Consultation Question 87

Object

Representation ID: 157

Received: 14/02/2021

Respondent: Mrs Rachel Fox

This plan is very short sighted and ill thought out for the whole of Bradford not just clayton which is my concern

? money to fund this plan

Infrastructure cant cope with any more building of houses, would require significant changes for Clayton to cope

roads not suitable, struggle to get out of clayton roads so congested-only 2 roads out

utilities- drains old and not sufficient for current housing- flooding now occurs
schools lack of
GP and Dentist insufficient
green space required for mental health as demonstrated in 2020/21 pandemic
pollution lack of clean air

Object

Representation ID: 423

Received: 24/02/2021

Respondent: Keith George

Pandemic truly shown how important green environments/vistas are for mental health. Report reflects on characteristics of parks/urban green spaces yet you are planning to build on them. Mentions Blue and Green areas should be protected/enhanced. Protect them don't build on them. Mentions creating new public spaces/informal/ natural greenspace. Again why plan to build on green fields? Report states that loss of open views on site could
adversely affect local conservation area. Why have a conservation area if you are going to ignore it? It says the development plans within 50m buffer zone could impact on open setting/backdrop to heritage assets.

Object

Representation ID: 500

Received: 25/02/2021

Respondent: Mr Neil Collins

Bradford has a plentiful supply of brownfield sites that have not been developed.
In her judgement dated 8/6/2020 in Aireborough Neighbourhood Development Forum vs Leeds City Council, Mrs Justice Lieven found that it was wrong to leave Green Belt sites in a development plan solely because the Council wished to reduce the numbers around the district proportionately. Green belt should be removed from the plan and brownfield sites built on first.
This judgement is surely just as relevant to Bradford.
Our Prime Minister's "Build Build Build" announcement on 30/6/2020 said brownfield building would be made easier to protect Green Belt. This should be bourne in mind and our Green Belt not built on.

Object

Representation ID: 775

Received: 05/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jane Hemingway

I object to the destruction of Greenbelt - the salvation of our mental health. I object to the inevitable increase in traffic to already overused roads. I object to the added population to our village as I already cannot get a doctors appointment or get into the dentist. I object to traffic idling outside whilst waiting to manoeuvre the gridlocked roundabout and junctions at the outskirts of the village. The green belt fringes around Bradford are one of the few things that make Bradford habitable - DON'T TAKE THEM AWAY

Object

Representation ID: 3056

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Deborah Scaife

This space is simply not big enough for me to comment and therefore I am including a summary under duress.
Firstly the plan is far too complex for the average citizen to comprehend effectively and there should be in person consultation in the local areas BEFORE any plans are looked at.

However in brief my MAIN objection is in relation to the failure of the current builders to comply with requirements set out in the council planning docs.

Non compliance of current builders with • “Protecting our environmental resources and requiring new development to leave biodiversity in a measurably better state than beforehand' I have full evidence of non compliance. This must be addressed in depth.
Disproportionate distribution of housing planned for a relatively small area around Baldwin Lane in Clayton.
Transport options for this area should not include cycle options as no one cycles to work in Clayton

Object

Representation ID: 3413

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: John Austin

I believe the large number of houses planned for Clayton will harm the quality of the village. A great deal of "green belt" and beautiful pasture land will become developed. The road network and the many new junctions, especially in the smaller roads will be detrimental to personal safety in the village. Clayton is currently a pleasant village to live in. With the large number of housing developments we will become a degraded conurbation of Bradford.

Object

Representation ID: 3955

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Clayton Heights Action Group

THIS PROPOSAL IS NOT IN LINE WITH THE LOCAL AREA STRATEGY OF
a. Reducing the volume and impact of traffic and promoting safe travel routes for pedestrians and road users.
b. Reducing air pollution and improving air quality.
c. Retaining open spaces.
I cannot emphasis enough the negative effect on the quality of life and the detrimental effect both physical and mental that would be felt by all the residents in the immediate area of Linfield Terrace, Highgate Close and Highgate Grove if this proposal SW36/HC & SW6/H. were to proceed.

Object

Representation ID: 4287

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr John Fox

Clayton and Clayton Heights have already borne significant development over the last few years. The local infrastructure cannot cope now. The potential impacts of flood risk and pollution to adjacent land continues to be disregarded and cannot be mitigated as local residents have seen through the more recent developments. Also, the surrounding topography makes surface water disposal in a controlled manner extremely challenging because the existing public sewer system is already under stress demonstrated by the need for additional attenuation facilities having to be put in place to accommodate recent developments. Add into the mix: increased traffic congestion, access and highway safety issues (key challenge off Brook Lane); Additional pressure on schools, health centres and other key infrastructure & the further loss of an important social amenity & further damage to the area’s character, wildlife, and environment.

Object

Representation ID: 4578

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Michael Lythgow

There are insufficient school places in Clayton at the moment to accommodate children living at the top of the village near to Brook Lane, Clayton (SW4/Hv). The allocation of this land for housing would exacerbate the problem. Children living on the edge of the village travel long distances to school and outside of the community they live. The geography of the area means that there are no alternative schools which are accessible without travelling, on public transport or by car, towards the City Centre causing congestion, pollution and upset for children educated outside of the community they live. Travel by bus for primary school children involves their parents and siblings. This is not practical, sustainable in bad weather or financially viable for many families. A large housing estate has also been built recently (Westminster) closer to local schools which has exacerbated the lack of school places.

Object

Representation ID: 4693

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Susan Uttley

I object to houses bring built on green sites around Clayton.

