SH7/H - Queens Road/Ferncliffe Road, Saltaire

Showing comments and forms 1 to 23 of 23

Object

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 150

Received: 14/02/2021

Respondent: Miss Susan Jones

Representation Summary:

Saltaire doesn’t need any more cars driving through and impacting on air quality.

Support

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 384

Received: 22/02/2021

Respondent: Mrs Dominique Gaspar

Representation Summary:

As long as parking and traffic issues in this area could be mitigated, I think this site is suitable for development. It would be nice to have some green space left as park of any housing development. In particular, I think this area would benefit from a children's play area and community green space.

Support

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 1227

Received: 10/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Ciarán McInerney

Representation Summary:

This seems like reasonable site, on balance. I would suggest that the plans are redrawn to accommodate rather than remove the mature trees. Mature plant life is not exchangeable with immature plant life, from hydrological, ecological, ground-stability, and aesthetic perspective.

Object

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 1294

Received: 11/03/2021

Respondent: Mr David Pringle

Representation Summary:

I am not against residential development here in principle, however, no development should be permitted until the Shipley Eastern Bypass has been completed or other major infrastructure work completed to the junction of Saltaire Road(A657), Bingley Road (A650) and Moorhead Lane. The junction is operating at over capacity and cannot take any more traffic. In addition, there are existing consented but unimplemented schemes which will increase traffic further.

Object

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 1333

Received: 12/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs AB Waldron

Representation Summary:

Although I accept that affordable housing is needed in the local area there are considerations about the ammount of houses proposed for this site.

Object

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 1466

Received: 13/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Helen Lynskey

Representation Summary:

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
Schools already oversubscribed
Poor access to public transport (poor bus service) and local shops and services

Support

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 1468

Received: 13/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Alan Wright

Representation Summary:

This area is suitable for development as it is located close to local amenities /transport links and is currently an area of wasteland.

Support

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 2352

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Val Pelleschi

Representation Summary:

*Done sensitively, interesting use could be made of this site.
*Ideally it should provide green/ leisure space wiithin the development.
*The fact that it's currently left untended & with numerous areas of shrubbery, some mature trees etc, its become benefical to birds & other wildlife. As well as a place for kids to make dens & explore nature. Effort should be made to preserve & support this range of benefits to create a pleasant place to build homes , respectful to the nearby WHS.
*Added advantages are nearby shops & amenities including multiple transport links . This will encourage less car usage.
*Hopefully due consideration will be given to building ecologically sound buildings to save energy etc & for a range of needs, so the inhabitants will develop amicably as a multi-generational community & add to the positive energy of this special location.

Object

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 2601

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Mark Fielding

Representation Summary:

1. Housing density too great already. The area is overdeveloped.
2. Lack of infrastructure to support development.
3. Impact on access to amenity for existing residents I.e. schools, health centres
4. No environmental impact assessment - this is the wrong sort of development in the wrong place. Additional population equates to more traffic, more air pollution in an already over polluted area.
5. Loss of vital green space and loss of visual amenity for immediate residents and wider community.
6. Impact on World Heritage Site buffer zone.

Object

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 4121

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Madeline Holloway

Representation Summary:

I believe this site, though small, still needs a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Report in order to appraise its biodiversity value. Over the last few years I have recorded several notable semi-natural, neutral, grassland plants such as common bird's-foot-trefoil, common knapweed and sweet vernal grass and note that their frequency and abundance has steadily increased. Should the site qualify as a Local Wildlife Site (LWS) I believe it should be removed from the housing proposal as this would cause significant local habitat loss.

Support

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 4396

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Val Pelleschi

Representation Summary:

*It's near to all amenities such as educational, medical, a good mix of local shops, cafes & not too far from wider green space in Saltaire village .With great transport links it will hopefully limit the need to use private cars.

* Hopefully can accommodate some community greenspace & preserve existing mature trees & shrubbery to create a pleasant environment for a range of housing needs & not be too visually impactful on existing housing as well as the adjacent WHS

Object

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 4767

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jessica Short

Representation Summary:

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.

