Object

Representation ID: 10517

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Linda Harvie

The planned proposal will create a burden to all the services in this village and create excessive traffic to a small village which has a 20 mph speed limit for a reason. More local traffic increases risk and pollution.

The local school will not accommodate the increased intake of children that these homes will house.
There can be no meaningful contribution to this area from this proposed development.

This proposal would mean damage to the setting of the conservation area at Oxenhope Station whilst at the same time destroying the village green space and the Green Infrastructure Corridor resulting in annihilation of the natural habitats which are integral to this village.

The balance weighs against this development as no benefit to the village itself nor to the residents.

I would also point out that due to historic use of this land that the drainage currently passes through local properties leaving a flood risk.

Object

Representation ID: 10984

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: JO Steel Consulting

OX2/H designated VGS, should be protected.

Development would, leave no green space left to enhance , some of the site needed to safeguarded part of boundary with Moorhouse Beck.

Land adjoins Flood Zone 2&3.

Development constrained by two existing houses, creating an irregular shape, effecting layout of any development.

Primary school close to this site and parking on Cross Lane at pick-up/drop of times will be lost due to development.

Little weight given to “preserve the setting, special character of historic towns”.

Site contributes to Bradford's Green Infrastructure (GI) Corridors.

Site provides important views to the Oxenhope Station CA to the South Pennine Moors SPA/SAC. Development would be detrimental to CA.

Negative impact on the Uppertown CA.

Only one site benefits from the protection of policy OS7, these areas are a valued/important part the village. Its loss would have a major impact. By comparison Green Belt protection covers the greater part of the District.

Object

Representation ID: 12290

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Lucy Bergman

Strongly object to proposed development of 24 houses on an area of designated village green space at bottom of Cross Lane.

1. Development completely unnecessary. Will result in damage to the setting of the Oxenhope Station Conservation Area

2. Destruction of the Green Infrastructure Corridor and loss of natural habitats

3. Permanent loss of yet more Village Green space

4. Development within a flood zone

5. Increased pressure on Oxenhope's roads and services, particularly close to the village school.

6. No meaningful contribution to housing stock or affordability.

Urge you to reconsider. Recent development at the bottom of Denholme Road resulted in permanent loss of village green space and has had a detrimental effect on the local wildlife.

Think beyond the profits of building contractors. Oxenhope is an area of outstanding beauty and need to preserve it for future generations. Village is already in danger of becoming a commuter corridor.

Object

Representation ID: 12790

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Family "" Denkiewicz

We completely object to the new development of houses that has been proposed. We should have a say in shaping our village and it is not beneficial in any way for local residents. The school hasn't got spaces for new children; it would be more dangerous for the residents due to the busier roads and would damage the setting of the Oxenhope Station Conservation Area. The development would also be within a flood zone which would be unsafe for the new occupants. Therefore we definitely object to this ridiculous idea.

Object

Representation ID: 13126

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Norma Englert

There are enough houses in the village and already the green spaces are getting smaller.
The roads are already crowded with not enough parking and as we only have one store and a chemist not suitable for more houses.

This village has changed so much and not for the better.
Bus services have been cut, which impacts more cars.

Cross Lane is also on a flood plain with the beck. Flooding is a problem in many parts of the village.
Natural habitat should be kept not destroyed.

Object

Representation ID: 13699

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: John Fickling

Please note that I object to the proposals and plans to build new houses on the OX2/H designated site.

Object

Representation ID: 14119

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Paula & Ernie Lambert

Historic character must be protected and setting of heritage assets enhanced – will not be achieved by building 20/40 houses.

Flooding – drainage system inadequate and cannot cope with flash/surface flooding. Gulleys often blocked and heavy rainfall causes surface flooding. Building could only increase risks. OX1/H - in FZ1 and 40% subject to High & Medium Surface Water Flooding. Major Adverse Effect predicted for Climate Change Resilience SA Objective.

OX2/H - ‘Major Adverse Effect’. Overlaps with land in FZ2 & FZ3 and thin band same area is at High Risk of Surface Water Flooding. Could pose risk to water quality in Moorhouse Beck.

Schools – has no room to expand. How would it deal with demand? No direct bus route and walking route to secondary school in Cullingworth. More investigation needed.

Traffic – danger of pollution from standing traffic and to pedestrians due to increased traffic. Need more detailed explanation.

Parking – where would visitors park?

Benefits – cannot foresee any great benefits that would outweigh detriment of building on the two sites.

Station Road Conservation Area – street scene of railway station would be adversely affected.

Green Areas/Wildlife – area home to wildlife. Where would it go if it is built on. Would not preserve openness of the Green Belt. Loss of green space not outweighed by benefit of new homes.

Very Special Circumstances – none demonstrated.

