BU1/H - Sun Lane, Ilkley Road

Object

Representation ID: 126

Received: 13/02/2021

Respondent: Mr Thomas Lowe

Environmental impact, loss of green belt and loss of character.

Object

Representation ID: 255

Received: 17/02/2021

Respondent: Mr Adrian Wheway

This proposed development is too large for Burley. The size of this proposed Sun Lane development will sacrifice a significant amount of green belt.
Most of the land on which housing will be developed is in a flood risk zone 1 area.
Given the phased approach of the proposed Sun Lane development programme, I have concerns that some of the school/infrastructure investments may not come to fruition.

The A65 often has traffic queuing from the Wheatley Lane junction in Ilkley all the way back to the Manor Park bend where the entrance to the Sun Lane development will be.

Object

Representation ID: 274

Received: 08/02/2021

Respondent: Mr Ben Ullock

There is no infrastructure in place to accommodate these extra dwellings the council openly want to build on green belt land that is prone to flooding already. The plan has not taken into account the views of the community where the overall majority do not want any further development to this small village, as found out at the last application

Object

Representation ID: 329

Received: 19/02/2021

Respondent: Mr Roger Wilson

BU1/H is Greenfield and Greenbelt land.
The size of the development is grossly disproportionate to the existing size of the village (19% increase in dwellings from this single development).
Site is too distant from the railway station.
Local roads are congested, especially at peak times and during Summer holiday period.
Local amenities are already overloaded.
The site floods.
Currently there is a strong village boundary to the West. This would be destroyed, creating sprawl.
Limited employment potential in Burley would result in a large increase in commuting. National objectives of carbon reduction (net zero by 2050) is not being respected.

Object

Representation ID: 392

Received: 22/02/2021

Respondent: Mr Robert Bains

This proposal is for a huge number of dwellings on a large area of greenbelt land that can be seen from main roads and elevated areas. Other developments are also proposed in adjacent areas of Ilkley and Ben Rhydding. This creeping destruction of the greenbelt threatens to merge the two settlements in left unchecked. I also feel that there are many different housing projects proposed along the A65 (including Otley, Bramhope and Adel) and the road infrastructure will not cope with so many additional residents commuting to Leeds.

Object

Representation ID: 531

Received: 26/02/2021

Respondent: Mr Alan Lovell

Burley cannot possibly support a development of this size.
In your words, there is little local employment, thus the vast majority of new residents would commute by car increasing the already congested A65
In your words, there is already a lack of open space, yet you propose to reduce the green field.
This is a green belt area.....in your words.." the proposed local plan continues to emphasise the importance of re developing brownfield and non greenbelt sites whilst protecting our valuable local green spaces."..Therefore your proposal to build a huge development on green belt is hypocritical to say the least.
The village services, Doctor, schools, shops, transport etc cannot cope with an additional potential 1500 residents.
This is a flood risk area.

Object

Representation ID: 582

Received: 28/02/2021

Respondent: Miss Sharon Hattersley

I object to the developing of this area of greenbelt land for housing. It is an area of great importance for local wildlife and any development will destroy the habitat forever of a number of protected species.

The greenbelt around our village is of crucial importance and once it is lost it can never be recovered. This development will speed up the erosion of the greenbelt between Burley and Ilkley.

The area is prone to flooding due to run off from the nearby Moors which will make flooding of the A65 worse once this flood plain has been tarmac'd over. This development will overwhelm local ameneties

Object

Representation ID: 687

Received: 03/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Linda Kelly

Site is greenbelt with lots of wildlife and habitat. Some of these fields flood, A65 road is too busy. Local schools and other facilities can't cope.

Object

Representation ID: 713

Received: 03/03/2021

Respondent: Dr James Woodman

Sun Lane is completely unsuitable for housing development. Flooding issues have already been identified on Sun Lane and high groundwater is already an issue for residents on Hall Drive, increased development will increased hardstand and run off will only worsen these issues. Indeed, JBA Consulting's strategic flood risk assessment deemed the site unsuitable for residential dwellings.

Object

Representation ID: 837

Received: 06/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Sam Lewis

Bradford Council's proposal to build on Green Belt land is unacceptable. There are no special circumstances that mean that this should be allowed. Bradford Council are elected to work on behalf of the people of Bradford. The people of Bradford do not support the destruction of Green belt land. I object to this proposal

Object

Representation ID: 842

Received: 06/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Hazel Lewis

Bradford Council's proposal to build on Green Belt land is unacceptable. There are no special circumstances that mean that this should be allowed, particularly when there are many brownfield sites available across the district.

Bradford Council are elected to work on behalf of the people of Bradford. The people of Bradford do not support the destruction of Green belt land. I object to this proposal.

