Object

Representation ID: 21412

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Christine Mclay

I am writing to you to object to the proposed building application at areas:-

B14/H & B18/H Heights Lane Eldwick.

My objection is based on many reasons, congestion at the already busy roundabout, increase of cars in a busy area, impact on wildlife on the proposed site & near The Prince Of Wales Park & surrounding fields.

Increase of families, impact on the school & infrastructure etc.

No pavements on Heights Lane & the road is too narrow to accommodate one. Busy already with cars, walkers & cyclists, the road will be more dangerous.

I would urge the council to re consider the impact of building here, it’s definitely not a suitable proposal.

Object

Representation ID: 21479

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: David Peel

In a world so heavily polluted, on an island so massively overpopulated, in a county losing all its open spaces..At a time you and Leeds are be told to leave the airport alone due to environmental concerns.. you think its a good idea to take those areas and give them to the greedy housebuilders.

On roads, Heights lane, otley Rd and Walsh St, were car crashes are commonplace leading to injury or worse, because the roads are too narrow.. were simple country rds are often rammed with traffic..the air is more polluted and loss of wildlife habit is now getting worse...

One of the last strong hold for the curlews and a place for Britain's most protected bird the red kite is nesting.

There can be no other reason than money.

You cannot do this.. its is protected greenbelt.

Object

Representation ID: 21492

Received: 22/07/2021

Respondent: Kate Limbert

Unreasonable and unnecessary government housing targets are forcing LPAs to seek the removal of sites from the green belt.

The Council have not produced evidence to show that there are “exceptional circumstances” why the fields have to be removed from the green belt.

There are many alternative (non-Green Belt) sites suitable for development in the Bingley area which have not been taken into consideration.

Development of the fields will generate considerable traffic on a lane with poor visibility, no pavements and limited width and thus generate considerable risks to the lives and health of pedestrians and motorists.

The proposed development will not meet the overarching environmental objective of protecting or enhancing the environment including valued landscapes.

The development will increase pollution as well as generate pluvial flooding . Development close to the Prince of Wales Park will reduce the environment that supports local wildlife deer, birds and bats.

Object

Representation ID: 21497

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Lucy Philips

- Impact on already oversubscribed local services such as schools, doctors etc.

- Destruction of local wildlife to the local area resulting from development close to Prince of Wales Park

- Traffic and congestion on Otley Rd. Heights Lane is a narrow road unsuitable for access to the proposed sites and already hazardous to drivers and walkers alike and has no pavement.

- The increase in traffic flow will cause further dangers to pedestrians crossing Otley Rd.

- Increased in air pollution

- Further loss of open space impacting on walking, running, cycling which benefits physical and mental health.

- The land is greenbelt which prevents urban sprawl - no evidence to show the ‘exceptional circumstances’ as to why the fields need to be removed from green belt status. There are many other alternative non green belt sites available for development in the Bingley area.

Object

Representation ID: 21636

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Gillian Wood

I appreciate that more housing is needed, but Eldwick and Bingley have had plenty of housing built over the years. The roads are far too busy with large amounts of traffic on narrow roads already.
There will not be enough places in the schools for all the extra numbers of children needing to be educated.

Dentists and doctors will be overloaded with patients.

I feel that new housing should be built on brownfield sites, where possible and leave our green spaces alone.

Support

Representation ID: 23670

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bankhead (Eldwick) Ltd

Agent: Johnson Mowat

Supports the inclusion of Site BI8/H (but note its separate objection to the non-identification of the remaining extent of Site BI4/H and Site BI8/H)

The site is well located within the Bingley sub area. Bingley is one of the Principle Towns.

We disagree with the green belt site specific assessment which concludes that BI8/H would have a major potential impact on the green belt. There are exceptional circumstances to justify the site's release for development.

In terms of heritage impacts our client is not advocating the complete development of land parcels where there would be ‘substantial harm’ or ‘less than substantial harm (unacceptable)’ to the Grade II Listed Prince of Wales Park.

The site is deliverable, there are no known viability issues and no environmental constraints associated with the site that cannot be dealt with via appropriate design.

