BI4/H - Heights Lane (west side), Eldwick

Object

Representation ID: 24493

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Pauline Wood

I object to the proposed site in Heights Lane as this cannot add any sustainability to the Bingley area as it is too far out of town.

Object

Representation ID: 25319

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Thomas Edwardes

Wildlife lives on and in the fields.

These are valuable Green Belt fields that are home to a variety of birds of prey, bats, moles and rabbits. Have also seen pheasants, grouse and deer in the fields. At various times the fields have been home to sheep and lambs and horses.

Have seen people walking, running and riding up and down Heights Lane and are enjoying the long distance views and glimpses of wildlife that these fields provide. Aware of how dangerous the lane is already.

Don’t build on these fields. Help us look after this protect and precious land.

Object

Representation ID: 25596

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Ami Brabbins

I object on the following basis:
1) The planning process is not sound.
2) The Core Strategy does not consider the societal, economic, and demographic shifts
in a post-Brexit and post-Covid world. It is not sound.
3) The obligations to safeguard the South Pennine Moors have not been met; the plan is
not sound.
4) The plan does not meet the exceptional circumstances required for removal of
protected greenbelt status, and there has been no demonstration of exceptional
circumstances. The plan is not sound.
5) The site is unfit for purpose as a housing estate
6) The site is incompatible with Bradford Council’s strategic objectives and obligations
I shall expand on these - see attachment:

Object

Representation ID: 25618

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Jess Brooke

Strongly object to this development. My concerns are:

• Development will generate considerable traffic on a lane with poor visibility, no pavements and limited width, create safety risks.

• Local infrastructure is over-subscribed.

• Land is designated Green Belt. No evidence produced to show that there are “exceptional circumstances” why the fields have to be removed from it.

• Proposal not sound. There are many alternative (non-Green Belt) site suitable for development in the Bingley area which have not been taken into consideration.

• Development will not meet the overarching environmental objective of protecting/enhancing the environment included valued landscapes.

• Development will increase pollution and generate pluvial flooding.

• Development close to Prince of Wales Park will inhibit and reduce the environment that supports wildlife.

• Bradford is part of the WYCA review – likely to result in parcels of non-Green Belt land becoming available for development. No need to remove fields from the Green Belt to meet house building targets.

Object

Representation ID: 26557

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Rebecca Jebb

Main objections to the proposed plans to build on Green Belt plots on Heights Lane, Eldwick are:

1. Green Belt should be protected at all costs after every other avenue has been exhausted. Should be there for residents and children to enjoy

2. Heights Lane is situated off a small mini-roundabout that is very busy. It is a narrow road with no footpaths and used by villagers to access other local footpaths. Increased traffic would cause pollution and be a danger to pedestrians

3. There isn’t the infrastructure to support any more people. Local school is at maximum capacity. More houses mean a need for more school places, doctor surgeries, nurseries and dentists all of which are over-subscribed.

4. The detrimental effect the proposed build would have on the environment for wildlife and would increase flooding and pressure on drainage.

Object

Representation ID: 26653

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Jamie Hartford

- Green Belt can only used for development in ‘exceptional circumstance’s (most likely the need for housing). In Bingley there are at least 2 parcels of ‘Brown’ land which would easily provide the number of housing units to remove the requirement for Green Belt use. The Council have clearly not proved ‘exceptional circumstances’.
• Access and highway safety- poor access due to the narrow road and no footpath. development will make a bad situation worse.
• habitats- To develop the sites would have a significant impact on wild life.
• impact on agricultural land- The sites are used for grazing sheep . The development on the site would impact on food production.
-moral duty to safeguard the countryside to guarantee the future of the planet.

Object

Representation ID: 27464

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Oscar Bevan

Object to sites BI4/H & BI8/H for the following reasons:

Green Belt & Loss of Pasture:
• Do not consider removal of fields from the Green Belt fall into “exceptional circumstances” as there are several brownfield sites in/around Bingley currently unused.

• More sites will become available as a result of changes made to commercial properties since the pandemic.

• Removal of pasture land will have dramatic effect on local farming. Fields used for grazing and haylage for winter feed.

• Farming in Bingley is difficult due to lack of available pasture.

• Rotation/resting of pasture between seasons is crucial for the wellbeing of the land and livestock.

• Prospect of losing more Green Belt threatens the future of farming/livelihoods of farms/farmers.

• Removal of fields could be thin end of the wedge for future developments to go ahead.

SSSI Proximity:
• Within 2.5km buffer which should be maintained to preserve habitats for moorland mammals and birds.

Object

Representation ID: 27647

Received: 13/03/2021

Respondent: Paul & Karan Dean

Number of people: 2

First I would ask why valuable green belt land is being used rather than other options.

The addition of 40 more homes will have significant impact on the village and its residents. This is a relatively small number of house but potentially creates disproportionate impact on the local community.

- traffic and related matters is already a big issue on Otley Road and I would expect this to become even worse post lockdown. The addition of additional traffic to the mini roundabout at the top of Park Road will create safety issues and congestion.
- From my limited knowledge local schools do not have spare capacity and the addition of additional families will further exacerbate the situation.
- There is a possibility that the addition of additional homes will create drainage issues leading to flooding,
-Finally there is , in my view, the destruction of valuable greenbelt land and wildlife etc.

Object

Representation ID: 28301

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Nina Valentine

Building on Green Belt is completely un-necessary. There are plenty areas of brown land that could be built on.

It throws on eco-system into chaos, destroying wildlife and cherished countryside areas. Areas that have been loved for generations and due to their Green Belt status

Would bring an overload of pressures on the area – overcrowding in schools, traffic on country lanes not built to withstand heavy traffic, and overflow to the existing sewage system. These elements combined will add to air and environmental pollution. These effects combined will add to destroying the local environment.

