Consultation Question 102

Object

Representation ID: 130

Received: 13/02/2021

Respondent: Miss Margaret Evans

Re: Key Element "Maintaining a green Belt gap between Cottingley, Shipley and Bradford"
With 200 houses planed at the Bankfield how can this key element possibly be met? The only thing then dividing Cottingley from Shipley is the Keighley bypass which is hardly classed as Green Belt!!!!

Object

Representation ID: 468

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: 871

Received: 07/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Martin Francis Holdsworth

It is not acceptable to have any more development of green belt land. It is contrary to the idea of green belt. More and more land in this area is being destroyed by housing development. The council do not listen to the objections of local residents never have and never will. Building on this land will stop natural drainage. Cottingley Beck cannot take any more water. The walls of the beck have already been damaged during in heavy rain and my house is adjacent to the beck so is in danger. No more housing is needed locally a presumption to the contrary is absurd. The roads are already jam packed at school times. The local school does not just cater for children in the area (as you state) but from those outside it leading to traffic problems. Stop this obvious revenue making exercise.

Object

Representation ID: 1063

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Mr James Whitley

There are plans for 155 houses on Marchcote, 164 on Cottingley Cliffe, 200 at the "Mercure", and 150 + at "Sharpes". The schools, Doctors, local amenities and roads are not geared up for this amount of development. Never mind what it will do to the wildlife, and what bit of Green Belt is left in the area, will be ruined.

Object

Representation ID: 1186

Received: 20/02/2021

Respondent: Ms Cathy Wintersgill

Flooding
Impact on wildlife particularly owls and Otters
Increase in traffic pollution
Lack of infrastructure - schools, doctors
Brownfield sites are available in Shipley

Object

Representation ID: 1846

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Susan Dwyer

Bradford Council is bulldozing through with plans to build, quite unnecessarily and very foolishly, on green belt. The consultation time, in a time of lockdown restrictions, is simply inadequate. Any decisions should be postponed until every resident has been made aware of the plans. Not everyone has access to a computer or is computer literate. The plans and implications should be set out in writing and delivered to all Cottingley residents. To do anything without the wider community being aware of it is highly dubious. To consider building on green belt, creating further flooding problems and creating even more traffic chaos for Cottingley residents is absolutely ridiculous anyway, Our infrastructure was created for a village. You intend to create a town using the same aging infrastructure. The whole idea of building at March Cote is highly contentious and questions need to be asked what Bradford Council is actually playing at.

Object

Representation ID: 2092

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Gerald Ashworth

Location Cottingley –CO1/H
The site proposed is in my opinion of an ill thought out strategy. Which together with the proposed sites SH4,5,6/H would be totally unacceptable. There can not have been any risk assessment given to further flooding to the immediate vicinity or the River Aire or any conclusive assessment of the infrastructure in regard services or traffic on already heavily congested roads.
No consideration given to the environment or grabbing of important agricultural land by further development of Green Belt Land.
In support of my comments I wish to quote your own planning offices with regard to a small proposed development in Nab Wood Shipley which was recently turned down by because I quote” It would harm the openness of the Green Belt and present clear conflict with its purposes including to check unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas and assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.”

Object

Representation ID: 2383

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Stuart Eteson

Unfit infrastructure, NHS capacity, schools over subscribed, road traffic concerns including fatalities .issue from 1985 proposals still an issue and not addressed. 249 ,objections previously registered 2019 planning applications not addressed green belt land insufficient justification for exceptional circumstances. Unhappy with consultation and don't feel the community have been engaged. Development on both sides of greenbelt contributing to urban sprawl.

Object

Representation ID: 2398

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Hazel Capstick

The area cannot cope with additon of extra houses. Roads are.difficult to get through. Schools are full. The fields flood and run off into the gardens

Object

Representation ID: 2472

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Mandy Erby

Residents that have lived here for over 30 years have moved due to these concerns. I would consider this if changes take place.

We already have a huge flood problem.

Fields are home to severely threatened bird species. Decline in Hedgehogs.

There are derelict places in Bradford to build on. We are losing Greenland to builds and leaving run down properties. It is a lazy choice with money making in mind. It is cheaper to build from scratch with no thought on how this will impact on our environment.

I have seen an increase in traffic due to new builds. March cote lane is so heavily populated with cars I struggle to get down it without stopping for a car coming the other way. It is basically a one way street. It will be impossible. Our roads simply cant take this vast increase in cars. The pollution will sky rocket.

Object

Representation ID: 2621

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Cottingley Greenbelt Conservation Group

I am extremely worried about the increase in the amount of traffic this plan will incur. I timed myself on Friday morning and I sat waiting to get out of my street on to the main road opposite The Sun Inn for exactly 4 minutes 32 seconds, an unacceptable amount of time and this is in lockdown! Matters are even worse at the beginning and end of the school day. The new plans will only increase this traffic.My other objection is the effect on wildlife. I regularly walk up Marchcote lane and use the paths up to Lee Lane and the woods. I have seen deer on those fields on numerous occasions and any development would be catastrophic to local wildlife.Generally I believe that green belt land should stay greenbelt. It prevents sprawl and prevents communities like Cottingley from losing their unique identity.

