HA2/H - Lees Lane, Crossroads

Object

Representation ID: 737

Received: 04/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Cheryl Bleasdale

1) there needs to be access direct off of lees lane. Access via Cryer Meadows is not viable due to the water pumping station.
2) when the houses on cryer meadows / Midgley drive were originally built there were a load of water / sewerage issues which required additional works. This will need to be proactively addressed if you decide to build more houses because my understanding is the current sewerage system couldn’t cope with just the houses on Midgley drive / cryer meadows and this caused serious problems.

Object

Representation ID: 742

Received: 04/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jo-Hanna Beresford

I am concerned about the level of traffic that these dwellings will generate through Cryer Meadows/Midgley Drive. There is a potential that the new households will have one, two or more cars each, which will mean a significantly higher number of cars in our area. This would impact noise and air quality and will be less safe for our children. Midgley Drive is also very narrow and not suitable for this level of traffic. I am also concerned about losing green space from our area and the impact to the established ‘group of trees’ in this site. With this and HA3/H, there will be houses stretching from Crossroads to Haworth with no green open space to enjoy.

Object

Representation ID: 746

Received: 04/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Dawn Thewlis

Having spoken to most of my neighbours from this small and friendly community - not one person welcomes the building of the new homes. These houses would change our environment from a very quiet and peaceful area to an estate with loads more cars and all the associated problems that comes with that. Access would also be an issue. Our homes will be overlooked and there would be noise and added pollution.
Haworth would be practically connected to Crossroad if this development goes ahead and I fear that if building and expansion to Haworth continues as it is, this will no longer be a village.

Comment

Representation ID: 1023

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Mr David Langford

Wow, proposed building on a 'flood zone 1' now thats just a fantastic proposal. Are we not having enough problems with flooding now never mind in the future

Object

Representation ID: 1484

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Phil Fox

There is already significant new housing development in this area between Cross Roads and Haworth! (Applies to HA2 & HA3) This will lead to overdevelopment and there are currently problems with the water drainage of the current Cryer Meadows estate with Yorkshire Water in regular attendance carrying out maintenance work on the sophisticated pumps necessary for effective operation! The fields are currently used by horses as beautiful lush green fields! I have already requested a detailed development plan for HA2 but have been informed that this is not yet available! The last plan for this site was I believe around year 2008.
Please consider Ivy Bank HA6 for further extended development as an alternative where this brownfield site provides greater opportunity for housing with the associated improvement to the neglected unsightly land already in existence.

Object

Representation ID: 1563

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Louise Hardcastle

This area has been allocated village green space and should therefore be left as such. There are 8 trees in this designation with TPO's which would undoubtedly be affected by building on the surrounding area. Along with the HA3/H there is the potential for 60+ more cars to be travelling through the current Cryer Meadows estate causing safety issues for the existing residents. What thought has been put into where all the children will play if you are taking away the green space? Will they play on the road and get run over by all the extra cars?

Object

Representation ID: 2970

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Richard Morris

There are several factors with building on this site,
- Loss of privacy, building on this site will overlook existing properties below
- Loss of light, from overshadow properties
- Past problems with underground pipes / due to movement & erosion of sandstone. Risk of further movement.
- Risk of flooding from redirection of underground streams / water off hill side
- Strain on local resources e.g. schools / roads / congestion at crossroads
- Ability of water piping station to cope with additional burden of large number of properties
- movement of local wildlife - deer / pheasant etc

Object

Representation ID: 5977

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Kathryn Gower

Basically, this area is effectively a very important barrier between Lees & Cross Roads and Haworth. It is essential that the villages do not join up as each have distinct needs and personality. Greenbelt or pasture, whatever it’s called, the villages of Lees & Cross Roads are already expanding with the arbor Mills development, enough is enough. 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. 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: 6045

Received: 02/03/2021

Respondent: Elaine Smith

There has been many new houses surrounding Lawcliffe over the years. We have had to endure wagons and building at all hours for many years. Haworth is a tourist attraction and after the year we have just had should remain a tourist attraction not a built up area with new houses. The schools are already struggling to cope with the amount of new students moving into the area and the roads are busier by at least 50%. Lees lane will not cope with anymore upheaval as it is the main road into Haworth. The HA2/H and HA3/H proposed sites are the only green fields left in our area and should remain that way for our wildlife as well as the local children. There is far too many houses (new and old) in this area. I am interested to know the councils thoughts on this subject

Object

Representation ID: 6323

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Mr terence holdsworth

HA2/H, HA3/H, Haworth is the jewel in Bradford's crown. Tourists do not come from across the world (esp. Japanese) to see housing estates. they expect open fields and dry stone walls. Look at previous new builds, stand at the junction of Cryer Meadows and Lees Lane and you will find three styles of walling never before seen in Haworth. Visit Long Acres estate see the ugliest walls imaginable. What used to be gentle rising fields from Vale Mill Lane, now has been changed with a massive raised level of land so much so that the houses stand on concrete rafts. Travelling up Lees lane from Mill Hey look to the left and note the large concrete slabs supporting Cryer Meadows, the housing looks like army barracks. ( I lived in better better looking accommodation 5yrs in R.A.F.) My main objection is the style of build PLUS altering the land levels.

