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

Object

Representation ID: 28588

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Member of Parliament (Conservative)

Agent: Deborah Davies

SH5/H – Bingley Road, Nab Wood (140)

I object to the inclusion of this land because:

• It is green belt.
• Access to the site is poor.
• Concerns over flooding – the report acknowledges “part of the site to the north is within flood zone 2 and small areas of higher surface water flood risk”.
• Nearby roads are already congested.
• Development here would mean there is no clear boundary between Shipley and Bingley/Cottingley so it would go against the green belt principles of preventing neighbouring towns from merging into each other and checking the unrestricted sprawl in built up areas. The report acknowledges that “the site is one of the last areas of open landscape buffer between Shipley and Cottingley.”

Object

Representation ID: 28589

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Member of Parliament (Conservative)

Agent: Deborah Davies

SH6/H – Bankfield Farm (49)

I object to the inclusion of this land because:

• It is green belt.
• Concerns over flooding – the report acknowledges that “part of the site to the north is within flood Zone 2”.
• This site is within the World Heritage Site Buffer Zone.
• Nearby roads are already congested.
• Development here would mean there is no clear boundary between Shipley and Bingley/Cottingley so it would go against the green belt principles of preventing neighbouring towns from merging into each other and checking the unrestricted sprawl in built up areas. The report acknowledges that “the site is one of the last areas of open landscape buffer between Shipley and Cottingley.”

Comment

Representation ID: 28590

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Member of Parliament (Conservative)

Agent: Deborah Davies

SH17/H – Shipley Gateway (50)

I don’t object to this site being redeveloped but there is no mention of parking so I would be interested to know where all the cars that currently park here are going to park in future.

Object

Representation ID: 28591

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Member of Parliament (Conservative)

Agent: Deborah Davies

BA2/H – West Lane (46)

I object to the inclusion of this land because:
• It is green belt.
• If houses were built here there would be no respite from housing both sides of West Lane/Lucy Hall Drive for some considerable distance.
• The report acknowledges building here “would have a major impact on openness”.
• Flooding concerns – residents state there is often water run off from the fields above even now so if this area was built on that would make it much worse.
• Wildlife concerns.
• Increase in traffic.

Object

Representation ID: 28592

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Member of Parliament (Conservative)

Agent: Deborah Davies

BA5/H – Meadowside Road (40)

I object to the inclusion of this land because:

• It is green belt.
• The report acknowledges “this site has a high potential for sprawl and would have a major impact on openness” and “there is no opportunity to create a stronger green belt boundary”.
• The access to this site is extremely poor off Langley Lane where just one junction (Roundwood Road/Langley Lane) serves hundreds of houses and there are often problems with congestion now.
• Baildon CofE primary school is located off Langley Lane and traffic at school arrival and leaving times is extremely busy particularly as there is no through route.
• Wildlife concerns.

Object

Representation ID: 28593

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Member of Parliament (Conservative)

Agent: Deborah Davies

BA6/H – West Lane (76)

I object to the inclusion of this land because:

• It is green belt.
• If houses were built here there would be no respite from housing both sides of West Lane/Lucy Hall Drive for some considerable distance.
• The report acknowledges building here “would have a major impact on openness”.
• Flooding concerns – residents state there is often water run off from the fields above even now so if this area was built on that would make it much worse.
• Wildlife concerns.
• Increase in traffic.

Object

Representation ID: 28594

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Member of Parliament (Conservative)

Agent: Deborah Davies

W12/H - Crack Lane (40)

I object to the inclusion of this site because:

• It is green belt.
• There is poor access.
• The report states there would be a “major impact on openness”.
• There is insufficient infrastructure in the village.
• Flooding concerns.
• Main Street through Wilsden is narrow and unsuitable for more traffic.
• There are existing sites in Wilsden that have been approved for housing which would relieve pressure on green belt sites.
• There are brownfield sites in Wilsden more suited to development i.e. Haven Farm, Station Road, Harecroft and Prospect Mill, Main Street, Wilsden.

Object

Representation ID: 28595

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Member of Parliament (Conservative)

Agent: Deborah Davies

CU3/H – Cullingworth Road/Doll Lane

I object to the inclusion of this site because:

• It is green belt
• Poor public transport
• Poor access
• Woodland habitat

Object

Representation ID: 28596

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Member of Parliament (Conservative)

Agent: Deborah Davies

HR3/H – Long Lane (40)

I object to the inclusion of this site because:

• It is green belt
• Poor access
• Poor public transport
• The report acknowledges there would be a “major impact on openness”.
• There is a Grade II listed farmhouse close by.

Object

Representation ID: 28597

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Member of Parliament (Conservative)

Agent: Deborah Davies

CO1/H – March Cote Lane (155)

I object to the inclusion of this site because:

• It is green belt
• There are already traffic congestion and parking issues in Cottingley and surrounding roads, particularly near the primary school.
• There are flooding concerns.
• The report acknowledges “the site has a major potential for sprawl and would have a major impact on openness”.
• Impact on wildlife including ground nesting birds.
• The report also acknowledges “there are no opportunities to create a stronger Green Belt boundary than the existing boundary”.