Object

Representation ID: 3497

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Gail McAllister

10% more housing is rather a large increase. Where are extra school and GP places going to be found? Access to the site is close to Cottingley Primary, goes over a narrow bridge taking one lane of traffic and is used by families attending the school - large lorries carrying resources while building takes place- extremely dangerous; increased traffic when houses are built - extremely dangerous. Cottingley Cliffe Road will also have increased heavy traffic. This road is extremely dangerous to walk children to and from school at present as the pavement narrows, how are you going to protect them once building is underway? Drainage. At present, when it rains, water streams down the drives of the houses on March Cote Lane. Building on the land behind will only make this worse. Safety, drainage, increased population, increased traffic and increased pressure on local facilities. Think again.

Object

Representation ID: 3566

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Peter Down

The Draft Local Plan indicates there should be a preference for redevelopment of Brownfield sites. However, the proposed C01/H site is within designated Greenbelt – just how small does the Greenbelt have to become before it is considered to no longer exist?? The proposed allocation of new housing for Cottingley is indicated to be 150 but the C01/H site is indicated to be provide 155. There is no consideration of the 18 properties recently granted permission at the Sun Inn or any other potential developments in the area. The impact to the Greenbelt appears excessive. As stated, Cottingley does not have a rail connection and has a higher proportion of car ownership than the average. This indicates that people living in Cottingley are having to drive to work and for shopping and leisure. The traffic in the area is already extremely bad and additional development will only increase this.

Object

Representation ID: 3894

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Jo Reynard

The removal of trees in Cottingley wood has resulted in flooding, the properties on top of Ghyll Wood Drive have experienced flooding a number of times since trees were removed therefore green belt land should not be built on

Object

Representation ID: 4137

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Lorna Haley

The geological feasibility assessment for cottingley concluded that ‘Accounting for the sites underlying geology (glacial till and millstone grit) the topography of the site and the surrounding area, the proximity to the river and hydrological and the hydro geological conditions it is concluded that the use of the soak away drainage is not a viable drainage option for this site.
After the torrential rain during this winter especially during w/c 18/01/21, the drainage barely managed to cope.
The recommendations for the new homes are that they are built with raised floors levels, no under floor electrics and have landscaping for water to pond without causing danger for people of damage to buildings within the site.
This selfishly does not help the homes at the foot of the field which will be severely impacted.
The number of RTA’s , two recently were fatal, will increase significantly also

Object

Representation ID: 4284

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Paul Copley

Whilst generally supportive of strategies, objection is to number of dwellings in proposal which is over Plan's 150 max of which 13+ dwellings will now be on former Sun Inn site. Without even looking at other local site opportunities such as areas behind each side and adjacent to the northern end of the retail centre, the total proposed site build should be reduced to max of 135.

Support

Representation ID: 4416

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Paul Copley

I support the strategies for Cottingley BUT question why the figure of 150 has been used seeing as that appears to be more than the need identified at 5.20.10 Table 1 which would appear to suggest that the 'Remaining Allocation Requirement' is 147 at the most.
To encourage a greater number of houses than the allocation identified means that more land is allowed to be taken from the precious Green Belt than is actually Required. This is inconsistent with the Council's stated objectives and runs contrary and contradictory to the direction of the majority of the other strategies for Cottingley village.

Object

Representation ID: 4427

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Jake Lane

Having lived in cottingley for almost a year me and my partner are already struggling for doctors appointments and finding a place at the local school, traffic is already horrendous and the roads can't handle the volume of cars already using the road

Object

Representation ID: 4534

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Patrick Gurney

I am very concerned that an area already often brought to a halt at busy times be subjected to the traffic of well over 300 further dwellings. Where are the extra School places locally? There are two large Secondary Academies in the area, but only one Primary School. In your disposition you state that transport links are good. They cannot be so with the existing road structure! At school arrival and departure times the local roads are unsafe. There is totally inadequate provision for parked cars. There has already been one fatality on Bradford Road, a serious accident on Cottingley Moor Road above Cottingley Village Primary School. At times large vehicles, such as buses, struggle to pass that area and, at times, are forced to the wrong side of the road. Plans to build more homes in the area without a massive re-vamp of Infrastructure will be dangerous.

Object

Representation ID: 4576

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr David Smith

I do not think that enough consideration has been given to the infrastructure of the area. Already there is a massive amount of congestion on the roads in and around Cottingley. Adding to this would be very detrimental. Especially the proposed site adjacent to Marchcote Lane. The possible connecting roads to this site are already over congested. If the sites in and around Cottingley were to proceed, what are the plans for improving the vehicular access? Are more roads going to built to ease the extra congestion?
Even the main road A650 is over congested, never mind the much smaller roads B6146, Cottingley New Road, B6269, B6265, and the residential roads.
There isn't enough capacity in the local Doctor's Surgeries, nor in the Schools, nor in the local amenities at The Parade.

