Consultation Question 118

Object

Representation ID: 3196

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Daren Murray

Appears contradictory to the desire to release non-Green belt first
There is sufficient housing land to build a significant number of homes that is classified as unviable for housing delivery. Whilst we accept that some elements of Brownfield may be unviable, why is it that land that would support the delivery of a significant number of homes still unviable 16 years after identification?
There are 5,000 unoccupied properties in 5 areas of Bradford, the City Centre, Bradford NE. NW, SE, SW. Unviable and unoccupied housing could accommodate a significant proportion of the housing need in the plan period.
Thee proposed Local Plan in Burley in Wharfedale does not meet the development needs of our area, because transport plans, goals or delivery timetables do not exist. The Local Plan with respect to Burley in Wharfedale is incapable of being sufficiently flexible to adapt to rapid change (such as increased demand for train services or significantly increased traffic flow).
Building green belt in Burley in Wharfedale will not bring economic benefit to bradford. Trains for commuter sto Leeds are overflowing and yet Bradford trains are almost empty (pre covid).

Object

Representation ID: 3203

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Lisa Gibson

Whilst there are positives in the draft plan, e.g. further developing the Wharfedale Greenway, designating Burley-in-Wharfedale as a Local Growth Area is ridiculous. Have you ever been to this VILLAGE? There is no industry or opportunity for employment growth - jobs are mainly retail/hospitality. Supporting infrastructure not in place for housing development: small surgery that already has a long patient list, primary schools at capacity, limited places at Ilkley Grammar for secondary school with other local secondary's not a viable option, e.g. St Mary's is a Faith School and Prince Henry's needing to take children from proposed housing developments in Otley. Small roads through the village - limited capacity for further traffic, e.g. outside the Co-Op. Both major housing development sites proposed are on Greenbelt - no exceptional circumstances are set out in the draft plan. Sun Lane decision is a travesty.

Object

Representation ID: 3248

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Mike Wild

Bradford should release brown field ahead of greenbelt and deliver the policy promise made in section 3.2.11 of the Local Plan

Bradford Council first need to lay out a clear transport plan and delivery timeline. There are too many 'visions' in the transportation plan and not enough specific deliverables to make the transportation plan meanningful

As part of the affordable homes policy there should be an allowance for a housing supply for local people in Burley, and there should ne pay payments in lieu of affordable homes

For the A660 and A65 there is a duty to co-operate with Leeds. However there are no deatiled action in the Local Plan. Detailed infrastructure improvement requirements at present are simply 'beingconsidered' and there is no delivery timings and no budgets set for improvement to infrastrcurure

Object

Representation ID: 3318

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Dr James Woodman

I agree fully with the response published by Burley in Wharfedale Parish Council, therefore please refer to the Parish Council's response to this question, which is representative of my view.

Object

Representation ID: 3418

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Jeremy Benn

There is not the infrastructure, you are taking a massive % of greenbelt from a village that cannot support potentially another 3000 people. You are taking a very important site for wildlife

Object

Representation ID: 3429

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Dr Jennifer Dentith

I am in full support of the response provided by Burley Parish Council.

In addition, I would like to add that the Local Plan incorrectly states that Burley has a swimming pool. The nearest public swimming facilities are in Ilkley.

Object

Representation ID: 3472

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Emma Liles

You stated earlier that “Burley has been identified as having additional opportunities for building the GI network through the settlement.” However buy building a large housing development right next to a Wilde life reserve you are reducing those opportunities for growth. It will also have large environmental impacts, such as increased noise pollution, light pollution, co2 emissions. All of which will greatly impact residents and Wilde life. Especially those that
I’ve closer to the busier Aires’s of the village and the bypass.

Object

Representation ID: 3543

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Alison Kinloch

I do not believe that the allocation given to Burley in Wharfedale and the planned developments meet the needs of the local community. There is insufficient commitment to the environment in the locations.

Object

Representation ID: 3555

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Savia Lorain Hughes

In precis, our village has already grown to an extent to have infrastructure issues, decimation of green spaces and merging of housing estates to remove any lines of demarcations slowly yet surely between neighbouring places such as Ben Rhydding and Ilkley.

