicular traffic and impact on air quality. Additional traffic congestion and risk to pedestrians.

3) Environmental impact on natural green space and woodland and farmland. Also habitat for fox, roe deer, bats, owls, woodpecker and other wildlife. Loss of amenity and enjoyment of existing greenspace for community wellbeing.

Object

Representation ID: 11267

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Catherine Hunter

Relates to SH5/H and SH6/H

The fields take a lot of surface water and help protect the already existing houses. Building on these sites would be disastrous for residents of Branksome Drive and Branksome Grove, re the already overloaded old drains due to many culverts which already run under the existing properties. We are already a flood risk area as flooded in 2000 and 2015, the latter when the water was over a metre high inside the Branksome Drive properties absolutely devastating for residents. Bradford Road already is level 3 air pollution so would definitely increase with the added traffic which will be detrimental to our health. Any extra traffic from proposed houses would make Bradford Road an even more dangerous and nightmare than it already is. The fields are a natural habitat for many wildlife ie. Deer, rabbits, squirrels, bat's and many birds nesting in hedges

Object

Representation ID: 11280

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs G J Woodhead

I write to express my concerns over the proposed allocation of SH6/H for housing.
1. Loss of green space, trees, hedges.
2. Destruction of habitat and impact on flora and fauna.
3. Disruption of ground stability, increased run-off to level 3 flood risk area where devastating floods occur.
4. Increase in traffic along proposed access road will reduce safety, Banksome Drive always difficult in adverse winter weather.
6. Large increase in traffic exiting Banksome Drive on to main road by zebra crossing will increase accidents not least to pedestrians.
5. This does not comply with Bradford's zero carbon policy.

During lockdown many people have relied on accessing the canal, woods and river via Banksome Drive for permitted daily exercise. This green space has been vital for maintaining physical and mental health, the opportunity to engage with nature and the abundance of wild life have been so therapeutic. Covering over the field with houses will destroy this vital amenity forever.

Object

Representation ID: 11380

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Richard Morton

This proposed building will impact on wildlife such as bats, deer, woodpeckers, owls (and other birds) all of which I have seen. I have seen flooding here on numerous occasions and new builds will create run off to the bottom of the hill which will affect water levels. Traffic on Bingley road is already congested at peak times and it is difficult to leave at the top of Branksome Drive due to speeding traffic.The increased number of cars for an extra 200 houses will have a massive impact on traffic, congestion and pollution levels. Some local schools are over subscribed and there is a lack of local amenities within easy walking distance. There is already a lack of natural spaces for people to enjoy and in my opinion brownfield sites would provide a better building option.

Object

Representation ID: 11390

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: 11504

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: John and Josephine Lambert

Number of people: 2

- Green Belt impact
- conflict with zero carbon future declaration of support of a climate emergency
- impact on loss of habitats and wildlife
- impact on infrastructure including transport, drainage, schools
- impact on increased flood risk
- brownfield sites should be used rather than green belt
- impact on access and highway safety from Branksome Drive

Object

Representation ID: 11605

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Krysia Walaszewska

Development would be detrimental to the area.

Site used for grazing sheep, and is home to deer, other wildlife, foxes, owls, woodpeckers and bats.

Loss of green belt where people walk/enjoy the views/open spaces, loss of countryside where people can gain health benefits.

Concerns about increased traffic, air pollution, (CAZ proposed for this area), living in close proximity to the heavy traffic on the A650, the proposed houses would be in direct line to this pollution

Branksome residents have suffered serious flooding several times, it’s unlikely to improve and would likely worsen as development removes the green fields/trees increasing likelihood of flooding at lower levels of Branksome Drive.

Alternative brownfield sites in Shipley area should take precedence for housing development.

Shouldn’t take green belt spaces.

Site located within WHS Buffer Zone.

The benefit to people’s health/wellbeing outweighs development of green belt when brownfield land is available.

Object

Representation ID: 12323

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Andy & Surita Wilson

Number of people: 2

1) Green belt land;

2) Green infrastructure Corridor

3) Shipley Clean Air Zone

4) Designations - habitats, community forest, Higher Level Stewardship Target Area; Keeping Rivers Cool Priority Area; TPO's; UK Biodiversity Action Plan; World Heritage Site Buffer Zone.

