WI3/H - Moorside Farm, Wellington Road

Object

Representation ID: 224

Received: 16/02/2021

Respondent: Mrs Anita Pearson

Building on greenfield site spoiling overall appearance and relative peace of area.
Poor access onto a very narrow Royd St from Main St made hazardous due to parked cars, high pedestrian numbers to local amenities and used as a rat-run to Laneside by speeding vehicles. Access to West Royd or Wellington Rd would exacerbate this.
The existing rat infestation to Royd St properties from the main sewer is already a problem and would be exacerbated.
Noise from increased traffic on Royd St/West Royd would be too disruptive.
The addition of 80 dwellings would NOT benefit the village or its services.

Object

Representation ID: 560

Received: 27/02/2021

Respondent: Mr Tom Wilson

I strongly object to the proposed allocation of WI3/H - Moorside Farm, Wellington Road:
It is Green belt land - National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states Green belt land is to protect urban sprawl and assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. The Local Plan directly contradicts this policy by including an allocation on Green belt land. In addition, nowhere within the Local Plan suggests this is an exceptional circumstance to build on.
Access & Transport - 80 dwellings is a substantial, disproportionation number that the local roads around Wilsden wouldn't be able to accommodate. Main Street in Wilsden is considered a Non Principle Road Network suggesting the standard of road would be unsuitable to any uplift in traffic.
Impact on local facilities - Has an assessment on the ability of the local school and medical practice to accommodate an additional 80 dwellings been considered, as is required in NPPF?

Object

Representation ID: 2181

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Russell Hinkles

I object to the development of this land primarily on the basis of it being green belt. My other considerations which need taking into account are the amount of extra traffic that 80 new households would bring to a small already overrun village road network especially Main Street which is already impassable and dangerous at rush hour. There are far more suitable sites around the fringes of the village where development if really required could take place without forcing traffic down Main Street. The field adjacent to the cricket club used once a year for the gala would not require traffic to enter the village network it is also not listed as green belt. The field opposite the cricket club would also keep traffic away from the village centre. Please exhaust brownfield site options before ever touching green belt.

Object

Representation ID: 2409

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Sally Birch

Affects the natural boundary. No access.

Object

Representation ID: 2462

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Audrey Freeman

The number of properties will have an adverse impact on the traffic it would generate. There is not suitable access to the proposed site. This is a green belt area. The local school and health centre would not be able to cope with the proposed number of houses.

Object

Representation ID: 2658

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Richard Freeman

The access from Wellington Road unsuitable to cater for the additional traffic. This access has already been modified to cater for an existing development to the detriment of existing residents.
The local infrastructure will not be able to support the additional demand; it is already difficult to get doctor appointments, the primary school is full.
The site is on green belt. (so many 'moderate' impacts culminate in a great impact).
The site would not deliver a major positive effect for residents on the health SA Objective.

Object

Representation ID: 2659

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Maria Overend

I object because I feel the gps and schools are overcrowded as it is the traffic is very busy and adding more houses will increase the population therefore putting more strain on local services and increasing traffic on narrow lanes also the housing would proberbly not be affordable for young people brought up in the area forcing them to move out

Object

Representation ID: 2918

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Darren Kendall

Poor infrastructure, royd st and Wellington rd already has heavy traffic , especially at peak times. Royd st by the co-op is one lane for 2 way traffic due to cars parked on both sides of the road. Potential 200+ more cars would cause serious congestion.Negative impact on local services (schools/healthcare).
I object to building on green belt because it has an adverse effect on the landscape, scenery and wildlife of the area.

Object

Representation ID: 2953

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Deborah Ingleson

Object

Object

Representation ID: 2956

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Robin Ingleson

Object

Object

Representation ID: 3082

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Anna Shaw

Objection to WI3/H. This land is a significant area of green belt land and it is an important feature of Wilsden’s character and appeal. Wellington road and west Royd street) do not have capacity for the potentially over 100 extra cars. private gardens mean these roads can’t be safely adapted to support extra vehicles. The extra traffic this would put on royd street outside the coop would be problematic and dangerous for the houses outside the co-op. A more suitable site would be the James Spencer mill on Main Street and adjoining car park to create some needed affordable 1 & 2 bedroom houses and flats. The proposal to convert the mill has previously been discussed and it is confusing that it has been left out of these plans, this would be a better alternative and would place people at the centre of the village as opposed to the outskirts.

Object

Representation ID: 3095

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Joanne Slater

The access is already hindered by the Co Op on Royd Street

Object

Representation ID: 3533

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Katie Watts

I already feel unsafe walking to the nursery along Royd Street due to obstructions - adding in an extra 150 cars driving up there to reach this location is actually insane.

