Consultation Question 118

Object

Representation ID: 4901

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: John Wright

After living in inner Bradford for nearly 40 years, cannot see how a development in Burley helps Bradford's housing needs.

Object

Representation ID: 5154

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: 5223

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Bernard Poulter

5.16.4:Why is Burley-in-Wharfedale identified as a local growth centre when it does not possess the attributes you state define that classification?
5.16.10:TheA65 is the primary Trunk Road? This was de-trunked a number of years ago."The Prefered mode of travel..."is necesary in the absence of space on trains or any buses at a frequency worthusing.
5.16.12:Wharfedale Greenway repeatedly obstructed by the BDMC Planners, losing the project over £2m in EU funding.
5.16.18:C/FCommitments:92@Greenholme Mills, 15 Windfall under construction:=107.....NO discount on this figure as its actual.
625...less10%=563...less committed:107=456,lessSunLane...500=44 surplus 5.16.19/20: With the exceptionally high figure allocated now being satisfied, after the SoS approval for Sun Lane, the Village should now rely on windfall sites, common amongst large gardened properties that comprise the older heart of the village.
5.16.30:Really?A swimming Pool/leisure centre??PostOffices??
5.1631:SecondaryHealthcare is at Wharfedale???Really? Its at Airedale, as part of the WACA CCG (20kms away)GPservices are overwhelmed,soPatients attend A&E instead.

Object

Representation ID: 5356

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Claire Ure

I strongly object to Bradford Council's Local Plan and Strategy for Burley in Wharfedale for the reasons outlined in the formal Burley Parish Council's response to the plan and I wholly support the content of the Parish Council's objections. As a democratic society the local residents' substantive objections and clear rejection of the Council's Plan for Burley in Wharfedale 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: 5372

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Paul Dunn

I strongly object to Bradford Council's Local Plan and Strategy for Burley in Wharfedale for the reasons outlined in the formal Burley Parish Council's response to the plan and I wholly support the content of the Parish Council's objections. As a democratic society the local residents' substantive objections and clear rejection of the Council's Plan for Burley in Wharfedale 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: 5376

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Eleanor Statham

The size of the development is disproportionate to the village as a whole - I don't believe the village facilities (schools, doctors, shops etc) and transport links (roads and trains etc) could withstand an additional thousand or more people using them on a regular basis. I am also seriously concerned about the destruction of the greenbelt land of Sun Lane in particular. Why are BDMC not looking at alternative brownfield sites?

Object

Representation ID: 5381

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Benjamin Statham

The Sun Lane development will damage the local ecology, barn owls, egrets and curlews all feed on the land, with barn owls using the local trees to nest in. Deer also use the land to graze. More development means less habitat. Also, the sewerage systems are already polluting the wharfe, with recent commitments to clean the Wharfe, I do not see how a development of this size will integrate with an antiquated waste and sewerage system, one that frequently discharges waste matter, and with it, harmful bacteria, into the river.

Also, the fields will no longer act as areas that absorb water coming off the moors, which will exascerbate the flooding that part of the river is prone to, affecting business owners, and people commuting along the valley.

Object

Representation ID: 5397

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Vicky Gordon

The proposal allocates 625 new homes for Burley in Wharfedale, including the 500 at Sun Lane (already approved which I strongly disagree with) and 110 at Scalebor House. Burley has already delivered 190 new homes so, by including Scalebor House, this takes us to a target of 750 homes. Why is Burley having an extra allocation of new house when many other areas have a fall in housing allocation?

Object

Representation ID: 5522

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Judith Longfield

The Local Plan proposes Burley-in-Wharfedale contributes so many more houses than other areas. There are 5,000 unoccupied properties in Bradford which could contribute a large proportion of the housing need in the plan period without the need to build on green belt in Burley. There appears to be no concrete plans regarding improving the local infrastructure, especially road and rail transport to accommodate the demands that so many more houses will bring. I conclude on this basis the Local Plan does not meet the development needs of Burley. The Plan refers to delivering affordable housing in Burley. I understand Section 106 agreements can include a caveat allowing developers/builders to make affordability payments in lieu of housing. I am most concerned to read this caveat appears in the Sun Lane Section 106 agreement between CEG and Bradford Council. This undermines the purpose of the Core Strategy policy HO5 and statement 3.3.9.

