WI2/H - Crack Lane

Object

Representation ID: 4280

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Katy Powell

Proposed site next to already new build estate that is not shown on this map - show as empty fields when they are not.
Narrow lanes would struggle to cope with extra traffic

Object

Representation ID: 4302

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Raymond Allen

As a local resident I understand the confines of this road (Shay Lane leading down to Coplowe Lane and Crack Lane) and area. Adding a further 40 homes + the additional traffic it would bring is inconducive. Not withstanding the proposed development overlooking Wilsden Cemetary. I would see that highly disrespectful. I therefore object on these grounds.

Object

Representation ID: 4307

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Raymond Allen

I object to the proposed development of 40 homes off Crack Lane. As a local resident, I understand the particular confines of the road infrastructure and for traffic leading to Crack Lane/Shay Lane. Adding further homes and further traffic is inconducive to the area. Not withstanding the proximity of the proposed development overlooking Wilsden Cemetary which would be disrespectful in my opinion.The Cemetary should be a place of rest & respect.
There are listed Buildings off Crack Lane. Adding further traffic volume & residents would not be appropriate in my view. I therefore register my objection to the proposed Crack Lane development/proposal.

Object

Representation ID: 4313

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Russell Holroyd

Traffic problems and upsetting the tranquility of the cemetery. Crack lane is already dangerous enough now without a further 40 dwellings as there are no pavements and poor street lighting

Object

Representation ID: 4344

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Brian Berkovits

I object to this proposal as follows:
- The proposal underestimates the level of surface water flooding that occurs regularly on the site and at the north east boundary junction of Crack Lane/Shay Lane that will affect adjacent developments/roads
- Access/exit to the developed site would increase risks of traffic accidents/congestion at an already high risk junction of three narrow roads (Crack Lane, Shay Lane, Coplowe Lane)
- Access to main road routes by vehicles fro the developed site would greatly increase congestion onto Main Street/ Haworth Road during morning and evening rush periods
- The development would add unmet pressures on existing health, educational and retail services within the settlement already under pressure from recent developments without possible options for expansion
- It would damage the ecological fabric of the area in terms of wild plants, nesting areas and materials for birds, hedgehogs and other animals

Object

Representation ID: 4434

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Maxine Hill

We have enough houses in the area and not enough facilities

Object

Representation ID: 4514

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Sarah Heywood

The village is already very busy. The school is over run, the doctors is over run and the main road is already very busy and cannot cope with the amount of traffic

Object

Representation ID: 4524

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Darren O'Meara

Better Brownfield development opportunities locally should be preferred which would protect this Green Belt.
Land is already susceptible to flooding and would only add pressure to an incapable drainage system.
Access roads Shay Lane and Crack Lane are exceptionally narrow and unable to cope with current local traffic flows and would need extensive improvements.
The map fails to account for existing 80+ new housing already developed off crack lane. Highways remain unadopted some years after completion due to persistent issues with drainage on that developed site. It would be a glaring planning oversight to allow for more development on Crack Lane while that development continues to be unadopted due to previous planning oversight.

Object

Representation ID: 4596

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Pauline Bilevych

Further development of Crack Lane would be disastrous to the village and totally unsuitable on this narrow lane. There are several brown field sites in the area such as the obsolete mill and the disused poultry factory which would be far more suitable for housing development than these important green field sites.

Object

Representation ID: 4667

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs K Pearson

I object because the road infrastructure within Wilsden is already at breaking point. The main street is difficult to negotiate because it narrow with parked cars all the way through the village. The minor roads, Crack Lane,Shay Lane, Lee Lane are very narrow with single vehicle only points, and used by many vehicles as a rat run. More housing will bring a minimum of 2 cars per dwelling leading on to a narrow lane, choked with parked cars. Hazardous for pedestrians wanting to access the paths around the area. The pull out of Crack Lane on to Main Street is nearly blind, and this part of the Lane is also choked with parked vehicles, often near the junction The bus service is poor and very unreliable., with only one service going to Bradford. The roundabout is dangerous and also narrowed on both sides with parked cars.

Object

Representation ID: 4813

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Nicola Watt

Roads are too narrow and cannot take the amount of Congestion, the land is waterlogged a d there are natural springs which would divert elsewhere and flood.