Object

Representation ID: 3581

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Jeremy Till

Para 5.16.18 states that 625 new homes are to be provided, adjusted down to 549 homes. Why has this figure now been increased to 750 homes, and please could the revised calculations be provided, given that we are aware that there has been previous miscalculation and an overestimate of the homes required? Secondly I see no mention in the calculations of the 90 new residences being provided on the brownfield site at Greenholme Mills - please indicate where these feature in the calculations.
Para 5.16.11 states that rail links are at capacity already, and this is old data.
Para 5.16.30 and 31 secondary schools and the GP practice over already overfull. All three issues must be solved prior to housing expansion.

Object

Representation ID: 3752

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: David Kinloch

Here we go again. Bradford council and labour councillors from your town continue your revenue-maximising project to destroy every last piece of green-belt land in Lower Wharfedale. Please leave us alone.

Object

Representation ID: 3823

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Neil Benstead

Burley like many other Yorkshire villages and towns is ever increasing in size putting pressures con over stretched local resources at is. Schools, shops, transport and the like are stretched as it stands. Development whilst clearly necessary should surely only ever be restricted to brown belt land of which there is plenty in Yorkshire.

Object

Representation ID: 3858

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr David Salter

I support the objections submitted to you by Burley Parish Council. Planning has not taken into account the impact of extra housing on transport infrastructure, provision of education & health care. The availability of brownfield sites and unoccupied housing in the Bradford area has not been given enough attention.

Object

Representation ID: 4033

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Isabel Almond

This building plan would have a detrimental effect on surrounding wildlife, such as our invertebrate pollinations, plants and birds of prey. There is plenty of usable Brown Belt in and around the area of Bradford. We have Green Belts for a reason. I strongly object to this plan.

Object

Representation ID: 4158

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: 4205

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Burley Bridge Association

Burley in Wharfedale should not be categorised as a local growth centre. It has almost no employment (largest employers are the schools and the Co-op!). Given that it was earlier described as a local service centre, it feels as if the categorisation has been switched in order to take advantage of available sites, with the two which are set out here both in the greenbelt.

The number of houses proposed in Burley is out of proportion to the size of the village. The infrastructure will not be able to cope. There is a major concern about the volume of extra cars and the Wharfedale Greenway, whilst very welcome, is a very poor mitigation. Secondary school places do not appear to be addressed in the plan.

Object

Representation ID: 4277

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Kasia Speakman

The plan does not justify Burley in Wharfedale becoming a strategic growth area. Due to current and projected high car ownership and the predominant mode of travel to work being by car, the growth of the village by 610 additional dwellings will increase traffic, congestion, road danger and air pollution.

The Plan does make errors in estimating the level of community facilities in the village.

The Plan does not justify the estimated 'demand' for new housing, nor does it make it clear how housing will remain affordable, or available for older people.

Object

Representation ID: 4303

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Leslie Mitchell

We wholeheartedly agree with the Burley Parish Council response.
In particular there is a major problem with infrastructure if so many new dwellings are built.
The local GP surgery is already full. There is no site for expansion or for another surgery and no plans for provision.
Local schools are already oversubscribed. There is nowhere local for the children from these new houses to go.
It is all very well “working with key infrastructure providers” but experience shows that nothing will be built or provided and existing services will just be overloaded.
No new building should be allowed till full and inescapable provision is included.

Object

Representation ID: 4421

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Rachel Martin

Burley in Wharfedale has now had 500 new build homes approved for the Sun Lane site. With that approval & the Greenholme Mill dwellings other greenfield & brownfield sites need to be found at alternate locations outside the area/village of Burley in Wharfedale. We have contributed to Bradford Councils development strategy through the above 2 sites which alone will have significant detrimental effects on the village for infrastructure, schools, health facilities, traffic congestion & general safety.

Object

Representation ID: 4432

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Ian Martin

Burley In Wharfedale has now delivered its housing allocation requirements with Sun Lane 500 houses and the Greenholme mill development which alone will have a huge detrimental impact on the area. Therefore other development sites should be sourced outside the burley In Wharfedale area as we are already at breaking point in terms and traffic volumes, school places, healthcare and environmental impact such as regular flooding and air quality!