Object

Representation ID: 5571

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Peter Jenkins

Burley in Wharfedale has almost reached its original target without these large developments on green belt, which currently forms a green corridor along the railway. (Green corridors are frequently extolled in the plan). It is not clear why this village has to take the overflow from other areas which have not reached their targets, when the infrastructure of the valley is already creaking and there can be no more of the perceived policy of “develop first and think about the infrastructure (possibly) later”.. As well as 5000 unoccupied properties in Bradford, there are many acres of land said to be unviable, as well as brownfield sites.

The repeated mention of green corridors begs the question whether green corridors are formed by developing previously undeveloped green land either side of a new corridor, ie. they were green before but not corridors as the surrounding area was also green.

Object

Representation ID: 5659

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Richard Powne

No reason to build on precious Green Belt land when so many Brownfield sites are available across Bradford District

Ribbon development / urban sprawl along the A65 - loss of demarcation between Burley-in-Wharfedale and Ilkley especially given the proposed developments in Ilkley and Addingham. Could lead to creation of a Wharfedale corridor

Already overburdened infrastructure (shops, medical, schools) - doubtful it will be able to cope

Secondary schooling already at capacity - there is no provision for any more

Potential adverse impact on road safety and pressure on transport links

Object

Representation ID: 5863

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Christina Powne

The Greenbelt, once built upon can never be reclaimed. we need to preserve it for future generations to enjoy. It is not in our remit to destroy it forever for short term gain. There are plenty of brownfield sites that can be developed for housing.
Burley cannot cope with more houses. The infrastructure is already at capacity, schools, transport links, doctors etc
Any developments between Ilkley and Burley are just urban sprawl/ribbon development which erode the individual identity of both places and will ultimately result in one long development along the A65

Object

Representation ID: 5929

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Geoffrey Ashton

I strongly object to the change of use of the Hermit to housing.
It is an extremely valuable community asset and badly needed as the only central facility in our village. It should be kept as a pub and managed by people who care about running it properly as a viable and thriving pub. Save our pub!
lLudicrous plan for such a small plot.

Object

Representation ID: 9666

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Mr M Moran

I refer to the current proposal to build heavily around Ilkley /Burley in Wharfedale and object strongly.
We shall see a merging of towns.
There will inevitably be more flooding risks.
The significant use of green belt is simply unacceptable.
Basically green belt is not green belt if Bradford Council decide it can be built on. Where does it end? Once this starts, then anything goes.

Object

Representation ID: 9669

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs E Moran

re proposal to build heavily around Ilkley /Burley in Wharfedale and object strongly.

I wish to object.
.
There has got to be more flooding risks.
And I cant believe you are proposing to build on Green Belt. Use of green belt is simply unacceptable

Object

Representation ID: 10190

Received: 16/02/2021

Respondent: Mrs Emily Shorrock

Please refer to extensive email received 16/03/2021- Objection to Question 119? Burley-in Wharfedale site allocations - Scalebor on grounds of:
Housing need
Green Belt -no exceptional circumstances
Unsuitable site
Access constraints
Restrictive Covenant

Comment

Representation ID: 10225

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Cllr Jackie Whiteley

Need to justify housing allocation numbers before the Consultation and the full examination.
Old figures for Burley were 700 houses. Now that Sun Lane 500 homes and a further 190 homes in the pipeline, leaves a remaining 10 homes which could come from windfall.
The new document it is stated that 625 houses are now required, this is less than the previous 700, but there are more homes added.
Other areas have had their numbers reduced.
Policies HO4/H05, affordable housing should be built in the places where needed. The 30% of affordable housing agreed in the Sun Lane planning permission are needed in Burley in Wharfedale to allow families to remain in the village where house prices are amongst the highest.
Bradford Council must not commute the affordable housing to other parts of the District when there it is much need locally - impossible to obtain a home through InCommunities/social housing projects.

Object

Representation ID: 11416

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Robert Felstead

Transport Conclusion
Bradford Council have failed to address sustainability as defined in the NPPF Section 2, paras 7 to 14.

