Consultation Question 107

Object

Representation ID: 474

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: 618

Received: 01/03/2021

Respondent: Mr stephen french

This is green belt farm land, you should be building on brownfield sites.
The geography of the location is unsuitable for development due to
ongoing flooding issues that have plagued this land for decades.
Access to this area would be very difficult and would need huge expensive road infrastructure when brownfield land is in abundance and easily accessible.
Old mine workings exist on this land.
Question.am I right in believing this land has been purchased by the council?

Object

Representation ID: 1040

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Linda Stentiford

The Riddlesden poropsals at Carr Lane will seriously impact East Morton with further traffic congestion, pollutants and competition of limited resources in a negative way and change the historic look of this conservation village. By building on Green Belt Land you will further diminish the lungs of the Aire district at a time when the Incinerator and all its increased traffic and air pollution will need to be combatted with clean airy spaces up the hillside.

Object

Representation ID: 1114

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Cathy Isaac

Limited school places.
Limited gp appointments.
Flooding causes issues on the estate including waste drainage issues.
Loss of green space.
Increased traffic with bridge access.

Object

Representation ID: 1132

Received: 10/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Amy Morgan

I do not support building new houses on green belt land. Do not destroy wildlife habitats as well as the beautiful scenery. Please use brown field sites. There must be alternatives you can consider. It’s very disappointing that Bradford council aren’t working to protect our precious environment.

Object

Representation ID: 1344

Received: 12/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Mel Frances

I object to nay green belt / green land being destroyed for buildings in Riddlesden. Our green land is vital habitat for many endangered ground nesting species such as lapwing and curlew. It provides habitats for smaller animals and insects which in turn provide food for animals such as hedgehogs, owls and buzzards that live here. Destroying this land does not fit with your statement that you want to protect habitats.
We need more green space, not less, to mitigate flooding. We need more, not fewer wildlife corridors. The population just keeps on increasing with new buildings and extensions which destroy vital garden space, causes more traffic and put pressure on stretched local services. Losing green space and the threat of an incinerator are really heartbreaking prospects.

Object

Representation ID: 1355

Received: 12/03/2021

Respondent: Mr stephen french

Green belt land (Riddlesden and East Morton) should not be considered for building purposes or included in any plan when there are hundreds of brown belt sites available.
Bradford Council and the executive member for regeneration need to do their research before putting out plans for public consultation, the whole process is flawed and a shambles.
I would like to question if Bradford Council are attempting to change the land status of certain green belt areas in the district?

Object

Representation ID: 5873

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr stephen french

Objections based on using Greenbelt land at the expense of saving copious amounts of brown belt.
Wildlife habitats, established hedges, trees and meadows would be destroyed.
Serious access issues and drainage/ flooding problems.

Object

Representation ID: 6429

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Debbie Rutter

•Object to the building of around 200 houses on a number of sites in and around East Morton
•East Morton Primary has been extended multiple time and there will be no playground left if this continues.
•People live in East Morton to enjoy the surrounding countryside.
•Building more houses will stretch local amenities and transport links even further.
•Using brownfield sites to infill with smaller development should be the council’s priority. Building on protected land is a line that should not be crossed.
•All residents should be consulted before the decision making process goes any further.

Object

Representation ID: 6462

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Anne Barton

•Green belt land should not be considered for development at all.
•Building on Green Belt land is in contravention to the Government’s aims and objectives.
•NPPF emphasises that local authorities should maximise the use of suitable brownfield sites before considering changes to Green Belt boundaries.
•NPPF demands there should be “exceptional circumstances” before Green Belt boundaries can be changed.
•Bradford Council has not provided sufficient justification which provides “exceptional circumstances” for why these green belt sites should be considered.
•The Local Authority must identify a housing need requirement for a particular settlement, so that housing growth numbers can be justified. I have seen no evidence which stipulates that Riddlesden and East Morton’s housing need for the next 15 year period warrants releasing land for up to 198 houses.
•I haven’t seen any justification that demonstrates that all other possible options have been considered which warrants green belt being developed.