Object

Representation ID: 939

Received: 08/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Kirstin Hutchinson

BU1/H is a huge development that will change the look and feel of the village. It is on greenbelt land that should be protected to wildlife and is important for health and wellbeing. A development of this size needs significant consideration of the infrastructure available to support such a large growth. I am very concerned about the school situation in this village. I am aware that some local village children were not able to get into village schools recently as they were oversubscribed. This is not acceptable. More detailed plans for primary and secondary school place growth needs to accompany such as large increase in dwellings. In addition, traffic and train travel (pre lockdown) was awful with it taking over an hour commute only 13 miles by car or being unable to get a seat on the train.

Object

Representation ID: 1477

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Emily Corbett

BU1/H. I am very concerned about the infrastructure which is inadequate to support 500 new houses off Sun Lane. The A65 is often congested particularly at peak travel times. The trains will not support so many additional commuters.
Secondary school provision is a worry for parents who want their children to attend the local secondary school, Ilkley Grammar. Plans for a secondary school should be made before planning so many new residences.
This greenbelt land must be preserved and other brownfield sites investigated. The biodiversity of the fields off Sun Lane must be protected. At a time when we must be looking for sustainable solutions this is not an appropriate site. The fields by the A65 Manor Bends regularly flood. I am very strongly against this proposed development.

Object

Representation ID: 1653

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Pauline Giroux

This development is being built on greenbelt land, which should be protected at all costs, especially at a time when we're seeing the effects of climate change and biodiversity loss throughout the country. The scale of the development is also unsuitable for the size of the village and the amenities available to residents (GPs, transportation, schools).

Object

Representation ID: 1682

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: David Lewis

Building on green belt land is unacceptable.

Object

Representation ID: 1869

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Alice Kelly

I have been a resident of Scalebor for almost 17 years. In this time I have seen big increases in local traffic, busier trains, longer waiting times for doctors etc etc. On the subject of the proposal to add even more houses and building them on green belt land I strongly object. There is also a covenant in place which ,states the proposed site must remain as grazing land unless otherwise agreed by the residents of Scalebor. This is highly unlikely to happen

Object

Representation ID: 1887

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Olivia Bullock

500 houses at this site is completely excessive. There is no justification for this amount of housing other than profiteering as a very large majority of these dwellings will not be affordable local housing for local people (this is not actually defined anywhere what this will be price wise, or what defines ‘local people’. Bradford Council are using Greenbelt site with no infrastructure upgrades set in stone which will have a huge impact on the entire village and other local areas (menston and guiseley on the train line, and all catchment areas for Ilkley Grammar School)

Object

Representation ID: 2353

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Janine Ward

How can the BMDC “report” conclude no major adverse effects from building 700 houses on land which has been designated green belt? If the land wand to important or significant it wouldn’t have been declared so. Local economy is currently flourishing thank you and there is already frequent congestion in the village. The three coffee shops are all buzzing, frequently long queues. There has been so much Development of the village since the 70s the 2 primary schools in the village could not accommodate the children of the village in 2019 with children being sent to Ben Rhydding and further afield. BMDC thought about school places? Ilkley Grammar full too. Why is a green belt site next to a nature reserve and a village with few amenities, Full schools and full trains to Leeds Bradford’s “preferred site”? The trains to Bradford are always very quiet. Why no jobs being generated?

Object

Representation ID: 2556

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Mr James Bullock

The proposed number of houses is too large for the village infrastructure to cope. I have already highlighted my concerns about transport, I am also concerned on the basis of school places as someone with a young child. I moved to the area for the good schools and I would like to know that my child will be able to attend a local primary (burley oaks or woodhead) and the local secondary (ilkley Grammar). I am aware Ilkley Grammar is already subscribed, and I don’t feel the plan for 500 extra houses at the sun lane site, as well as the proposed extra houses in addingham and Ilkley, addresses the concerns of many families whether their children will be able to attend the schools many moved to the area for. Bradford Council must address this before proceeding with any development.

Object

Representation ID: 2669

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Sylvia Bergin

This huge proposed development would cause traffic problems on the busy A65 as well as put a huge strain on education and health services in the village of Burley in Wharfedale. The environmental damage would be tragic and irreversible.