Support

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 4931

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Barbara Kelly

Representation Summary:

This site has become much neglected and is now an eyesore. It needs development.
Medical facilities are close by as are shops and public transport links
Depending on the type of property built her it may not have too much impact on CAZ

Support

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 4962

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Ian Corker

Representation Summary:

Would benefit greatly from an overhaul and improvement.

Object

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 5131

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Rachel Noble

Representation Summary:

This is on the edge of Saltaire World Heritage site and in a commercial area. At the moment it is used as overspill parking for people visiting Saltaire High Street. Building more houses would put even more pressure on an area that is unable to cope with the amount of traffic passing through. New housing would see more cars parked and access would be via side streets. I understand that other businesses have had their proposals banned because of the additional congestion it would cause - this is no different.

Object

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 5139

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Anne Ashton

Representation Summary:

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

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 5429

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Frances Guy

Representation Summary:

30 dwellings seems excessive for a small site. While not within WHS footprint, potential impact on character of Saltaire's high street. Is it ethical to build more dwellings in an area known for its high air pollution? Might be more usefully repurposed as public recreation space.

Object

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 5544

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Alexandra Butler

Representation Summary:

Green belt land keep off it we need more green spaces not less!
Loss of trees
Effect on listed buildings and conservation area
Layout and density of building
Design, appearance and materials
Landscaping
Road access

Object

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 5967

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Margaret Maude

Representation Summary:

49 dwellings! 49 families, potentially 49 cars.
Leave us some Green belt as Nab wood is already well populated. Traffic is bad enough through the day but worse at peak times. Look for derelict buildings to turn into homes - like the old job Centre/ dole office building that is owned by Bradford Council and has been empty for years. Opposite an old mill building that used to be a gym - now empty for a couple of years. Use the money to refurbish them into homes! Save the tax payer/ rate payer some money.

Support

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 5979

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Laura MacDonald

Representation Summary:

This site is a good spot to do an exemplar apartment building, with car club access rather than owner parking (it should be billed as car ownership free) . It could have mature gardens on site - these are already there with minimal work to tidy them. This building could be achieved relatively quickly - it looks as if a building has already been on the site and the new one could simply take that footprint.

Please don't trash a mature garden that is much loved and could help to show how nice so-called brownfield living could be. Remember, when you build something in the Clean Air Zone, it doesn't need to be adding lots of cars. You can design and promote spaces where it is easy to live without a car, or minimum use of a car club car for essential journeys only. Please consider taking this lead.

Comment

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 28734

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Environment Agency

Representation Summary:

Site in Flood Zone 1 ONLY
Mitigation should be set above the 1 in 100 plus cc level for the site as suitable for the proposed vulnerability classification (EA standing advice should cover this).

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.

For developments 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 possible the sites within close proximity to Flood Zones 3b, 3 and 2 may be subject to future risk identified within the SFRA (to follow) which may affect its allocation or how development should be sequentially laid out on the site.

Consideration must be made to making space for water and providing betterment in terms of flood risk management where ever possible.

Object

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 29310

Received: 29/03/2021

Respondent: Historic England

Representation Summary:

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

Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Representation ID: 30237

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Rachel Kipling

Representation Summary:

Use of green sites (SH2, 3,4,5,6,7,11,12)or development is not sustainable (there are plenty of brown sites that must be used first in line with CBMDC policy) and leads to loss of habitat and connectivity regardless of the quality (this can be enhanced!). There is a health and wellbeing impact from removal of green spaces from a community however informal they are, people of Shipley cannot afford to lose these areas. Sites SH 4,5 and 6 are not near train stations and will inevitably increase car use on already congested, polluted roads. In these areas there is already surface water flooding and development will increase these issues. SH3 is a community asset for children to play and families meet, where there is very little other greenspace for children. In addition it provides walking routes that avoid the heavy polluted pavements. It is a breathing space in this urban area.