BI3/H - Greenhill Barn, Lady Lane

Object

Representation ID: 336

Received: 20/02/2021

Respondent: Mr Jeremy Meer

The site is Green Belt land and should not be developed on, it is Green Belt for a reason. It is covered with a significant number of conifer trees, is close to a Grade II listed building contains significant wildlife, flora & fauna. This shop not be destroyed. Any development in Bingley should only be undertaken on brownfield sites.

Object

Representation ID: 1535

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Janet Nulty

BH13/H - this site is Green Belt and should not be released as there are plenty of other spaces in Bingley, it is currently planted with lots of conifers which are covered by a TPO for the area.
The proposed access gate is in a very poor sighted area just after a sharp bend in Lady Lane, the water that pours off this site already after heavy rainfall freezes badly in Winter. If housing is built on this land this flooding will become worse affecting through traffic.
There is no public bus service up Lady Lane, surely this will not be beneficial to the environment as probably an extra 50 cars (2 per household) onto an already busy road. If Sty Lane Development goes ahead this will be made worse as the plans make Sty Lane one way all the traffic will come up and onto Lady Lane .

Object

Representation ID: 1588

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Dan Nulty

Green belt, trees provide cover for wildlife, lady Lane is already busy enough with speeding cars, Greenhill Lane is too tight a bend to have more traffic coming through, there will be accidents. Bridge at micklethwaite already a bottleneck at rush hour. There are plenty of abandoned Mills in and around Bradford City centre that should be purchased under CPO and enforced development. They are being held by developers who won't do anything with them.

Object

Representation ID: 1671

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Ian Smithson

This is green belt and planted with trees. What is the point of calling something Green Belt - is that just a temporary designation for a few years then creep just builds on it.

The proposed concept of planting 2million trees in the greater area is in direct conflict to the idea of cutting these down.

Object

Representation ID: 1772

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Alicia Dawson

- loss of functional greenbelt, urban sprawl, lack of defined settlement boundary and impact on openness. The greenbelt in this location plays an important role in ensuring the separation between the settlements of Bingley and Eldwick and contributes to the transitional nature of Lady Lane. This area of Lady Lane has a more rural nature, making it clear that by continuing to travel north along Lady Lane towards Walsh Lane, you are entering the countryside and a rural location.
- not all trees conifers, has a tree survey been undertaken?
- Not a sustainable location, reliant on cars.
- Loss of habitat and biodiversity. Need to provide biodiversity net gain. Impact on opposite priority woodland habitat.
- Cumulative impact concerns, especially regarding highway safety.
- Non inclusive consultation.

Object

Representation ID: 2304

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Abigail Roberts

This area is home to a lot of nature

Object

Representation ID: 3103

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Thomas Walker

The are is home to conifer trees which are a will destroy a local habitat

Object

Representation ID: 3334

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

Greenhill Barn is located in a moderate performing Green Belt parcel. The site makes a major contribution to the purposes of including land in the Green Belt and has major potential for sprawl and would have a major impact on openness. There are no features within the site which could be used to create a more logical or potentially stronger Green Belt boundary. The site is currently designated as Green Belt, and the site specific Green Belt Assessment indicates that it has a major potential impact. The potential impact on the setting of Grade II Listed Building is not taken into account and it is with the 2.5km buffer of the SPA/SAC.

Object

Representation ID: 3893

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Jenny Woodward

Negative impact on natural environment. Poor transport links - people will drive from here. Plus, blurring of town boundary with open countryside (character).

Object

Representation ID: 3928

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: 4101

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Ken Knight

The site is Green Belt and between two Grade II listed buildings. Development of up to 25 dwellings would have a major detrimental visual impact on the locality. Also it is close to the junction of Greenhill Lane, Walsh Lane and Lady Lane, which is already difficult for vehicles, so the access from the site would only exacerbate this situation, Putting more traffic into this area, whichever direction it went, would add to known local road problems. I therefore strongly oppose development of this land.

Object

Representation ID: 4796

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Isobel Roberts

Bingley can not cope with any more traffic.

Object

Representation ID: 4866

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Phil Parry

This woodland is a perfect sanctuary for wildlife and building houses on it just adds to the urban sprawl from Bingley into the countryside. There are so many better locations to build houses in the area. What happens when these are built, build some more next to them? We end up with the green belt diminished and are all poorer for it.

