OX1/H - Crossfield Road

Object

Representation ID: 422

Received: 24/02/2021

Respondent: Mr Stephen Glanville

Summarised by Local Plan Team from email received 25/2/21
Inappropriate development in the green belt
Development may not be in keeping with the context and scale of the local area
Site access - only one access proposed which will create congestion
Local Amenities are inadequate- further housing will add pressure
Local infrastructure - electrical supply and drains are inadequate
Development will cause increased traffic, noise and road safety issues

Object

Representation ID: 790

Received: 05/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Robert Sunderland

I object to altering the boundary of the Green Belt just because it looks a better boundary. What is the point of a Green Belt if it can be altered to build on when the point was to exclude this very thing?
The buildings will severely compromise the views across the valley.
The sight lines for traffic exiting Crossfield Road onto Moorhouse Lane are very bad and extra traffic will make it dangerous.
20 houses proposed for this site is too great a density.

Object

Representation ID: 942

Received: 08/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Anthony Holmes

Building on this greenbelt is unjustified.
Oxenhope provides sufficient infill housing. In 12years 2005/17, 68 houses have planning approval. A windfall rate of 5.7dwellings/year.
Sufficient land in Oxenhope is available without expansion into greenbelt. Eg Land adjacent to Wadsworth Mill
Prioritising allocation of brownfield and non-Green Belt sites first and then taking a measured and sensitive approach to Green Belt release where further growth cannot be accommodated within current settlement boundaries
20 houses on this site is unacceptable. Adjacent existing developments have a density of 9.3dph. The proposal is 33.3dph!
Also potential offroad parking for 40+ vehicles is unachievable.
This development would have a detrimental impact on the landscape.
Paragraph 87 of NPPF states ‘inappropriate development is by definition harmful to greenbelt and shouldn’t be approved except in special circumstances.
Housing target can be delivered without greenbelt development.

Object

Representation ID: 1217

Received: 10/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Hazell Beattie

This will be yet another green space near the centre of the village that will disappear if approval is given.
There are very few green spaces left in the village.
There has been sufficient houses built in the village in recent years i.e. across from the bottom of Jew Lane, half way up Moorhouse Lane, near the top of Moorhouse Lane Waterside to name but a few.
There is sufficient affordable housing in the village.
Why is it necessary to build any more houses!

Object

Representation ID: 1256

Received: 11/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Shaun Longhorn

Objection:
- Damage to the setting of the Oxenhope Station Conservation Area
- Destruction of the green infrastructure corridor and loss of natural habitats
- permanent loss of village green routes
- development within a flood zone
- increased pressure on oxenhope's roads, services and recreation areas.
- No meaningful contribution to housing stock or affordability.

Object

Representation ID: 2220

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Eileen Holmes

This village green area ( enclosed on one side by a stream and 200 m from 2 copses, a farm and barn) is a perfect example of a conservation corridor.
In 2019 two deer sheltered and grazed here, 2020 there were three, in 2021?
A rare barn owl lives in the barn and hunts over the field.
The two copses support nesting birds including Jays and Woodpeckers; the deer graze early morning, pheasants, rabbits during the day and in the evening bats and the occasional fox.
This green area is more than a field; it’s a diverse environment worthy of preservation and an asset to the village.

Object

Representation ID: 2224

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Eric Breare Design

The site is within the Green Belt and protected from development.
No point in having a Green Belt if land is allowed to be developed, This devalues Green Belt .
Severe effect on Woodland and TPO.
Surface water flooding at 40% . Major adverse effects have been predicted for the climate change resilience SA Objective, this is too great to develop the site.
Flooding would surcharge sewer, flooding raw sewerage into adjacent properties.
Site access too narrow and too steep for adopted roads at 1in 10 gradient, land too narrow at access for excavations near to existing trees.
Access not in same ownership, residents will not allow there land to be used.
Other more suitable land is available on Denholme Road Leeming. SHLAA reference OX/001, land should not be green space because it does not contribute in any way to the setting of the area.

Object

Representation ID: 2841

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Angela Jowett

OX1/H is greenbelt land and changing the greenbelt status of this land would impact the whole village not only by causing a massive visual impact from all surrounding areas but have serious consequences on the greenspace affecting the wildlife including protected species like bats and otters.
The field in question slopes at quite a gradient, it is very wet as any water sipes its way down from the surrounding fields to Moorhouse beck. So this is very unlikely to attract affordable housing as building alone will need to involve costly drainage work and there will still be the possibility of long standing water and flooding
We also understand that approximately 25+ planning/consents have already been approved but as yet have not been commenced and we strongly believe that the rest will be taken up by derelict barns and mills.

