BI2/HC - Sty Lane

Object

Representation ID: 335

Received: 20/02/2021

Respondent: Mr Jeremy Meer

This is a shocking development with the destruction of a large area of previously green belt land, and which should still be green belt. There are many environmental reasons why this site should not be developed and planning was rejected many times before being agreed on yet another appeal when there was no ability to challenge. In addition, access to the site is a problem, the canal bridge and roads surrounding the site will not be able to cope with the increased traffic. The development should be rejected to protect this green field site for future generations.

Object

Representation ID: 1065

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Charlotte Hobson

The land is in use, it is required for agriculture. The road system around this greenfield site is narrow and steep. We keep trying to sell Bingley and the surrounding area/Five Rise Locks etc as a beautiful place to visit. To bring tourism into the area then the same Council that is driving for tourism wants to cover a very pleasant part of canalside green fields in houses. The swans are iconic that sit on the fields, obviously they will be driven away. It is a very substantial wildlife corridor, a haven from the rest of the built up areas. It provides carbon sequestration. To put 135 house on it & get rid of the swans, the cattle, the wildlife, release all that stored carbon? Why? Surely there are brownfield sites better suited.

Object

Representation ID: 1208

Received: 10/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Andrew Wilkinson

This would spoil a beautiful area with lots of wildlife. The roads around this area can not cope with any extra traffic.

Object

Representation ID: 1760

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Atis Krumins

This is a beautiful open site of rural countryside. The roads adjacent simply couldn't cope with 800/1000 cars that 440 homes will bring with them. The local schools are already oversubscribed and couldn't place the children demanding schooling. access is via a narrow canal, swing bridge which is already problematic to use.

Object

Representation ID: 2132

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Susan Beedham

The land suggested is in the Greenbelt and is very attractive There are already plenty of houses in the surrounding area, please do not build all the remaining fields and woodland, destroying the natural beauty of the countryside.
Another 440 dwellings are not required in the area.

Object

Representation ID: 2183

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Rosalind Dawson

I object strongly to development on these beautiful greenfields. It is not sufficient to say "new accesses to be provided off Sty Lane, Micklethwaite Lane and limited access off Oakwood Drive." The roads around this site are inadequate for more housing, particularly the crossing over the canal (near to the historic Five Rise Locks), Greenhill and the narrow roads through Micklethwaite and the Oakwood estate leading to Lady Lane. The inevitable negative impacts on the environment will be irreversible and the development will do little to benefit the community. No extra facilities or amenities are planned.

Object

Representation ID: 2301

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Abigail Roberts

This land is home to a lot of nature that will be killed with the new housing development. Also, the valley floods easily and building on this land will increase the risk

Object

Representation ID: 2789

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Ron Hardy

The road network around this area can by no means support a development of 440 dwellings.The traffic flow across the canal bridge at present is challenging and can no way support the slightest increase. The thought of emergency vehicles especially Fire Engines accessing the area makes one shudder to think. My objections are not so much the area but the proposed number of houses. This particular area can not cope with the volume.

Object

Representation ID: 3101

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Thomas Walker

In summary:

- A natural habitat for the areas wildlife will be destroyed

- Further Greenbelt land will be destroyed when areas across the district are in need of redevelopment

- Micklewhaite Lane is too narrow to support traffic

- No plans to improve area infrastructure e.g. schools and medical facilities to support influx of new residents

- Swing bridge on Micklethwaite lane unsuitable and unsafe to support larger volumes of traffic in turn with the narrow road meaning liklihood for traffic congestion

- Micklethwaite will become busy throughway, destroying local beauty spot and creating further noise pollution and safety concerns for residents on the tight road through the hamlet.

Object

Representation ID: 3342

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

Whilst understanding that outline planning permission has already be given -I object to the planned 440 dwellings on a green filed site. Concern focuses on environmental grounds with loss of green fields, impact on local biodiversity, wildlife and impact on walkers and users of the canal. Development of this site would put enormous strain on local infrastructure - roads, local schools and schools.