The development would form a logical extension to Eldwick.

Object

Representation ID: 23870

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Eleanor Edwardes

Objections are:

Environmental – it is a Green Belt site. Building on it will a negative impact on wildlife. Close to protected moorland site and Prince of Wales Park

Safety – will access onto narrow lane and mini-roundabout. Lane is a popular route for walkers, runners, cyclists and horse-riders.

Cars – will bring additional cars and increase queues to access busy and dangerous mini-roundabout – impacting safety and air quality;

Sustainability – not within 15 minutes’ walk of the nearest railway station or High Street. It is 1.8km from Bingley, taking no account of the hill.

Natural boundary – sites are beyond the natural “village” boundary. Will impact on openness and sprawl. There are valuable/beautiful long distance views from the bottom of Heights Lane – these will disappear.

Flooding – building of the fields on top of a hill will increase flooding in the Aire Valley

School places – secondary schools are full and primary school is at capacity.

Object

Representation ID: 23950

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Karen Douglas

I/we walk along heights Lane and through Prince of Wales park. It’s a beautiful area and the impact on housing will be catastrophic for the wildlife, the deers that use these fields as a corridor to the moors.
There is no footpath along Heights Lane and it is so narrow in places which deems it unsafe for even more people to be forced into the road.
Whilst there is a need for housing, Bingley and the surrounding area has had far more development than other Bradford towns and villages.
Please consider these and all the other reasons you have been made aware of not to allow our green fields to be lost forever.

Object

Representation ID: 24003

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Matthew Broadbent

I object to the development of this site for the following reasons:
- destruction of multiple forms of wildlife
- increased traffic at an already overcapacitated roundabout, with no pedestrian safety measures
- already overcrowded schools and doctors
- increased air pollution
- increased chances of flooding
- loss of wide open spaces with increased building sprawl
- noise pollution
- negative impact on walks in that area

Object

Representation ID: 24025

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Caroline Broadbent

1. The land is Green Belt and as such has a function of conserving natural habitat and safeguarding the countryside. It is completely unjustified to take this away When There are other areas of brown field sites in the Bingley area. If the decision to release the green belt was made in these circumstances, it would not be sound.
2. The unsuitability of Heights Lane for any increased traffic due to the narrowness of the road.
3. There are many alternative / brownfield sites in the Bingley area.
4. There is no room at the local primary school.
5.There appear not to be any exceptional circumstances which would necessitate the inclusion of green belt in any housing plans. The sites B14/H and B18/H are performing an important function as Green belt, and should be kept as such.

Object

Representation ID: 24494

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Pauline Wood

I object to the proposed site in Heights Lane as this cannot add any sustainability to the Bingley area as it is too far out of town.

Object

Representation ID: 25320

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Thomas Edwardes

Wildlife lives on and in the fields.

These are valuable Green Belt fields that are home to a variety of birds of prey, bats, moles and rabbits. Have also seen pheasants, grouse and deer in the fields. At various times the fields have been home to sheep and lambs and horses.

Have seen people walking, running and riding up and down Heights Lane and enjoying the long distance views and glimpses of wildlife that these fields provide. Aware of how dangerous the lane is already.

Don’t build on these fields. Help us look after this protect and precious land.

Object

Representation ID: 25597

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Ami Brabbins

I object on the following basis:
1) The planning process is not sound.
2) The Core Strategy does not consider the societal, economic, and demographic shifts
in a post-Brexit and post-Covid world. It is not sound.
3) The obligations to safeguard the South Pennine Moors have not been met; the plan is
not sound.
4) The plan does not meet the exceptional circumstances required for removal of
protected greenbelt status, and there has been no demonstration of exceptional
circumstances. The plan is not sound.
5) The site is unfit for purpose as a housing estate
6) The site is incompatible with Bradford Council’s strategic objectives and obligations
I shall expand on these - see attachment:

Object

Representation ID: 25619

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Jess Brooke

Strongly object to this development. My concerns are:

• Development will generate considerable traffic on a lane with poor visibility, no pavements and limited width, create safety risks.