Object

Representation ID: 2736

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Michael Whitehead

Living in this village for 50 years have witnessed the village transformed into an urban sprawl by continual erosion of our Green Belt. As pointed out by both our MP and local councillors brownfield sites exist in the Bradford that could be developed . Far easier and more profitable to dig up virgin greenbelt land! Whilst living here I have witnessed a 200+ Barratt house development East of the village, X-hundred houses built filling in greenbelt land between the Burley by-pass and main street to name but two none of which as with this latest proposal contained any additional services eg Schools or medical facilities. Whilst I can see that additional accommodation is required I note convertion of Burley Mill into something like 200 apartments were refused due an enviromental objection by none other I'm told than one of the developers wishing to build multiple houses on greenbelt land! Disgusted

Object

Representation ID: 2978

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mr martin stacey

Object to the BU1/H - Sun Lane, Ilkley Road, Burley in Wharfedale development on Green Belt Land. There does not appear to be adequate justifications for "exceptional circumstances" for use of green belt land over brownfield sites within the district and it appears to be based on financial considerations. There is no detailed mitigation strategy for this development.
There needs to be defined mitigation strategies for developments of green belt land rather than vague aspirations.

Object

Representation ID: 3009

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Amanda Stainton

Destroying green belt land cannot be allowed. The local infrastructure cannot support excessive additional housing. There will he insufficient primary school places and Ilkley grammar is already oversubscribed. The traffic will be excessive and will destroy the village

Object

Representation ID: 3199

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Daren Murray

This is simply a quick fix for the council approving building on green belt when they are a significant number of sites within Bradford wards to fulfil a significant proportion of the housing needs. Building on green belt should be a lot resort not because this proved the greatest profit margin for developers.

Building green belt in Burley in Wharfedale will not bring economic benefit to bradford. Trains for commuters to Leeds are overflowing and yet Bradford trains are almost empty (pre covid). This will be very good for Leeds Council and an easy fix for the council.

Object

Representation ID: 3205

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Lisa Gibson

Given CEG and BMBC managed to get the SoS decision not to grant planning permission overturned this is purely a 'tick box' consultation question but whilst you are asking... the information presented in the draft plan particularly around conservation of greenbelt is pretty damning that this development, on a known flood plain, is a terrible idea. Village does not have the infrastructure to take in 500 more houses - limited school places (particularly at secondary), small primary care facility, Wharfedale Hospital - limited acute services e.g. no maternity unit. Building more houses on greenbelt and shoehorning in an open space does not mitigate building over beautiful green fields and the home of at risk wildlife such as Curlews.

I am also fascinated how you plan to introduce affordable housing for 4 bed family homes following the data on the average house prices in the village. Good luck!!!!

Object

Representation ID: 3218

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Andrew Fisher

The A65 is already often blocked from Ben Rhydding back to Burley. Another large housing development at this site will make traffic worse and no effective mitigation is possible as it is impossible to create a new Ilkley by-pass. The road needs to be dual carriageway already but cannot be widened. The land is exceedingly boggy in wet weather with water running down from the Moor to the flood plain. Burley has insufficient infrastructure to support these extra homes. These homes will border a disused landfill site where the anti-contamination measures are not properly maintained. Measures such as reed beds are now all dead and not filtering run-off properly. Additional use of the Sun Lane nature reserve will render it unusable in winter when it is already churned to gloopy mud. This is an ill-thought-out and irresponsible place to site so many new houses.

Object

Representation ID: 3323

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Dr James Woodman

Planning permission has been granted for this site since my last comment, which is a tragedy. I still object to any form of housing development on this site. My views are reflected by that of the response from Burley in Wharfedale Parish Council, but I would like to highlight my main concern regarding this site is flood risk. The strategic flood risk assessment commissioned by Bradford Council as part of its Core Strategy partial review reported that the land is a functional flood plain and should not be used for development.

Object

Representation ID: 3390

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Paul Grant

Main road, A65 has flooded on many occasions. Building on a flood plane will increase this problem. I feel it is wrong to be building on green belt especially next to a river when there are other potential sites in Bradford which carry less environmental impact. Children in this village already struggle to get places into the local high school at Ilkley Grammar. This development will thus worsen this. The village strongly objected this development with solid reasons and the secretary of state rejected the planning application. I am bewildered and curious as to how the decision can be then changed.

Object

Representation ID: 3444

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Dr Jennifer Dentith

I object to building on a greenfield site in the Green Belt, that is so rich in biodiversity. Additionally this site will add considerable strain to the rail, educational, and medical facilities in the village, as well as the surrounding roads.

Object

Representation ID: 3575

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Savia Lorain Hughes

Sun Lane and Scalebor House are both green field sites. Surely priority on building should be for brown field sites closer to the need in inner city Bradford where unoccupied residences are available along with brown field sites which should have priority for use.

Sun Lane is an area where wildlife, including endangered species, is often sighted, photographed and videotaped. We cannot afford to remove a valueable ecosystem which has been decimated over the years.
Furthermore, construction in this area and that being planned for Ilkley will cause a removal of any demarcation between Burley in Wharfedale and Ilkley.

Both Sun Lane and Scalebor access/exit on to roads needs to be considered especially during peak hours and with limited infrastructure ability (narrow roads, pinch points, etc).