Loss of green land in Bingley has resulted in flooding without green land to provide absorption.

Sites are situated next to Prince of Wales Park – a local wildlife haven and refuge for local people peace and nature. Would be a travesty to build next to it.

Want Green Belt to stay green and protected.

Object

Representation ID: 28405

Received: 13/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs SP Coote

I very strongly object to any further housing development on Heights lane, Eldwick.

The mini roundabout, where Heights Lane ends, sees daily chaos caused at this junction of five roads. The introduction of forty more houses and thus cars is a recipe for accidents and increased air pollution.

Eldwick Primary School is already at bursting point and will not be able to cope and local GP services would be further stretched.

The impact on the 150 year old Prince of Wales Park, which for many has been a life saver during this pandemic, would be irreversible.

Since the late 1960's Eldwick has been reduced from a pretty village with its own character and amenities to a virtual suburb of Bingley - housing estates have sprung up , eating away at much of the surrounding green fields and these new proposals would do further damage to the environment.

WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO THE GREEN BELT???

Object

Representation ID: 28573

Received: 23/08/2021

Respondent: Sheila Ognissanti

I am voicing my strong objection to Bradford Councils granting permission to build housing on the above green belt.
This is an area of outstanding natural beauty and wildlife.
This will be destroyed by a housing development.
I sincerely hope you will reconsider this decision.

Object

Representation ID: 28601

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Member of Parliament (Conservative)

Agent: Deborah Davies

B14/H – Heights Lane (West side) (21)

I object to the inclusion of this site because:

• It is green belt.
• It is a narrow road with blind bends and no pavement, well used by many walkers, cyclists, horse riders and not suited to large amounts of traffic.
• It is close to Prince of Wales park and could negatively impact on the natural habitats of birds and other wildlife.
• Potential flooding issues elsewhere in Bingley as this land currently soaks in rain and works to prevent it running downhill to residential areas.
• The junction of Heights Lane/Otley Road/Park Road is already very busy at peak times and unsuitable/unsafe for more traffic.
• The report acknowledges “the site has a major potential for sprawl”.

Object

Representation ID: 28655

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: CHILD B

I don't think you should build more houses because we need plants to survive. And if you build on fields you will destroy the grass. Grass is important. Protect the grass please.

Comment

Representation ID: 28706

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.

Support

Representation ID: 29383

Received: 29/03/2021

Respondent: Historic England

The site lies adjacent to the Prince of Wales Park, a Grade II Registered Park and Garden. Whilst the site is located outside of the boundary of the Saltaire World Heritage Site (WHS) buffer zone it is within an area where tall buildings could affect its setting. The
development of this area could harm elements which contribute to the significance of these designated heritage assets. The Heritage Impact Assessment for this site, which includes land to the west of the allocated site up to the boundary with the Registered Park and Garden, considered that development of the west end of this site would result in further loss of the original contextual surroundings from which the park was originally forged.
The HIA concluded that development towards the west end of this site cannot be mitigated and the resulting effect of development would be less than substantial negative harm (of an unacceptable level). Development to east of the park boundary, as a continuation of the modern development would have a less than substantial (of acceptable level) to negligible negative impact.
Historic England would concur with this analysis and with the assessment of the degree of harm that the development of this site would be likely to cause. Historic England would also endorse the removal of the area of land identified as highly sensitive in the HIA from the allocated site, and the mitigation measures which have
been put forward in the Heritage Impact Assessment. We consider that these are likely to be effective in reducing the harm to the level indicated.

Object

Representation ID: 29515

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs J Smith

Site designated Green Belt. Prevention of urban sprawl.
The boundary between Eldwick and the surrounding fields/moorland will be eroded/destroyed by proposed development.
No proof/evidence of required “exceptional circumstances”.
Site is an open gateway to the countryside, should be left as such.
Proposal is not “sound” as required by NPPF.
There are alternative (non Green Belt) sites available, which have not been taken into consideration in the proposal to meet house building needs.
Additional traffic.
Heights Lane has poor visibility and bends, no pavements and limited width.
The health and safety of pedestrians, motorists, road users.
The roundabout is extremely busy/dangerous.
Adding to increased standing traffic causing danger and pollution.
Will not meet environmental objective of protecting/enhancing the environment/valued landscapes.
Pollution and pluvial flooding will increase.
Drains are overloaded.
Prince of Wales Park will be damaged.
Impact on local wildlife.
The wealth of bio-diversity, the positive impact of green space and wildlife cannot be underestimated.
A WYCA Review will result in further non-Green Belt land becoming available for development.
No requirement to remove the fields from Green Belt to meet the house building targets.

Object

Representation ID: 29530

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr K A Redmond

Site is designated Green Belt.
Prevent urban sprawl.
Space between Eldwick and surrounding fields/moorland is eroded and destroyed.
No “exceptional circumstances”.
Proposal is not “sound” as required by NPPF.
Alternative (non Green Belt) sites available.
Increased traffic on road with poor visibility and bends, no pavements and limited width.
Health and safety of pedestrians, motorists, road users.
Extremely busy/dangerous roundabout.
Increasing standing traffic and the potential for loss of life and/or sever injury.
Impact to environmental objectives
Pollution and pluvial flooding will increase.
Damage to Prince of Wales Park
Loss of visibility between East Morton/Mickletwaite.
Impact on wildlife.
Impact on bio-diversity.
WYCA Review to indicate further development land.
Green Belt is not needed to meet house building targets.