• Local infrastructure is over-subscribed.

• Land is designated Green Belt. No evidence produced to show that there are “exceptional circumstances” why the fields have to be removed from it.

• Proposal not sound. There are many alternative (non-Green Belt) site suitable for development in the Bingley area which have not been taken into consideration.

• Development will not meet the overarching environmental objective of protecting/enhancing the environment included valued landscapes.

• Development will increase pollution and generate pluvial flooding.

• Development close to Prince of Wales Park will inhibit and reduce the environment that supports wildlife.

• Bradford is part of the WYCA review – likely to result in parcels of non-Green Belt land becoming available for development. No need to remove fields from the Green Belt to meet house building targets.

Object

Representation ID: 26558

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Rebecca Jebb

Main objections to the proposed plans to build on Green Belt plots on Heights Lane, Eldwick are:

1. Green Belt should be protected at all costs after every other avenue has been exhausted. Should be there for residents and children to enjoy

2. Heights Lane is situated off a small mini-roundabout that is very busy. It is a narrow road with no footpaths and used by villagers to access other local footpaths. Increased traffic would cause pollution and be a danger to pedestrians

3. There isn’t the infrastructure to support any more people. Local school is at maximum capacity. More houses mean a need for more school places, doctor surgeries, nurseries and dentists all of which are over-subscribed.

4. The detrimental effect the proposed build would have on the environment for wildlife and would increase flooding and pressure on drainage.

Object

Representation ID: 26654

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Jamie Hartford

- Green Belt can only used for development in ‘exceptional circumstance’s (most likely the need for housing). In Bingley there are at least 2 parcels of ‘Brown’ land which would easily provide the number of housing units to remove the requirement for Green Belt use. The Council have clearly not proved ‘exceptional circumstances’.
• Access and highway safety- poor access due to the narrow road and no footpath. development will make a bad situation worse.
• Habitats- To develop the sites would have a significant impact on wild life.
• Impact on agricultural land- The sites are used for grazing sheep . The development on the site would impact on food production.
-Moral duty to safeguard the countryside to guarantee the future of the planet.

Object

Representation ID: 27465

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Oscar Bevan

Object to sites BI4/H & BI8/H for the following reasons:

Green Belt & Loss of Pasture:
• Do not consider removal of fields from the Green Belt fall into “exceptional circumstances” as there are several brownfield sites in/around Bingley currently unused.

• More sites will become available as a result of changes made to commercial properties since the pandemic.

• Removal of pasture land will have dramatic effect on local farming. Fields used for grazing and haylage for winter feed.

• Farming in Bingley is difficult due to lack of available pasture.

• Rotation/resting of pasture between seasons is crucial for the wellbeing of the land and livestock.

• Prospect of losing more Green Belt threatens the future of farming/livelihoods of farms/farmers.

• Removal of fields could be thin end of the wedge for future developments to go ahead.

SSSI Proximity:
• Within 2.5km buffer which should be maintained to preserve habitats for moorland mammals and birds.

Object

Representation ID: 27648

Received: 13/03/2021

Respondent: Paul & Karan Dean

Number of people: 2

First I would ask why valuable green belt land is being used rather than other options.

The addition of 40 more homes will have significant impact on the village and its residents. This is a relatively small number of house but potentially creates disproportionate impact on the local community.

- traffic and related matters is already a big issue on Otley Road and I would expect this to become even worse post lockdown. The addition of additional traffic to the mini roundabout at the top of Park Road will create safety issues and congestion.
- From my limited knowledge local schools do not have spare capacity and the addition of additional families will further exacerbate the situation.
- There is a possibility that the addition of additional homes will create drainage issues leading to flooding,
-Finally there is , in my view, the destruction of valuable greenbelt land and wildlife etc.

Object

Representation ID: 28302

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Nina Valentine

Building on Green Belt is completely un-necessary. There are plenty areas of brown land that could be built on.

