Consultation Question 140

Object

Representation ID: 11

Received: 08/02/2021

Respondent: Mr Adam Moreton

Due to significant flooding on crack lane caused by insufficient drainage of water courses within the surrounding fields and roads being regularly over whelmed. Also an issue with the water tank situated under the business units. This has been logged with the council and Yorkshire water. Video and photo evidence available.

Object

Representation ID: 490

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: 2269

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Mr John Turton

Whilst I support the need for more housing, I cannot accept that this should be achieved through such extensive Green Belt deletions over the use of Previously Developed Land.
Wilsden Parish has several sites (Haven Farm and Prospect Mill) which are large and capable of accommodating 100+ dwellings. When added to one site that is already PDL (WI1/H), this would provide all the necessary numbers without having to resort to deletions of the Green Belt.
As Bradford has recently received a large Government grant to assist developers in converting PDL, this is what the emphasis should be - thus saving the important farming habitats and open spaces that rural villages are known for.

Object

Representation ID: 2470

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Patrick Tucker

Paragraph 5.27.14 about broadband speeds. "No premises (exist) where speeds are below the Universal Service Obligation". This assertion needs to be challenged as homes (e.g. in the Shay Lane area), relying on an Openreach connection, probably do not meet that standard. BT's own assessment of the line from Cullingworth exchange confirms that it is below the standard. Only true if you are prepared to switch to another provider (Virgin).

Object

Representation ID: 2653

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Maria Overend

I object because I feel the gps and schools are overcrowded as it is the traffic is very busy and adding more houses will increase the population therefore putting more strain on local services and increasing traffic on narrow lanes also the housing would proberbly not be affordable for young people brought up in the area forcing them to move out

Object

Representation ID: 2778

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Jane Booth

1. Greenbelt should not be touched.whats the point in protecting areas if councils can use them at will.
2. Flooding is a major problem in the area, high natural spring, clay soil.
3 traffic in the are would pose a significant risk to the enviroment and the people in that area.

Object

Representation ID: 2907

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Darren Kendall

Poor infrastructure, royd st and Wellington rd already has heavy traffic , especially at peak times. Royd st by the co-op is one lane for 2 way traffic due to cars parked on both sides of the road. Potential 200+ more cars would cause serious congestion.Negative impact on local services (schools/healthcare).
I object to building on green belt because it has an adverse effect on the landscape, scenery and wildlife of the area.

Object

Representation ID: 3010

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Jamie Emblow

This is in the green belt!! It shouldn’t be built on! Simple!!!! It also gets heavily water logged! The Roads are very narrow and the village is busy enough! Wilsden is one of very few nice areas in Bradford and is being ruined by developers and Bradford council. wilsden will end up looking like bd3 before long. Leave this nice village alone. Cheap affordable housing brings unwanted low life people who dont care about the area.stop ruining green belt land!!!!!

Object

Representation ID: 3057

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Sheila Nurse

Wilsden roads and infrastructure cannot cope with extra people or traffic. The schools and doctors are at capacity and our roads are only narrow and are country roads and connot take the existing traffic let alone anymore.

Object

Representation ID: 3125

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jane Pearson

Why is Bradford using Greenbelt when they should use Brown sites first - Such as Prospect Mill and haven farm the old chicken factory. Furthermore the infrastructure of the village is apauling - there is one road in and out of the village and the school drop off and pick up creates dangerous traffic situations

Support

Representation ID: 3322

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Wilsden Parish Council

Summary: Wilsden Parish Council has commented on the source and scope of the data used to prepare the 5.27 local area strategy. We have also made a number of comments and corrections on the detail of 5.27.

Object

Representation ID: 3512

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Mathew Sutcliffe

I don't believe that increasing housing by around 6% (117 new houses) would be beneficial to our beautiful village. I am not against some modest development but there will be numerous brownfield sites across the district that could be used. In fact there is a mill in the village that proposes to turn into apartments and other housing but I don't see this in the plans?

The Crack Lane site particularly I have concerns about after the drainage issues we encountered after the last development took years to sort out and during wet weather the roads are saturated along Shay and Crack Lanes. Please re-consider this.

