Object

Representation ID: 1755

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Atis Krumins

We object: negative impact on a sensitive heritage site/flora/fauna. Heights Lane used by walkers/horse riders to access numerous footpaths: increased traffic/no pavements=risk to persons. Dalesway site adjacent not allowed vehicular access/risk previously. HL Roundabout a scene of daily near misses/accidents already.
Due to value of site, homes built likely to be luxury homes to maximise profit. 26.4% of city is <18yrs. Significant growing BME population. Growing disabled/elderly population (>39.5% by 2037). They won’t address meeting housing need where required in Bradford or enable easy amenity/cultural access.
Site is outside Eldwick School catchment: thus Crossflatts or further. No public transport available. Reliance on private cars to access school/any amenities: reduced air quality. All schools won’t cope with the 440 house Sty lane/Crosley Wood/Marley Court developments (oversubscribed now).
Bradford has 4000+ empty homes: Council failing to get back into circulation. A development here won’t produce affordable, sustainable homes the district needs.

Object

Representation ID: 1985

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Kurt Risdon

Exactly the same as my comments regarding B14/H

Object

Representation ID: 2156

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Nicola Underwood

Green belt site - no justification for this to be removed.
This would have a hugely damaging effect on both wildlife & countryside.
Adjacent to a narrow lane which is already busy as well as a popular local walk used by cyclists & horse riders.
Development would be more than 15 minutes from local town & railway station - Council’s own target.
Risk of flooding to Aire Valley - site on top of a hill which is beyond the village therefore impacting open countryside.
Families having to travel to schools as local school already oversubscribed- further impacting on roads/carbon/environmental/ & social damage.
The development brings no value to the local community other than Council Tax to BMDC.

Object

Representation ID: 2300

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Abigail Roberts

The land already floods in this area and this plan will make it much worse

Object

Representation ID: 2315

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Joanne Thornton

My reasons are as follows. The land is designated as Green Belt to prevent urban sprawl and the council have NOT produced evidence to show exceptional circumstances as to why the fields should be removed from Green belt. There are many alternative, non-green belt sites in the Bingley area which haven’t been taken into consideration. Building on these would avoid increased building sprawl and the loss of our wide open spaces. The development of the fields will increase pollution as well as generate pluvial flooding in the area. The nature of the heights lane with its poor visibility, no pavements and limited width means considerable risk would be generated for the lives and health of pedestrians and motorists. This proposed development will not meet the overarching environmental objective of protecting or enhancing the environment and valued landscape. Inevitably it would also lead to the destruction and loss of wildlife.

Support

Representation ID: 2371

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Joseph Firth

This proposal will do wonders for eldwick schools, local businesses and for the council in regards to council tax! These fields are private anyway so it’s not like anyone can get any enjoyment out of them so in my eyes, they are just wasted space. There will be hundreds/thousands of people however that will benefit from removing the green belt of this land and turning it into houses. Tons of families that can have a lovely place to live and enjoy their days in the beautiful village that is eldwick, spending their money at the local businesses such as Eldwick Post Office and The Acorn Pub for example :) eldwick will be a much nicer place with more friendly faces in it and happy families! You said it -In delivering the target for new homes in Bingley it has been necessary to make some changes to the adopted green belt.

Support

Representation ID: 2379

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Linda Li

I support this proposal as it will solve Bingley’s housing problem.

Support

Representation ID: 2385

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Leah Kendall

I know that these things get hundreds more objections than support (that’s just the way it is with NIMBYs) but I still wanted to come on here and show my support. Building housing estates such as Swan Avenue, in eldwick has helped so much! It’s helped local businesses, provided families with lovely, gorgeous homes to grow up in and also some affordable housing too which is great. These fields are being wasted. They are private and if anyone steps foot on them it is deemed ‘trespassing’ so why not get some use out of them and use them to help solve our housing crisis in Bradford? It would be a fantastic place to live and you know more than anyone that we need housing urgently and here it is right in front of you. Remove the greenbelt for the two heights Lane fields as there are plenty of others.

Support

Representation ID: 2388

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Ryan Lister

I believe that this will contribute positively towards my community.

Support

Representation ID: 2397

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Matthew Lumley

I think this would be great for Bingley and the local areas

Object

Representation ID: 2767

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Ron Hardy

I feel this development is yet another nail in the Green Belt coffin. The site is next to the park which I feel will adversely affect the wildlife within the park. The road network in Eldwick is not suitable for the increase in traffic. The public transport to this area is minimal therefore the type of new resident will be a car owning one. The overall infrastructure of Bingley is just about adequate and with this and the other proposed developments in the area i feel would be to much. Surely there are enough Brown sites within the Bradford district to accommodate new housing without gobbling up our precious country side. Surely this area should remain and the ever expanding urban development be curbed and we start looking within the Bradford boundaries. We need to protect our wildlife and country side not bury them under more bricks and mortar.

