ST1/H - Summerhill Lane

Support

Representation ID: 300

Received: 19/02/2021

Respondent: Mr Roger Lambert

The existing lorry park site to the north of this site has great potential to be developed for employment/industry. Please ensure that the northern boundary of this housing site does not make the lorry park site so narrow that it becomes too narrow for normal commercial development. I suggest that the northern boundary of the proposed housing site should be pulled back - southwards.

Object

Representation ID: 373

Received: 22/02/2021

Respondent: Mr James Graham

This is direclty opposite my property and the view we have out of our window is a unique selling point of the properties on Aireburn Avenue. This could de value the price of our house.

The existing water pressure on Aireburn Avenue is very poor as it stands and with the addition of 120 dwellings below our house and the further 22 dwellings next to it (ST2/H) I believe this would stop the water flowing to our house completely. Has any work been undertaken to identify this problem and would any upgrade to our supply be carried out?

Object

Representation ID: 427

Received: 24/02/2021

Respondent: Mrs Anna Graham

Would be extremely concerned about the impact on traffic flow as this stretch of land is adjacent to a busy main road. Could also be poteneially danagerous with cars from this new site and the current housing on Aireburn avenue trying to join flowing traffic from both directions.

Object

Representation ID: 1052

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Robert Rycroft

This is green belt land and should not be used for new housing. Inappropriate use of land. No consideration for local infrastructure or other impacts on the environment.

Object

Representation ID: 1110

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Joel Griffiths

This site is clearly designated greenbelt. There should be exceptional circumstances to allow for development on a greenbelt site. I am unaware of any exceptional circumstances.

Object

Representation ID: 1452

Received: 13/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Abi Wood

This small VILLAGE is already overpopulated and the amount of traffic on the local roads has already grown considerably following other recent housing developments. We have very few amenities here to support a growing population and no village centre, just industrial units/businesses. The lack of educational establishments is also a worry. This area lies within the green belt and flood plain too - we shouldn't have to lose our fields and trees to accommodate this development, something that is imperative for health when living close to the very busy A629. Further housing isn't going to benefit this area.

Object

Representation ID: 1512

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Professor Eric Wolstenholme

This development will have a profound impact on the peace and tranquility of Rivock Avenue which is a private road. It is also nonsense to build on an area which frequently floods. Flood plains are exactly what the words imply. They are not for building on. If in the unlikely event of such a development taking place, we would ask the planning committee to note that the land falls away from Rivock Avenue towards the east and it would make sense to reduce the visual impact of buildings by limiting them to single story on the western edge adjacent to Rivock Avenue.

Object

Representation ID: 1525

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Ian Beardmore

As the area is within a green belt there will be significant impact to wildlife, notwithstanding the issues associated to the area being within a flood plain and potential drainage issues. Also there would be concerns as to the close proximity to the lorry park. Noise pollution in the surrounding areas during and after construction. The increase in traffic on the B6265 would also be a concern as the road system would need changing to accommodate. There would be an impact to local schooling and oversubscription for local doctors / dentists etc. The village of Steeton is not an area to be developed in, there are other local areas with greater resilience to further development. There are potential landscape and visual impacts due to its location and impact on the setting of the conservation area.

Object

Representation ID: 1585

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Ian Greenwood

Increased traffic at Station Road/B6265 junction.
A modern high density estate would overshadow the open space area around the sports grounds which is at odds with ‘Seeking to protect and enhance existing open spaces, green areas’
If recent developments like the ones in Steeton & Silsden are an example of the housing proposed then these would look out of keeping with the nearby conservation area.
The proximity to the railway and A629, which is noisier since being resurfaced, may limit the type of housing developers will want to build due to reduced selling prices.
There seems to be a lack of a provision for bungalows in any of these new developments, given that there is an aging population which may want this type of property.

Object

Representation ID: 1715

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Ian Beardmore

Following on from my previous representation I have done some more work investigating the local area and spoken with neighbours of surrounding properties. As you have noted in your report the area is within 30m of the conservation area boundary, I have contacted Historic England to discuss the potential of expanding the area to encompass some of the suggested land. I have also been looking at the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 as we have Bats in the local area and their roosts may well fall inside the proposed development area. I understand the council is behind with it's housing allocation as described in your report released in January 2021 and therefore needs to find suitable sites to build however environmental impacts are paramount and I am sure there are more suitable less impacted sites which can be looked at.

Object

Representation ID: 2146

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Mike Harris

The site is open green belt and falls within the five purposes of keeping land open in the green belt. It is not a suitable in-fill or brownfield site, and would leave an open boundary to the east. Development of it would also bring development closer to the southern recent housing extension of neighbouring Silsden - contrary to green belt principle policies.
Potential access onto Keighley Road is hazardous, as vehicles entering Steeton regularly exceed the defined speed limit at great speed, around a blind bend to the east. Access onto Summerhill Lane or Station Road is not adequate for development of any size.
The north-eastern part of the site is prone to flooding, and this happens several times a year, every year.