Object

Representation ID: 3892

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Jenny Woodward

I object to the development of this land due to the impact on the natural environment and the health and wellbeing of residents - the canal is a popular walking area which will be made less pleasurable. Car use-age is likely to be high.

Object

Representation ID: 3907

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Chas Ward

Area is unprepared for a development of this size: essential infrastructure is not capable of handling the excess load; existing residential areas face unacceptably undesirable impacts and risks. Pedestrian, road access, trains, schools, medical facilities would all need to be scaled up to handle additional load. Development of areas at flood risk is unacceptable. Risk of losing community identity. This scale of development is very unpopular and unacceptable to the local communities.

Object

Representation ID: 3927

Received: 20/02/2021

Respondent: Mr Jeremy Meer

B12/HC, B13/H, B14/H, B18/H - I am absolutely not in favour of plans to develop on Greenfield sites or release Green Belt land to be developed as part of the plan. These areas were designated Green Belt for a reason and greenfield sites / the environment should remain protected, and these should not be developed on. There are enough empty brownfield sites to develop and the plan should focus on these primarily. In addition, the wider infrastructure in Bingley is at capacity (schools, healthcare, roads & transport links), therefore development should be limited without further improvements to that infrastructure.

Object

Representation ID: 4049

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Julie Ramsden

B12/HC I object to this huge development , the local road infrastructure simply couldn't cope with the extra traffic generated by an extra 440 houses. I would also be very concerned on accessibility for emergency vehicles particularly at peak commuting times. I also object on the grounds of loosing another green space.

Object

Representation ID: 4543

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Freya Stansfield

The community infrastructure of Crossflatts can support such a large development. The plan doesn't go into enough detail on issues such as nursery, school capacity. The plan doesn't outline how the immediate surrounding areas will benefit eg managed open spaces, park areas, safer pavements, cycle routes, public toilets etc

Object

Representation ID: 4695

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.

Object

Representation ID: 4795

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Isobel Roberts

This consultation is taking place when people can not meet to voice their objections. Please wait until public meetings can take place. This site is keeping Bingley and Crossflatts from becoming one large town. We need to be separate. The traffic created by this development will impact on the already long queues at Cottingley roundabout during rush hour. The land is important to hold water back from the river which floods in Crossflatts and Bingley.

Object

Representation ID: 4849

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Jacob Lakin

This development would be a grotesque scar on the bingley landscape. The site is situated next to the canal and is an attraction for tourists and wildlife and this development would be hugely damaging. Also the roads in the locality are not suitable for the large increase in traffic that this development would bring.

Object

Representation ID: 4865

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Phil Parry

This will just add to the sprawl between Bingley and Micklethwaite. I'm sure there are far better areas than on green fields.

Object

Representation ID: 4954

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Tim Robinson

It would be an outcry to develop this area, the history of Micklethwaite would be destroyed, the road infrastructure cannot support a site of this size and it would destroy the vista that is the Aire Valley in the Bingley Area. Do the potential buyers of these houses not realise that their view will be of an incinerator as well if this goes ahead. Leave our fields alone, build from within and stop destroying this valley. Covering up more fields with concrete is only going to exacerbate the flooding issues in the valley as there is less land to absorb our changing and increasing levels of rain

Object

Representation ID: 5611

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jenny Bright

This is an area used by such a diversity of wildlife, from deer , to pheasants, to birds and mammals. It is also used by the wild geese who use the canal. This will have a huge negative impact on wildlife. There is only the small bridge to access the site and this is not sufficient for the huge extra volume of traffic. It would really spoil this beautiful area.

