HA1/H - Worstead Road, Crossroads

Comment

Representation ID: 1102

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Mr William Quinn

We do not need any more unaffordable "lego" housing estates. More stress on struggling schools, Drs, playground, sewers and already ruined local roads. Green spaces are good for mental health and filling them with bricks and concrete is unacceptable. Especially when they are so expensive. The people that need homes cant afford these properties.
Profit before local people wishes. BCMDC should be ashamed. Less and less funding for crumbling services whilst charging people more and more then building on the only green spaces that are left.

Object

Representation ID: 1542

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jessica Archibald

The land proposed supports a great deal of biodiversity. I have been astonished by the nature at the back of the house, with bats, many moth caterpillars, including the elephant hawk moth, all sorts of beetles and so many birds. In the current climate crises I think it is crucial that we protect the wildlife we still have. Have surveys been undertaken? The site is also proposed to come off Halifax Road, a major route for large lorries out of Keighley and is already very congested with fumes and traffic jams making daily life for people living there unhealthy and miserable. The local primary schools are full. To add more houses to a community that cannot support the people living there with jobs and schools would be foolish and only encourage more commuting which would contribute to more pollution.

Object

Representation ID: 1568

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Mr James Thornton

Land is not suitable for house and its home to loads off wild and it will destroy the view and overcrowd the village

Object

Representation ID: 1598

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Petar Ogrizovic

HA1/H proposed Worstead Road site.
I live near the site, when the church was built 30 odd years ago Worstead Road was given to the council by the church to provide parking for locals, how would this affect parking for residents? Have parking issues been considered, as Worstead Road provides a great relief to the residents parking.

Object

Representation ID: 3276

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Abbie Lawson

I have concerns with the proposed development site HA1/H regarding increased traffic congestion along Halifax Road, there are insufficient amenities within Cross Roads to serve the local residents already, therefore having to travel to Keighley or surrounding villages. A proposal of another 70 dwellings will increase traffic and local air pollution caused by the increase of vehicles on the road. There is also an abundance of wildlife which will be compromised with a new development. The field in question is usually boggy, a development will cause further flooding around the area, what will be done to rectify this?

Object

Representation ID: 3595

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Allison Ogrizovic

Plans for 70 houses off Worstead road Cross Roads . The village and school is far too small to accommodate such a large housing development. The road is far too busy as it is without adding a huge amount of additional traffic coming out in to Halifax road , and not ignoring the added pollution !! There is very limited parking for the residents around Bocking and many people have to park on worsted road. The area is not suitable for such a development and not needed ! Leave our small village alone ,we do not want our village to become another over crowded area like some others have become. we want to
provide a safe environment for our children to live

Object

Representation ID: 3732

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Sarah Garner

I feel that if farming is to continue in the area like it has for generations that farmers field should be protected and more support for them.

The field is not near any shops or local infrastructure and the kind of houses the area needs are for older people and young families, with the busy Halifax road to cross with no crossing and a mile to walk to Lees this will endanger lives.

The field also floods on occasion and there is the railway tunnel under this site what will be done for those factors or will we be creating problems for future generations?

Object

Representation ID: 5973

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Kathryn Gower

This area HA1/H has been on the ‘at risk’ list for about 30 years to my certain knowledge since Cllr. Mike Ellis brought it to the attention of the then Village Association which I was a member of. Basically, it’s Greenbelt or pasture. Whatever it’s called, the villages of Lees, Cross Roads and Bocking are expanding in all directions. Our roads are already overfull for most of every day with regular impasses and the essential services are already creaking, ie the school in Lees cannot expand any further as the site is very limited and Haworth Medical Practice is also limited by size. The fields this is targeted at are an important area of footpaths linked to the old main route to Hainworth. Brownfield sites should always be used first and no field should be touched. This is a promise that has been made and should be adhered to.

Object

Representation ID: 6028

Received: 02/03/2021

Respondent: Julia Sunderland

I wish to object to the building of 70 houses on this land. The access to the already busy Halifax Road would be a nightmare. The local Schools are already full, as is the doctors!

The development would not only impact my business with the constant noise, but restrict the natural daylight entering my garden and property, and I’m presuming the trees will be removed also!

Object

Representation ID: 7159

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: 15751

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Anne Arana

I object to building which infringes on the green belt and does not use the many brownfield sites throughout the district.

Cross Roads is misspelt as one word. And why is Cross Roads lumped with Haworth? The three villages of Stanbury, Haworth, and Lees & Cross Roads all have very different characteristics and identity.

Road are already congested, schools and doctors are over subscribed.

The plan states there are two schools in Haworth and two parks. This is not true. Lees Primary is in the village of Lees, which you call Cross Roads. Cross Roads park is a mile away from Haworth.

The proposals will adversely impact the environment and air quality.

Adverse impacts on tourism - even as a local resident I do not wish to drive through a "tunnel" of houses which is what is happening now at Oakworth and Bogthorn with the views across the valley obscured.

Object

Representation ID: 18234

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

HA1/H Worstead Road
There are access issues that would need addressing with a careful highway design. There is no pedestrian crossing across Halifax Road to get to the opposite side of Cross Roads where facilities such as the primary school and shops are located so any development would need to take this into account. The site is steep so drainage issues would need to be dealt with so water does not run from the site onto Halifax Road. It is a greenfield site so any development would need to be carefully designed to ensure adequate screening and green spaces are kept.

Comment

Representation ID: 28691

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.

Object

Representation ID: 29627

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Mr William Quinn

•Plan goes against the government’s plan to protect green spaces and will have a great impact on existing housing.
•Properties on Myrtle View will be greatly impacted by the development through noise, loss of property value and impact on wildlife.
•Concern that with 70 properties built on this site nothing will be spent on overburdened school and pre-school, local playground, existing sewage system, resurfacing of pot holed roads.
•Concern not many of the properties will be affordable. That they will be well beyond the reach of people who need housing.
•Council should listen to the people – they do not want field and green spaces built on.
•Green Spaces keep area attractive, support wildlife and help people’s mental health.
•Plans are likely to go ahead because of money. People who pay council tax year after year receive less and less.