Consultation Question 130

Object

Representation ID: 33

Received: 09/02/2021

Respondent: Mr Martyn Gulliman

While new housing may be required the current homes being built is pricing out the need identified, with the houses being built classed as Executive Homes so the starting price for these is over what people can afford, the Ebor Mills project starting price for 2 bed houses at over £200k, which is more than a average income family can afford. In addition there is no provision to increase the services to the village, doctors and schools. The Haworth Surgery already is oversubscribed with appointments hard to get covering the existing 3 villages this supports.

Object

Representation ID: 44

Received: 10/02/2021

Respondent: Miss Michelle Lee

We have no local fire service here access in winter means there can be massive delays.
The water courses and drainage has not been dredged or upgraded for decades a few sites have issues with standing water if drives are built then less area to soak in.
The doctors are full up it covers oxenhope, Oakworth,crossroads, part of cullingworth and haworth as well as oldfield, standbury too more people will mean longer wait.
Not everyone earns £42k we need affordable houses under £110k too with all the holiday cottages this means younger people leaving after nothing is affordable to buy

Object

Representation ID: 242

Received: 09/02/2021

Respondent: Tito Arana

Local Area strategy does not reflect all 3 villages- Haworth, Stanbury and Cross Roads

Object

Representation ID: 777

Received: 05/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Deborah Mouat

I have grave concerns about the loss of green field sites as the feeling of space greatly improves the well being of nearby residents. Building yet even more homes off Lees lane will increase the traffic on this already heavily used road, such that when walking into the town I have concerns for my safety as there are no traffic calming measures. Are the council just waiting until there is a serious accident or fatality? I cannot see how the large increase in traffic will be accommodated by our narrow road. The end of Cryer Meadows has a pumping station which requires regular maintenance and so would mean new residents would find that access regularly closed thus meaning that Midgley Drive could then only be used. We hear Skipton Properties always get their way, I sincerely hope that is not the case and the council listen.

Object

Representation ID: 1016

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Amy Polshaw

As a Haworth resident, I very strongly oppose the building of 204 houses in Haworth and Cross Roads, particularly on greenfield land. Building on Green Belt land is in contravention to the Government’s aims and objectives. The fundamental aim of the Government’s Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. The Government’s policy on protection for the Green Belt is set out in chapter 13 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which clearly states the importance of Green Belt land and emphasises that when protecting the Green Belt, local authorities should maximise the use of suitable brownfield sites before considering changes to Green Belt boundaries.

However, this number of new buildings will damage local business, traffic and the community as well as effecting tourism.

Object

Representation ID: 1020

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Mr David Langford

As a council you are promoting green spaces and ecology and the environmental concerns, yet these proposals to use greenfield sites. As usual a blatant uturn on supposed policy. Why can't all the disused mills be converted / demolished ( if they are not listed of course) and these used better.
Or is this proposal just a 'tick in the box' to support national policy and wanted proposals. Wake up Council - do not build on greenfield sites.

Object

Representation ID: 1561

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Louise Hardcastle

There is not enough infrastructure in place to accomodate the suggested plan. Where will all the children be schooled, or play? Where will all these people park? There are already enough cars which have to park on main roads causing obstruction! You are suggesting an extra 204 houses which equates to potentially another 408+ cars and children. There is also the risk of adding to the flood risk in the bottom of Haworth by removing yet more green spaces where water can be absorbed.

Object

Representation ID: 1870

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Mr terence holdsworth

HA2/H, HA3/H, Haworth is the jewel in Bradford's crown. Tourists do not come from across the world (esp. Japanese) to see housing estates. they expect open fields and dry stone walls. Look at previous new builds, stand at the junction of Cryer Meadows and Lees Lane and you will find three styles of walling never before seen in Haworth. Visit Long Acres estate see the ugliest walls imaginable. What used to be gentle rising fields from Vale Mill Lane, now has been changed with a massive raised level of land so much so that the houses stand on concrete rafts. Travelling up Lees lane from Mill Hey look to the left and note the large concrete slabs supporting Cryer Meadows, the housing looks like army barracks. ( I lived in better better looking accommodation 5yrs in R.A.F.) My main objection is the style of build PLUS altering the land levels.

Object

Representation ID: 3729

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Sarah Garner

With limited services for schools and doctors, limited parking and narrow roads supporting additional housing is difficult, also why has the skipton properties development not been counted against this number? Finally the world has changed since assessments were done on these areas, places that are adequate for farming should be encouraged to be used and protected for future generations rather than build houses on

Object

Representation ID: 6327

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Simon Rogers

I’d like to feedback in the strongest possible opposition to an additional 250 homes in Haworth.

Haworth is a tourist destination that has already been significantly changed over decades. It’s now perilously close to losing what makes it special and what attracts visitors to the area.

Visitors see Haworth as a quaint Yorkshire village. Are they going to really continue to come when it’s overwhelmed with modern housing encroaching on green spaces? Before long Haworth won’t be a quaint Yorkshire dale - it’ll be a blot on the local landscape.

Our Council should protect green spaces, focus on subtle developments that are in keeping with the historic nature of the village and invest in local tourism focussed infrastructure to helping to help make Haworth a powerhouse to drive the local economy. That’s not going to happen by dumping another 250 houses here.