Object

Representation ID: 7160

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: 8014

Received: 08/03/2021

Respondent: Jean and Steve Exley

As residents of Haworth for many years my wife and myself have seen the gradual errosion of the green space around our village by new housing,if this carries on we will become just another over built village, and not a very Important visitor center.
It appears that Skipton properties are God as far as Bradford council are concerned and,why do no other builders apply for or get planning permission to build?
If we carry on down this road which despite what the council say, is not sustainable we will lose all our wildlife as well, and when I say that I mean foxes, badgers,pheasants,ducks and many more species small animals and birds.

Object

Representation ID: 8193

Received: 11/03/2021

Respondent: Clive & Beverley Orgles & Foster

Number of people: 2

I object to a building development in the Greenfield sites HA3/H and HA2/H because of its destructive environmental impact on wildlife including numerous birds listed, hedgehogs, butterflies and trees.

The local Primary Schools cannot accommodate an extra 100+ children from houses at HA2/H, HA3/H and Ebor Mills.

The local roads cannot safely accommodate the increased volume of cars. Especially on Ebor Lane (narrow with blind bends) but also at the Ebor Lane/Lees Lane junction (difficult dangerous junction) and the Cryer Meadows Lees/ Lane junction. Ebor Lane is very dangerous for children to walk up to school as no footpath from Ebor Mill up to Mytholmes Lane, it is very narrow (only single car in places) and has blind bends. Any parents walking children up this lane to school would be at risk of serious injury or death. I doubt if any parents would risk this and will thus drive to school considerably increasing the traffic on Ebor Lane and Lees Lane with ensuing traffic congestion and increased risks of road traffic crashes and injury.

Object

Representation ID: 15752

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: 16507

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Anita Selby

Object to houses being built on greenfield or Green Belt sites when all options for new housing on inner town/city areas haven't been exhausted. Change plans to explore all brownfield options first.

Keighley town centre – lots of empty buildings. Could be converted to flats or dwellings. On the outskirts there are derelict areas that could be built on first without encroaching fields from the villages, or building in more desirable areas.

Object that proposals will be for 3/4 bed executive housing especially in villages. Does Keighley need all housing that is proposed?

Could consideration be given to building sheltered housing/wardened flats for the over 60s or some bungalows?

Reconsider plans to build on Green Belt and greenfield sites. Is against current thinking about climate change, preserving the environment, nature and wellbeing. Should cherish green/open spaces. Policy is Green Belt land should be protected and to prevent sprawl.

Object

Representation ID: 18235

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

HA2/H Off Lees Lane
This green space is a key buffer between Cross Roads and Haworth. It runs close to Murgatroyd Woods so any development could have environmental impacts on the wildlife. Traffic on Lees Lane would be impacted together with the village infrastructure.

Object

Representation ID: 27985

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr & Mrs A. and C Dewhirst

Number of people: 2

-Impact on environment and wildlife - as many as 30 species inhabit this area, in addition to insects and small mammals (such as voles, mice and hedgehogs).
-Would represent a loss of a wildlife corridor.
-Other Brown Field sites available which are more suited to these proposals.
- Unsustainable pressure on local amenities
-Impact on local school capacity. This, in addition to the Ebor Mills development, would result in approximately 100+ further school places which would be impossible for local schools to accommodate.
- Road Safety - Traffic from new houses onto Lees Lane, would increase the traffic on what are already busy roads. Further exacerbated by the difficulties around the availability of footpaths at parts of Lees Lane.
- Hebden Road and Ebor Lane are already in serious risk of becoming serious accident blackspots.
-Planning - previous plans submitted for this site include parts of several private gardens areas. Boundaries must be checked.

Comment

Representation ID: 28692

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: 29431

Received: 29/03/2021

Respondent: Historic England

The site is 100 metres east of the Grade II listed Ebor Mill and located on a hillside overlooking the mill. The development of this area could harm elements which contribute to the significance of this designated heritage asset. The site proforma for this site makes no reference to the sites proximity to Ebor Mills, or to the need to ensure that those elements which contribute to the significance of this designated heritage asset are not harmed by development.

a) Add a reference to the sites proximity to the Grade II Listed Ebor Mills under the Constraints and Opportunities section of the site pro forma.
b) Add the following additional Development Consideration to the site pro forma: ‘Consider the impact of development on the setting of the Grade II Listed Ebor Mills and appropriately avoid/minimise any harm caused.’