Consultation Question 118

Showing comments and forms 1 to 30 of 243

Object

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

Representation ID: 5

Received: 08/02/2021

Respondent: Mr Ben Ullock

Representation Summary:

The council have categorised Burley as a "Local Growth Centre" so that they can plan to build as many houses as possible in the area of Bradford that has the highest council tax rates. 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

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

Representation ID: 9

Received: 08/02/2021

Respondent: Mr Miles Ayling

Representation Summary:

The council should consider brown field development ahead of green field. The land in question at Scalebor house would also require additional infrastructure improvements to utilities, sewerage and roads. Land is susceptible to flood which is not reflected in the plan. Council should consult on options, not a preferred solution, the documents omit this.

Object

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

Representation ID: 256

Received: 17/02/2021

Respondent: Mr Adrian Wheway

Representation Summary:

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

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

Representation ID: 323

Received: 19/02/2021

Respondent: Mr Keith Revis

Representation Summary:

There are too many vague points in the submission particularly around education, transport, parking, flooding and doctors capacity. All of these do not currently cope with the existing houses. This number of new houses will not be supported by the local infrastructure. There are brownfield sites at Greenholme Mills and elsewhere that have not been pursued. Destroying green belt and the village by building a large number of new house is a dereliction of duty by Bradford planning. Other local areas like Leeds are already reducing the amount of green belt builds they have.

Object

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

Representation ID: 328

Received: 19/02/2021

Respondent: Mr Roger Wilson

Representation Summary:

A study by Edge Analytics for BMDC concluded Bradford’s population growth is now well under the national level with historical change driven by international immigration offset to a large extent by a net outflow of Bradford residents to neighbouring areas.
A population change over the next 18 years of near-zero is one possible outcome reported in the study.
Bradford has a large stock of Brownfield sites (capacity for over 12000 new dwellings recorded on the Datahub in 2019).
Both sites in Burley are Greenfield and Greenbelt.

Object

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

Representation ID: 342

Received: 21/02/2021

Respondent: Ms Jane Schofield

Representation Summary:

The proposed increase number of houses is disproportionate to the current size of the village, and the infrastructure in all respects (health, education, transport). To increase by such a large amount changes the character of the village in a short space of time as well.

Object

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

Representation ID: 410

Received: 23/02/2021

Respondent: Mr Simon Gott

Representation Summary:

The Local Plan proposes an increase in dwellings the local area cannot cope with. Despite admitting services are already at full capacity, it proposes an increase of around a quarter of the number of dwellings. The plan ignores the entire purpose of Green Belt. Bradford Council is attempting to impose the plan on the area without the consent or wishes of the local residents.

Object

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

Representation ID: 453

Received: 25/02/2021

Respondent: Mr Neil Collins

Representation Summary:

Bradford has a plentiful supply of brownfield sites that have not been developed.
In her judgement dated 8/6/2020 in Aireborough Neighbourhood Development Forum vs Leeds City Council, Mrs Justice Lieven found that it was wrong to leave Green Belt sites in a development plan solely because the Council wished to reduce the numbers around the district proportionately. Green belt should be removed from the plan and brownfield sites built on first.
This judgement is surely just as relevant to Bradford.
Our Prime Minister's "Build Build Build" announcement on 30/6/2020 said brownfield building would be made easier to protect Green Belt

Object

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

Representation ID: 581

Received: 28/02/2021

Respondent: Miss Sharon Hattersley

Representation Summary:

I object to Burley-in-Wharfedale being designated as an area for significant housing development. The authority has already approved too many housing developments in the local area including significant building on the green belt land. We are being used as a cash cow to generate council tax when the council should be utilising brownfield sites in the centre of Bradford & in other Bradford wards.

Once greenbelt land has been lost in can never be recovered and the feel and character of this beautiful area will be lost forever. We are already losing many areas of wildlife habitat due to badly thought out developments which have already been approved such as the Sun Lane development.

Object

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

Representation ID: 722

Received: 04/03/2021

Respondent: Miss N Bateson

Representation Summary:

Systematic destruction by Bradford Council of greenbelt areas and local communities who receive no benefit from proposed developments. The lack of planning and thought around these proposed developments (its OK to build a primary school but children grow up and leave primary, where do they go then?!). Increased preasures on local infrastructure (increased traffic, accidents, public services, etc). Building on flood planes and destroying the natural environment, impacting on the mental health of communities. The villages surrounding central Bradford paying for inner city Braford and the people there. What is being done to look at building on brownfield sites and improving building conditions in existing housing stock?