Object

Representation ID: 6795

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Jill Okunowo

•Previous planning application refused on Green Belt grounds. Plan includes 115 homes to be built on Green Belt in the Worth Valley.
•NPPF requires local authorities to maximise use of brownfield sites before changing Green Belt.
•NPPF requires ‘exceptional circumstances’ before changing Green Belt.
•What has changed to allow the release of green belt land?
•No sufficient justification providing exceptional circumstances for releasing Green Belt.
•The local authority should demonstrate all other reasonable options for meeting development needs.
•Local authorities must identify housing need for each settlement –this has not been explored sufficiently to justify building on green belt in Haworth/Oakworth/Oxenhope.
•No account of infrastructure to support additional homes e.g. schools, doctors, road links, public transport, water, sewerage, electricity, internet etc.
•Importance of green space/access to countryside for physical and mental well-being. Eroding Green Belt impacts on available green space. Haworth/Oxenhope have been visited by thousands of people during lockdown.

Object

Representation ID: 6919

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Joe Karkoszka

•Building on Green Belt destroys greenfields forever and is against government’s policy on protecting the environment.
•Infrastrcuture cannot cope with anymore housing e.g. transport, drainage, schools, doctors –all oversubscribed.
•The more houses that are built the more houses are needed in the future. E.g. in the 1950s the average family was a mother, father and 2.4 children, meaning that for every 8 houses built a ninth was required. Today the average family is larger than in the 50s.
•The world’s population is growing – 4 billion (1970s), nearly 8 billion today, meaning in another 50 years it will be 16 billion – the planet cannot sustain this.
•Should be looking bringing down the birth-rate rather than building.
•Should be using brownfield sites, leave the greenfield sites to provide oxygen and stop suffocating the planet with short term decisions.

Object

Representation ID: 7129

Received: 07/03/2021

Respondent: Elaine and Alan Storey

Number of people: 2

Object to the proposed building on green field sites or the green belt within Haworth as stated in the Draft Bradford District Local Plan. This is totally unacceptable.
The Plan shows no consideration for local residents. There is nothing in it to protect historic physical or natural features. Nothing to promote a clean environment and reduce air and noise pollution, nothing to enhance or promote tourism, nothing to protect boundaries and green spaces between villages, nothing to maintain and provide infrastructure for local residents, nothing to maintain a positive environment or improve natural habitats and nothing to decrease traffic flow. In fact just the opposite.
Where ever you build in the Worth Valley traffic flows increase through these settlements with Lees and Cross Roads adversely affected as vehicles attempt to get to Keighley or Bradford on the road network which is all linked. As a result traffic issues are now causing untold problems for residents.

Comment

Representation ID: 15519

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Highways England (Yorkshire & North East Team)

It is not considered that locating development within the settlements within Haworth, 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 Haworth 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: 15750

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Anne Arana

I object to building which infringes on the green belt and does not use the many brownfield sites throughout the district.

Cross Roads is misspelt as one word. And why is Cross Roads lumped with Haworth? The three villages of Stanbury, Haworth, and Lees & Cross Roads all have very different characteristics and identity.

Road are already congested, schools and doctors are over subscribed.

The plan states there are two schools in Haworth and two parks. This is not true. Lees Primary is in the village of Lees, which you call Cross Roads. Cross Roads park is a mile away from Haworth.

The proposals will adversely impact the environment and air quality.

Adverse impacts on tourism - even as a local resident I do not wish to drive through a "tunnel" of houses which is what is happening now at Oakworth and Bogthorn with the views across the valley obscured.

Comment

Representation ID: 18229

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

Consultation
The current consultation is being held online only as we are currently in a covid19 lockdown period. This means many people are being disenfranchised from the process who don’t have online access or skills to use it. Normally such an important consultation would have face to face sessions in community spaces and libraries where people could view the plans the provide feedback.

The Conservative Group formally submitted a council motion to extend the consultation period after the Local Election period when community buildings and libraries will reopen so face to face consultation events could be held. However, despite support from both the Liberal Democrats and Green Party the Labour Councillors voted against giving residents any more consultation opportunities face to face.

Object

Representation ID: 18233

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

Haworth and Cross Roads

The Haworth sites include sites in Cross Roads which is a separate village. It has caused many local complaints that the two individual villages have been grouped as Haworth. If they are to be listed together they should be referred to as sites in Haworth and Cross Roads.

Treetops Children’s Centre is no-longer open and the building is now part of the primary school so this needs removing from the Local Plan information.

Tourism is a major factor for Haworth with the heritage of the village being protected. The Keighley and Worth Valley Railway (KWVR) runs through the village and is a key tourist draw. Impact of the KWVR needs factoring into any development.

Support

Representation ID: 29108

Received: 29/03/2021

Respondent: Historic England

We welcome that a key element of the Local Area Strategy
for Haworth includes that development should:
 Conserve and enhance the designated and undesignated
heritage of Haworth especially those elements which
make a significant contribution to the distinct character
of this area and the buildings and landscapes associated
with the Brontes.

Object

Representation ID: 29540

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Elizabeth & Tim Walton

Number of people: 2

•Any development in Crossroads, Haworth and Oakworth ultimately affects the sheer volume of traffic going through Lees and Cross Roads