Object

Representation ID: 4972

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Deepa Gohil

Firstly the amount of near misses and issues already occurs on a daily basis as there is not enough space for cars and the speeding on the country roads, there no foot paths and lastly the new estate is 6 years on and still not been handed to council due to drainage and other issues this will add to the existing problems there are other areas in Wilsden more suitable

Object

Representation ID: 5054

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Kalpesh Mistry

Crack lane won’t cope with additional traffic and the current infrastructure like drainage is not in place as the recent new builds have had this issue and are yet to be adopted by the council.

Object

Representation ID: 5077

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Shabbir Khan

I object to the building of homes on crack lane for the following reasons:-
1. Poor vehicle access
2. Narrow roads, no paths, non HGV safe
3. Flooding risk to new homes and adjacent. My garage is usually flooded in winter due to poor drainage and volume of rain
4. Infringes Heritage Homes - The Nook and Norr Manor
5. Sprawl into secluded hamlet - Norr
6. High horse usage around the area
7. Cemetery serenity will be undermined
8. Loss of grazing land
9. Loss of wildlife habitat - bats
An alternative site is Prospect Mill, Main street which has the capacity of 45 homes

Object

Representation ID: 5221

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Ashley Bayles

Access issues - narrow roads, no paths, non HGV safe.
Flooding risk - surface water and spring already affecting current homes. Risk to current and new homes.
Sprawl into secluded hamlet - Norr.
Equine safety - high horse usage in area.
Cemetery serenity will be undermined.
Loss of good grazing land
Loss of wildlife habitat - bats and sighting of water vole by natural spring.

Object

Representation ID: 5235

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Caroline Woods

Developing W12/H would cause access issues, Crack Lane is already a nightmare as two cars cannot pass. How can you widen it without affecting Nook House? The field is sopping wet and covering it with houses will increase the risk of flooding yet further, water absolutely streams down Shay Lane off surrounding fields. There is water running down the side of the field, where it adjoins Sycamore Chase, which still hasn’t seen it’s roads adopted due to drainage concerns, I understand. This area of the village is too wet for more houses!
Please consider using Prospect Mill on Main St, which has better capacity, is more accessible and has been previously developed and won’t cause flood issues.

Object

Representation ID: 5249

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Darren Hutton

Access - narrow roads, no paths, non HGV safe
Flooding risk - new homes and adjacent ones
Infringes Heritage homes - The Nook and Norr Manor
Sprawl into secluded hamlet - Norr
Equine safety - high horse usage
Cemetery serenity will be undermined
Loss of good grazing land
Loss of wildlife habitat - bats

Object

Representation ID: 5349

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jane Pearson

Bradford promote using brownfield sites first, so why are Prospect Mill and Haven Farm (aka Chicken Factory in Harecroft) not being used in lieu of Green Belt land.
Single Road in and out of Wilsden is not sustainable for heavier traffic. One form entry at Wilsden Primary School 2021

Object

Representation ID: 5531

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Susan Griffiths

There is already too much traffic on this road and often gets gridlocked - the local facilities village roads cannot cope with anymore people or cars

Object

Representation ID: 5751

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Roger Raper

Extending into the Green Belt now will set a precedent for further erosion of the Green belt in the future.
The local infrastructure cannot cope with existing traffic and drains on its resources.
Congestion will increase significantly with the new homes. - this is at odds with a proposed zero carbon future
The area targeted acts as a corridor for wildlife. Building upon it will mean a loss of habitat, loss of natural views, as well as a loss of agricultural land and loss of community identity.
All of the above are contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework.

Object

Representation ID: 5789

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Mark Allcock

We are extremely concerned about the ability for access to these new dwellings, both access roads are narrow, not completely paved and are not safe for HGV’s that will be necessary for construction. The impact to the safety of local children living on the neighbouring estate, and horses, that regularly use Shay Lane from the stables at the top, will be be significant. The risk of increased flooding, due to the new groundwork’s, to housing below the proposed site must be taken into account. It is simple that the narrow roads of this small hamlet, already heavily impacted by the housing estate constructed just a few years ago, cannot cope with yet more housing. Sites down Wilsden Main Street, with far superior access, are more suitable.