Object

Representation ID: 3052

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Helen Tarry

Access issues via Crossfield Road (parked cars already an issue causing road narrowing). Extra car journeys, traffic and pollution. Potential to adversely affect settings of nearby grade II listed buildings. Impact on openness of Green Belt. Risk of surface water flooding. Protection of wildlife habitat. Potential to affect privacy and quality of life of current residents.

Object

Representation ID: 3458

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Chris Yoxall

I hereby object to the proposed housing developments on Crossfield Rd. There is wildlife in the form of deer, rabbits and birds that appear to reside in the planned field. The village school is oversubscribed in some classes and bringing more people to the village would only make this situation worse. The village doesn't have sufficient infrastructure to cope with more people to reside here. For instance, Oxenhope does not have a Doctors Surgery, the transport system could not cope with more people. Oxenhope is home to small roadways which would struggle with additional traffic. As more households have a second car, there would be problems with parking within the village. This would be particular noticeable during rush hour periods such as school pick up and drop off times. Especially seeing as though the other proposed housing development is on Cross Lane (which leads up to the school).

Object

Representation ID: 3464

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Rebecca Yoxall

I object to the proposed site on Crossfield Road.
There is abundant habitat at the proposed site which would invariably be affected.
The increase in housing, whether at Crossfield Rd, or Cross Lane in turn will affect the highways. The roads are currently already struggling with parking a big issue, especially around retail sites in the village and the school, in particular around the Co-op which is a bottleneck.
This village is in an area of outstanding beauty and a hotspot for tourists and walkers. Should Oxenhope be developed further, this will in turn affect what attracts walkers to this area therefore the economy reliant on tourism.
Surely there are still brown sites undeveloped within the Bradford District with existing infrastructure? The fact that these proposed fields (Crossfield Road and Cross Lane) drain into the beck which so often floods at Haworth should be a great cause for concern!

Object

Representation ID: 3521

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Georgina King

In summary:
- the field at OX1/H is waterlogged and risks excess runoff and increased discharge in Bridgehouse Beck, contributing to flooding in Haworth.
- biodiversity will be reduced due to habitat loss
- access to the site is poor due to parking on Crossfield Road
- the pullout onto Moorhouse Lane is dangerous and risks accidents with a further 20-40 vehicles using it (2-4 per property)
- Oxenhope and surroundings lacks adequate services to support an additional 20-80 residents. E.g. capacity of doctors, school and coop.
- Driving through the village is already difficult at peak times, particularly past the coop and out through Leeming. This would be exasperated by further residents.
- Lack of frequent buses means it is difficult to rely on this as a sustainable way to commute.
- Internet speeds in parts of the village are poor and further demand will not help this.

Object

Representation ID: 3601

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Michelle Dawson

Plenty of houses already being built/conversions/extensions.
Local infrastructure will not support these additional builds. Local school already at capacity.

Object

Representation ID: 4457

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jacky King

OX1/H is Green Belt. Removing this protection allows destruction of a landscape which provides habitat connectivity; protection for wildlife and promotes biodiversity.
It is within 2.5km of South Pennine Moors SPA/SAC designed to protect birds, other species and habitats. Some of which have red conservation status in the UK.
Already prone to flooding, development here would cause further fluvial flooding risk further downstream.
Additional vehicular use of Crossfield Road at the junction of Moorhouse Lane will increase congestion and safety risks at this difficult junction.
The density of housing proposed is incongruous to the current housing density in the area and would detrimentally affect the visual character of the village.
The number of houses planned for this site alone equals the Remaining Allocation Requirement (20). Totally unnecessary in the light of the long term nature of the plan and other smaller infill building possibilities.

Object

Representation ID: 4484

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Peter King

Loss of greenbelt
Loss of green space / habitat
Traffic / infrastructure issues
Flood risk / sustainability impact
Development not necessary in the timescales
Visual impact from surrounding areas

Object

Representation ID: 5478

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: CPRE West Yorkshire

In line with our comments on policy SP5, we object to the site allocation OX1/H.

Object

Representation ID: 5583

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Benjamin Sutcliffe

Where do I start! Firstly why take away green belt and ruin natural habitat ie Deers that roam there among numerous others.

This is a ridiculous suggestion of a housing estate due to overstretching the local facilities ie school, Coop (only shop in the village) and the sewage infrastructure.