Object

Representation ID: 3534

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Mathew Sutcliffe

Too many houses in one location. Why do we have to have these massive developments in small villages. There doesn't appear to be any extra amenities. Our local village hall is not for purpose and needs modernising the the council will not spend money on this. Please leave our green spaces below.

Royd street is too narrow for (i) construction traffic and (ii) the post development traffic.

The council can't service the village currently in terms of cutting grass, keeping on top of people parking on double yellow lines and keeping the streets clean. More houses will mean more substandard services. I object.

Object

Representation ID: 3786

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Paul Dack

The land is designated as green belt, national planning states green belt land is to protect urban sprawl sprawl and to assist in the safeguarding of the countryside from encroachment. This to me in simple terms prevents anyone building on green belt land.
Access to and from Moorside farm is limited at best, entrance from Royd Street and Croke Lane is very difficult as there are quite a lot of cars parked on the street even double parked in some cases, adding another 80 dwellings with 1 or 2 cars would impact access greatly.

Object

Representation ID: 4074

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Scott Lewthwaite

Poor access, current development underway has added excessive traffic to the already locally crowded roads. Site is situated within the greenbelt zone so further development would not be ideal. Preferable sites would be increasing the size of the development on Prune Park Ln which would in essence become its own community & not have further implications to the Wilsden area.

Object

Representation ID: 4261

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Ian Linney

Green fields again being lost forever to development. Do planners ever learn! This parcel of land has restricted access. The access from West Royd is via Royd street. Royd Street is always congested as its the site of the Coop. More properties in this area can only cause more disruption and the huge number of new houses with associated cars is going to cause a problem. Likewise any access from Wellington Road is going to cause problems for the residents of both Wellington Road and Farndale Road.

Object

Representation ID: 4519

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Sarah Heywood

As previously mentioned Wilsden is already very very over crowded and the school, doctors and roads cannot cope

Object

Representation ID: 4708

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Alison Powell

New access via west royd would be too busy. Already thoroughfare fast junction toward co-op and health centre. Steep hill and hazardous in winter-ice/snow not safe. Everyone parks by road at bottom of west royd. People have nearly skidded into my drive in past. Also helped to rebuild the dry stone walls and object to them being taken down, need to preserve.

Object

Representation ID: 4815

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Nicola Watt

Already too many houses, this development would lead into an already congested road which at times is only passable as a single car.

Support

Representation ID: 4887

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr John Turton

With Crooke Lane and Prospect Mill, thsi site will deliver all needed homes (and save WI2/H from deletion)

Object

Representation ID: 5186

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Steve Needham

Objections to the Moorside Farm W13H site are as follows: 1. The proposed site is some 3 meters higher that the dwellings on the east side of Hornsea Drive which will considerably affect light to such dwellings. 2. It would also affect the privacy of the dwellings. 3. The proposed site has many natural springs and is subject to severe waterlogging. Building on the site would alter the water table and cause flooding problems to dwellings on Hornsea Drive. 4. The proposed access to the site via Wellington Road and West Royd are totally inadequate and the volume of traffic created would be unacceptable on both safety and nuisance grounds. 5. The loss of such a large area of green belt is totally unacceptable.

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

Object

Representation ID: 5534

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Susan Griffiths

I was going to buy a house on Wellington road but was a bit worried about the road to nowhere next to it - so glad I didn’t buy it because what one was a nice quiet street will be turned into a busy thoroughfare - Wilsden can’t cope with anymore cars / houses or people it’s too congested already

Object

Representation ID: 5756

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: 5885

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jane Callaghan

Of the two preferred options in the greenbelt this is the least worst. Topographically it's reasonably hidden from most aspects being in the corner of the current settlement boundary and a further spur of 13 recently built dwellings. Village centre shops, park and health centre are quite close. My objection to WI/013 is because I believe that the housing number can be achieved without recourse to green belt deletions. However if such deletion is absolutely necessary this site would be my choice. 'Potential site access' refers to considerable works needed & removal of dry stone wall are true for all the greenbelt sites but a constraint for this site is the already congested narrow exit onto Main Street via Royd Street or via the narrow farm access point which can go either of two ways, Royd Street (again) or Crooke Lane (also narrow)

Support

Representation ID: 16862

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Avant Homes

Agent: ID Planning

Supports the allocation of site WI3/H for a residential housing allocation to support the growth of Wilsden in a
sustainable manner.

Object

Representation ID: 19733

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.

Comment

Representation ID: 28722

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: 29493

Received: 29/03/2021

Respondent: Historic England

See attachment for full representation.
The site is located on rising land and is close to the Wilsden 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 these designated heritage assets.
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).