Object

Representation ID: 2195

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Ian Beardmore

Following on from my previous two comments having further read through your supporting documentation please see attached further comments.

Object

Representation ID: 2265

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Helen Farrer

Green Belt encroachment
Flooding
Highway safety
Alternative site better

Object

Representation ID: 2270

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Helen Farrer

Green Belt encroachment
Flooding
Highway safety
Alternative site better

Object

Representation ID: 2363

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs June Alice Wormald

Please see Barrett/David Wilson Homes online brochure which clearly states 190 houses. Plan states 120. Green belt land can never be recovered once lost to housing. Loss of wildlife - deer can sometimes be seen running around fields. Flood plain - standing water. Steep drop from Keighley Road into fields which would mean access road is steep incline. Access would be onto busy main road to Airedale General Hospital. In none COVID times road is very busy at certain times - staff, visitors, patients and ambulances, and school traffic. Access too near blind bend of Hawcliffe corner which is a notorious accident area. Although there are 30mph restrictions in place, some vehicles do come round the corner much faster and vehicles waiting to turn right would be at risk of collision. Mud from traffic visiting site would be skid risk.

Object

Representation ID: 2695

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mr William Taylor

As noted in the Council's description, this land (ST1/H - Summerhill Lane) is a major Green Belt parcel. Moreover, the lower elevations are prone to flooding. Thirdly, the access onto B6265 Keighley Road will be very steep and result in a potentially dangerous exit onto a corner with limited visibility.
In the current state of Climate Emergency (BMDC 2019), surely the retention of Green Belt and green space in general, is to be supported. I note that, regarding Figure 4: Green Infrastructure Corridors, this site practically joins two hitherto unconnected such corridors; I would consider that leaving this land undeveloped provides a unique opportunity to join these corridors and help mitigate both sub-urban sprawl and climate change. The land is already home to significant wildlife including bats and many bird species, and I ask the Council to support it remaining as such.

Object

Representation ID: 2787

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Suzanna Nicholson

I object to this development as it is on green belt land which would cause irreversible harm to the integrity of the Steeton border and set a precedent for yet more residential sprawl.
Direct access to the railway station is not guaranteed and is likely to be unsuccessfully as it crosses private land (same thing was promised and not delivered with the Redrow Estate). The proposed development would inevitably lead to more traffic on an already busy and dangerous stretch of road. Any access via Keighley Road would be dangerously close to a blind corner.
Houses on Aireburn Avenue would overlook this development and its residents would be negatively impacted by any construction.
Steeton does NOT have the infrastructure to accommodate more large families and their vehicles.
SITE FLOODS FREUQUENTLY.

Object

Representation ID: 3374

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Julie Crowther

This will have a huge impact on the environment. Every year we get hundreds of migrating starlings that stay for months. They use these fields for feeding and murmerations. Which are already in depleting numbers. The fields are also very prone to flooding. So drainage would be an issue .The access to the main road would put a huge strain on the already busy road. While the access is on a very busy corner. It will also have a huge impact on our outlook. This would also putting strain on our already busy schools and doctors.

Object

Representation ID: 4026

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Luke Pearson

I object to this development, & more specifically the number of planned units for a number of reasons...

1. Loss of Greenbelt

2. Serious risk of future urban sprawl - The development would create a new village "edge" with more adjoining fields likely to be developed once road access is in place. Steeton will start to resemble more of a town than a rural village.

3. Loss of Character, to a very scenic more rural part of Steeton.

4. Over development - Steeton/Eastburn have already accommodated 2 large new housing estates in recent years (Redrow + Miller homes)

I do think with a very sensitive design, some development of these areas would be acceptable.Nice stone built houses, at a reasonable density. However this is the problem, what you end up with is a monolithic, jam packed out of character development, like the truly awful new Barratt Homes development at Silsden.

Object

Representation ID: 4341

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Philippa Crane

I strongly object and think it appalling that Bradford Council is prepared to allocate a site in Steeton which is in a major GREEN BELT parcel on the edge of the village for 120 dwellings. There will be potential landscape and visual impacts due to its location and impact on the setting of the Conversation Area which is 30m away, not to mention flood risk and drainage is also a potential issue. Well done Bradford! Build on the numerous brownfield sites available and sell the many hundreds of empty properties in the Bradford area. We need to save our precious green belt and greenfield sites (not destroy them) look after the trees and hedgerows and enjoy the wildlife and beautiful countryside.
Poor Infrastructure:
GP Surgeries struggling to cope
Hospital under pressure
Traffic Congestion / air pollution
Flooding /sewerage/drainage concerns
Senior school over subcribed
Loss of wildlife habitat
Mental health concerns

Object

Representation ID: 5147

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Christopher Leach

Building on Green Belt
Capacity issues on adjacent transport hierarchy
Potential difficulties accessing and exiting site from existing highways
Negative impact on Conservation area

Object

Representation ID: 5484

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: CPRE West Yorkshire

We’ve not been able to visit this site (ST1/H) ourselves but it has been brought to our attention based on the concerns from local groups. In addition to our comments on SP5, we would object to this site allocation. The gross density of the dwellings at ST1/H is much lower than we advocate, and is likely to achieve well below the HO2 minimum of 35 dpha net. As stated in the council’s report, 19% of the site is in 3b flood zones which causes concern for proposed development on this land.