Object

Representation ID: 5016

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

The site is Greenbelt and planted with semi mature conifer trees -potential haven for wildlife, contribute to bio diversity, provides habitat to a diverse range of flora and fauna.
CBMDC assessment "The loss of the greenfield site is also likely to have a negative impact upon the local landscape" - two listed buildings within close proximity
The site’s access to transport links, services and educational facilities is somewhat limited.
Falls within 2.5km of the South Pennine Moors SPA/SAC a HRA
Major potential impact on the Green Belt.
The site has major potential for sprawl and would have a major impact on openness.
There are no features within the site which could be used to create a stronger Green Belt boundary.
No special circumstances that indicate that this Greenbelt site is needed.

Object

Representation ID: 5488

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: CPRE West Yorkshire

In line with our comments on policy SP5, we object to the following site allocations:

BI3/H
BI4/H
BI8/H

Object

Representation ID: 5705

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Christine Ironfield-Smith

• Destruction of a greenfield/Green Belt site - habitat for flora and fauna and a much needed green space.
• Destruction of trees - we need more not fewer to mitigate the effects of greenhouse gases and help us meet the Government's aim to be carbon neutral by 2050 (and reduce emissions by 68% on 1990 levels, by the end of the decade).
• Adverse impact on the nearby South Pennine Moor SPA/SAC.
• Increased risk of flooding through the removal of trees/vegetation.
• Increased road traffic volumes - more congestion, accidents and air pollution.
• Increase in demand for school places and registrations at GP surgeries/dental practices - adding to the pressure on already stretched resources and less favourable outcomes for patients and practitioners.
• Only minor positive effects predicted for most socio-economic themed SA Objectives that don't outweigh the disadvantages this allocation would lead to.

Object

Representation ID: 5738

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Roger Raper

Extending into the Green Belt now will set a precedent for further erosion of the Green belt in the future.
The local infrastructure cannot cope with existing traffic and drains on its resources.
Congestion will increase significantly with the new homes. - this is at odds with a proposed zero carbon future
The area targeted acts as a corridor for wildlife. Building upon it will mean a loss of habitat, loss of natural views, as well as a loss of agricultural land and loss of community identity.
All of the above are contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework.

Object

Representation ID: 5762

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Morag Booth

This will result in the loss of trees and create more traffic. It is not near any shops or local amenities meaning increased use of cars with the resulting pollution.

Object

Representation ID: 8345

Received: 12/03/2021

Respondent: Nadezda Chapman

The site situated near a dangerous bend in Lady Lane. Cars use the bend too quickly and on the wrong side of the road. The entrance to Dene Bank has issues with cars exiting the estate causing dangerous situations. Cars coming from Heights Lane into Lady Lane tend to speed. Having another 50 cars exiting from the proposed estate will make this situation more dangerous.
When the building of the Sty Lane development is complete Sty Lane will be one way, increasing the traffic using Sty Lane to avoid having to go into Bingley, making Lady Lane and Sty Lane busier. Sty Lane has a dangerous bend in it.
Air Pollution- the level of pollution will rise drastically.
Long Term Disruption - If all 3 sites were to go ahead there will be years of disruption with road closures, noise pollution and works traffic. Trees will have to be felled.
Pressure on services - doctor's and schools.
There are no bus services to Lady Lane.
Use brown field sites before green belt sites.

Object

Representation ID: 11404

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs V Shepherd

BI3/H - I wish to object to this plan.
Most of the area is of mature mixed conifer trees and part scrub. While large conifer plantations have the right environment for specialist birds and red squirrels, this plot is too small, but the trees in general provide oxygen and carbon which helps the air quality of the area.
The site though can be homes for bats and birds.
Scrub in itself has great wildlife value.
If housing is allowed as many trees as possible should remain and housing numbers reduced.

Object

Representation ID: 16113

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Glyn and Cathy Levis

Number of people: 2

1. All sites are served by inadequate road access. The inclusion of these sites will bring additional traffic to an already overcrowded road system in the Aire Valley.

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.