Object

Representation ID: 3069

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Stewart Hazell

Recently two homes were built on land off Glen Road in Eldwick. The area wasn't green belt or a conservation area. The area is the size of your proposed B16/H development so arguably 19 houses could have been built on this land. Likewise Lidl has opened in Bingley on a site which has lay idle for decades. The town already has an Aldi, Co-op and Sainsbury's, not to mention the other superstores within a 3 miles radius. Why allow another supermarket? This brownfield site could have been used for housing. The council's decisions are baffling. Why opt for greenblet when their are / have been other options? The greenbelt is a precious resource. You cannot replace it once you've built on it. The area around Eldwick is full of moorland birds. Taking away more of their land isn't helpful in sustaining a healthy population (both for birds and humans).

Object

Representation ID: 3105

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Thomas Walker

This like the below propsal

BI4/H - Heights Lane (west side), Eldwick

will be subject to puluvial flooding and therefore unsafe to develop on.

Object

Representation ID: 3370

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

The Heights Lane sites B14/H and BI8/H adjoins the Prince of Wales Registered Park. The loss of the greenfield site is likely to have a negative impact upon the local landscape particularly the Prince of Wales Park. This site also falls within 2.5km of the South Pennine Moors SPA/ and the site is located in a moderate performing Green Belt parcel. There is potential for sprawl and would have a moderate impact on openness. This site does not present an opportunity to create a stronger boundary than that which exists. Close to a Local Wildlife Site and park with the potential to impact on these settings. Heights Lane is a narrow country road with no footpaths, the sight lines at the junction with Otley Road are poor. Heights Lane is very popular with walkers and riders- increased traffic onto the mini roundabout will be dangerous.

Object

Representation ID: 3535

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Jan Taylor

This is a worrying plan to develop on vital Green Belt land, with houses encroaching further and further out into the landscape.
Biodiversity is important and this development would inevitably impact on the local bird and wildlife population, as it would disrupt the natural environments.

Object

Representation ID: 3841

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr BILL HARDIE

This site when added to the site to B14h effectively destroys the wildlife habitats and rural views so close to the Prince of Wales park.
At this point in time is so important for people's mental health to have areas they can escape to to view wildlife, rural views etc.
The additional vehicular traffic and pedestrians on a narrow rural lane is also a concern.

Object

Representation ID: 3897

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Jenny Woodward

Negative impact on natural environment and the landscape especially true due its proximity to the Prince of Wales park. This development would blur the boundary between the urban area and the countryside - Heights Lane is valued greatly for its naturalness, beauty and being the start of open countryside. Building here will impact adversely on health and wellbeing. In addition, because of the distance from the town centre and the steepness of the hill, new residents will most likely drive to train station / the town leading to poorer air quality, climate change and quality of life.

Object

Representation ID: 3931

Received: 20/02/2021

Respondent: Mr Jeremy Meer

B12/HC, B13/H, B14/H, B18/H - I am absolutely not in favour of plans to develop on Greenfield sites or release Green Belt land to be developed as part of the plan. These areas were designated Green Belt for a reason and greenfield sites / the environment should remain protected, and these should not be developed on. There are enough empty brownfield sites to develop and the plan should focus on these primarily. In addition, the wider infrastructure in Bingley is at capacity (schools, healthcare, roads & transport links), therefore development should be limited without further improvements to that infrastructure.

Object

Representation ID: 4114

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Nick Oldham

* Yet more of a limited and precious area of greenbelt land will be lost in the village
* Loss of natural habitat, which will have an adverse impact on local wildlife, especially next to woodland and a park
*There has already been too much new development in Eldwick and there are plenty of brownfield sites available within the Bingley area
*There will be additional pressure on the roads in the village, particularly Otley Road which is already a rat run, especially in the morning and evening, as well as at the mini-roundabout and on roads leading to and from the village
*Heights Lane is narrow and completely unsuitable for the increased volume of traffic the two developments (B14/H and B18/H) will generate along the road
* Heights Lane is a favourite spot for walkers and increased traffic will cause increased danger

Object

Representation ID: 4214

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Stephen Leman

I object to the allocation of the following sites for housing development that lie within the Green Belt:

◦ B14/H Heights Lane, Eldwick
◦ B18/H Land west of Heights Lane

The sites adjoin the Prince of Wales Registered Park. The loss of this greenfield site is likely to have a heavy negative impact upon the local landscape and townscape, particularly the Prince of Wales Park (a Registered Park/Garden).  Both sites also fall within 2.5km of the South Pennine Moors SPA and are in a moderate performing Green Belt parcel. The sites make a major contribution to the purposes of including land in the Green Belt. The developments have a major potential for sprawl and would have a moderate impact on openness. The sites do not present an opportunity to create a stronger boundary than that which exists.

