BU1/H - Sun Lane, Ilkley Road

Object

Representation ID: 3590

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Jeremy Till

As per Para 5.16.29 flood plain is identified north and east of the village and at Sun Lane. This includes the area of the Sun Lane development, which would result in non-insurable homes. If sufficient infrastructure were possible to drain the site, this would simply further increase the flood risk downstream.
Access from A65 is proposed at a dangerous site. Sight lines are poor with the changes in elevation and road bend, and traffic levels at peak times often result in the queue of cars to get into Ilkley backing up to and beyond the roundabout at the north-eastern end of the development. In addition would be the potential burden of 500-1000 extra vehicles from the proposed development. This would result in a significant accident risk.
The area is presently beautiful green open countryside, with walking routes and should be valued and preserved as such.

Object

Representation ID: 3730

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Tracey Liddle

Concerned around the increased volume of traffic through an already busy village, I worry for the safety of my children who already struggle to cross the main street. Also the volume of new houses would add too much pressure on local amenities, including Secondary school provision. More loss of Green Belt area too, close to a nature reserve. Thank you.

Object

Representation ID: 4040

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Isabel Almond

The resulting leaching, noise and light pollution will cause the removal and localised extinctions of many species and will be of detriment to the health and wellbeing of Burley's residents - both animal and human.

Object

Representation ID: 4161

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Gary Bowkett

Application of an ill fitting all ready out of date Southern centric policy that has been weighted towards middle class housing.
Requires huge investment in Schools, Doctors, roads, drainage, parking, public transport, refuse collection etc.
Leaves the City and small towns to decay.
Reduces the main sanctuary for exercise and wellbeing (specifically after the last twelve months) together with the destruction of wildlife and increase in pollution.
Indicates a lack of environmental and green policy owed to its rate payers and new generations.
The only beneficiary will be Leeds for its jobs and hospitality.
The City loses and the Country side loses.

Object

Representation ID: 4216

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Burley Bridge Association

The Sun Lane development is entirely in the greenbelt. Although the SoS has granted permission, development here should still be resisted. This scale of development is out of proportion to the village and there is insufficient attention given to infrastructure needs. The Wharfedale Greenway (if ever delivered) will do very little to shift traffic away from the often blocked A65, which will suffer from more housing all along the Wharfe Valley. Most residents are likely to be commuting to Leeds by car.

There is much valued wildlife on the site and this area represents a valuable green corridor down from the moor to the river. We need to preserve all our valuable green spaces. Whilst the switch in the overall plan to more development on previously developed land is noted, more could be done in this respect, especially if delivering much needed social housing.

Object

Representation ID: 4288

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Kasia Speakman

The site is located in the green belt and beyond walking distance to local amenities. It is beyond comfortable walking distance to the railway station. The road corridor has hourly bus service in the morning peak. The site will be heavily car dependent, adding to congestion, noise and pollution. By its very proximity, it will impact on the enjoyment and use of the Sun Lane LNR.

Object

Representation ID: 4316

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr David Weathers

My objection is to the Sun Lane development but any development that is going to ruin the green belt between Burley in Wharfedale, Ilkley and Addingham. I dont' see this as progress, far from it.

The A65 is also heavy with traffic, the Burley in Wharfedale dual carriageway is like a formula one race track and vehicles go at far too much speed on Manor Park bends which should be a 30 limit maximum. I have never seen a speed camera flash once on these bends.

Object

Representation ID: 4369

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

After many objections and legal battles with regard to this housing development, it has been given the go ahead. However, I still refute that there are any special circumstances under which this development should proceed and continue to object to the development.

Object

Representation ID: 4460

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Rachel Martin

Object. Greenfield site, nature reserve, dangerous flooding area, danger of excessive traffic in & out of A65 & long list of negative impacts on the village.

Object

Representation ID: 4478

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Jonathan Lury

Object for the following reasons:
1) these new homes will be mostly for rich people. They will not be affordable or increase diversity or opportunity.
2) this is greenbelt land. The UK is a small country with a dwindling amount of greenbelt. New housing should be done on brown field sites and be facilitated by central government investment. Bradford area has a large amount of urban brownfield sites which are ripe for regeneration.
3) there is not enough infrastructure for this development (water/sewage, schools, public transport, existing road system is inadequate). In other recent building developments in this area the developers have not delivered the promised solutions to improve infrastructure and have not been held to account. Therefore this development will simply create more problems.

Object

Representation ID: 4480

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Chris Turner

The reasons for my objection to this site were have been made clear at the 2019 Inquiry and subsequent evidence collated by residents and the Parish Council.

In summary - I object to development on Green Belt until brown sites have been exhausted. Bradford would need to properly address all of the concerns on infrastructure which have already made clear. This includes - schools (primary and secondary), GP surgery access, flood mitigation, transport infrastructure, removal of wildlife habitat and more. All of the concerns were made clear at the Inquiry by residents.

If development does happen, since Bradford has a target of 2038 for net zero carbon emissions, any housing I believe that development should be net zero from this time onwards.