Object

Representation ID: 4451

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Stephanie Teesdale

The infrastructure is inadequate as secondary schools have not been considered in the allocation of further housing in Burley in Wharfedale. At present the children have the first option of Ilkley Grammar as their choice of secondary school where are the guarantees that this will continue. The school site is becoming overcrowded. The plan does not include sufficient information at this stage and leaves me in doubt that the infrastructure is being considered. Do you want to destroy this area and put at risk the high quality of the children’s education?

Object

Representation ID: 4482

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Chris Turner

I support green development of housing and infrastructure, which doesn't impact the Green Belt. I very much disagree with the assignment of local growth centre and the number of houses the village is expected to accommodate on Green Belt . The village is currently purely target for housing, with little scope for employment.

However, I support points 1 and 2.

Object

Representation ID: 4486

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Bridget Turner

I do not agree that the village should be designated a local growth centre. This seems inconsistent with 5.26.22 that states the importance of the local landscape. The use of green belt land to build houses would damage this landscape, and threaten the wildlife, which is recognised as important in paragraph 5.16.26. To allow the building of hundreds of houses on this Western edge would be negative for this ecosystem.

5.16.32 The schools and surgery as they are wouldn’t be able accommodate the influx of population from 600+ new houses.

Will these new houses really be affordable? Or will they reflect the average house price for the area, which is far from affordable for many people?

I strongly support the provision of ‘safe active travel routes’, the creation of the greenway and protecting existing open spaces and heritage assets.

Object

Representation ID: 4488

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Andina Roe11 Wrexham

This is a very sensitive site,and it’s disgraceful to ignore all the wildlife.greed over need

Object

Representation ID: 4528

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Vicky Summerson

The proposal in the plan allocates 625 new homes for Burley in Wharfedale, including 500 homes at Sun Lane (planning permission now approved) and 110 at Scalebor House.
Burley has already delivered 190 new homes so by including Scalebor, this takes us to a target of 750 homes. Why is Burley having an extra allocation of new houses?
Building on Green land, additional traffic, additional children for IGS all are reasons that I object.

Object

Representation ID: 4553

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Andrew Jackson

I do not support any building on Greenbelt in Burley in Wharfedale. The proposed additional houses will turn Burley into a town and our beautiful green spaces will be lost to future generations forever. Bradford council must refuse to all this and instead build on the plentiful brownfield sites first. In additional the baseline additional houses do not correctly take into account the additional houses that have been built for in recent years.

Object

Representation ID: 4562

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr A Bridgen

A development of this size is completely disproportionate for the size of the village and will damage the fabric of the village. Local facilities are insufficient to support this development, the road network would not be able to cope with up to 1000 extra cars accessing on to the A65. This location is also prone to flooding, and the increased run off generated by removing green field will only exacerbate this situation. Lastly, this development will Increase the numbers entering the numbers of children entering the already overcrowded secondary school in Ilkley which is just expected to absorb additional numbers continually.with no signs of a new school being built.

Object

Representation ID: 4604

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Janet Squire

Burley lies in a narrow valley between the moor and River Wharfedale beyond which is North Yorkshire. It has a limited infrastructure. There is 1 major road through the valley which is already busy with traffic and where lives have been lost in major accidents. The stations do not have room to expand to accommodate longer trains. Medical services are limited to the present practise building which is only just accommodating the present population. There is only 1 Bradford secondary school in Ilkley which is already overcrowded. Plans to build a new school were halted by a change in government when money was withdrawn. No reasonable alternative has been offered other than bussing children out of the valley. Ilkley also has plans for more housing. Housing plans are on protected Greenbelt while brownfield sites lie undeveloped in Bradford. Significant wildlife live in these fields.

Object

Representation ID: 4687

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Kate Naylor

I cannot see how Burley is a growth centre, the housing allocation for the village is unsustainable with the infrastructure - there will be a real issue with secondary schools, as well as other aspects such as the GPs being overwhelmed. I am also concerned that the flood risks are underestimated, and the main road to Ilkley cannot cope with the additional traffic from adding so many houses to the village.I don’t understand why Burley’s allocation of housing is so high when other areas have been reduced.

Object

Representation ID: 4718

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Pam Leach

The plan proposes 625 new homes on greenfield sites around the village. The main one at Sun Lane is an area inhabited by a significant amount of wildlife.
The Burley-in-Wharfedale Parish Council have issued a response that I am in agreement with in particulary the impact on local schools.

Why not improve the empty houses (about 5000?) that are currently in the Bradford area.