The junction at the end of the road to Moorhouse Lane is treacherous enough to get out of due to bad visibility and add LOADS more traffic could be a disaster so that would have to be widened! Also no fibre broadband available in the area so not appealing to new buyers. Obvious suggestion, reuse derelict already built up places to create new housing and leave our green belt alone!!!!!!

Also as a side note are you planning
on compensating the residents due to devaluing the house prices as we bought into a quiet safe road not the proposed massive estate!

Object

Representation ID: 8067

Received: 08/03/2021

Respondent: Reverend Cat Thatcher

The development will damage the setting of the Oxenhope Station Conservation Area. It will contribute to the destruction of the Green Infrastructure Corridor, and the loss of important natural habitats for wildlife and loss of the character of the village and the green space.
Oxenhope's limited local services and narrow roads will be significantly impacted by these two developments - no GP within the village and access is already problematic at Haworth Medical Practice, roads in and out of the village are narrow and steep, and at rush hour are already busy, only one bus an hour through the village, traffic impact negatively on the safety of children arriving at and leaving the primary school each day.
The houses proposed will make no meaningful impact on the targets required for Bradford Council either in respect of housing stock or affordable housing.
There are many brownfield sites in Bradford, Shipley and Keighley which are much more suitable

Object

Representation ID: 14118

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Paula & Ernie Lambert

Historic character must be protected and setting of heritage assets enhanced – will not be achieved by building 20/40 houses.

Flooding – drainage system inadequate and cannot cope with flash/surface flooding. Gulleys often blocked and heavy rainfall causes surface flooding. Building could only increase risks. OX1/H - in FZ1 and 40% subject to High & Medium Surface Water Flooding. Major Adverse Effect predicted for Climate Change Resilience SA Objective.

OX2/H - ‘Major Adverse Effect’. Overlaps with land in FZ2 & FZ3 and thin band same area is at High Risk of Surface Water Flooding. Could pose risk to water quality in Moorhouse Beck.

Schools – has no room to expand. How would it deal with demand? No direct bus route and walking route to secondary school in Cullingworth. More investigation needed.

Traffic – danger of pollution from standing traffic and to pedestrians due to increased traffic. Need more detailed explanation.

Parking – where would visitors park?

Benefits – cannot foresee any great benefits that would outweigh detriment of building on the two sites.

Station Road Conservation Area – street scene of railway station would be adversely affected.

Green Areas/Wildlife – area home to wildlife. Where would it go if it is built on. Would not preserve openness of the Green Belt. Loss of green space not outweighed by benefit of new homes.

Very Special Circumstances – none demonstrated.

Visual/Spatial Impact – 20 - 40 new builds would be overwhelming, inappropriate and conflict with aims of preserving openness of green spaces and Green Belt.

Object

Representation ID: 15664

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Graham Wright

Concerns about the plan to build 20 houses at Crossfield Road.

Sewer system is at its capacity, the main drain is an old salt glazed 6" pipe and is not fit for the purpose.

The village isn't big enough for all these houses with only 1 small primary school, a chemist and one food shop. The village has no doctors. The village does not have the local facilities to cope with these new houses.

Car congestion on Station Road due to the only food shop there with parking on either sides of the road, the same on Hebden Road from the mini roundabout to Harry Lane, it is just too dangerous, Shaw Lane is the same with a mill being converted into apartments.

Is it feasible for building companies to make money on green belt sites, when there are plenty of brown belt sites.
Gas mains do not have the capacity to put on gas pressure for more and more homes.

Object

Representation ID: 17136

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Hugh Bevan

Objection to proosed 20 dwellings on OX1/H Crossfield Rd

Issues of conern:

Flooding and drainage - housing development in the village has caused flooding issues in the gardens in my area and these problems will be exacerbated.

Increase in traffic in the village. There are already problems at junctions such as Crossfield Rd / Moorhouse Lane.

Parking in Moorhead Lane - people park on the Moorhead Lane / Crossfield and walk to the station to use the Worth Valley railway causing problems for buses. These issues will worsen.

Object

Representation ID: 18045

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Andrew Stammers

Number of people: 2

Our objections to the application are:
- damage to the setting of the Oxenhope station conservation area;
- building on yet another green field will result in the loss of natural habitats;
- increased pressure on the local roads, with potential for each house to have 2 cars = 48 cars!
- increased pressure on local doctors, schools and dentist. There are no doctor surgery or dentist provision in Oxenhope.

