SH6/H - Bankfield Farm, Nabwood

Object

Representation ID: 21057

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Anna Porter

Some of the most polluted streets in the area (Bradford Council’s own data) are located in Shipley. Green spaces are the lungs of the area and of where some of these ‘hot spots’ are located.

The proposed spaces are a valuable habitat to precious wildlife such as otters and kingfishers.

They provide leisure spaces and enable a healthy commuting/walking route to Bingley which avoids the polluted main road. A healthy walking option should not be compromised.

The Council’s plan would either force people to walk among the traffic or add to it by driving or using public transport, which is not good for people with health issues including asthma.

Mental health and physical well-being should be at the heart of planning. Sacrificing this to these damaging plans would be to the detriment of these.

Objection grounds:
Public health
Protection of leisure spaces
Protection of wildlife
Protection of heritage
Increasing pollution
Protection of watercourse
Protection of landscape
Protection of ancient fields
Right of way

Object

Representation ID: 21172

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Ryan Walsh

I am frankly appalled at further erosion of green belt spaces in our valley. These sites serve as not only leisure spaces for our constituents, but an oasis for native wildlife in our landscapes ranging from kingfishers to deer that I’ve seen on this landscape.

The proposals will erode and erase this natural beauty in favour of ugly new build properties putting further strain on public services. The schools are both hard to get into and sought after. Introducing new homes into the area without increasing provision will lead to further disparity. Not to mention putting further strain on the services at Windhill Practice.

New homes are needed in this area, but ones that are affordable for working class constituents and surpassing environmental standards. Something that companies like Skipton Housing properties, who have recently been building more properties over in Keighley and surrounding areas, have not been meeting.

Object

Representation ID: 21360

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Jacob Tyrie

SH5/H SH6/H Nabwood

- The wider Hirst wood area is well used by walkers - I think these developments would be a massive shame.

- The footpaths in the area would go from rural fields to new builds. This would really detract from the whole of Saltaire/ Shipley as many people use this area for escaping the urbanisation of Shipley.

- This would also close the green gap between Bingley and Shipley, which would be a loss for both towns.

Object

Representation ID: 21402

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Zabeda Shafi

Loss of natural view and agricultural land.

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 householders further down river.

Ground stability and drainage - the water runs into gardens from the green space in question. A gentleman from the drainage department at Bradford council confirmed this. The drainage system will only get worse if this proposal is granted.

Increased levels of traffic - as a local resident I struggle with the volume of the traffic as it is, if proposals are granted traffic will become a nightmare.

Loss of wildlife - this will have an impact on my family and myself as we regularly sight a family of deers, fox, woodpeckers, bats and rabbits.

Object

Representation ID: 21499

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Kevin & Jacqueline Royston

Number of people: 2

Loss of a picturesque green space, loss of privacy, loss of light for properties.

Impact on wildlife - foxes, birds, deer etc.

Loss of a countryside resource.

Concerns over air pollution and additional traffic - Bingley Road is already extremely busy and congested which will be exacerbated.

Lack of school places.

Existing flooding problems in the area (boxing day floods of 2015) - people at the bottom of our road has their properties ruined. This will be made worse by loss of land which absorbs rainfall.

These developments will impact our local town's identities - Shipley would just roll into Bingley.

One of these developments is in the protected Buffer Zone for the world heritage site of Saltaire.

Please reconsider and look to develop brownfield sites in the area instead or consider redevelopment of unused commercial zones and premises which the pandemic has added to.

Object

Representation ID: 25629

Received: 24/04/2021

Respondent: Paul Connolley

Development of 150 houses means probably another 300 vehicles accessing Bradford Road, through either Branksome Drive or Mercure Hotel exit.

Branksome Drive is a busy side road and not suitable to sustain other 300 vehicles.

The exit/entrance to and from Branksome Drive is risky, development will increase risk/potential accidents.

Entrance/exit is at the Mercure Hotel, would cause issues in the flow of traffic, particularly for vehicles turning right. It would cause backing up of traffic from all Saltaire/Bingley/and bypass.

Congestion at rush hour within 1 mile of Branksome Drive become clogged with traffic, traffic brought to a halt and back up pass Cottingley Bar and towards Sandy Lane.

The pressure on local facilities particularly, Doctors is not sustainable in the long term.

Local wildlife will be decimated.

Loss of mature trees.

Branksome Drive is notorious for flooding. The River Aire is unable to cope, building houses will increase flood risk.

Destruction of Greenbelt, loss of greenery and clean air as more traffic will pollute the local environment further.

Object

Representation ID: 25700

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Juliette Taylor-Batty

I’m writing to express my extreme concern at current draft plans to build houses on green spaces in the local area, and particularly on greenbelt land in Shipley, Wycliffe, fields and ancient paths at Branksome, and greenbelt meadow and woods by Nab Wood. As the draft proposal sets out, there are a number of problems with these proposals, not least the irreversible damage to wildlife habitats.

I’m really worried about the impact this will have on the local environment and wildlife, play areas available for children (e.g. in the Wycliffe area), traffic increases, and pressures on local resources, schools and so on.

I know that there is a lot of opposition to these plans amongst local residents, and I urge you to reconsider these plans.

Object

Representation ID: 28137

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Nicola Storr

-Development detrimental to both the specific green belt land and will affect neighbouring Shipley and Bingley.
-Concern regarding flooding - River Aire.
-This land becomes sodden when it rains heavily.
-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. Local becks, streams and rivers cannot handle any more additional water caused by run off.

Object

Representation ID: 28211

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: 28246

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: 28311

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: 28383

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: 28589

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Member of Parliament (Conservative)

Agent: Deborah Davies

SH6/H – Bankfield Farm (49)

I object to the inclusion of this land because:

• It is green belt.
• Concerns over flooding – the report acknowledges that “part of the site to the north is within flood Zone 2”.
• This site is within the World Heritage Site Buffer Zone.
• 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: 28733

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: 28910

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: 28982

Received: 08/03/2021

Respondent: Jan Pickles

Prevent urban sprawl
Increased traffic and its impact on over congested local roads.
Exceptional circumstances need to be shown to develop Green Belt and need for development is not a sound enough reason.
Flood risk issues, loss of run off areas, water entering Beck and River from development at quicker speed from developed area compared with natural fields.
Venerable drainage systems.
Insufficient infrastructure - schools, doctors and dentists,
Impact to local farming - lost land, wildlife, habitats and effects on environment.
Impact on clean air zone from increased traffic.
cannot support these proposals due to increased flood risk in the area

Object

Representation ID: 29308

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: 29498

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: 29681

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: 30119

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: 30227

Received: 21/02/2021

Respondent: Mrs Rhona Stevens

Main objection, new housing around Cottingley and Nab Wood proposed in current greenbelt. We will gradually lose the greenbelt altering character, environment, reducing grazing and altering drainage.
Proposals include 500+ new houses between sites off Glenview drive, bankfield and Marchcote Lane. If predominantly family housing, this will strain local school provision and increase traffic congestion even further.
The pandemic has fundamentally altered the need for office space. Longer term, numbers in office/working from home will take time to settle. I suspect former office space will become available . Repurposing this would be preferable - review required in ~5 years

Object

Representation ID: 30231

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: 30235

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: 30246

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: 30263

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: 30268

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: 30270

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 for children. 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.