There are no transport plans which currently exist to address transport infrastructure issues at Burley in Wharfedale, or elsewhere in the Wharfe Valley.

The 2040 transport strategic ‘vision’ is not yet defined for the Bradford District, nor does it provide any details of:

• Detailed infrastructure improvement requirements. At present they are simply being considered.
• No delivery timings for improvement to infrastructure.
• Fall back and recovery positions are not documented.
This is the minimum requirement for the Local Plan to respond to rapid change.
• No set budgets, to ensure that these projects can be delivered on time, or at all.

All of which are required to achieve ‘sustainability’ as defined in the NPPF.

Object

Representation ID: 11462

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Robert Felstead

Planning for homes
House prices in Burley are higher than West Yorkshire average. Using lower quartile ratio (5.03) as a measure of affordability is misleading. The average affordability ratio should be used (6.57) – will be closer to the median value.

Homes in Burley are targeted towards higher earners. Little evidence to show housing built in Wharfedale would meet the needs of the wider district. It does not address the wider need for affordable homes. This has been identified in successive SHMAs.

Evidence illustrates demand for a particular housing type in Burley in Wharfedale. Housing need lies at the bottom end of the scale. Wonder whether Sun Lane will deliver significant housing at this level. Growing need for semi-detached and terraced housing and potentially apartments.

Apartments missing from reporting/analysis. Are cheaper, have a smaller footprint, ideal for regenerating brownfield sites and, if built correctly, can support the Council’s Climate Emergency goals

Object

Representation ID: 11463

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Robert Felstead

Education.
This is another area where there is a growing issue that is exacerbated by planned housing developments in Burley and throughout Wharfedale. Ilkley Grammar School is the only secondary school which serves Burley in Wharfedale.

Ilkley Grammar is close to, or at capacity, even before additional housing delivery. The implications of more housing are ‘somewhat obvious’ and will, without doubt, include an increasing head count at Ilkley Grammar - which is evident from the district’s demographic.

I understand that schools across the border in the Leeds District are closing their doors to admissions from the Bradford District. This is largely due to increasing housing numbers across district borders.

The Council need to adopt an AGILE approach to planning and execution, an approach which is currently absent from policy. Where are the required secondary school places in Wharfedale? The Sun Lane development will inevitably see the catchment area significantly reduced.

Comment

Representation ID: 12079

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Neil Collins

Doesn't follow Brownfield First Approach, for the first 5-year period, it is proposed that development is split between Brownfield, Greenfield and Green Belt - contradicts policy of prioritising other areas before Green Belt.

No exceptional circumstances for building on Green Belt.

Use 2021 Census results to make decisions on future plans, making plans based on out-of-date information is seriously flawed.

Persistence with the visions of the Local Plan 2007 regarding industries and skills of the workforce, There is a growing proportion of the population with no qualifications.
No Transport Plan.
The proposed developments would add significant additional rail and road traffic to a network which could not cope.

School operating at or near capacity.

Affordable housing would be priced at a level out of reach for majority in need. Prioritise housing in areas with lower house prices, for those most in need of affordable housing
New residents would have to travel elsewhere to work, it would be better to provide housing closer to their places of work to reduce transport needs and support a greener future
Impact on South Pennine Moors/North Pennine Moors AONB.

Comment

Representation ID: 12125

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Ann Powell

What is the justification for additional houses, when schools/infrastructure are under strain.

What infrastructure is proposed for additional housing/people/traffic:
Sewage facilities - water treatment plant in Ilkley is already unable to cope.
Schooling
Flood prevention
Additional parking needs at train stations.
Additional medical facilities needed.

Justification for building on green belt land, where planning applications previously denied.

Council Tax increases
No major improvements in Ilkley, alot of the work is done by volunteers keeping the riverside and areas of Ilkley clean/tidy.
How Will Bradford council retain the integrity and beauty of these small places.

Protection of Green Belt land was in Conservative Manifesto, in 2019, the Government pledged to protect Green Belt land and continue to pursue a brownfield first strategy

How many trees are proposed to be felled for each site?

