BU1/H - Sun Lane, Ilkley Road

Support

Representation ID: 24887

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: CEG Land Promotions Ltd

Agent: Lichfields

CEG welcomes and fully supports the identification of the site to the west of Burley-in Wharfedale (SLA:BU/001) as a preferred allocation for housing under site reference BU1/H: Sun Lane / Ilkley Road.

The allocation of the site is both a logical and an inevitable outcome of the fact that the Council has consistently supported its proposed development for 500 homes, a school and associated community facilities (application reference 16/07870/MAO).
Following a resolution by CBMDC to grant planning permission in line with Officers’ recommendations, the planning application was subject to a call-in inquiry held in May 2019, and planning permission ultimately granted in by the Secretary of State on 3rd March 2021.

The draft allocation, supporting text and evidence base relevant to site BU1/H: Sun Lane/Ilkley Road has been referred to and appended to the representations at Appendix 2. The Secretary of State’s decision and the accompanying Inspector’s Report to which much of this assessment cross-refers is included at Appendix 3.

Object

Representation ID: 25012

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Anil Mander

See associated representations with this submission which supports the Burley-in-Wharfedale Parish Council response to the Local Plan consultation. In particular relating to the proposal to build houses on green belt land off Sun Lane.

Object

Representation ID: 25422

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Rebecca Stokes

Object to building of houses on the Green Belt, Sun Lane, Burley in Wharfedale.

Agree with points raised by the Parish Council.

Burley in Wharfedale is a village, those within it are a strong community and enjoying walking in their countryside. Removal of Green Belt will have a negative effect on wildlife, an increase in carbon emissions, a high risk of flooding, a huge increase in traffic on the A65 and further demand on local nurseries/schools which are near to capacity.

Urge you to reconsider this detrimental and non-reversible decision and consider the future instead of greed. As outlined in the proposal there are numerous sites available for extra housing, this Green Belt does not need to be used and should not be used.

Please reconsider and relocate, Burley in Wharfedale does not want and should not have this new development. Those who live here should have their voices heard.

Object

Representation ID: 25454

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Dr Francesca Abigail Ridley

• Green Belt. It is the responsibility of Bradford Council to protect the Green Belt. When building new housing the council should maximise the potential of brown field sites and only in exceptional circumstances consider infringement on Green Belt. Prior to this infringement there should be reasonable consultation and agreement with residents in the locality. I object whole heartedly to Bradford councils’ proposals to build on these sites as they are not in keeping with Green Belt Policy.

Object

Representation ID: 26447

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Tamsin Emma Wood

The aim of Green Belt is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping the land permanently open.
Green Belt should be protected.
New housing should be on brown field sites.
Sould only consider infringement on Green Belt in very ‘exceptional circumstances’
Issues of Flood risk.
Lack of sufficient infrastructure to support even the current needs of the population in Ben Rhydding and Ilkley.
- The Medical Centre
- Ilkley Grammar School
- Ben Rhydding Railway Station
- Public Sporting Facilities
- The extra burden of traffic for the proposed developments through the village will seriously detract from village life and cause increased parking problems and congestion.

Object

Representation ID: 26622

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Bethany Wright

Prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open.
Protect the Green Belt.
Build new housing by maximising the potential of brown field sites.
Only to consider development of Green Belt in exceptional circumstances’.
Goes against Green Belt Policy.
Flood risk.
Traffic Issues.
Lack of infrastructure in Ben Rhydding and Ilkley. Ilkley Grammar School and need for a separate location to build a 6th form college.
Primary Schools
Ben Rhydding Railway Station is inadequate with insufficient parking.
Medical Centre is currently working at full capacity
Traffic and parking problems causing congestion
Ilkley and Ben Rhydding create bottle necks to traffic on the A65.
Public Sporting Facilities and the diminution of community spaces (with many community spaces having been converted into flats).

Object

Representation ID: 26997

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Lisa King

Object to proposed development to build houses on Green Belt between Ben Rhydding and Burley-in-Wharfedale (IL1/H, IL3/H & BU1/H).

Green Belt – aim is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land open. Responsibility of the Council to protect it and build new housing be maximising the potential of brownfield sites and only consider it in very exceptional circumstances, and only them after consultation and agreement with local residents. Object to these sites as they are not in keeping with Green Belt policy.

Object

Representation ID: 27087

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Ms E. McAuslan

Object to proposed development to build houses on Green Belt between Ben Rhydding and Burley-in-Wharfedale (IL1/H, IL3/H & BU1/H).

Green Belt – aim is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land open. Responsibility of the Council to protect it and build new housing be maximising the potential of brownfield sites and only consider it in very exceptional circumstances, and only them after consultation and agreement with local residents. Object to these sites as they are not in keeping with Green Belt policy.

