Consultation Question 101

Object

Representation ID: 334

Received: 20/02/2021

Respondent: Mr Jeremy Meer

B12/HC, B13/H, B14/H, B18/H - I am absolutely not in favour of plans to develop on Greenfield sites or release Green Belt land to be developed as part of the plan. These areas were designated Green Belt for a reason and greenfield sites / the environment should remain protected, and these should not be developed on. There are enough empty brownfield sites to develop and the plan should focus on these primarily. In addition, the wider infrastructure in Bingley is at capacity (schools, healthcare, roads & transport links), therefore development should be limited without further improvements to that infrastructure.

Object

Representation ID: 467

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: 1204

Received: 10/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Andrew Wilkinson

I feel it is very important to preserve our greenbelt areas, to stop urban sprawl, over population of a village area, traffic congestion on the narrow roads and over subscription to the local schools. It's greenbelt for a reason. Many local people use this area for walks, its important for nature and clearing woodland goes against all green policies. Eldwick and Gilstead are now very overcrowded and the traffic is ridiculous. Locals feel very strong about this.

Object

Representation ID: 1351

Received: 12/03/2021

Respondent: Justin Whitehorn & Richard Robinson-Horley

Agent: WBW Surveyors Limited

Rejected Site – BI/050
The land should be added to the Preferred Housing Site Allocations for Bingley and identified as a housing site by the new Local Plan.
The land should also be released from the Green Belt to allow its development for housing under Policy SP5.
The site assessment indicates that the site was not allocated due to ‘Landscape Impact’ and ‘Heritage Impact’.

Landscape Impact
- Site is enclosed by other built development. In particular, the allotments to the north. Landscape impacts on the wider open countryside would be very minimal.

Heritage Impact
Laythorpe Farm is the nearest Listed Building and is located the south east. The building is located within the Sty Lane housing development site that permits the erection of 420-440 houses. Development on this current proposed site, to the west of Micklethwaite Lane, will therefore have no impact on the setting of the listed building given that it will be enclosed and directly adjacent to other permitted housing development.
The site is within the Leeds to Liverpool Canal Conservation Area and land to the north of the site, also forms part of the Micklethwaite Conservation Area.
The Leeds to Liverpool Canal Conservation Area is a long linear designation that comprises a variety of different land uses adjacent to the historic canal. This part of the conservation area is characterised by residential development located adjacent to the canal. Some is very modern (the recently constructed residential development to the south), some approximately 50-70 years old (The Drive to the south west of the site), and some formed from the conversion of traditional mill buildings (Airedale Mills to the south). In summary, there is a variety of different buildings, ages, and approaches to development undertaken. There is absolutely no reason why development cannot be undertaken on this site without unacceptably impacting on the character and appearance of the Leeds to Liverpool Canal Conservation Area.
With respect to the Micklethwaite Conservation Area, due to the distance from the site, and the existence of the allotment site between the Conservation Area and this site, the impact on the heritage asset is very minimal.

Support

Representation ID: 2334

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Stephen Williams

There is nowhere to build future housing in Bingley Parish including all five villages and the town centre that is not on the Green Belt. The majority of objectors will be NIMBYs living in nice houses on what was once Green Belt. Building sensibly on Green Belt will result in Bingley still being surrounded by fields and hence the Green Belt. However, I do not support the joining together of towns and villages and this should be guarded against (i.e. Bankfield Farm should not be granted Planning Permission). But we must build on the Green Belt to create homes for our future children of the town. However, BDMC must support the new developments with suitable road infrastructure.

Object

Representation ID: 2483

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Angela Broadbent

Loss of green space, increased traffic, wildlife.

Object

Representation ID: 3891

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Jenny Woodward

I object to 4 of the proposed housing sites - B12/HC, B13/H, B14/H and B18/H.
This is because they will adversely affect the natural environment and the local landscape. All have poor transport links leading to increased traffic and car use (with implications for air quality, climate change and quality of life for residents).

Object

Representation ID: 4359

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Ruth Leman

The Heights Lane green field area forms part of a continuous stretch of open wildlife habitat right up to the moors, and is the home to many dwindling or endangered species: little owl, barn owl, red kite, curlew and lapwing, various species of bats, hedgehogs, weasels, stoats and hares, green hairstreak butterfly to name only those that I myself have seen on walks in the fields around Heights Lane. All of this wildlife relies on the open fields for survival. Every acre supports a whole swathe of the smaller creatures which these animals feed on. Every field is an ecosystem. Furthermore, once the destruction has started it will not stop at two fields. It never does. We cannot ignore the need to protect the natural world. It is part of the climate emergency we all now face. The green belt protects provides vital wildlife habitats and should not be touched.

Comment

Representation ID: 15490

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Highways England (Yorkshire & North East Team)

It is not considered that locating development within the
settlements within Bingley, 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 Bingley 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: 16988

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Bingley Town Council

In the Masterplan commissioned by Bingley Town Council from AECOM, BI/021 is identified as having potential for housing development, yet has been rejected as such in the Local Plan. This site is not in the Green Belt, yet could surely provide the number of houses currently projected for Greenhill Barn and the two sites at Heights Lane.

Object

Representation ID: 23671

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bankhead (Eldwick) Ltd

Agent: Johnson Mowat

Objects to the non-identification of the remaining extent of Site BI4/H (SLA BI/013).

The site is well located within the Bingley sub area. Bingley is one of the Principle Towns.

The Council clearly consider this site is suitable, in that part of the site is included for housing and the SLA does not reject the site. This site lies in a sustainable location, it is available and suitable and deliverable site.

The green belt site specific assessment concludes that BI4/H would have a moderate potential impact on the green belt. There are exceptional circumstances to justify the site's release for development.

Regarding heritage impact our client is not advocating the complete development of land parcels where there would be ‘substantial harm’ or ‘less than substantial harm (unacceptable)’ to the Grade II Listed Prince of Wales Park.

The site is deliverable, there are no known viability issues and no environmental constraints associated with the site that cannot be dealt with via appropriate design.

The development would form a logical extension to Eldwick.

Object

Representation ID: 23672

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bankhead (Eldwick) Ltd

Agent: Johnson Mowat

Objects to the non-identification of the remaining extent of Site BI8/H (SLA BI/059).

The site is well located within the Bingley sub area. Bingley is one of the Principle Towns.

The Council clearly consider this site is suitable, in that part of the site is included for housing and the SLA does not reject the site. This site lies in a sustainable location, it is available and suitable and deliverable site.

We disagree with the green belt site specific assessment which concludes that BI8/H would have a major potential impact on the green belt. There are exceptional circumstances to justify the site's release for development.

Regarding heritage impact our client is not advocating the complete development of land parcels where there would be ‘substantial harm’ or ‘less than substantial harm (unacceptable)’ to the Grade II Listed Prince of Wales Park.

The site is deliverable, there are no known viability issues and no environmental constraints associated with the site that cannot be dealt with via appropriate design.

The development would form a logical extension to Eldwick.

Object

Representation ID: 30026

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jane Stone

I am totally against your proposals and fail to see how they are going to add to the biodiversity of the area - in fact quite the opposite!