Object

Representation ID: 4941

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Tim Robinson

If we carry on building on all our fields there will be nothing left for the future generations to enjoy. Furthermore this is a country lane that cannot tolerate any further traffic.

If BMDC need to build houses start reusing the brown belt and redevelop the old mills. The centre of Bradford and the close outskirts is covered in derelict buildings - build from within.

Object

Representation ID: 5046

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Sandra Pearson

We have lived in this area from the early 80s. We had a beautiful greenbelt field behind the house. This field became a housing estate. We have since lost all the fields on the right down Sheriff Lane. There is no gap at all between Eldwick and Gilstead. All Greenbelt and now ALL GONE.

With this proposal we face

• Destruction and loss of wildlife. We see Curlews nesting in these fields. The UK’s Curlew population has halved in the last
25 years and is now in the UK Red List. There is also a healthy Owl population in Prince of Wales Park. These fields are their feeding grounds
• Increased traffic volumes, especially at Park Road roundabout and through the village.
• Further overload to local crowded schools and GPs
• Increased air and environment pollution
• Increased building sprawl and loss of valuable wide open spaces

Object

Representation ID: 5735

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Christine Ironfield-Smith

• Destruction of a greenfield/Green Belt site - valuable habitat for flora and fauna and a much needed green space.
• Adverse impact on a Local Wildlife Site (LWS) and the Listed Prince of Wales Park, a sensitive heritage asset, which is home to many species including woodpeckers, bats and deer.
• Adverse impact on the nearby South Pennine Moor SPA/SAC.
• Increased risk of flooding through removal of grassland/vegetation and potential for ground contamination at the LWS and Listed Park.
• Increased road traffic volumes - more congestion, accidents and air pollution.
• Increase in demand for school places and registrations at GP surgeries/dental practices - adding to the pressure on already stretched resources and less favourable outcomes for patients and practitioners, re the latter.
• Only minor positive effects predicted for most socio-economic themed SA Objectives that don't outweigh the disadvantages this allocation would lead to.

Object

Representation ID: 5742

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Christine Ironfield-Smith

• Destruction of a greenfield/Green Belt site - valuable habitat for flora and fauna and a much needed green space.
• Adverse impact on a Local Wildlife Site (LWS) and the Listed Prince of Wales Park, a sensitive heritage asset, which is home to many species including woodpeckers, bats and deer.
• Adverse impact on the nearby South Pennine Moor SPA/SAC.
• Increased risk of flooding through removal of grassland/vegetation and potential for ground contamination at the LWS and Listed Park.
• Increased road traffic volumes - more congestion, accidents and air pollution.
• Increase in demand for school places and registrations at GP surgeries/dental practices - adding to the pressure on already stretched resources and less favourable outcomes for patients and practitioners, re the latter.
• Only minor positive effects predicted for most socio-economic themed SA Objectives that don't outweigh the disadvantages this allocation would lead to.

Object

Representation ID: 5747

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 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: 5966

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr David Scrivener

Why not address the issues of disused and rundown areas to solve the so called housing crisis, where infrastructures are already there. Schools are being closed in one district only for other schools to be overpopulated and being extended. Do the right thing for a change and don’t take the easy option. Invest in the future for the right reasons and protect the environment and economy before it’s too late

Object

Representation ID: 5992

Received: 28/02/2021

Respondent: Mrs Janette Tattersall

Site ref: B14/H dwelling 21 and B18/H dwelling 18
We object to the development of a further 40 homes being developed between Heights lane and the surrounding area. Traffic flow is already greatly increased In Eldwick and Gilstead and this will be made even more dangerous when pedestrians use the road. The impact on environmental noise and pollution will be greatly increased, not least the small cross road roundabout at the bottom of heights lane, ( again a dangerous area for pedestrians crossing). Development Of the houses will impact, what we already know, on our crowded schools and GP practices in Eldwick and Gilstead GP practices

Object

Representation ID: 6026

Received: 02/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Andrew Wilkinson

Additional comments made via email and summarised with users summary
Green belt should be preserved - to stop urban sprawl, over population of a village area, traffic congestion on the narrow roads and over subscription to the local schools. Many local people use this area for walks, its important for nature and the clearing of woodland goes against all green policies.
Eldwick and Gilstead are now very overcrowded (over built) and the traffic is ridiculous. Locals feel very strong about this.
. For everyone’s mental health, we need to stop building on green belt land and preserve the beautiful nature of the area

Object

Representation ID: 6048

Received: 20/02/2021

Respondent: Mrs Susan Oldfield

We should like to register our objection to proposed building on this narrow lane with restricted access between existing houses and very tight exit to a mini roundabout at 1, Otley Road.

Object

Representation ID: 6051

Received: 02/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Margaret Couzens

Number of people: 2

Please can we register our objection to proposed planning for 40 houses at Heights Lane and West of Heights Lane Eldwick.