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

Comment

Representation ID: 28989

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

1. Surface water flooding

2. Change of use of culverts in need of widening with riparian ownership implications

3. Bradford Education Department says all 3 Primary and 2 of the secondary schools are full. If additional children reside here then they or existing families will need to travel further to access school provision.

4. The NHS says local facilities are currently operating at full capacity and this development will create potential long term impact of the Trust’s ability to provide services as required.

Comment

Representation ID: 28990

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

1. There is a demand for housing for older people, as a majority of the large, detached dwellings are being occupied by the elderly who want to stay in the area but there is a shortage of smaller quality properties.

2. Long lane is a slim carriageway, it’s not fit for more traffic between Harden and Cullingworth. Two cars can’t pass side by side. The road was not designed for modern levels of traffic and can’t cope with current volumes. This is a high risk to pedestrians especially school children and the elderly.

3. Harden is a community with an elderly population, a population that needs access to health care facilities. There is no Doctors’ Surgery in Harden; this should be a priority.

Comment

Representation ID: 28991

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

5. Over 220 objections have been raised by residents.

6. “Several people were worried about road links being made to March Cote Lane. This would not be allowed if any development took place and therefore the question of extra traffic loadings on Manor Road would not arise”.
7. “It would not be advisable to connect such a development in the existing narrow network of roads on the Cottingley estate”.
8. “It would not be feasible to gain access via a long cul-de-sac to Cottingley Moor Road” (for example Lysander Way).
9. “Cottingley Moor Road and Lee Lane would need widening”. (The 2021 developer has not offered to fund Bradford Council for this significant cost.)
10. “The road through Sandy Lane village could not be improved.” (This is a narrow stretch of road by Sandy Lane Primary School and a playground. On street parking makes this section of road especially narrow. It is an accident black spot, including a recent fatal motorcycle accident in 2019.)
11. “Extra stress would occur at Cottingley Bar.” (The stretch of B6265 near Grange Park Drive and has been the scene of serious and fatal accidents)
12. The WYMCC said “A development of this site would give rise to very significant increase in traffic generation which would give rise to unacceptable problems on both the local distributor roads and at the major road junctions nearby. The local highway authority therefore opposes proposals”
13. The Bingley Road Safety Committee said “The adjoining highways and access to main roads are considered inadequate to carry a considerable increase volume of traffic. It is doubted that the highways authority would have the financial capacity to carry out the necessary highway improvements”

Object

Representation ID: 30214

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

Rejected sites:
The Willows site on Hainsworth Road (SI/006A) has just been approved for a further 44 homes. This is despite the site failing to match the criteria set by a different part of the Planning Department and the site been placed on the Rejected Sites document within the Proposed Local Plan. This is wholly conflicting and clearly different Planning officers hold quite different views on what is an appropriate site for development. This does not give confidence to the planning process nor the content of the Proposed Local Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 30294

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

Planning Policy states that Green Belt should only be released for housing in exceptional circumstances. Policy SP5 –Green Belt and SP8 –Housing Growth are narrative statements which are subjective and are no justification for releasing Green Belt siteS for housing.

Object

Representation ID: 30295

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

Planning Policy states that Green Belt should only be released for housing in exceptional circumstances. Policy SP5 –Green Belt and SP8 –Housing Growth are narrative statements which are subjective and are no justification for releasing this Green Belt siteS for housing.