Object

Representation ID: 27256

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Sarah Saxton

Proposals not in keeping with Green Belt policy. Council has responsibility to protect it. Should maximise potential of brownfield sites and only consider it in very exceptional circumstances.

Object

Representation ID: 27863

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Dominic Wright

-Green Belt should be protected.
-Maximise the potential of brown field sites
-Infringement on Green Belt only in very ‘exceptional circumstances’ and after reasonable consultation/ agreement with local residents.

Comment

Representation ID: 28068

Received: 24/08/2021

Respondent: Aimee Rawson

The site proposed for development outside of Burley in Wharfedale (at Sun Lane) is both a flood plain and not close by to any rail links, so I would like to see better provision for access to a new rail station or better links to/facilities for parking at Burley in Wharfedale train station. The issue of flood risk needs to be properly considered too, my understanding is that areas that have a significant flood risk should not be built on as they are unsuitable for housing, and a necessary function of the river system.

Comment

Representation ID: 28616

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Environment Agency

Flood Zones 2, 3 and the current/draft 3b/3a(i) within site boundary - Site contains FZ2 and 3 and close to the 2019 Draft 3b

There is to be no development with the 3b/3a(i) extent unless considered water compatible or essential infrastructure. Where this is the case the development must demonstrate no increase in risk to others, no loss of Functional Floodplain and suitable mitigation measures for use and the lifetime of the development.

Development on site should follow a sequential layout so as to prevent unnecessary development within Flood Zones 3b, 3 and 2 wherever possible. If the site is considered Greenfield then surface water discharge rates post development should be restricted to the pre development Greenfield discharge rate.

If the site is considered Brownfield then there should be a 30% reduction in surface water discharges, or restricted to Greenfield rates, there should be no increase in brownfield surface water discharge rates post development. So as to support prevention of cumulative increases to flood risk and should be in line with SuDs design principles. Some SuDs principles such as storage ponds should not be solely relied upon within areas at risk of fluvial flooding as they may not be operational during a flood.

Development must be shown to be safe for the lifetime of the development. See the Adept Guidance of Access and Egress plans. Hazard ratings may need to be assessed as part of the proposal.

Mitigation such a proofing measures and raised Finished Floor Levels, must be set above the 1 in 100 plus Climate Change level for the site. Current Guidance is on .gov.

The applicant must ensure there is no increase in risk to others for the lifetime of the development (including climate change). Where on Greenfield sites compensatory storage must be actively sought.

Consideration must be made to making space for water and providing betterment in terms of flood risk management where ever possible. For development near ordinary watercourses we would recommend an 8 metre easement strip along the length of the riverbank, or a 45degree angle from the bed in the case of culverts, to be kept clear of permanent structures such as buildings. This is to maintain access to the riverbank for any improvements or maintenance. A Flood Defence Consent may be required for the LLFA for works in/affecting an ordinary watercourse.

For main rivers, we generally require an 8 metre easement strip along the length of the riverbank to be kept clear of permanent structures such as buildings, or a 45degree angle from the bed in the case of culverts. This is to maintain access to the riverbank for any improvements or maintenance. Environmental Flood Risk Activity Permits may be required for development near rivers.

It is likely these sites are going to show changes/increases in flood risk as a result of climate change.

The SFRA (to follow) is going to consider future flooding including future Functional Floodplain this may identify sites at more future risk than others which may affect its allocation or how development should be sequentially laid out on the site.

Object

Representation ID: 29420

Received: 29/03/2021

Respondent: Historic England

The site is located close to the Burley in Wharfdale Conservation Area and surrounds Black Bull Farm House and associated outbuilding, both of which are Grade II listed Buildings. The development of this area could harm elements which contribute to the significance of these designated heritage assets.
See attachment for full representation
Before allocating this site for development:
(1) An assessment needs to be undertaken of the contribution which this site makes to those elements which contribute towards the significance of the Listed Buildings in its vicinity, and what impact the loss of this undeveloped site and its subsequent development might have upon their significance.
(2) If it is considered that the development of this site would harm elements which contribute to the significance of the Listed Buildings, then the measures by which that harm might be removed or reduced need to be effectively tied into the Plan.
(3) If, at the end of the process, it is concluded that the development would still be likely to harm elements which contribute to the significance of these Listed Buildings, then this site should not be allocated unless there are clear public benefits that outweigh the harm (as is
required by NPPF, Paragraph 195 or 196).

Object

Representation ID: 30312

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr J.H. Cove

Concern over sites AD3/H, AD4/H, IL1/H, IL3/H & BU1/H resulting in virtual ribbon development between Guiseley and Addingham. Creeping urbanisation is a major threat to the environment and damage those qualities that attract visitors and prosperity.

Maintaining open spaces and wildlife is fundamental to environmentally sound and sustainable development. Plan deviates from this.

Plan offers destruction of the Wharfedale environment with no clear benefit.