Object

Representation ID: 4768

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jessica Short

My objections to this planned proposal are as follows:
-Negative impacts on the local environment for plants and wildlife. Loss of habitat and food sources for mammals, bird life, moths, butterflies, amphibians and reptiles. Thus negatively impacting BMDC's Biodiversity Policy and Green Infrastructure Corridors.
-New houses mean of flooding downhill/downstream.
-More traffic means harmful rises air and noise pollution to wildlife. Resident's physical and mental health negatively impacted.
-Rise in vehicles means highly polluted roads aggravates asthma, COPD and all respiratory diseases.
-Massive pressures on already squeezed infrastructures eg school places, doctors, road maintenance, public transport, waste collection.

Object

Representation ID: 4808

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Greg Shaw

With the current roads surrounding Cottingley, which are at the breaking point, how are we supposed to handle additional 150 homes? Most homes have at least two cars per household; that is an additional 300 cars added to the traffic. With overwelled schools, GP surgeries, dentist, where is the plan for the additional support. At the same time, they are stating that the area has all the amenities needed, not how they will cope with an influx of people! Secondly, the environment impact of removing fields that help prevent flooding to the area; as building more homes has increased, so has local flooding. What measures are in place that does not pass the problem on downriver?

Object

Representation ID: 4929

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Hazel Wilmshurst

object on the grounds of:
- destruction of green belt
- increased traffic on an already busy section of Cottingley Cliffe Road and the consequent increased negative impact on air quality as acknowledged
- local primary and secondary schools are already full and over subscribed so when taken into consideration with other proposed developments (SH4/H, SH5/H, SH6/H, NW19/H) (a total of 808 proposed properties) local schools provision is not adequate, as shown by a statement from the Council’s Department of Education and Learning dated 11 September 2019 confirming this. The same applies to local GP and dental surgeries and shops.
- danger to wildlife, including deer, fox and endangered birdlife such as curlews, lapwings and skylarks.

Object

Representation ID: 5121

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Margaret Evans

This proposal needs to be looked at in the round. Combine developments at March Cote Lane(155), Cottingley Cliffe Road/nab wood(160), Mercure hotel (200), Bradford Express golf course(300), Hallmark (300)' Sandy Lane (122), and Prune Park Lane (160)
That totals 1,242 houses within a mile of Cottingley Village.
Wealthier Harden is getting 44 total.
It's an absolute disgrace that the Council are asking the less affulent areas of the ward to shoulder almost the entire burden of Greenbelt loss.
Disgusting in my opinion and not what Labour should stand for.

Object

Representation ID: 5398

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Andrea Kitchen

Nothing in this plan for Cottingley mentions how the nearby proposed housing development of 850 in Bingley, 160 off Prune Park Lane, 300 on Bradford Golf Course, 160 off Cottingley Cliffs Road and 200 by the Mercure Hotel would be affected by the increased pressure on health services, local amenities, traffic congestion, public transport, loss of green space and air quality. The proposed Clean Zone boundary is nearby and traffic would use local roads to circumvent this. Also what is the effect of the nearby incinerator in Keighley on the air quality of this area. No mention of improving local amenities, the playground has had no equipment for decades.

Object

Representation ID: 5719

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 land targeted for development regularly floods as it acts as a run off for rain from the higher ground.
Homes built there will be susceptible for flooding or existing homes below the new planned houses will be adversely impacted.
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: 5790

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Mike Ramplin

The existing resident’s must not be made to pay for “riparian ownership” issues relating to excess water from the 155 new dwellings or blockages from building debris, builders sacks and excavation mud which clearly threatens to compromise the existing culverts.

Object

Representation ID: 5955

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Hayley Barber

When planning for the long-term development of Cottingley, it is vital that new development is supported by the appropriate infrastructure. There simply is not capacity or locations within the local area for more cars, more roads, more schools, more GP surgeries! There is no need to use Greenbelt or Brownfield land in the BD16 postcode area, why not consider other proposed locations in the nearby area which do have capacity- Hallmark, Baildon, Shipley - areas where building have been taken down and turned into grassed areas where it would have been viable to build housing!

Object

Representation ID: 9699

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Michael Quinn

I wanted to live in Cottingley was because it still was a village with green belt areas around it.
During lockdown, I didn’t notice any heavy traffic queues. When the children went back to school it all changed.
I enjoy walking
Volume of traffic increased due to the starting of the schools etc,
Comment on the March Cote Lane site:
Impact on wildlife, which are disappearing in out lifetime is a crime.
The proposal of building 155 dwellings on the green belt will threaten the wildlife even more.
The roads are not suitable for extra traffic.
No doubt then, the roads will be altered to accommodate
the traffic and then the drainage and other services, which will have to be increased in size for the new dwellings . This would be killing of bit by bit, of the type of lifestyle that myself and many others love the area for.

Comment

Representation ID: 15491

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Highways England (Yorkshire & North East Team)

It is not considered that locating development within the
settlements within Cottingley, 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 Cottingley 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.