In line with our comments on policy SP5, we also object to the site allocation, ST4/H.

Object

Representation ID: 6441

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Kelvin Pawlikow

•This large development would have a major effect on congestion at Steeton traffic lights where the primary school is located. Traffic is already excessive at peak times. Development would cause havoc when traffic from hospital/school combine.
•Lack of facilities at the school to accommodate the increase in children. The school needs upgrading before any such development.
•Why use Green belt land when there is so much waste land and empty buildings in this district. That space should be used first.
•The Steeton/Silsden roundabout on the bypass is already a safety issue for pedestrians, more traffic using this area presents a great safety risk for resident walking between Steeton/Silsden.
•120 houses is too big of a development. Houses surrounding this area are pre/post 1940 with front and back gardens. New houses tend to have off road parking in front of the house so this would not be a suitable fit.

Object

Representation ID: 6908

Received: 07/03/2021

Respondent: Jackie Starkie

Village has changed from recent new development with two very large areas developed in Steeton
Additional cars will blight the lives of people who bought a house away from a main road.
Houses will be devalued - loss of view over fields - it's bordering on criminal.
Village has insufficient infrastructure - schools, Doctors, limited shops
Local policing is non existent
The roads are already congested between Steeton and Silsden
Additional number of homes is unfair - Why are some areas targeted for so much development. There are plenty of other areas you can target with better infrastructure already in place - we cannot cope with the huge increase. It is destroying moral, community spirit and mental health.
It is not up to Bradford Council to house the nation
The Council have not spent money in Steeton - the new school was planned years ago is already too small and it's not finished

Object

Representation ID: 7199

Received: 10/03/2021

Respondent: Jacqueline Jarvis

I strongly object to Bradford Council building houses on Greenbelt land. There are enough Brown field sites with abandoned buildings and unused warehousing that should be considered first. Also what about housing that is unoccupied by missing landlords? Why aren’t these compulsory purchased to start with? You never consider the infrastructure, roads, doctors, schools, sewage, increased traffic etc., when drawing up these plans and what if any will be social housing which is the most needed of all builds? NONE!

Object

Representation ID: 7945

Received: 12/03/2021

Respondent: Sylvia Walker

Site is greenfield and green belt. Green belt should not be considered for development.
Brownfield sites should maximise the use of brownfield sites first
No exceptional circumstances for why this site has been considered

Support

Representation ID: 17492

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Barratt Homes and David Wilson Homes

Agent: ID Planning

We support the allocation of ST1/H. A development agreement is in place for the site which is available and deliverable.
This representation statement makes comment on the Local Plan Preferred Options Report in the broad context of this site and supports the allocation of an extended site ST1/H as a result of the sustainability of the site and its location adjacent to the Local Growth Centre of Steeton with Eastburn.

Comment

Representation ID: 19901

Received: 01/04/2021

Respondent: Natural England

We note that the following allocations are on land which may be best and most versatile agricultural land. The plan should safeguard the long term capability of such land (NPPF para 170).

In order to inform the sustainability appraisal and ensure an accurate assessment of the impact of the plan on soil resources we recommend that allocations over 5ha, or at least those over 20ha, have ALC surveys undertaken in order to determine the ALC grade and help inform master planning and soil handling going forward.

Object

Representation ID: 24286

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

I am opposed to building on this site as it is on the Green Belt. Planning Policy clearly states that unless there are exceptional circumstances then Geen Belt should not be released for building. Policy SP5 –Green Belt and SP8 –Housing Growth are narrative statements which are subjective and are no justification for releasing this Green Belt site for housing.
There are other brownfield sites within the district and these should all be utilised first before any Green Belt is built on.
The Conservation Area is very close to this site and any large development will adversely impact and conflict with the nature of this area. A conservation area is purposely to conserve and preserve the local character and historic value of the local area. A large housing site would therefore not be appropriate.
I am informed by local residents that there is an array of wildlife on this site so any building would need to be supported by a Habitat Regulation Assessment.
The local landscape and character would be hugely changed and would be overdevelopment.
Part of this site is on is within the flood risk areas and should not be built on.

Object

Representation ID: 28254

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Member of Parliament (Conservative)

Green belt should not be considered for development as it is in contravention to Governments aims and objectives.
Local Authorities should maximise the use of brownfield sites before considering changes to Green Belt boundaries.
There are no exceptional circumstances to justify releasing sites from Green Belt protection. All other reasonable options to meet housing need should be considered.
Inadequate proposals have been presented with regards to upgrading local infrastructure to cope with proposed extra housing. and extra pressures on local services.
There is no clear vision to increase passenger capacity on local public transport. This is in contravention to the Governments Decarbonising Transport strategic priority.
No justification for the proposed housing numbers identified to warrant removal of areas of Green Belt.