Object

Representation ID: 12529

Received: 09/02/2021

Respondent: Ms C Kemsley

I'm all for alleviating the housing shortage and encouraging sympathetic development especially if plans include one-bed and two-bed homes. But this is part of a huge housing build for Shipley area. I strongly feel that we should avoid Green Belt land. Keeping the green belt areas around here is important for local biodiversity, air quality, exercise opportunities for local people, good mental health, and general quality of life. There are many brownfield sites in Shipley which offer good development opportunities instead.

Object

Representation ID: 12650

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Bev Winterbottom

I am objecting to the use of greenbelt for housing,specifically areas identified by SH4/H, SH5/H and SH6/H.
Why is greenbelt land earmark for housing when :
1.Still brownfield sites in the city
2. There would be ,on a conservative estimate, around 400- 600 extra vehicles attached to proposed plan which is near 3 schools ( over subscribed) see below
3. Serious health risk re traffic are already in the public domain (Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah case refers)
4. This plan is surely flying in the face of the known benefits of green spaces (Lockdown has highlighted this)
5. By the councils own evidence, March 2019 shows 7,800 empty houses in the Bradford district of which 4,489 still empty after 6 months.
6. There is no mandate from residents to use green spaces which enhance the lives and health of the community.

Object

Representation ID: 13125

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Gareth Medd

I object because these proposals will negatively affect:
1. The greenbelt
2. Traffic and pollution
3. School places
4. Health services
5. House values
What efforts will the council make to actually secure developer contributions to infrastructure, health and education. Despite the increased house building in the area, I have not seen significant contributions. It is almost like this hasn't happened.

Object

Representation ID: 13590

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Samantha Holmes

I understand the need for development of new housing to support the Shipley district and provide affordable accommodation for the growing population.

I cannot help but see only negatives to developing these sites.

Main issues are Traffic and Flooding.

Access to Branksome Drive is currently very difficult. It is a very risky junction. Development would increase traffic at this junction making it increasingly dangerous, increase the likelihood of accidents, noise and air pollution.

Bradford council is committed to creating a Clean Air Zone in this area, development would NOT be abiding by this.

Congested roads and ‘rat-runs’.

Residents of Branksome Drive have been victims of flooding, development and climate change and rising water levels would worsen the flood risks.
The development means the destruction of factors contributing to ground drainage (Trees/fields etc), increasing the flood risk to current housing and new development and even previously unaffected communities.

Loss of green belt and agricultural land.

Detrimental impact on residential privacy, amenity and identity.

Loss of habitats for wildlife.

Object

Representation ID: 13719

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Frances Cleaver

I object to these plans on the following grounds:

1. Harmful impact on greenfield sites and urban green spaces. Building around SH 5 and 6 will involve significant loss of biodiversity and amenity.

2. Traffic and air quality. This area already suffers from traffic congestion and poor air quality (pollutants at illegal levels) New homes inevitably mean more cars and this can only exacerbate the situation. These developments would impede achieving Bradford council's Clean Air Zone commitments and hinder the achievement of national goals on carbon emissions.

3. Flood risk. SH6 experience serious episodic flooding. Adding more hard surface development to the area can only make the situation worse.

These issues are all the more pressing at a time of national and global climate crisis. I cannot see that the building plans are compatible with environment goals.

Object

Representation ID: 15210

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jean Holloway

The green field( GREEN BELT) land is part of the beautiful view of the Aire Valley and should be protected from development.
Proximity of Saltaire World Heritage.
Affect on Millenium way walk along the river, enjoyed by many for its natural views.
Local amenity needs to be preserved for future generations.

Alternative brownfield sites/former commercial premises near the the city centre.

FLOODING - development will increase the already high risk flooding at the lower levels such as Branksome Drive.

We are facinging a CLIMATE CHANGE disaster so why build here when there are so many alternatives.

URBAN SPRAWL LOSS OF community identity.