Object

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

Representation ID: 760

Received: 05/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Rachel Gresswell

Representation Summary:

Too many houses for the infrastructure available. Will not solve Bradford problems. People buying these will travel into Leeds. Not enough parking at the station to support commuters who will not walk or take bus. People living much closer don't walk so why would they? Existing families will suffer as they won't get into Ilkley school. People will move out of area to be closer to Ilkley . Destruction of Greenbelt.

Object

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

Representation ID: 835

Received: 06/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Sam Lewis

Representation Summary:

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

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

Representation ID: 840

Received: 06/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Hazel Lewis

Representation Summary:

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

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

Representation ID: 937

Received: 08/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Kirstin Hutchinson

Representation Summary:

Burley has been identified as a local growth center. However, there is very limited information on how local infrastructure would be improved to support this growth. For example, roads are very busy (it takes me over an hour to commute only 13 miles (*pre lockdown)), you rarely get a space on the train in rush hour, it is difficult to see a doctor, and local children were not able to get into local primary schools recently because they are oversubscribed. I am really worried about the school situation (both primary and secondary) and how this can support the huge growth planned for the area. In addition, the growth is all on green belt, which is very important for wildlife, wellbeing and mental health and to protect the feel of the village. I object to Burley being identified as a local growth area.

Object

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

Representation ID: 1319

Received: 11/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Mark Summerson

Representation Summary:

When Scalebor Gardens was built, A designated safe route was established to allow children to safely walk to school without crossing a main access road. This route takes children across the NW side of Scalebor Square, along the pavement of Ron Lawton Cr and down the old hospital access roads, now bollarded. The proposed new site access would send over 200 cars across that safe route at morning rush hour. Ensuring that the safe route that was part of the approved plan for Scalebor Gardens, is no longer ‘safe’.

Object

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

Representation ID: 1680

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: David Lewis

Representation Summary:

There is no detail in the plan. I live in Burley in Wharfedale and it is designated a local growth sector - but where is the growth coming from? What policies are their to drive local employment, where will those companies be based, how will they be served by public transport, where will there be parking? What sort of companies are being encouraged? Likewise, housing development - there are 500 new homes planned but where is the sustainable transport plan, sustainable education plan, what about health facilities. The plan is just a wish list that has not bearing whatsoever on reality.

Object

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

Representation ID: 1810

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Stewart Bunney

Representation Summary:

I object in the strongest terms to the current plans relating to Burley in Wharfedale. There is a clear lack of coherency and failure on the Council's part to produce a plan that delivers against key strategic priorities.

Object

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

Representation ID: 1883

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Olivia Bullock

Representation Summary:

I am unclear why Burley has been designated as an area for such significant housing growth and it is plainly obvious the local infraStructure can not support 610 additional houses. I am particularly concerned about local school places as I have a young family and I note there is no mention from Bradford Council about the impact this construction will have on school places. I would like a guarantee from Bradford Council that my child will be able to attend a primary school within Burley In Wharfedale in 2025, and will subsequently be able to attend the local secondary school (Ilkley Grammar) when she is of age too. I am aware all these schools are currently oversubscribed so I would like to know why Bradford Council feel 610 houses will make no impact on school places.

Object

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

Representation ID: 1929

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Burley Parish Council

Representation Summary:

5.6.10 BDMC have recognised that improvements to the road network need consideration. There is a need not only to mitigate local traffic management issues but also issues caused by frequent flooding along the Wharfe valley on both the A65 and A660.

There is no evidence that development needs or [5.16.11] transport needs are being met, only recognition that they are being considered. There are no transport plans which currently exist to address transport infrastructure issues at Burley-in-Wharfedale, or the Wharfe Valley.

5.16.32 It is not clear where any extra secondary school capacity will come from with increased housing development in the Wharfe Valley.

Object

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

Representation ID: 2051

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Victoria Chapman

Representation Summary:

Already very high amount of cars at Scalebor. The amount of houses and household cars will be a consequence will be a huge statin on the overcrowded roads and possible dangerous .

Object

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

Representation ID: 2345

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Janine Ward

Representation Summary:

No evidence to support safe cycling. How does green infrastructure work? Everyone in this new village will have to drive to school if they can get their kids in, drive to the train station as there are no jobs in Burley to support 700 houses, drive to the GP. Drive to the shops. Drive to the dentist. Burley’s “vitality” does not need supporting by this plan. It significantly detracts and is objected to en mass. The people of Burley raised their own funds for a playground left to rot by Bradford. This area is just being treated as a cash cow and we know it. Deer, curlews and barn owls to name a few of the local wildlife we love and care for will be displaced, knowingly murdered. How are you “protecting” local “heritage and assets?! Bulldozers and money money money from big houses where everyone has to drive.