It throws on eco-system into chaos, destroying wildlife and cherished countryside areas. Areas that have been loved for generations and due to their Green Belt status

Would bring an overload of pressures on the area – overcrowding in schools, traffic on country lanes not built to withstand heavy traffic, and overflow to the existing sewage system. These elements combined will add to air and environmental pollution. These effects combined will add to destroying the local environment.

Loss of green land in Bingley has resulted in flooding without green land to provide absorption.

Sites are situated next to Prince of Wales Park – a local wildlife haven and refuge for local people peace and nature. Would be a travesty to build next to it.

Want Green Belt to stay green and protected.

Object

Representation ID: 28363

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Victoria J Holdgate

The land is Green Belt and has function of conserving natural habitat and safeguarding the countryside.
Loss of two sites would inevitably lead to the loss of many more
How would the council explain away taking pasture which contributes to carbon capture, storage of water and food production.
Impact on wildlife.
Unsuitability of Heights Lane for increased traffic, its dangerous for cyclists and families of walkers.
Road is used for recreation.
No footpath or cycleway due to narrowness of road.
Development would increase the danger.
Alternative sites in Bingley.
Council is encouraging dereliction and emptiness in the urban areas, with consequential crime, vandalism and depressing aspect.
More options because people are working from home making premises available for conversion/redevelopment
Leave the fringes, fill the fast accumulating empty urban spaces.
Development is about money exchanging hands, not the welfare of the community.
No exceptional circumstances for loss of green belt. not justified, not sound.

Object

Representation ID: 28406

Received: 13/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs SP Coote

I very strongly object to any further housing development on Heights lane, Eldwick.

The mini roundabout, where Heights Lane ends, sees daily chaos caused at this junction of five roads. The introduction of forty more houses and thus cars is a recipe for accidents and increased air pollution.

Eldwick Primary School is already at bursting point and will not be able to cope and local GP services would be further stretched.

The impact on the 150 year old Prince of Wales Park, which for many has been a life saver during this pandemic, would be irreversible.

Since the late 1960's Eldwick has been reduced from a pretty village with its own character and amenities to a virtual suburb of Bingley - housing estates have sprung up , eating away at much of the surrounding green fields and these new proposals would do further damage to the environment.

WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO THE GREEN BELT???

Object

Representation ID: 28574

Received: 23/08/2021

Respondent: Sheila Ognissanti

I am voicing my strong objection to Bradford Councils granting permission to build housing on the above green belt.
This is an area of outstanding natural beauty and wildlife.
This will be destroyed by a housing development.
I sincerely hope you will reconsider this decision.

Object

Representation ID: 28602

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Member of Parliament (Conservative)

Agent: Deborah Davies

B18/H – Land West of Heights Lane (18)

I object to the inclusion of this site because:

• It is green belt
• It is a narrow road with blind bends and no pavement, well used by many walkers, cyclists, horse riders and not suited to large amounts of traffic.
• The junction of Heights Lane/Otley Road/Park Road is already very busy at peak times and unsuitable/unsafe for more traffic.
• Potential flooding issues elsewhere in Bingley as this land currently soaks in rain and works to prevent it running downhill to residential areas.
• The report acknowledges that “the site has a major potential for sprawl and would have a major impact on the openness”.

Object

Representation ID: 28657

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: CHILD B

I don't think you should build more houses because we need plants to survive. And if you build on fields you will destroy the grass. Grass is important. Protect the grass please.

Comment

Representation ID: 28710

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Environment Agency

Site in Flood Zone 1 ONLY
Mitigation should be set above the 1 in 100 plus cc level for the site as suitable for the proposed vulnerability classification (EA standing advice should cover this).

If the site is considered Greenfield then surface water discharge rates post development should be restricted to the pre development Greenfield discharge rate. If the site is considered Brownfield then there should be a 30% reduction in surface water discharges, or restricted to Greenfield rates, there should be no increase in brownfield surface water discharge rates post development. So as to support prevention of cumulative increases to flood risk and should be in line with SuDs design principles.

