Consultation Question 141

Object

Representation ID: 491

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: 803

Received: 06/03/2021

Respondent: Mr John Kane

There is no room for further outward expansion. The green belt is protected and cannot be built on.
The open areas are needed to protect biodiversity.
The current infrastructure, roads, medical and schools cannot support any further increased demands on them.
The open areas are needed to be retain rain water run-off to protect the local and county area from future flooding.
Building to this plan is a defunct model now out of touch with future environmental needs.

Object

Representation ID: 2469

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Patrick Tucker

Question the need for further deveopment in Crack Lane, given the new housing built in the last few years. See further comments on specific site below

Object

Representation ID: 2917

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: 2949

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Andy Smith

Object

Object

Representation ID: 2951

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Deborah Ingleson

Object

Object

Representation ID: 3013

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: 3093

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Joanne Slater

The sites proposed at Crack Lane and Moorside Farm would potentially lead to traffic congestion and danger on the roads. Access on Royd Street is hazardous at the best of times, as are Crack Lane and Shay Lane. The school and local facilities are already at maximum levels

Object

Representation ID: 3324

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Wilsden Parish Council

Summary: Wilsden Parish Council has commented in detail on the proposed site allocations and the alternative sites included within the documentation. We have also detailed other potential sites which if approved would reduce the need for Green Belt deletions.

Object

Representation ID: 3522

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Mathew Sutcliffe

I object to this on the basis that the plan is to cram in as many houses to a tight space as possible

Object

Representation ID: 3546

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Kelley Sutcliffe

I object to building on all 3 of the green belt spaces due to the already busy traffic conditions on the narrow roads leading to them. On the Crack Lane/Shay Lane field there are listed buildings next to the roads which have a risk of structural damage with building works and heavy construction vehicles passing close by.

Object

Representation ID: 4217

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Ian Linney

Wilsden is a village and still has a village feel to it. The excessive building will ruin the neighbourhood and we will lose that feeling forever. Once its gone it cannot be replaced. Green fields need to stay as green fields. Currently there is enough congestion on main street at peak times (When school starts and finishes) and another 130 properties with at upwards of more than 130 cars will not make it any less congested.

Object

Representation ID: 4309

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Russell Holroyd

Crack lane is already far too busy with traffic and in my opinion will become an accident waiting to happen with 40 new houses

Object

Representation ID: 4550

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Darren O'Meara

Better Brownfield sites exist locally and this plan provides little if any foresight into remediating and/or rejuvenating existing sites which would be better suited.
100's of additional houses in a rural village with limited and infrequent public transport links only serves to increase pollution from traffic. Development through erosion of green field sites which are accessed via road infrastructure which is incapable of meeting demands will only have a negative social and environmental impact.

Object

Representation ID: 4572

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Debra Wright

Wilsden needs to remain a village if these plans go ahead it will no longer be so. Perhaps if this was not a sought after area to live by outsiders it would not have been selected its losing its heritage and community spirit ,young villagers are struggling to find affordable housing already

Object

Representation ID: 5019

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Nigel Byers

Over the last 50 years I have witnessed traffic congestion multiply to an extent that my journey times to work have increased triple fold . The country lanes accessing the proposed developments are grid locked for long periods.
The dangerous speed of cars travelling through the village has never been dealt with correctly.speed bumps and signs only pay lip service
The further increase in developments impacts the doctors surgery and village hall.
The rural nature of the village is being eaten away by constant developments.
Villagers pursuing horse riding, cycling, walking and running have to constantly be on their guard due to the reckless nature and volume of motor vehicles

Object

Representation ID: 5053

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Kalpesh Mistry

Crack lane won’t cope with additional traffic and the current infrastructure like drainage is not in place as the recent new builds have had this issue and are yet to be adopted by the council.

Object

Representation ID: 5152

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Barratt Homes and David Wilson Homes Yorkshire West

Agent: Sheppard Planning

Please see attached statement.

Barratt Homes and David Wilson Homes
Yorkshire West (Barratt) objects to the omission of site WI/001 - land at Harden Lane, Bents Lane, Wilsden from the Preferred Options Draft Plan.

The site does not perform Green Belt functions and is accessible to a wide range of services and facilities. It has no environmental constraints and could deliver around 120 homes including 30 affordable homes (25% in line with draft policy H05) in the Plan Period.

Object

Representation ID: 5226

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Ashley Bayles

WI2/H - Access issues - narrow roads, no paths, non HGV safe.
Flooding risk - surface water and spring already affecting current homes. Risk to current and new homes.
Sprawl into secluded hamlet - Norr.
Equine safety - high horse usage in area.
Cemetery serenity will be undermined.
Loss of good grazing land
Loss of wildlife habitat - bats and sighting of water vole by natural spring.
PROSPECT MILL, MAIN STREET WILSDEN would be more suitable - previously developed and capacity for more homes. Less risk to environment.

Object

Representation ID: 5254

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Darren Hutton

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE SITE:

Prospect Mill, Main Street, Wilsden

This is previously developed land and has capacity for approx. 45 homes (more than WI2/H)

Object

Representation ID: 5390

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jill Cordingley

1. Increase in the number of vehicles accessing the village
2. Losing green belt land when there are alternatives such as Spencer’s Mill and the site of the old chicken factory
3. Increase in the number of primary school places when Wilsden primary is about to reduce numbers

Object

Representation ID: 5525

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Susan Griffiths

Wilsden is already very congested around Crack Lane and Crooke lane and the roads and local facilities won’t be able to cope - it’s already gridlocked at times

Comment

Representation ID: 11106

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Warren Ormondroyd

Please allocate this small site as residential (land at Birkshead off Birkshead Drive, Wilsden).
It previously contained agricultural buildings and stands in heart of residential area.
The development of a single property on this site would make a positive contribution to the neighbourhood.
Development would have minimal impact on surrounding
properties and Green Belt.
Site identified as a potential suitable site for development.
It is not located in flood risk zone.

Comment

Representation ID: 15530

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: 16347

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Newett Homes

Agent: Quod North

Newett Homes object to the rejection of WI/003 (Land North of Crack Lane).

The Site’s appropriateness for development in Green Belt and landscape terms, as well as general suitability, availability and deliverability has been demonstrated previously and again in these Representations. The Site should be identified as a residential allocation in the DBLP.

It is rejected in the SLA due to potential landscape impacts, but this is without any detailed assessment or consideration of the Site (other than on its Green Belt impacts) that, as noted below, do not correspond with the previously submitted information .

Newett Homes disagree with the SLA’s unsubstantiated comments that are anticipated to be lined to the GBOP SSA’s assessment.

The Site has low potential impact on the Green Belt. The GBOP SSA should be amended to reflect this information and the Site should be allocated. SPD2 confirms that the Site is available, deliverable and viable for c. 15 dwellings.

Support

Representation ID: 17324

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Avant Homes

Agent: ID Planning

We support the proposed allocation of site WI3/H at Moorside Farm which is a sustainable site located adjacent to the settlement boundary and within close proximity of existing services and facilities. The site will deliver a mix of up to 80 dwellings to meet housing needs of local people.

Comment

Representation ID: 28913

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

There is no mention in the Local Plan of The James Spencer Development which has already been approved for 16 houses and 31 apartments.
https://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/18641410.flats-housing-planned-wilsden-mill-site/

Former Chicken Factory, Station Road, Harecroft. Public Consultation did occur 2 years ago by the owners to submit an application for 30+ houses. The site is still unoccupied