QB4/H - Brighouse Road

Object

Representation ID: 5660

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Leanne Kellett

An additional 40 houses using a road that Bellway have firstly never finished (despite the last house being built some time ago) is not sustainable. Additionally the traffic in and out will make it quite noisy for us and dangerous based on the entrance/exit to the estate on to an already busy and fast road. You would need additional speed measures. Further strain of another 40 houses on the doctors and schools

Object

Representation ID: 5697

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Adele Mattok

I bought my home on the premise that building would be completed and that’ll once done there would be no other building, not happy that now the building work here is finally complete there are plans to use the road as access to a new building site when traffic is already bad for the estate. I bought this home due to its quiet location and more housing will add to more issues. I object to this for the fact there will be more building work and more traffic and will obscure my view and remove land where animals roam.

Object

Representation ID: 5727

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Kirsty Rhodes

I object to the plans due to the current lack of services already within the area.
Doctors, primary schools and secondary schools are already oversubscribed.
Traffic flow along Brighouse road is significantly high and the effect of another at least 40-80 more vehicles on this route would pose further risk to life due to pollution/accidents/vulnerable pedestrian road users.

Object

Representation ID: 5734

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Heidi Atkins

Wildlife live in and use this green area, this include rabbits, deer, owls and bats.

Sewage - there have been many issues with drainage of sewage, which impacts the water levels in the toilets and causes dirty water to come up through the plughole in the bath. More housing could impact this.

Additional traffic congestion and lack of available parking spaces. There are an excess of homeowners vehicles who are parking on the streets, making access and egress to the estate difficult especially in bad weather. It becomes increasingly difficult to walk around the estate, especially with a pram, resulting in walking in the road.

Object

Representation ID: 5794

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Kimberley Theakston

I object to the construction of the houses on this land. The traffic is already horrendous and puts a lot of strain on facilities around like the doctors and dentists which are already so hard to get into. Green fields are getting less in the area and just because people want to make a bit money. Queensbury cannot cope and it’s not fair to make everyone else suffer with the amenities around. This should not be done.

Object

Representation ID: 5796

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Laura Stones

I object to:
Noise of construction
Noise of increased traffic
Spoiling if the view of the golf course and the green belt house which is one of the reasons why I bought my property.
Damaging of wildlife
The estate I currently live in has been under construction for several years and is yet to be finished.

Object

Representation ID: 5802

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Robert Licznerski

I object as the view we paid for will disappear and I would of not bought my house. I have an email from Bellway saying that land will not be built on hence the purchase of my house.

It will effect the local wildlife that can be seen everyday in the area such as deers, birds foxes.

It will also effect the parking on the street which we struggle with on a weekly basis from bin collection not been collected due to access or delivery’s to the house.

I sometime can not get to my house due to the parking issue. There is no space at the local doctor for me to register hence we are registered in Halifax and the same for dental care.

Object

Representation ID: 5803

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Leanne baziw

One entry/exit only, further 40 dwellings likely to cause in excess of 80 more vehicles in an already busy development with limited access.

Object

Representation ID: 5811

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Jason Baziw

The entrance and exit to this site is busy enough without 40 further dwellings. Perhaps Bellway should finish the site they have already started at Queenshead Park instead of planning another site that could take 6-10years to develop!!

Object

Representation ID: 5816

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Natalie Licznerski

I strongly object to the development and the main reason I brought here was due to the view as there is a lot of wildlife urban deer, wild rabbits, foxes, birds etc which can be see daily. Additionally there currently is massive issues with parking and this will most definitely worsen. At a weekend we struggle to access our property on The Harrowins due to this issue. Furthermore having a new housing development directly opposite our house will most definitely devalue my property and that of many residents as the green open space which is a vista for many properties will be taken away, even though we were promised this would never happen upon buying on this development. If planning permission is granted many residents I have spoken with including myself will have no choice to sell our homes and move.

Object

Representation ID: 5829

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Ricky Athwal

Additional housing will cause traffic and congestion with increased health & safety risk. Additional population will result in schools and doctors being oversubscribed.

Object

Representation ID: 5847

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Maree Hensby

1. Area has lots of wildlife including deers which roam the area and would lose their habitat.
2. Black dyke view and the harrowins sold as cul de sacs. Children play on the street and increasing traffic would be a risk to life.
3. The local roads and infrastructure including doctors and schools cannot manage with current housing levels, more homes would increase this pressure.
4. Area is greenbelt and as mentioned above is the habitat of wildlife. Greenbelt land is essential to preserve the beauty of the area and open space

Object

Representation ID: 5875

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Joe Harbon

Get them to complete what they started before moving on to build more ! Sewers not adopted from the standing site ! Roads/ footpaths left unmade !

Object

Representation ID: 5969

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Wayne Gott

I object to this, this development site already has traffic and parking issues, and in winter its horrendous with people parking all over and on the main road due to the steep hill been hard to get out. This causes a massive obstruction and congestion to our roads. Adding 40 more houses will only make this situation worse. I have also seen wildlife around that area and building houses there will take that away. I brought my house under the understanding that space could not be built on due to sewage pump and green belt, I wanted a quite peaceful home to bring my children up on and this will cause nuisance, traffic noise, and more dangerous for children playing out.

Object

Representation ID: 5976

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr William Nolan

I would like to support Queensbury Golf Club site being included in the local plan as more housing is needed in Queensbury as I also believe this would be a better option than Fleet Lane suggestion as the site would also have a better infrastructure that would easily support more housing.

Object

Representation ID: 8144

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: CPRE West Yorkshire

In line with our comments on policy SP5, we object to these site allocations:

QB1/H
QB4/H
QB5/H
QB6/H
QB8/H
QB9/H

Our recommended approach to density would mean that it should not be necessary for all of these sites to be allocated in order to meet the settlements development needs.

Support

Representation ID: 10944

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: P&D Northern Asset Management

Agent: Pegasus Group (Manchester)

We actively support the proposed allocations at QB4/H and QB5/H which are located to the north and west of the golf course site. Both have been assessed by the Council as being sustainable and accessible sites and therefore the same must be concluded in relation to the golf course site we are proposing too. Indeed, it is within a short walk from the centre of Queensbury and its associated services.

Support

Representation ID: 25115

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: IMCO Holdings

Agent: Tetra Tech (Manchester)

• On behalf of the landowner of the site, the inclusion of site QB4/H Brighouse Road, Queensbury, as a preferred allocation for housing is welcomed.

Object

Representation ID: 25120

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: IMCO Holdings

Agent: Tetra Tech (Manchester)

• Site QB4/H – The site’s proforma assesses the site as having ‘moderate potential for sprawl’. The site should more appropriately be identified as exhibiting ‘low’ potential for Green Belt sprawl. The site is well contained by surrounding existing development on all sides, with Queensbury Golf Course to the south serving to effectively prevent against future sprawl into the Green Belt to the south and would provide a significantly stronger Green Belt boundary.

Comment

Representation ID: 28771

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.