Visual/Spatial Impact – 20 - 40 new builds would be overwhelming, inappropriate and conflict with aims of preserving openness of green spaces and Green Belt.

Object

Representation ID: 14373

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Darrel Windle

With reference to recent planning development sites which have been put forward in Oxenhope I would like to strongly object to any building developments on the sites drawn up.
These green belt areas need now to be protected for the following reasons:
1. Building on these sites will reduce even further Oxenhope as a quiet rural village.
2. Increased traffic & parking problems which are already becoming a problem in the village.
3. Increased demand for schooling places which are already struggling to cater for all the children in the village.
4. Affecting property prices in near surrounding area in an adverse way.

Object

Representation ID: 15602

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Stanley & Dorothy Middleton

Number of people: 2

Cross Lane Oxenhope is already a flood zone, with poor drainage.
Cross Lane could become a more dangerous place than it already is for the children at the school, due to parking.

We do have wildlife on the land.

In the field adjoining there is a sewage pipe from the cottages above that runs into a man hole in our drive.

Would you please consider our feelings about our loss of privacy at the back of our houses.

The land we have bought is included in your proposed plan, we have not been informed or been asked anything about this.

Comment

Representation ID: 16391

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Michael Cope

Is this proposed development (24 houses, Cross Lane, Oxenhope) really on "designated Village Green Space"? If so, why? Is "designated Village Green Space" NOW something just to be ignored?

Object

Representation ID: 16428

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Rob Harvie

This proposal is ridiculous.

Local infrastructure cannot cope with the building work vehicles needed for this project, there are already too many large trucks on the small roads. Oxenhope has many young families and these trucks would make it unsafe for children to be playing out.

Local infrastructure cannot cope with more household vehicles. There is already a huge volume of traffic through Oxenhope. Denholme Rd is already incredibly difficult to navigate especially at peak times and even more so if 26 new houses are built, bringing in approx 40 extra cars in and out.

Drainage is already an issue on the proposed site and these houses will cause even more problems on this flood area.

Reduction of vital green space within the village, permanent removal of wildlife and conservation areas.

Damage to the setting of the tourist attraction - Oxenhope station.

Object

Representation ID: 18246

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

OX2/H Cross Lane
This is a Village Green Space and a green corridor in the village. It is adjacent to the Conservation Area and any development would be visible from the South Pennine Moors. There would be a landscape impact from this site being developed.

Part of the site is designated flood zone 2 and 3 which would be unsuitable for development without extensive flood mitigation work. It also has an issue of surface water flooding.

Cross Lane suffers congestion due to its proximity to the Primary school and parked cars.

Object

Representation ID: 18310

Received: 24/06/2021

Respondent: Bryony Bailey

My objections for the above proposed planning are as follows:
•Loss of village green space.
•Flood zone area not fit for development without having a detrimental effect on other residential property.
•Building within a nature corridor where wildlife access The Goit from the moors.
•Increased traffic on small access road.
•Spoiling the setting of the K&WVR Conservation Area.

Object

Representation ID: 18414

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Charles Ratcliffe

•The site at Cross Lane has more beauty and significant as a LGS site. It has a number of special features: hedgerows, trees, nesting birds, watercourse etc.

Object

Representation ID: 19125

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Brian Hancock

I feel this will :-

1 - Materially change the aspect of the villages central area damaging the setting of the Oxenhope Station conservation area.
2- Destruction of the Green Infrastructure corridor and loss of natural habitats
3- Loss of even more village green space
4- Development on a wet area that is part of a flood zone
5- No meaningful contribution to housing stock of affordability
6 - The lack of regular public transport in Oxenhope will only add more cars to the road.
6- 24 homes seem's a very high density in this area - I am sure that any prospective developer would look to increase property density further through chamges to planning applications

I understand the need for development as the population expands but I feel that the OX2/H proposal is damaging to the village for the above reasons - I feel that number of homes could be added by utilising smaller plots within the village perimeter more sensitive to the location. I also feel that home most would price out the younger members of the village looking to stay and buy here.

Object

Representation ID: 19753

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Imogen Gavins

I'm writing to object to the proposed planning at this site. The new houses built in the oxenhope/haworth area are rarely afforable (£200,000+), the proposed site holds lots of important nature, and buildings of these sorts drives local families out as they can't afford to continue to live in the area.

Additionally, Oxenhope's charm is its village atmosphere, and if houses continue to be built around it, it will lose this. Consequently house prices could suffer as it would no longer be a quaint village to move to.

If these housing developments were to fix housing issues, I would suggest they are at least affordable, and why not renovate old mills and derelict buildings, instead of taking more away from nature?

Comment

Representation ID: 19895

Received: 01/04/2021

Respondent: Natural England

The site lies in proximity to the South Pennine Moors (Phase 2) SPA and has potential to lead to the loss of functionally linked land for SPA birds.