CLIMATE EMERGENCY. Bradford is committed to a zero carbon future and surely more traffic, more building, more flooding would be NON COMPLIANCE.

TRAFFIC, increase in traffic volumes will impact on all the existing busy main roads and create what is already congestion and dangers on the smaller side roads & not withstanding the dangers to pedestrians.

Comment

Representation ID: 16684

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Mr John Walsh

- access to the A650 from Branksome Drive is a nightmare

Object

Representation ID: 16746

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Shipley Town Council

- loss of one of the last areas of open landscape between Shipley and Cottingley;
- loss of access to greenspace - contravenes Public Health England document and part of Outcome 4 of Bradford’s Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategy 2018-2023;
- no exceptional circumstances for change to green belt boundaries;
- not sustainable locations for development;
- loss of mature trees along site boundaries and loss of wildlife habitat - contravene The Woodland Strategy for Bradford District 2012-2028 and Bradford’s Sustainable Development Action Plan, ‘Living within environmental limits’;
- loss of these greenbelt sites is likely to exacerbate the flood risk for nearby land and contravenes Bradford’s Local Flood Risk Management Strategy of December 2016;
- adverse environmental and social impacts of this housing proposal on the local road network and residential areas contravening Policy SP7;
- increased noise and air pollution;
- Pressures on services and infrastructure;
- the sites are unlikely to make a sufficient contribution to meeting social housing need in our area;

Object

Representation ID: 16957

Received: 22/06/2021

Respondent: Carole A Ver

I object most strongly to the proposed building sites in Bradford's Local Plan. To build houses on the above sites is ridiculous. The run off from them will exacerbate the flood risk.
The constant worry of flooding is effecting my health. Already this year the river and beck have flooded and the water was up to my patio.
I am also concerned about the wildlife we have bats, foxes, deer and rabbits and their habitat would be lost.
Increased traffic in Banksome Drive would be a problem, the road is narrow and has cars parked on both sides. There are viable brownfield sites which should be used.

Object

Representation ID: 16982

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Bingley Town Council

The proposed two developments at SH/6H Bankfield Farm and SH5/H Bingley Road contravene bullet point 2 above – ‘to prevent neighbouring towns merging.’ Within the Plan there is a section on 'Key elements of local strategy'. These include; ‘Maintaining a Green Belt gap between Cottingley, Shipley and Bradford.’ This development will clearly fill the gap which demarcates the towns of Shipley and Bingley/Cottingley along Bingley Road. It is the last area of open space along the main Aire Valley trunk road. These sites are classed as Shipley, but in real terms will probably have the most impact on the residents and infrastructure of Cottingley/Cottingley Bar. In addition, both areas are in Flood zones 1 and 2, are in the WHS Buffer Zone, and the impact on the GI corridor, PROW and local habitat networks would be devastating.

Object

Representation ID: 17225

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr James Hands

Number of people: 2

•Current air pollution in this area is already at a concerning level. Building houses on greenbelt land, adding to levels of pollution contradicts the implementation of a clean air zone.
•No consideration of possible run-off causing flooding to surrounding properties.
•Sewerage/drainage systems will not cope with proposed number of dwellings.
•Plans will ruin beautiful scenery and walks. It will damage local biodiversity with destruction of hedgerows, trees and the habitats of local wildlife.
•Local infrastructure will not cope. Difficult to get doctors/dentist appointments. Local schools are close to capacity or full.
•More houses will significantly increase the number of vehicles. Proposed entrance from the Bankfield Hotel junction will be particularly busy at peak times and its proximity to the roundabout could cause major congestion issues. Branksome Drive and Grove may be used for shortcuts – these are already busy rounds and this will only get worse.

Object

Representation ID: 17265

Received: 21/06/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Independent Socialist)

• Destruction of local habitats, agricultural land, biodiversity, meadow, hedgerow, trees and natural flora and the wildlife within.
• Loss of natural views for adjacent residents
• Loss of an amenity which allows community engagement with countryside
• urban sprawl.
• Flood risk / higher river levels in wet season will lead to more regular and new flooding the length of Shipley Aire Valley.
• Drainage, culvert and sewers problems
• There are no nearby convenience stores
• Increased car use - railways stations are distant, no satisfactory direct transport (buses) t
• Increased traffic - Branksome Drive & Grove are wholly unsuitable for handling any increase in numbers or traffic flow.
• Planning application for just 4 homes was recently refused

See also submission document.