Object

Representation ID: 6695

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Anna Los

•Infrastructure has not changed for years. A number of Infrastructure concerns:
•Will new roads be built?
•Will the bridge over canal on Swine Lane be widened and strengthen?
•Will roads on Waterfall Estate be widened and pavements reduced to one?
•Bradford Road / Granby Lane – issues - cars turning on to main road, parking on verges.
•Are roads suitable for HGVs?
•Where will people travel to work?
•Will new doctors/dentists be set up?
•Can utilities deal with increased demand?
•Consideration not given to unknown impacts of the incinerator.
•Consideration should be given to building a new town instead of subjecting existing towns and villages to extreme builds.
•Should preserve what we have. Reuse and recycle, start thinking about the environment.
•Provide data to support thorough investigations of the proposals and infrastructure along with costs incurred so far and projected costs.

Object

Representation ID: 7206

Received: 10/03/2021

Respondent: Mike Sutcliffe

I understand Bradford Council intend building 198 houses in the Riddlesden and East Morton area on green belt land. I totally object to any house building on green belt land, brown belt land should be used.
We need to preserve all green belt land for recreational, wild life and aesthetic purposes we are running out of green belt land. Think about
CO.2 emmisions and global warming

Object

Representation ID: 9630

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Harry Bond

I am writing to object against the plan to build numerous housing developments (East Morton, riddlesden, thwaites brow etc) on green belt land. Please just use brownfield land which has to be an option.

Object

Representation ID: 10778

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Steve Dresser

KY15/H - Carr Bank, the area should be classed as within East Morton and not part of the wider Keighley Town Riddlesden and Stockbridge area
- infrastructure can't cope- the Local School is full,
- poor road links and public transport accessibility
- no justification form Green Belt - all other options should be considered before Green belt
- the area is already overdeveloped
- impact on local road network and noise pollution
- impact on habitats - owls/badgers
- the online service didn’t have the enlarged Riddlesden map
- lack of engagement on the plans

Comment

Representation ID: 15496

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Highways England (Yorkshire & North East Team)

It is not considered that locating development within the
settlements within Keighley, 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 Keighley 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: 28255

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Member of Parliament (Conservative)

Green belt should not be considered for development as it is in contravention to Governments aims and objectives.
Local Authorities should maximise the use of brownfield sites before considering changes to Green Belt boundaries.
There are no exceptional circumstances to justify releasing sites from Green Belt protection. All other reasonable options to meet housing need should be considered.
Inadequate proposals have been presented with regards to upgrading local infrastructure to cope with proposed extra housing. and extra pressures on local services.
There is no clear vision to increase passenger capacity on local public transport. This is in contravention to the Governments Decarbonising Transport strategic priority.
No justification for the proposed housing numbers identified to warrant removal of areas of Green Belt.

Comment

Representation ID: 28553

Received: 09/04/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Labour)

The proposed development above Waterside Fold (Carr Bank, green belt site) is marked as being in Keighley rather than East Morton. In terms of the consultation, this has been confusing and caused anger and mistrust among residents. People on Waterside Fold and Carr Bank consider themselves to be from East Morton, and their address is East Morton. There is also an issue regarding the suggestion of school boundaries and catchments.

The infrastructure of Swine Lane is unsuitable to take more traffic.

The two areas of East Morton and Riddlesden would further merge if the Carr Bank site remains on the plan. There is already no green boundary between Waterside Fold (East Morton) and Hospital Road, Riddlesden – there is no vehicular access between the two villages but they are effectively losing their distinct character and boundary.

Support

Representation ID: 29103

Received: 29/03/2021

Respondent: Historic England

We welcome that each of the Local Area Strategy’s for the
Keighley area specify that development should seek to
ensure that development conserves and enhances key
heritage assets and their settings.

Comment

Representation ID: 30130

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Dewar Planning Associates

We wish to put the following sites forward for consideration:

- Land adjacent at Banks Lane, Keighley.