Object

Representation ID: 5675

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Christine Ironfield-Smith

I object on following grounds:
1. Destruction of a greenfield site - a valuable habitat for local flora and fauna and much needed green space for local residents and visitors to the area.
2. Adverse impact on the nearby South Pennine Moor SPA/SAC.
Increased risk of flooding and the impact on water quality for the adjacent canal.
3. Adverse impact of increased road traffic volumes - congestion, more accidents and air pollution from vehicle emissions.
4. Increase in demand for school places and registrations at GP surgeries and dental practices - will lead to additional pressure on stretched resources and less favourable outcomes for patients and practitioners.
5. Only minor positive effects predicted for most socio-economic themed SA Objectives that don't outweigh the disadvantages that this development will lead to.

Object

Representation ID: 5755

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Morag Booth

This is a large, green, open area which if built on will increase urban sprawl and pollution.

Object

Representation ID: 6533

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Ann Cossavella

BI2/HC Sty Lane - the 2 areas (incl BH1/H) in total make 575 new houses being built in areas very close to one another, how will the infrastructure and services cope with this?

Comment

Representation ID: 13595

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Canal & River Trust

The Trust have provided comments in relation to previous planning applications on this site referred to within the Local Plan text. This has included comments on a multitude of issues, including the provision of a replacement bridge across the canal.

Object

Representation ID: 16103

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Glyn and Cathy Levis

Number of people: 2

1. All sites are served by inadequate road access.

2. None of these proposed sites are on public transport routes, which will lead to an increase in road traffic in all areas and is contrary to sustainability policies

3. None of the developments are within 15 minutes walk of a railway station or town centre, in contravention of the local authority sustainability policies

4. Flooding, all these sites are wet sites or contain standing water. The removal of these sites will increase the existing high flood risk within the Aire Valley.

5. Safety – All sites will exit onto narrow lanes or a busy mini roundabout in the case of the Heights Lane developments –these lanes are popular routes for walkers and runners, cyclists and horse riders.

6. Insufficient existing public services. No one of these developments are within the priority areas for the school. This will mean additional car journeys to transport to other schools.

Object

Representation ID: 19533

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Sue Patchett

Developing this area will diminish the toad population there. They breed in the canal, I know there’s plenty of toads in the area due to how many get killed at the bottom of Micklethwaite Lane and on Sty Lane each spring.

Examples: -
20-03-19, 11 counted squashed close to the canal on Micklethwaite Lane.
24-03-19, 21 counted squashed on the road, nearly all were above Sty Lane trapped by stone walls.

Comment

Representation ID: 19878

Received: 01/04/2021

Respondent: Natural England

The site lies in proximity to the South Pennine Moors (Phase 2) SPA and has potential to lead to the loss of functionally linked land for SPA birds.

We welcome the approach taken in the draft plan, SPD and assessments to loss of functionally linked land.

The council has a copy of a model to identify the suitability of sites for SPA golden plover and recommend that allocations are screened against this dataset taking the following approach:

• Maximum Training Sensitivity plus Specificity (MTSS) layer: full survey for Golden Plover likely to be required. The WY Ecology Service SPA Bird Survey Methodology should be followed.

• Minimum Training Presence (MTP) layer or 10 Percentile Training Presence (10PTP) layer: scoping survey to determine if a full Golden Plover full survey required. A desk based survey may be sufficient for sites within the MTP whereas a walkover survey may be required for sites within the 10PTP;

• Not within an area of predicted presence: No survey required for Golden Plover.

Where loss of functionally linked land cannot be ruled out at this stage we recommend that allocation requirement text in the plan sets out survey and mitigation requirements clearly.

Object

Representation ID: 21633

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Gillian Wood

I appreciate that more housing is needed, but Eldwick and Bingley have had plenty of housing built over the years. The roads are far too busy with large amounts of traffic on narrow roads already.
There will not be enough places in the schools for all the extra numbers of children needing to be educated.

Dentists and doctors will be overloaded with patients.

I feel that new housing should be built on brownfield sites, where possible and leave our green spaces alone.

Object

Representation ID: 23676

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Joanna Arnold

-Object to B12
-Impact on the environment
-Impact on wildlife