Object

Representation ID: 18747

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Eileen Hogg

Object to the proposed development plans for Green Belt areas in Shipley:
- concern raised over how housing need figures for Shipley are calculated- do they consider impact of pandemic, fall in birthrate through lockdown, fall in migration due to Brexit?
- Are housing figures dictated by Government rather than local people
- Damage to Green Belt in Shipley- has every brownfield site been explored?
- Impact of increased traffic from 190 new homes and access to Bingley Rd not considered possible
- Impact on flood risk on Branksholme Drive has been a significant problem

Object

Representation ID: 19208

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Daleen Dwyer

While there are good suggestions for meeting the needs for additional housing in Shipley there are also a number of proposed sites which will destroy open spaces which are used and loved by the community and will create an over developed claustrophobic feeling which will reduce the attractiveness of the area as a whole.

The following are green belt sites which help to give a more pleasant feel to area. If there are no green spaces then the attractiveness of the area is decreased and its appeal as a place to live is reduced.

SH4/H - Glenview Drive, Bankfield Road, Nabwood
SH5/H - Bingley Road, Nabwood
SH6/H - Bankfield Farm, Nabwood

The reuse of land that has previously been built or repurposing retail provision which may not be needed post pandemic would seem like a more attractive alternative.

Object

Representation ID: 19803

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Green)

Number of people: 2

- loss of a valued area of open land / green belt, loss of beautiful views in / out of the site / impact on public rights of way
- loss of open landscape buffer between Shipley and Cottingley and contravenes several documents / strategic - Public Health England (PHE) etc.
- no exceptional circumstances to change green belt boundary - requires prioritising brownfield sites and also discussions should take place or be shown to the community to have taken place with neighbouring authorities about whether they could accommodate some of the identified need for development;
- loss of trees and wildlife habitats - contravenes various strategies and policy documents ;
- will exacerbate flood risk;
- impact on local road network / traffic /. noise / air pollution
- impact on services and infrastructure, schools over subscribed
- the site is highly unlikely to make a sufficient contribution to meeting social housing need in our area

Object

Representation ID: 19817

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Green)

Number of people: 2

- loss of a valued area of open land / green belt, loss of beautiful views in / out of the site / impact on public rights of way
- loss of open landscape buffer between Shipley and Cottingley and contravenes several documents / strategic - Public Health England (PHE) etc.
- no exceptional circumstances to change green belt boundary - requires prioritising brownfield sites and also discussions should take place or be shown to the community to have taken place with neighbouring authorities about whether they could accommodate some of the identified need for development;
- loss of trees and wildlife habitats - contravenes various strategies and policy documents ;
- will exacerbate flood risk;
- impact on local road network / traffic /. noise / air pollution
- impact on services and infrastructure, schools over subscribed
- the site is highly unlikely to make a sufficient contribution to meeting social housing need in our area

Object

Representation ID: 20085

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Paul McHugh

- Destruction of the local biodiversity, loss of meadow, hedgerow, trees and natural flora and the wildlife within.
- Loss of agricultural land
- Loss of natural views
- Loss of an amenity
- Loss of engagement with real wildlife

- the demise of community identity as the elimination of green space can only bring endless urban sprawl.
- There is no credible benefit
- Before using greenfield, a review of potential new brownfield site availability ‘post pandemic’ must be done.

- flood risks
- Lack of Infrastructure
- Impact on Artrial Roads (A650)
- Impact on local Roads (Branksome Drive & Grove)

- Environment - The plans fail to correctly factor in the carbon footprint of the new housing, albeit declaring a climate emergency. The plans contradict the Public Health England directive, to improve, maintain and protect current green space. The site is within the Saltaire World heritage Site buffer zone. Air pollution.