Object

Representation ID: 5359

Received: 25/02/2021

Respondent: Catherine & Simon Robinson

Number of people: 2

1. Flood risk concern. Low Lane Spring Valley View have experienced this. Climate change and additional housing will increase the risk.
2. Increased traffic on the Avenue, blocked roundabout, queueing traffic at peak times. Safety, pollution and health issues due to increased traffic from additional housing.
3. Impact on school places and GP capacity.
4. A range of biodiversity in this area – owls, sky larks, buzzards, kestrels, sparrow hawks, foxes. Impact on these from building.
5. Access to green space and walking is vital for health and well-being. Bradford has high rates of heart disease and obesity.
6. Clayton is a village which will lose its identify and struggle to meet the needs of new residents with the proposed increase in building. Accessing services could be difficult. Likely to be an increase in pollution, due to more traffic. Loss of green space, biodiversity, access to walking. Increase in flooding.

Support

Representation ID: 5574

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Rachel Kipling

Strongly support the increase in blue green infrastructure, greenspace and trees, and connectivity for people and wildlife. Safe walking and cycling routes are key to changing behaviour and improving health and wellbeing.

Object

Representation ID: 6471

Received: 11/03/2021

Respondent: Stuart and Ann Bakes

Number of people: 2

Regarding the proposal to build another 1000 homes on a green field sites in Clayton area.
The current infrastructure in Clayton is totally inadequate: road networks are already over used, the schools and doctors are over subscribed, Clayton is isolated in Winter due to the surrounding exits being all hills adding more cars would make it impossible.
Loss of green open spaces would drive people out of the suburbs of Bradford to get away from the urban sprawl. Bradford council should utilise the many brown field sites left vacant for many years
Too few shops in Clayton
The air polution is already bad
The proposal spoils an area of natural beauty and loss of view.

Comment

Representation ID: 15381

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Clayton Parish Council

1. Local infrastructure is already overwhelmed adding more houses will further exacerbate the problem.

2. There are already problems with the drainage on the fields surrounding the new Spring Valley site. There are major concerns to the neighboring land/Low Lane for flooding/drainage problems. Hole Bottom Beck to Low Lane – there are major concerns about flooding.

3. Pressure on local schools, dentist, doctors etc is already overwhelmed

Comment

Representation ID: 15434

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Highways England (Yorkshire & North East Team)

It is not considered that locating development within the
settlements within Bradford South West, on their own, will have a severe impact on the capacity, operation and safety of the SRN, and this will be identified through the transport evidence base being prepared by the Council / the individual assessment of the transport implications of the sites by the sites’ promoters.
However, the quantum of sites forms part of a wider cumulative impact within the Bradford South West Area and the rest of the development aspirations within the Plan could severely impact the SRN, and this cumulative impact will need to be established by the Council and considered by Highways England.

Object

Representation ID: 18576

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs S Wilkinson

•Understand the need for new housing. Why are there no green corridors, spaces for children to play and families to walk, and dog bins incorporated into these plans. Green spaces such as Golf Courses and cemeteries are not areas where families can walk.
•Westminster Avenue is still being built but there are no places for children to play, nothing to slow cars speeding down the access roads. The verges are used as dog toilets and there are no extra facilities provided. There is one bin on the Avenue and nothing on Baldwin Lane. Litter is a huge problem.
•The new estates will swamp the village and destroy wildlife. Green spaces need to be built into the plan and for the people of Clayton.

Comment

Representation ID: 27503

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Clayton Footpath Group

Smothering our rich heritage of footpaths with housing that hems in the walkways and bridle paths making them difficult to follow and rapidly overgrown with brambles and nettles makes them sites for rubbish. All this seriously degrades the human environment for the residents and degrades an area already in the 10% of most deprived areas of the UK.
New builds should celebrate the footpaths ensuring they are easily accessible and friendly spaces to walk along.
Clayton has an extensive network of paths which cut through the proposed housing developments in the local plan. The footpaths should be formally identified on the ordnance survey maps as is the case in Calderdale where they are much better protected. should be registered and improved.
The recent new developments have had little regard for this network of footpaths. Footpaths should be recognised in new developments as a highly attractive component.

Comment

Representation ID: 27504

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Clayton Footpath Group

The rural outlook of the existing footpath network has been made unattractive and diminished by the numbers of housing developments in and around Clayton. It makes Clayton a less attractive place to live as it becomes more and more built up and the green belt diminishes. If the strategy is to include safe footpaths and cycle routes then attention should be paid to the attractiveness of such routes.
The Group is concerned about the loss of footpaths. Footpaths in Clayton and surroundings should be formally recorded to provide a legal Rights of Way where for each path the route is indicated by a line on the map with the notation used to show its classification. In Bradford the situation is much easier to override than Calderdale as we are seeing with the closure of the ancient path from Deep Lane to Back Fold.
In Bradford this record is called the Definitive Map and Statement of Public Rights of Way. It is marked by an intermittent dotted line and does not have the legal force of those in Calderdale.

Support

Representation ID: 29718

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bellway Homes Limited

Agent: Barton Wilmore

Our Client supports the Council’s Local Area Strategy and Plan for Clayton and Clayton Heights, which identifies it as a key location for housing growth, with circa 1,045 new homes to be allocated and delivered alongside existing planning permissions. Similarly, our Client welcomes the aspiration for new housing developments in Green Belt delivering strong natural landscaping and public open spaces, as these contribute to place making.

We would reiterate our Clients support for the allocation of site SW33/H – land off Buckingham Crescent, Clayton.