I fully support Burley Parish Council's response.

Object

Representation ID: 4500

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Bridget Turner

I object to any building on green belt.

5.16.29 mentions the flood risks, it therefore seems foolish to build on the fields at the end of Sun Lane and Main Street.

There is mention of an additional education facility at Sun Lane? Where? What sort of ‘educational facility’? Does this refer to the new development? As I understood it, there are no guaranteed plans for a school there? If a school for younger children

Object

Representation ID: 4556

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Andrew Jackson

This development is far too large and out of scale given this is a village and not a town. A completely inappropriate development strongly opposed by the majority of the village whose views should take priority over Bradford councils desire for further income generation.

Object

Representation ID: 4643

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Carrie Gray

I still believe our worries have not been addressed. Transport links from the village are heavily congested and this will only get worse. The congestion in the village is horrendous at the moment / without 500 new houses on Sun Lane. Local Schools already at full capacity . What is the plan here? Designated space was ‘proposed’ for school plot however Bradford council said they will not build a new school. We need clear strategies to address this issues before any new housing is built!

Object

Representation ID: 4690

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Kate Naylor

Site BUH/1 - the proposal to build on green belt is hugely disappointing. The site floods and building on it is likely to cause flooding issues for existing houses. The loss of wildlife in the area is devastating, there are curlews, barn owls, deer among the regularly seen wildlife. The size of the development is too large for the village, the A65 cannot cope with the additional vehicles and most residents will drive anywhere as it’s too far from the village amenities. There is very little parking in the village and the village doesn’t want extra traffic at this level. See question 118, I don’t understand why the allocation to Burley is as high as it is.

Object

Representation ID: 4779

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Catherine Hatton

Social concerns: reduction of general well-being of this community, major stresses due to unnecessary building works, lorries, and mismatch/lack of of Council's understanding of local aspiration, 5.16.17 which is not proven in the outline of this document.
Community infrastructure: pressures on extremely small village centre of few shops and other facilities. The main road running through the village is already dangerous when people are queuing outside cafes, shops and eateries and there is limited provision of shops, GPs.
Crime will increase where there are few activities for young people growing up in the area.
Sustainability, conservation, access, flood risk, heritage: inadequate reference to mitigating flood risk (one short line of text in this document) and addressing concerns such as the Roman camp, Conservation area, general pollution.
Residents' Development Helpline?
Access/inclusion and diversity planning issues completely unacknowledged, particularly for disabled and BAME people who are grossly underrepresented in this area.

Object

Representation ID: 4804

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Paul Hardaker

I do not support such development in the village nor the enfringement onto green belt land, which is an important wildlife habitat.

I firmly believe that the addition of so many houses and therefore families, cars etc., would have a detrimental and unsustainable impact on the current infrastructure of the village. It would fundamentally change the village character and not for the better.

I urge you to reconsider the plan, protect our village community and protect our green spaces for the people and animals who already live here.

Thank you for your consideration.

Object

Representation ID: 4829

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Amanda Bowkett

I strongly object to development of the green belt on Sun Lane. The development has already been rejected by the community and secretary of state. It is hideously out of proportion compared with the size of the existing village. The village facilities are already beyond reasonable capacity (Drs and schools). I am happy to support development for in-filling subject to the housing being aimed at younger people (ie small, affordable) or retirement provision or brownfield developments. Your document does not refer to the ongoing development at the Mill site in Burley which is already creating a lot of new homes. Bradford must focus on saving urban / city areas. The continued push to make as much council tax from rural areas alientates everyone and pushes the cities further into decay and perpetuates the type of over-crowded areas where the covid virus has been most prevalent. Bradford is failing everyone.

Object

Representation ID: 5099

Received: 25/02/2021

Respondent: Joanne Sexton

Flooding: Prone to regular flooding. Flooding that occurs in fields every year near "Manor Bends" Burley and in fields opposite the new Moss&Moor Garden Centre will worsen due to less soak away land.
Developers and Bradford Council will try and prove these problems can be alleviated. I see these issues regularly. Building will create a serious flooding issue.
Environmental: I see unusual species of birds and bats (including Owls). Building will destroy their habitat.
Highways: Heavy traffic on A65. More housing will seriously impact road safety. The roundabout at the Sun Lane end is extremely dangerous. It is frequently at a standstill.
Visual Appearance: Visual, permanent destruction of the view when driving into Ilkley along Coutance Way. First impressions do count. Importance of this open, untouched beautiful approach cannot be overestimated.
We have to live with these decisions. By ignoring our opinions our support for local government will be undermined.

Object

Representation ID: 5158

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Corrie Hardaker

Concerns over loss of green belt, impact on wildlife and inability of local infrastructure and community to support such rapid development. Fundamental change to the character of the village.