Object

Representation ID: 5884

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jane Callaghan

Crack Lane is at the junction of two important (CBMDC advertised) leisure corridors for walkers, cyclists and horse riders (estimated 250 horses stabled within 1/2 mile radius), is partially unbuildable & would need substantial road upgrading which would aid development of the site but imperil leisure users. The very old tree must be retained and respected, further impacting on possible road widening. The site receives significant surface water flow and up to 1/5th of the site remains flooded for much of winter. It's also an area of subterranean springs and an overground watercourse on west side of site arises in the old coal mines beneath. While use of this site would provide some houses towards the allocation for Wilsden, it would not maximise use of prime agricultural land which until recently was a cow maternity field for a local tenant dairy farmer who would wish to continue that use.

Object

Representation ID: 8133

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Steve Needham

Objections to W12/H Crack Lane are as follows: 1. Land prone to flooding 2. Loss of green belt unacceptable.

Object

Representation ID: 16346

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Newett Homes

Agent: Quod North

Newett Homes support BCC’s proposed residential allocation to the south of Crack Lane, Wilsden (Ref. WI2/H) (Figure 3.1). However, they disagree with elements of the Site Allocation Proforma and the Site’s SA assessment.

The Site is deliverable now and could reasonably come
forward for development in the first five years of the DBLP. The Policy’s suggested timescale of six to ten years should therefore be revised.

The proposed ‘Development Considerations’ included in the draft Policy requires off-site compensatory improvements to the surrounding Green Belt - this should be removed. This requirement would not satisfy NPPF tests (para 55 & 56).

A number of issues are raised with regards to the SA assessment of the site and modifications proposed.

Newlett Homes disagree with the Green belt Assessment and its conclusion that there will be moderate impact.

Object

Representation ID: 19732

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

Wilsden actually needs construction. Not more houses but employment opportunities.
The 130 more homes envisaged in the plan include WI1/H & WI3/H.

Existing sites have been approved for housing, so this refutes the excuse to build on greenbelt at WI2/H. Brownfield sites at Haven Farm, Station Road, Harecroft and Prosepct Mill, Main Street are ideal. This will all inevitably bring 260+ more cars into the equation.

Residents already feel the B6144 from Cullingworth and Main Street/Harden Road are similar to race tracks with scarce police resources (not already deployed to Bradford) unable to impact the dangerous situation.

Object

Representation ID: 28594

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Member of Parliament (Conservative)

Agent: Deborah Davies

W12/H - Crack Lane (40)

I object to the inclusion of this site because:

• It is green belt.
• There is poor access.
• The report states there would be a “major impact on openness”.
• There is insufficient infrastructure in the village.
• Flooding concerns.
• Main Street through Wilsden is narrow and unsuitable for more traffic.
• There are existing sites in Wilsden that have been approved for housing which would relieve pressure on green belt sites.
• There are brownfield sites in Wilsden more suited to development i.e. Haven Farm, Station Road, Harecroft and Prospect Mill, Main Street, Wilsden.

Comment

Representation ID: 28721

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: 29492

Received: 29/03/2021

Respondent: Historic England

The site is located on rising land some 150 metres east of the Wilsden Conservation Area. The site forms part of countryside setting of the conservation area. Whilst the site is located outside of the boundary of the Saltaire World Heritage Site (WHS) buffer zone it is within an area where tall buildings could affect its setting. The
development of this area could harm elements which contribute to the significance of this designated heritage asset.
See attachment for full representation
Before allocating this site for development:
(1) An assessment needs to be undertaken of the contribution which this site makes to those elements which contribute towards the significance of the Listed Buildings in its vicinity, and what impact the loss of this undeveloped site and its subsequent development might have upon their significance.
(2) If it is considered that the development of this site would harm elements which contribute to the significance of the Listed Buildings, then the measures by which that harm might be removed or reduced need to be effectively tied into the Plan.
(3) If, at the end of the process, it is concluded that the development would still be likely to harm elements which contribute to the significance of these Listed Buildings, then this site should not be allocated unless there are clear public benefits that outweigh the harm (as is
required by NPPF, Paragraph 195 or 196).