What brownfield sites were considered as an alternative
and reasons for not using brownfield sites

People of Wharfedale are ignored by Bradford Council.

Comment

Representation ID: 15507

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Highways England (Yorkshire & North East Team)

It is not considered that locating development within the settlements within Burley in Wharfedale, on their own, will have a severe impact on the capacity, operation and safety of the SRN, and this will be identified through the transport evidence base being prepared by the Council / the individual assessment of the transport implications of the sites by the sites’ promoters.
However, the quantum of sites forms part of a wider cumulative impact within Burley in Wharfedale and the rest of the development aspirations within the Plan could severely impact the SRN, and this cumulative impact will need to be established by the Council and considered by Highways England.

Object

Representation ID: 15929

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Robert Whiting

I fully support the comments made in the recent submission by Burley Parish Council on the overall proposals. I'm particularly concerned about the impact that the proposed 610 homes will have on village infrastructure. The Sun Lane development will in itself have a very significant negative impact on; currently overstretched schooling provision; currently overstretched medical services; currently (in non-pandemic times) packed trains at peak commuting times and associated inadequate parking provision at the station car park; and overall traffic volumes. Rectification of these infrastructure issues MUST HAPPEN in advance of large housing developments creating the foreseen problems NOT once they've happened. It's high time that the Council Planners listened to and acted upon the comments and views of the people who live in the village and worked with us to find solutions to issues like housing not against our wishes, which seems to be the case, as this just leads to ill-feeling.

Comment

Representation ID: 17703

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Bannister Investments Limited

Agent: ID Planning

Whilst the Regional City should be the main focus for housing delivery in the absence of the 35% uplift being applied the quantum of housing should be reduced to a more realistic level (60%) and additional houses should be distributed to Principal Towns, Local Growth Centres such as Burley in Wharfedale where there are not the deliverability constraints and where the delivery of additional houses in these settlements is realistic. This approach will ensure the housing requirement and the
plan is deliverable.

The proposed distribution to Burley in Wharfedale should be increased. Additional Green Belt releases should be made to allocate smaller sites in the settlement to provide choice and mix of sites to support delivery. Sites BU/005 and BU/014 would form a natural extension to the settlement, sitting well alongside existing residential dwellings. The allocation of additional sites will ensure the delivery of a mix of sites to provide market and affordable housing and support services and facilities in the settlement.

Comment

Representation ID: 20824

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Savia Lorain Hughes

•Limited infrastructure:
•Travel issues (traffic bottlenecks, lack of parking in and round the train station that leads to part-inaccessible roads)
•Impact on school places both at Primary and Secondary
•Limited capacity at amenity areas
•Housing is needed in central Bradford, there is residential property that is unoccupied that can cover the number of residences that are proposed to be built here
•Consideration of the environment across District as a whole and ensure Green space is conserved.
•Brownfield sites have not been renovated/used with the focus on using Greenfield sites including areas constituting nature/wildlife reserves.
•Burley has grown substantially in recent years - 190 new homes already delivered – plus 110 homes in Scalebor, with 500 planned homes in Sun Lane will exceed the 'target' of 750 homes! This is not including additional, repeated, ongoing planning requests for building.
•I confirm agreement with the response provided to this plan by Burley in Wharfedale Parish Council

Comment

Representation ID: 21621

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

I support and concur with the submissions from both the Burley Parish Council and the Menston Parish Council.

Object

Representation ID: 21702

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Stephen Whitaker

Disappointed at the decision to allow the Sun Lane development to proceed in its current form.

Fully understand the need for new housing – surprised at the number of dwellings proposed and the infrastructure impact on the village.

Concern that Council are targeting Green Belt land, and Burley in Wharfedale in particular, for housing growth. Can see Otley, Burley, Menston and Ilkley becoming uninterrupted ribbon residential development.

Building on Green Belt is the easy option as opposed to remedial work and associated costs often required on brownfield sites, coupled with values developers will for Green Belt land.

Council need to move the housing requirement to brownfield sites – there must be many in the Bradford area – and ensure retention of Green Belt and green space along the River Wharfe corridor.

Object

Representation ID: 21830

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Duncan Watson

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

Representation ID: 21904

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Catherine Starling

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.