The council should look to use up the brown field sites locally that could be developed for housing - for example a large site at Denholme Clough has been derelict for many years. Also, regenerate the council/social housing that are empty and boarded up before building on green fields. It always seems this is the easiest option for both builders and councils.

Object

Representation ID: 18245

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

OX1/H Crossfield Road
This site is in the green belt and there are no exceptional circumstances demonstrated to why it needs to be developed. The site has surface water flooding and would need extensive work to deal with the flooding. It would impact on the visual amenity and landscape of the village from the South Pennine Moors.

The access onto Moorhouse Lane is at a difficult junction with limited visibility that would need to be taken account of.

Object

Representation ID: 18413

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Charles Ratcliffe

•The site at Crossfield Road should not be identified for development as it undermines the Green Belt designation and sets a precedence for Green Belt erosion.

Support

Representation ID: 19882

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Beck Homes (UK) Ltd

Agent: JWPC Limited

•Full support for the allocation of this site for housing.
•The proposed allocation is identified for 20 houses which is representative of a standard density approach. However, the number of dwellings which can be accommodate is likely to be lower, taking into consideration the nature of the site and the most appropriate sizes and mix.
•The site is effectively a correction of the Green Belt boundary as it will provide a more defensible Green Belt boundary around the settlement of Oxenhope.
•With no legal or technical matters preventing a start on site once planning permission is granted, and it is the intention of the landowners to submit an application upon the adoption of the plan, the delivery timescales should be moved to 1.-5 years.
•The landowner can confirm that the access into the site can be made up to adoptable standards.

Comment

Representation ID: 19894

Received: 01/04/2021

Respondent: Natural England

The site lies in proximity to the South Pennine Moors (Phase 2) SPA and has potential to lead to the loss of functionally linked land for SPA birds.

We welcome the approach taken in the draft plan, SPD and assessments to loss of functionally linked land.

The council has a copy of a model to identify the suitability of sites for SPA golden plover and recommend that allocations are screened against this dataset taking the following approach:

• Maximum Training Sensitivity plus Specificity (MTSS) layer: full survey for Golden Plover likely to be required. The WY Ecology Service SPA Bird Survey Methodology should be followed.

• Minimum Training Presence (MTP) layer or 10 Percentile Training Presence (10PTP) layer: scoping survey to determine if a full Golden Plover full survey required. A desk based survey may be sufficient for sites within the MTP whereas a walkover survey may be required for sites within the 10PTP;

• Not within an area of predicted presence: No survey required for Golden Plover.

Where loss of functionally linked land cannot be ruled out at this stage we recommend that allocation requirement text in the plan sets out survey and mitigation requirements clearly.

Object

Representation ID: 23748

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Paul Wray

Oxenhope is a village with restricted services/facilities including public transport.

Inconsistent with RUDP locational principals;

Residents will be reliant on cars rather than sustainable transport. Site’s sustainability characteristics mean it would fail to contribute to it.

Provides open break in built-up area and continuation of extensive open spaces.

Village is linear rather than nuclear. Rounding off not always appropriate.

Open spaces are important. Development may be harmful and should be refused where it would result in their loss.

Has good tree cover. Adjoining area is identified in Village Design Statement as village green space. Should be retained and Design Statement accorded some weight.

Would be overbearing on adjacent properties, leading to over-shadowing and loss of amenity

Loss of open space & visual amenity

Impact on village character, trees, wildlife & flooding

Development may not be in keeping.

Site entrances a concern - only one to each. Would cause congestion, access & safety issues;

Infrastructure (drains, electricity, gas) needs to be reviewed.

Will increase traffic, congestion, noise & road safety issues.

Object

Representation ID: 28263

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.

Comment

Representation ID: 28699

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: 29276

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Environment Agency

Sites that are adjacent to or include rivers and becks within their boundary must make full consideration of the value of these features for biodiversity and green-blue infrastructure, as well as the wildlife habitat network.

The existing biodiversity and green-blue infrastructure along these rivers/becks must be protected, and opportunity should be taken to enhance this Green-Blue Infrastructure including habitat enhancement to achieve 10% net gain in the riverine element of BNG.

As stated previously in relation to the policies, it is particularly important to recognise that rivers and becks cannot be replaced elsewhere, and that continuity of habitat along them is essential to maintaining and improving their ecological condition, and in maximising their contribution to green networks. These sites include (this is not a comprehensive list of all sites with rivers and becks):

o OX1/H Moorhouse Beck.