Object

Representation ID: 3524

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Katie Watts

The areas outlined a ridiculous to even consider building more houses in. Crack Lane is horrific as it is and with more cars it will see many more traffic accidents (for example when Haworth road was closed and all the cars used it as a
Short cut) and also the drainage issues we already have on crack lane. Royd street is also terrible without adding over 150 extra cars driving up there. It is all already too congested in Wilsden

Object

Representation ID: 4207

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Richard Bartlett

Why are we building on green fields Crack lane already congested and dangerous. Flooding problems also. Why not use prospect mill or haven farm to build on?

Object

Representation ID: 4273

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Katy Powell

Village infrastructure can't manage - GP surgery and Wilsden school which is now going to be single form entry.
Why is the proposed Mill site on main street for 31apartments and 16 dwellings not been included in numbers? 3 Houses bottom of royd Street that already have foundations built also not included?
Expansion of village boundary overall and further urbanisation.

Object

Representation ID: 4588

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Pauline Bilevych

The plans to develop green field sites is highly detrimental to the rural area of this village when there are several brown field sites which would be preferential and cause less damage to the environment and wildlife of the village

Object

Representation ID: 4840

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Roland Powell

The number of proposed dwellings will overburden services in the area and create access and parking issues. I also believe that the existing number of dwellings have been underestimated and is based on old data.
There are abandoned developments and development opportunities that could and should be utilised in preference to any greenfield developments. 3 dwellings at the end of Royd street have remain foundations for a decade for example, and land behind the pharmacy may be greenfield, but serves no benefit or purpose, being essentially wasteland.

Comment

Representation ID: 15529

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Highways England (Yorkshire & North East Team)

It is not considered that locating development within the settlements within Wilsden, 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 Wilsden 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: 16343

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Newett Homes

Agent: Quod North

Newett Homes generally support BCC’s strategy for Wilsden. However, for the reasons detailed above, Wilsden should be identified for greater, proportionate, growth (more than the proposed 125 dwellings over the plan period).

This will ensure that the DBLP strategy’s objectives and broader sustainability objectives can be achieved. Notably, in relation to sustaining and enhancing local services and facilities and retaining and growing local employment opportunities.

A greater level of growth will also provide greater opportunities for improved community and
sustainable transport infrastructure within the Local Service Centres.

Comment

Representation ID: 17303

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: The Great Northern Railway Trail Development Group

We ask that reference be made of the need to connect Wilsden to the Great Northern Railway Trail at Harecroft as part of the overall route to connect Cullingworth with Keighley. This has the support of Wilsden Parish Council. This would be achieved by a spur link, of which the existing Station Road at Harecroft would form a part.

Object

Representation ID: 19727

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

Wilsden actually needs construction. Not more houses but employment opportunities.

The 130 more homes envisaged in the plan include WI1/H & WI3/H. Existing sites have been approved for housing, so this refutes the excuse to build on greenbelt at WI2/H. Brownfield sites at Haven Farm, Station Road, Harecroft and Prosepct Mill, Main Street are ideal. This will all inevitably bring 260+ more cars into the equation. Residents already feel the B6144 from Cullingworth and Main Street/Harden Road are similar to race tracks with scarce police resources (not already deployed to Bradford) unable to impact the dangerous situation.

Comment

Representation ID: 28909

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

80 houses is, again, too big a development for this small village, with a small number of homes.

Wilsden has a shortage of employment sites.

Main Street is a busy congested road, with a lack of parking. Two cars can’t pass safely side by side.

Comment

Representation ID: 30121

Received: 04/03/2021

Respondent: Simon Cooke

Wilsden [housing requirement] has been significantly reduced and that the Council has not taken the sensible decision to balance the delivery of homes across Bingley Rural, preferring instead delivery on a ‘village by village’ basis.
The SHLAA site on Haworth Road in Wilsden (between The Avenue and Shay Lane) is far more suitable for development than any of the proposed sites in Cottingley and especially the site between Lee Lane and March Cote Lane (CO1/H).
The unallocated site in Wilsden is better connected to public transport and the main B6144 that serves Bingley Rural and has the capacity to address several of the village’s needs (e.g., a new less constrained primary school) alongside meeting housing requirements for both Wilsden and Cottingley. I would ask that you reconsider the proposals on this basis. It may be that this single site approach also increases the chance of early delivery by providing an accessible, greenfield site with established developer interest.