Object

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

Representation ID: 2451

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Ruth Stacey

Representation Summary:

- I believe there is an inaccurate housing total for Burley in Wharfedale as figures do not include the Greenholme mills development and a smaller development on the edge/ entrance to the village.
- the large 500 homes development at Sun Lane site was strongly opposed by residents and originally blocked by the secretary of state but an expensive legal battle, run quietly while the pandemic was raging, to overturn the initial planning rejection has meant residents and parish council views have been completely ignored and discounted.
- Your local plan is not written in plan english and is full of confusing acronyms, I assume you dont really want comments from residents hence it is written like this. Why not provide a brief user friendly version for comment?

Object

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

Representation ID: 2554

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Mr James Bullock

Representation Summary:

The plan detail is inaccurate in that it states burley in Wharfedale has a leisure centre and swimming pool, and multiple post offices. None of these are correct and it is disappointing that the Council have not paid any attention to detail and seem to have copied and pasted this text from another local plan. My primary concern in the plan is the amount of housing that is allocated to be built in the village. The infrastructure such as schools and transport links could clearly not cope with this influx of new families. I therefore strongly object to the proposed houses being built at sun lane and scalebor. I consider there must be a much more detailed plan to support the infrastructure before any building occurs.

Object

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

Representation ID: 2705

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Matthew Buckley

Representation Summary:

We like the countryside and the nice views around the village, what is the point of spoiling it when there are brown sites around Bradford? If you build on a green field you loose it forever.

Where will the children go to school? Ilkley Grammer School is already full.

What about the traffic? The A65 is already too busy.

What about the new government planning rules which is supposed to protect green belts?

How will we get doctors appointments?
The new development is too far away from the center of the village for most people to walk, therefore creating parking issues for local amenities, such as the co-op and railway station.
Disruptions over the building period of 11 years is not acceptable.

Object

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

Representation ID: 2945

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Tim Haskins

Representation Summary:

The current infrastructure, especially the GP surgery, schooling, parking and road/rail transport will be unable to support the increased housing in Burley. Urgent attention should be given to this in advance of the new housing being built.

Object

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

Representation ID: 2954

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Neil Sengupta

Representation Summary:

This strategy does not provide any solutions to the significant strain on local services such as healthcare and education. The provision of housing as being targeted at provision for older people would simply not be supportable by the local GP practice. I agree that existing important areas of open spaces and heritage assets should be protected, BUT the two sites allocated to fulfil housing needs (BU1/H and BU2/H) are COMPLETELY at odds with this stated intent by building in green belt and probable demolition of a local historic Edwardian property! This "plan" can simply not be trusted to be delivered, the plan is pure lip service as evidenced by the two proposed sites. Local wildlife is simply not protected enough under this plan either.

Object

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

Representation ID: 2955

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Lisa Shaw

Representation Summary:

This strategy does not provide any solutions to the significant strain on local services such as healthcare and education. The provision of housing as being targeted at provision for older people would simply not be supportable by the local GP practice. I agree that existing important areas of open spaces and heritage assets should be protected, BUT the two sites allocated to fulfil housing needs (BU1/H and BU2/H) are COMPLETELY at odds with this stated intent by building in green belt and probable demolition of a local historic Edwardian property! This "plan" can simply not be trusted to be delivered, the plan is pure lip service as evidenced by the two proposed sites. Local wildlife is simply not protected enough under this plan either.

Object

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

Representation ID: 3006

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Amanda Stainton

Representation Summary:

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

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

Representation ID: 3033

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Jane Schofield

Representation Summary:

The proposed numbers of new houses is disproportionate to the current size of the village and the infrastructure. The overall council priorities are given as redeveloping existing properties and developing brownfill sites. Use of greenbelt land should therefore be a lower priority. Building new housing is also not compatible with emission targets, and proposed land use will have a huge impact on wildlife and the environment, with additional car use, and no plans to develop public transport.

Object

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

Representation ID: 3148

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr K Stewart

Representation Summary:

Who decided in the first place that B-in -W should be designated a 'growth area' ? Certainly not the residents of the village. It seems that Bradford Council is intent upon ruining semi-rural areas and creating another homogenous suburb of Bradford.
The council are still referring here to 610 properties yet in your own document you show that the 10% adjusted figure is 549 !
Finally I would say that to many of us in the village this process is merely a box ticking exercise. This is evidenced by the fact that the overwhelming opposition to the Sun Lane development is going ahead regardless, in effect we have no say.
The final decision by the Secretary of State was given not because he agreed with the proposal but because the developers have thrown enough money at the project to negate any local objections.