We welcome the approach taken in the draft plan, SPD and assessments to loss of functionally linked land.

The council has a copy of a model to identify the suitability of sites for SPA golden plover and recommend that allocations are screened against this dataset taking the following approach:

• Maximum Training Sensitivity plus Specificity (MTSS) layer: full survey for Golden Plover likely to be required. The WY Ecology Service SPA Bird Survey Methodology should be followed.

• Minimum Training Presence (MTP) layer or 10 Percentile Training Presence (10PTP) layer: scoping survey to determine if a full Golden Plover full survey required. A desk based survey may be sufficient for sites within the MTP whereas a walkover survey may be required for sites within the 10PTP;

• Not within an area of predicted presence: No survey required for Golden Plover.

Where loss of functionally linked land cannot be ruled out at this stage we recommend that allocation requirement text in the plan sets out survey and mitigation requirements clearly.

Object

Representation ID: 21041

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Hilary Bailey

Number of people: 2

- Locating more brown site areas instead of using up any bits of green site in small villages, to the detriment of clear open spaces for generations to come.
- Open green spaces with direct access for locals & visitors alike, is what the people in charge need to be protecting for our future health & wellbeing.
- The site also contains a small conduit, built to collect rainwater form the uplands. These conduits can be seen surrounding the whole village & are part of the make up of a rural moorland village. This conduit is home to many different amphibious species, frogs toads etc.,

Object

Representation ID: 21161

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: James Bailey

-This area is one of the last remaining green sites in our village.
-Impact on wildlife - This area is the only passageway for wildlife to pass from the moorlands & green fields.
-This site should be protected & even enhanced to encourage more flora & fauna to flourish.
-Conserve amenity value
- Protect wildlife including foxes, badgers, owls & other birds of prey, deer.
-Smaller infill sites are available in the village including a small area in Leeming which has been highlighted for many years.
-Site contains protected trees & bordering it are very old hawthorn/ blackthorn hedgerow. This must be also be protected to encourage the wildlife.
-Tourists disembarking at the Worth Valley Railway Station Conservation Area, travel here to enjoy the open green space & unobstructive views to the moorlands above. This brings financial benefit to the area.

Object

Representation ID: 21379

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Natalie Hallam

Hello,

Please take this email as my objection to the proposed planning of development on the Village Green Space in Oxenhope.

This space is an important element of the community. I work in the village and we regularly use the river area and the development of land would alter the community for all residents.

Object

Representation ID: 22765

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Ros Clark

I would like to object to the new housing area that is proposed to be built in Oxenhope. It is already hard enough trying to get doctors appointments for our residents, so I believe extra pressure on facilities due to new housing would be putting too much strain on these services, not to mention extra traffic in what’s already a shocking through-flow for a small place.
Village green space and the conservation areas are there as a blessing to the villagers of this quaint English village, and it would be utterly destructive to eat into more areas of natural habitat.
Plus, building houses within a flood zone is unsafe. There is already enough flooding on Oxenhope homes and it’s not fair to put more residents through that due to an unwise planning decision.
I hope you will consider what this proposal would feel like if you put yourselves in the shoes of the Oxenhope villagers. Would you like that destructive development to happen in your little village?

Object

Representation ID: 23589

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Steven Preston

Number of people: 2

1) Impact on wildlife e.g. noted increasing use of both the beck/field for the movement of Deer who travel to and from the "North Ives" area of the valley on a regular basis.
2) Moorhouse Beck has seen a resurgence of wildlife along the water-course. Concern around both site run-off during the construction phase & pollution of the watercourse.
3) Lack of local resources.
-Co-Operative causes traffic congestion and double-parking
-Without expansion of the village commercial infrastructure there is limited scope for the present facilities to support further growth.
4) Concerns regarding Fire Station in Haworth, and reduction in cover provided from Keighley. Oxenhope is a known area which falls outside of the response times.
5) Lack of GP medical cover & Emergency First Responders by Yorkshire Ambulance Service.
6) Impact on Oxenhope Primary school.
7) Visual impact of development upon the views from Oxenhope Station Conservation Area.
-Tourism is an important considerations

Object

Representation ID: 23749

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Paul Wray

Oxenhope is a village with restricted services/facilities including public transport.

Inconsistent with RUDP locational principals;

Residents will be reliant on cars rather than sustainable transport. Site’s sustainability characteristics mean it would fail to contribute to it.

Provides open break in built-up area and continuation of extensive open spaces.

Village is linear rather than nuclear. Rounding off not always appropriate.

Open spaces are important. Development may be harmful and should be refused where it would result in their loss.

Has good tree cover. Adjoining area is identified in Village Design Statement as village green space. Should be retained and Design Statement accorded some weight.