For developments near ordinary watercourses we would recommend an 8 metre easement strip along the length of the riverbank, or a 45degree angle from the bed in the case of culverts, to be kept clear of permanent structures such as buildings. This is to maintain access to the riverbank for any improvements or maintenance. A Flood Defence Consent may be required for the LLFA for works in/affecting an ordinary watercourse.

For main rivers, we generally require an 8 metre easement strip along the length of the riverbank to be kept clear of permanent structures such as buildings, or a 45degree angle from the bed in the case of culverts. This is to maintain access to the riverbank for any improvements or maintenance. Environmental Flood Risk Activity Permits may be required for development near rivers.

It is possible the sites within close proximity to Flood Zones 3b, 3 and 2 may be subject to future risk identified within the SFRA (to follow) which may affect its allocation or how development should be sequentially laid out on the site.

Consideration must be made to making space for water and providing betterment in terms of flood risk management where ever possible.

Support

Representation ID: 29389

Received: 29/03/2021

Respondent: Historic England

The site is close to the Grade II Prince of Wales Registered Park and Garden. Whilst the site is located outside of the boundary of the Saltaire World Heritage Site (WHS) buffer zone it is within an area where tall buildings could affect its setting. The development of this
area could harm elements which contribute to the significance of these designated heritage assets. The Heritage Impact Assessment for this site, which also includes the small field to the west of the allocated site, considered that development of this site would encroach into the open landscape setting of the park, reducing its visual value and rendering the unaltered setting increasingly tenuous. The views from within the park across the grassland pasture contribute positively to its varied character at present. The HIA concluded that development of the western part of the site could not be acceptably mitigated without appearing congruous and would therefore cause less than substantial negative harm (of an unacceptable level). Development to the eastern part of the site, subject to carefully considered mitigation could achieve a less than substantial (of acceptable level) negative impact.
Historic England would concur with this analysis and with the assessment of the degree of harm that the development of this site would be likely to cause. Historic England would also endorse the removal of the area of land identified as being of medium sensitivity in the HIA from the allocated site, and the mitigation measures
which have been put forward in the Heritage Impact Assessment. We consider that these are likely to be effective in reducing the harm to the level indicated.

Object

Representation ID: 29516

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs J Smith

Site designated Green Belt. Prevention of urban sprawl.
The boundary between Eldwick and the surrounding fields/moorland will be eroded/destroyed by proposed development.
No proof/evidence of required “exceptional circumstances”.
Site is an open gateway to the countryside, should be left as such.
Proposal is not “sound” as required by NPPF.
There are alternative (non Green Belt) sites available, which have not been taken into consideration in the proposal to meet house building needs.
Additional traffic.
Heights Lane has poor visibility and bends, no pavements and limited width.
The health and safety of pedestrians, motorists, road users.
The roundabout is extremely busy/dangerous.
Adding to increased standing traffic causing danger and pollution.
Will not meet environmental objective of protecting/enhancing the environment/valued landscapes.
Pollution and pluvial flooding will increase.
Drains are overloaded.
Prince of Wales Park will be damaged.
Impact on local wildlife.
The wealth of bio-diversity, the positive impact of green space and wildlife cannot be underestimated.
A WYCA Review will result in further non-Green Belt land becoming available for development.
No requirement to remove the fields from Green Belt to meet the house building targets.

Object

Representation ID: 29548

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr K A Redmond

Site is designated Green Belt.
Prevent urban sprawl.
Space between Eldwick and surrounding fields/moorland is eroded and destroyed.
No “exceptional circumstances”.
Proposal is not “sound” as required by NPPF.
Alternative (non Green Belt) sites available.
Increased traffic on road with poor visibility and bends, no pavements and limited width.
Health and safety of pedestrians, motorists, road users.
Extremely busy/dangerous roundabout.
Increasing standing traffic and the potential for loss of life and/or sever injury.
Impact to environmental objectives
Pollution and pluvial flooding will increase.
Damage to Prince of Wales Park
Loss of visibility between East Morton/Mickletwaite.
Impact on wildlife.
Impact on bio-diversity.
WYCA Review to indicate further development land.
Green Belt is not needed to meet house building targets.