CO1/H - Marchcote Lane

Object

Representation ID: 25510

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mir Mohammed Ilyas

Proposed houses at back of March Cote Lane. Strongly object to planning permission given for this project. There isn't enough infrastructure available in Cottingley for this project. Please reject the proposal.

Object

Representation ID: 27473

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Fiona Burns

The area is not fit for housing. Eg wildlife, amount of cars, flooding and pollution near the school grounds.

You could start off by monitoring the amount of cars outside the school at 9 o clock to 3 o clock.

Then building a pollution monitoring station near the school grounds. Where will the water go if the beck or rivers floods or there's not a good enough drainage system to handle that amount of water due to the location you've decided to build.

The river has flooded on numerous occasions, families have had to stay at the Bankfield Hotel due to flooding Branksom Drive.

Where are the kids going to go to school is another factor.

Rycroft Ave is not large enough for lorries/HGVs specially going up Coppy Close.

The council should upgrade the tiny play area, provide more public foot paths for walking, we don't need anymore houses no more concrete or brick, something actually for the community and stop destroying the last few natural place we have left.

Object

Representation ID: 27649

Received: 13/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Monica Robinson

Regarding the planning application for new houses on the March Cote lane site ref CO1/H.

This site is completely impractical as the rain already runs off the hill and to suggest that it is piped into the Beck that will then flood properties in heavy rain fall and with climate change should be sufficient reason that we know rain will diminish in years to come these plans should not be given the go ahead.

The proposed houses on Cottingley Cliffe will cause the same problems and I am sure if the school floods there will be plenty of complaints.

What also seems to have escaped the planners is that one of the main problems also is what a dangerous road the main road is and with a junior and senior school there are many dangers for children.

I sincerely hope these plans are rejected.

Object

Representation ID: 28124

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Chloe Lupton

Number of people: 2

-Drainage issues with over spill covering the road at the end of Woodside Crescents and March Cote Lane.
-Traffic & safety issues associated with Cottingley Village Primary School
-Lack of support / funding to create additional places having recently become an academy.
-Parking issues on March Cote Lane - many households having 2 cars with 1 off road space.
-Potential traffic flow / access issues for site development
-Flooding and drainage issues on Coppy Close.
-Traffic from Samuel Lister Academy is horrendous. The double roundabout at the bottom of Manor road becomes overwhelmed. Impact on public transport timetabling and cancelled services.
-Poor emissions in the area.
-Lysander way bridge – single carriageway. No plans as yet have been discussed for re-enforcing the bridge to support additional weights.
-Additional car ownership in the area will conflict with Council’s carbon neutral policy without any funding to the current area.
-Fail to see need for housing on greenbelt land,
-Impact of development on green belt land just off of allerton lane - no support to the infrastructure was given in advance.
-Impact on doctors surgeries
-Impact on wildlife (hedgehogs, deer)
-Brown belt areas are left to rot

Object

Representation ID: 28357

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jean Mouls

1. Village school will be under pressure to accommodate influx of new pupils

2. Will increase the volume of traffic on surrounding roads

3. Area is agricultural land used for grazing. Wildlife will suffer.

4. Flood risk is extremely import. Water will run-off the site towards other houses causing disruption to residents from flooding including dirty water, rubble and small in their homes. Homes will be destroyed and will become unsaleable and uninsurable.

Object

Representation ID: 28597

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Member of Parliament (Conservative)

Agent: Deborah Davies

CO1/H – March Cote Lane (155)

I object to the inclusion of this site because:

• It is green belt
• There are already traffic congestion and parking issues in Cottingley and surrounding roads, particularly near the primary school.
• There are flooding concerns.
• The report acknowledges “the site has a major potential for sprawl and would have a major impact on openness”.
• Impact on wildlife including ground nesting birds.
• The report also acknowledges “there are no opportunities to create a stronger Green Belt boundary than the existing boundary”.

Comment

Representation ID: 28756

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.

Comment

Representation ID: 28821

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

- Size of development – the proposal to build 155 new homes is too large for the area. Cottingley currently only has 2,082 dwellings; this plan would increase the size of the village by almost 10%.

- Access, transport and congestion – the area is already quite congested with residential traffic, and the plan does not provide improved roads, and access to the additional 155 houses would come from already congested streets. An increase in traffic would be bad for air quality, health and living standards.

- Local facilities – the schools in the area are full, and an increase in population is not supported by the local infrastructure

- Road safety - previous LDP traffic safety assessments concluded that March Cote Lane and Lysander Way should never be used as exits for additional dwellings. Whilst exceptional circumstances may be used to try argue the reclassification of greenbelt land, this does not give the council unconditional latitude to recklessly disregard the existing LDP traffic safety thresholds. It recklessly puts traffic and pedestrians at risk, especially school children. Bradford Council would need to be held to account, and accept some responsibility, for serious traffic injuries, fatalities and manslaughter if a child is killed or injured as result of inadequate consultation regarding the proposal to build 155 houses next to the junction of Cottingley Primary School and Dixons Cottingley Academy.

Comment

Representation ID: 28991

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

5. Over 220 objections have been raised by residents.

6. “Several people were worried about road links being made to March Cote Lane. This would not be allowed if any development took place and therefore the question of extra traffic loadings on Manor Road would not arise”.
7. “It would not be advisable to connect such a development in the existing narrow network of roads on the Cottingley estate”.
8. “It would not be feasible to gain access via a long cul-de-sac to Cottingley Moor Road” (for example Lysander Way).
9. “Cottingley Moor Road and Lee Lane would need widening”. (The 2021 developer has not offered to fund Bradford Council for this significant cost.)
10. “The road through Sandy Lane village could not be improved.” (This is a narrow stretch of road by Sandy Lane Primary School and a playground. On street parking makes this section of road especially narrow. It is an accident black spot, including a recent fatal motorcycle accident in 2019.)
11. “Extra stress would occur at Cottingley Bar.” (The stretch of B6265 near Grange Park Drive and has been the scene of serious and fatal accidents)
12. The WYMCC said “A development of this site would give rise to very significant increase in traffic generation which would give rise to unacceptable problems on both the local distributor roads and at the major road junctions nearby. The local highway authority therefore opposes proposals”
13. The Bingley Road Safety Committee said “The adjoining highways and access to main roads are considered inadequate to carry a considerable increase volume of traffic. It is doubted that the highways authority would have the financial capacity to carry out the necessary highway improvements”

Object

Representation ID: 29390

Received: 29/03/2021

Respondent: Historic England

The site is within an area identified by the Saltaire World Heritage Site (WHS) Management Plan 2014 as important to its setting. The site is also located in an area where tall buildings could affect the setting of the WHS. Stock-A-Close Farmhouse & Barn, both Grade II Listed Building, are located 230 metres to the west of the site. The development of this area could harm elements which contribute to the significance of these designated heritage assets.
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: 30228

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