Object

Representation ID: 5172

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Janet Sage

This development is totally inappropriate for this village. It is disproportionately large and the Green belt should not be used while brownfield options are available in the district.
The impact of a development of this size on the landscape, the wildlife and the village will be huge and detrimental to Burley in Wharfedale. The infrastructure as it stands will struggle to cope with extra demands this development would place on it. There are long waits for GP appointments already and the secondary schools are almost at capacity, only 1 part time post office and no pool or leisure centre.
I would also question why Burley in Wharfedale has been designated a growth centre in the first place?

Object

Representation ID: 5232

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Chris Steele

This is a vast area compared to the village, much of which is flooded for large parts of the year, and drains directly into the Wharfe. Each year the village is cut off from Ilkley in the West and Otley in the east by flooding. Addtional run off will likely increase flooding either in the village itself of furthe downstream in Otley. It will negatively impact on wildlife, particularly as at Sun Lane fields curlews and barn owls feed iand have a negative impact on the Sun Lane nature reserve with increased domestic animals, from cats and increased footfall and waste from dog walkers. In addition, proposed affordable housing is unlikely to be such with - as 5.16.16 states, the total affordability ratio between house prices and annual earnings is 5.03 compared to a West Yorkshire average of 2.96, making a mockery to suggest building would meet local needs.

Object

Representation ID: 5271

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Bernard Poulter

Sun Lane site contains many examples of the exact Fauna that the SPA is set up to protect. This is in all respects Functional Land for the Species listed on the SPA .
Local residents have countless metadata'd photographs of the wildlife using this area. The Developer commissioned an HRA that was openly ridiculed for its gaps, errors and false assumptions at the Public Inquiry.
Since that time, as a consequence of the two devastating fires on the SPA area in 2019 &2020, the protected species have dramatically increased their use of this land as functional land for both feeding and nesting.
Despite the SoS granting permission based on the previous information, it should now be considered VITAL that the Council commission a fresh HRA on this area.

Object

Representation ID: 5300

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Pam Sowman

Schools already full. Where would pupils go pending new school building? Ilkley Grammar full. some local children sent out of their area. The journey to Bradford is complicated. Details of ameneties in B in W are inaccurate. Many well documented wildlife breeding areas will be lost. This is Greenbelt land and was designated as this to avoid this type of building. Significant areas of the site are prone to flooding. The nature reserve adjacent was an old Victorian tip not suitable for building on or near. Why has the decision of the Secretary of State to refuse the development after the public enquiry been overturned?
I support the response of the Burley Parish Council to Draft Bradford District Local Plan Consultation.

Object

Representation ID: 5361

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Claire Ure

I strongly object to the development of the Sun Lane site within the Council's Local Plan for Burley in Wharfedale. The Sun Lane development consisting of 500 homes represents an entirely inappropriate exploitation of development on protected green belt land and an unacceptable disregard for the impact upon the village's infrastructure and resources. As a democratic society the local residents' substantive objections and clear rejection of the Council's Plan for Burley in Wharfedale and this site must be listened to and addressed, as the Council's failure to do so would be a direct contravention, breach and dismissal of the fundamental democratic and human rights of the residents of the village who will be directly and adversely impacted by this plan.

Object

Representation ID: 5373

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Paul Dunn

I strongly object to the development of the Sun Lane site within the Council's Local Plan for Burley in Wharfedale. The Sun Lane development consisting of 500 homes represents an entirely inappropriate exploitation of development on protected green belt land and an unacceptable disregard for the impact upon the village's infrastructure and resources. As a democratic society the local residents' substantive objections and clear rejection of the Council's Plan for Burley in Wharfedale and this site must be listened to and addressed, as the Council's failure to do so would be a direct contravention, breach and dismissal of the fundamental democratic and human rights of the residents of the village who will be directly and adversely impacted by this plan.

Object

Representation ID: 5374

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Vicky Gordon

Despite BMDC itself stating that brownfield sites are to be prioritised they have authorised and actively pursued the approval of this huge development on Greenbelt land. Aside from the obvious destruction of countryside that was designated Greenbelt for good reason (and the inevitable devastating loss of habitat for a wide variety of species), Burley in Wharfedale is a village that does not have the infrastructure to cope with such a massive increase in population. The site is located on a floodplain, the A65 is closed to traffic on numerous occasions throughout each year - covering a vast swathe of land with yet more houses is only going to exacerbate an already problematic situation. The local secondary school, Ilkley Grammar School, is at capacity so the ‘supposed’ provision of a primary school becomes irrelevant. I could go on but it will fall on deaf ears. This development is unwanted and unnecessary.

Object

Representation ID: 5396

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Eleanor Statham

I object to the use of the green belt Sun Lane site to deliver the additional housing requirement and have set out the reasons why under Consultation Question 118.

Object

Representation ID: 5399

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Benjamin Statham

This is green belt land, it's used by a variety of wildlife for grazing and hunting.

Object

Representation ID: 5483

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: CPRE West Yorkshire

In line with our comments on policy SP5, we object to these site allocations:

BU1/H
BU2/H

The site BU1/H now has permission following the Secretary of State’s recent decision. In line with our strategic comments, development at low density will negate the claimed sustainability benefits of building in an accessible location.