Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Comment

Representation ID: 28821

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

- Size of development – the proposal to build 155 new homes is too large for the area. Cottingley currently only has 2,082 dwellings; this plan would increase the size of the village by almost 10%.

- Access, transport and congestion – the area is already quite congested with residential traffic, and the plan does not provide improved roads, and access to the additional 155 houses would come from already congested streets. An increase in traffic would be bad for air quality, health and living standards.

- Local facilities – the schools in the area are full, and an increase in population is not supported by the local infrastructure

- Road safety - previous LDP traffic safety assessments concluded that March Cote Lane and Lysander Way should never be used as exits for additional dwellings. Whilst exceptional circumstances may be used to try argue the reclassification of greenbelt land, this does not give the council unconditional latitude to recklessly disregard the existing LDP traffic safety thresholds. It recklessly puts traffic and pedestrians at risk, especially school children. Bradford Council would need to be held to account, and accept some responsibility, for serious traffic injuries, fatalities and manslaughter if a child is killed or injured as result of inadequate consultation regarding the proposal to build 155 houses next to the junction of Cottingley Primary School and Dixons Cottingley Academy.

Comment

Representation ID: 28830

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

a) CU1/H - Halifax Road

1. The station site is being used for fly tipping.

2. The mill site is need of regeneration.

Comment

Representation ID: 28831

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

b) CU2/H - Cullingworth Mill

1. The access to potential sites is via a narrow lane which currently can’t sustain construction traffic and will need to be upgraded before any prior works.

2. The site has significant water flooding issues that must be addressed.

Comment

Representation ID: 28832

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

c) CU3/H - Cullingworth Road/Doll Lane

1. The site is in the green belt and adjoins the eastern urban edge of the village.

2. Cullingworth Road is a busy road and speed calming measures would need to be implemented.

3. It will have an effect adverse on wildlife.

Comment

Representation ID: 28834

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

d) General comments re Cullingworth

1. The population and calculation of housing is quoted based on the 2011 Census and does not take into account the new hosing estate (David Wilson Homes) at Hewenden Ridge, Cullingworth.

2. The infrastructure cannot cope with more new developments.

Comment

Representation ID: 28837

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

3. There is no mention of the old village hall site, which has potential for housing.

4. There’s a site near the Manywells development, which is earmarked for development. An application for housing has been withdrawn, which would have provided 25 houses (https://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/19086242.plan-25-homes-cullingworth-withdrawn/ )

Comment

Representation ID: 28904

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

1. 72 houses are recommended in the plan for Denholme. However, Denholme is, like the other settlements in my area, a small area where a small number of new homes increase the size of the settlement by a large %.

2. The new development would cause increased traffic, and the area has major issues with heavy goods traffics flowing through the village.


3. There is a lack of facilities: schools, doctor surgeries etc, in the community.

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: 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

Comment

Representation ID: 28978

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

Doesn’t take into consideration, already granted planning permission at Sun Inn pub for 18 properties