5. Safety – All sites will exit onto narrow lanes or a busy mini roundabout in the case of the Heights Lane developments

6. In the case of the B13/H, B14/H and B18/H, these sites encroach onto Green belt land .

7. Insufficient existing public services. Particularly with regard to B14/H and B18H, Eldwick Primary school is full.

Object

Representation ID: 16983

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Bingley Town Council

The proposed developments at BI3/H Greenhill Barn Lady Lane and BI4/H Heights Lane (West side) BI8H Land west of Heights Lane are in contravention of GreenBelt policies 1,2 and 3 as stated above. Greenhill Barn is located in a moderate performing Green Belt parcel. The site makes a major contribution to the purposes of including land in the Green Belt, has major potential for sprawl and would have a major impact on openness. There are no features within the site which could be used to create a more logical or potentially stronger Green Belt boundary. The site is currently designated as Green Belt, and the site specific Green Belt Assessment indicates that it has a major potential impact. The potential impact on the setting of Grade II Listed Building is not taken into account and it is with the 2.5km buffer of the SPA/SAC.

Support

Representation ID: 18275

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr & Mrs A Kemp

Agent: Heritage Planning Design Ltd

Identification of the site as a preferred housing allocation by the Draft Local Plan (DLP) is strongly welcomed.

In the interim I have provided:
a capacity study/ draft plans attached as appendix 4 and I comment below on the following matters identified by the DLP:
• Delivery Timescales
• Potential Site Access
• Public Transport Accessibility
• Sustainability Appraisal
• Habitats Regulations Assessment
• Green Belt
• Constraints and Opportunities
• Development Considerations

Some concerns and suggested changes are made in relation to the SA for the site and green belt assessment.

Object

Representation ID: 18490

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Cllr David Hesletine

•Description of the site is misleading - the site is far from scrubland, it is planted with semi mature conifer trees which with proper management would provide a continued haven for wildlife, contribute to bio diversity, lock away significant quantities of carbon. The trees provide a significant habitat to a diverse range of flora and fauna.
•There are no special circumstances brought forward by BMDC that would indicate that this Greenbelt site is needed, comments from your own appraisal also show there would be significant harm and major impacts the only conclusion should be to remove the site from the plan.

Object

Representation ID: 21280

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Charlotte Hurdman

Sites BI4/H, BI8/H & BI3/H

Strongly object to sites being removed from Green Belt to meet Bingle’s housing requirement. Have a major impact on nature and surroundings of Eldwick/Bingley.

Directly conflict with Bingley Local Area Strategy Plan including elements relating to the protection/enhancement of the natural/green environment, and conservation/enhancement of heritage assets and their settings. Building will not enhance/protect the environment or landscape – it will degrade it.

Sites make major contribution to Green Belt and are vital for protection of the natural environment by providing green corridors for wildlife to use the urban environment. BI4/H & BI8/H back onto Prince of Wales Park allowing a variety of animals and plants to access diverse habits. Blocking the corridor will degrade this environment for all. Fields are home to rare birds and provide important habitats.

Pandemic has shown the importance Heights Lane & Walsh Lane to the community with walkers, runners etc using them to reach the Moor or take in views and wildlife.

Roads are scenic but also narrow and dangerous. Increasing traffic will aggravate this and pose more dangers to users.

Eldwick’s built environment and village character will be substantially altered with new access onto Heights Lane and access onto roundabout to accommodate increased traffic. Will further alter Bingley’s historic environment.

Building will increase pressure to fill in with further houses. BI4/H & BI8/H will encourage ribbon development on Heights Lane. Old/Ancient routes will give way to urban sprawl.

Object

Representation ID: 21634

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: 23677

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Joanna Arnold

-Object
-Impact on the environment
-Impact on wildlife

Object

Representation ID: 24492

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Pauline Wood

I object to the site at Greenhill Barn Lady Lane Bingley. This is a particular feature showing numerous Xmas Trees which are a benefit to the environment. The new plan indicates that respect will be given to the environment.

Object

Representation ID: 28600

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Member of Parliament (Conservative)

Agent: Deborah Davies

B13/H - Greenhill Barn, Lady Lane (25)

I object to the inclusion of this site because:

• It is green belt.
• Wildlife concerns.
• Loss of semi mature conifer trees.
• Two listed buildings close by.
• Poor public transport provision.
• The report acknowledges “the site’s access to transport links, services and educational facilities is somewhat limited”.
• The report also acknowledges “the site has major potential for sprawl and would have a major impact on openness”.

Comment

Representation ID: 28705

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Environment Agency

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.