Would be overbearing on adjacent properties, leading to over-shadowing and loss of amenity

Loss of open space & visual amenity

Impact on village character, trees, wildlife & flooding

Development may not be in keeping.

Site entrances a concern - only one to each. Would cause congestion, access & safety issues;

Infrastructure (drains, electricity, gas) needs to be reviewed.

Will increase traffic, congestion, noise & road safety issues.

Want sites to remain open green spaces.

Object

Representation ID: 23864

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: John Bevan & Amanda Adams

Our objections are as follows:

Roads (Exits in/out of Oxenhope)

To Keighley
- Hebden Road is dangerous with parking on both sides
- Harry Lane is only single file
- Muffin Corner passable only in single file

To Haworth
- Sun Street is single file and dangerous

To Denholme
- Leering is single file and dangerous

All exit roads, apart from to Hebden Bridge, are completely inadequate for existing traffic and are in all but name single file, one-way and dangerous

Services:
Only 1 shop. No parking without reducing Lower Town to single file. Bus can barely get through. Delivery vehicles have major problems. Nowhere to turn around, consequently shoppers use entrance to housing estate to U turn. Dangerous situation that will get worse.

Trust that Council will oblige developers to address these major and dangerous issues before erecting more dwellings or do the sensible thing and reject the planning.

Object

Representation ID: 24681

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Arianna Walker

I hereby make it known that I strongly object to the proposed development on designated Village green Space at the bottom of Cross Lane in Oxenhope.

I believe this will result in:

Damage to the setting of the Oxenhope Station Conservation Area
Destruction of the Green Infrastructure Corridor and loss of natural habitats
Increased pressure on Oxenhope's roads and services

As the CEO of a long established Oxenhope based mental health and well being charity, running a Home for young women with issues such as depression, anxiety, self harm etc, we rely on the quiet, rural, tranquil setting of Oxenhope to provide a therapeutic environment for our vulnerable young women. These proposed developments would have a serious and detrimental effect on our charity, and the quality of service we are able to offer.

I ask you to carefully consider alternative locations.

Object

Representation ID: 25523

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Charmian Eamus

The proposed development of 24 houses will put a significant strain on the local services as well as increased traffic, damage to the rural setting and will add pressure to already busy country roads.

There is no benefit to the village by adding housing here, but it will, in fact, cause a high number of disruptions, not to mention creating damage to an area of conservation and loss of habitat for local wildlife.

I would urge you to reconsider this proposal and take into account the objections of the local resident.

Comment

Representation ID: 28700

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Environment Agency

Flood Zones 2, 3 and the current/draft 3b/3a(i) within site boundary .

There is to be no development with the 3b/3a(i) extent unless considered water compatible or essential infrastructure. Where this is the case the development must demonstrate no increase in risk to others, no loss of Functional Floodplain and suitable mitigation measures for use and the lifetime of the development.

Development on site should follow a sequential layout so as to prevent unnecessary development within Flood Zones 3b, 3 and 2 wherever possible. 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. Some SuDs principles such as storage ponds should not be solely relied upon within areas at risk of fluvial flooding as they may not be operational during a flood.

Development must be shown to be safe for the lifetime of the development. See the Adept Guidance of Access and Egress plans. Hazard ratings may need to be assessed as part of the proposal.

Mitigation such a proofing measures and raised Finished Floor Levels, must be set above the 1 in 100 plus Climate Change level for the site. Current Guidance is on .gov.

The applicant must ensure there is no increase in risk to others for the lifetime of the development (including climate change). Where on Greenfield sites compensatory storage must be actively sought.

Consideration must be made to making space for water and providing betterment in terms of flood risk management where ever possible. For development 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 likely these sites are going to show changes/increases in flood risk as a result of climate change.

The SFRA (to follow) is going to consider future flooding including future Functional Floodplain this may identify sites at more future risk than others which may affect its allocation or how development should be sequentially laid out on the site.

Object

Representation ID: 29445

Received: 29/03/2021

Respondent: Historic England

The site is close to the Oxenhope Station Road Conservation Area. The development of this area could harm elements which contribute to the significance of this designated heritage asset.
See attachment for full representation.
Before allocating this site for development:
(1) An assessment needs to be undertaken of the contribution which this site makes to those elements which contribute towards the significance of the Listed Buildings in its vicinity, and what impact the loss of this undeveloped site and its subsequent development might have upon their significance.
(2) If it is considered that the development of this site would harm elements which contribute to the significance of the Listed Buildings, then the measures by which that harm might be removed or reduced need to be effectively tied into the Plan.
(3) If, at the end of the process, it is concluded that the development would still be likely to harm elements which contribute to the significance of these Listed Buildings, then this site should not be allocated unless there are clear public benefits that outweigh the harm (as is
required by NPPF, Paragraph 195 or 196).