Consultation Question 119

Object

Representation ID: 324

Received: 19/02/2021

Respondent: Mr Keith Revis

For the reasons given to question 18 building on Sun Lane is wholly inappropriate. The local council have fed back on the main points, led by Bernie Poulter and Bob Felstead.
The land at Sun Lane is not appropriate nor the number of houses planned supported by the local infrastructure.
The brown field site at Greenholme Mills should be considered or re-considered if it failed due to intervention of CEG, who clearly had an ulterior motive. There are many other brown field sites in the Bradford area that should be considered prior to destroying green belt.

Object

Representation ID: 455

Received: 25/02/2021

Respondent: Mr Neil Collins

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. This should be bourne in mind and our Green Belt not built on.

Object

Representation ID: 580

Received: 28/02/2021

Respondent: Miss Sharon Hattersley

The Sun Lane development if it is allowed to go ahead will destroy the habitat of many protected species of wildlife. The development will exit onto an already busy trunk road creating a new accident blackspot. The area is prone to flooding by water from the Moors which is making its way down to the river.

A development of this size will overwhelm local facilities causing problems accessing school places and GP appointments and create an even greater parking nightmare for residents near the station than the one they already have to put up with.

Neither of these developments offer any truly affordable housing which is what is needed by local residents.

Object

Representation ID: 764

Received: 05/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Rachel Gresswell

Too many houses. Destruction of environment and wildlife. Promises of new school, etc unrealistic in present economic climate. Bradford cannot afford new school even given the amount of rates they charge local community, for which we get very little in return. Affordable housing never materialises as promised on these developments.

Object

Representation ID: 836

Received: 06/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Sam Lewis

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

Representation ID: 841

Received: 06/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Hazel Lewis

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

Representation ID: 938

Received: 08/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Kirstin Hutchinson

BU1/H is a huge development that will change the look and feel of the village. It is on greenbelt land that should be protected to wildlife and is important for health and wellbeing. A development of this size needs significant consideration of the infrastructure available to support such a large growth. I am very concerned about the school situation in this village. I am aware that some local village children were not able to get into village schools recently as they were oversubscribed. This is not acceptable. More detailed plans for primary and secondary school place growth needs to accompany such as large increase in dwellings. In addition, traffic and train travel (pre lockdown) was awful with it taking over an hour commute only 13 miles by car or being unable to get a seat on the train.

Object

Representation ID: 1681

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: David Lewis

I don't mind new homes being built in the village but 500 homes on the green belt is an absolute scandal. Again this has not been thought through - where will be the new schools, health care facilities, road infrastructure, transport links. And why is Bradford Council hell bent on destroying the Green Belt. It does not make any rational sense .

Object

Representation ID: 1886

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Olivia Bullock

610 houses is plainly excessive, the planned developments would increase the village population by approximately 16%, yet there is no plan to create additional school capacity as far as the plan shows, and other improvements are only suggested.

I would suggest that a member of bradford council gets the train in the morning from Burley In Wharfedale to Leeds and once the train gets to Guiseley and there is no capacity for the residents there to get on, to state that improving rail infrastructure is only ‘suggested’ rather than completely necessary if 610 extra houses are to be built. I also note my previous comments regarding school places and my significant concern in relation to the impact this excessive additional housing will have.

Object

Representation ID: 1893

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Lucy Bunney

The proposed Scalebor allocation would take housing delivery in Burley in Wharfedale over and above identified need. Whilst the draft Local Plan suggests 625 dwellings for Burley overall, it states that after existing commitments, this results in a final allocation contribution of 549 units across all sites (para 5.16.19). With 500 units recently consented at Sun Lane, a further 110 at Scalebor would exceed identified housing need. Other areas of the district are yet to fulfil 50% of their allocations, much of which is brownfield, which according to the Local Plan is the priority. There are no exceptional circumstances that could justify the development on this site.

Object

Representation ID: 1930

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Burley Parish Council

BU1/H With this development Burley-in-Wharfedale has now fulfilled the housing obligation in the Core Strategy apart from 10 homes.

We note that the housing requirement has reduced to 625 i.e. an increase in target from 700 to 750 homes. Why has Burley an extra allocation when many other urban areas have a fall?

BU2/H The additional homes here would mean that Burley exceeds its housing allocation. Other areas of the District have yet to fulfil 50% of their allocation, much of which is brownfield, the priority according to the Local Plan.
The opposition to the Scalebor development is well founded on the grounds of sustainability [Q118; NPPF s2:7-14]. There are no exceptional circumstances that could justify development on this site.

For both sites, residents are concerned about the viability of affordable/social housing.

Object

Representation ID: 2052

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Victoria Chapman

Already so many cars parked on the roads resulting in dangerous driving at pinch points of the week

Object

Representation ID: 2089

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Deana Misbert

Capacity for clinical/education/transport infrastructure should be determined before planning is granted. 1a) The station platform length is insufficient for expansion, 1b) there is insufficient parking around the station, 2a) there is insufficient capacity for secondary school places and current places available to Burley will be reduced by new developments closer to IGS, Burley doesn't fall in Prince Henry's/Guiseley catchment areas 2b) Busing children to senior schools would be over a considerable distance, potentially 10 miles+ each way. 2c) there should be an obligation not an option to build the "proposed" primary school. This is valued green belt, development areas should be smaller to leave greater green areas surrounding, not to the absolute boundaries. House prices in Burley are double the West Yorkshire average, affordable housing should be more appropriately placed elsewhere. Burley is over congested with zero room for more parking, particularly dangerous around the COOP . More parks required.

Object

Representation ID: 2323

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Mr David Moutrie

The local plan claims 'Burley's distinctive landscape setting will be conserved and enhanced through the plan'. To claim that the building of 110 high density homes on greenbelt will achieve this objective is simply ridiculous. The greenbelt exists to prevent urban sprawl of this nature.
The village does not have the infrastructure to cope with the added population and traffic movements that this development will create and there are no exceptional circumstances to justify this greenbelt destruction.

Object

Representation ID: 2348

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Janine Ward

Under this proposed plan Burley In Wharfedale village (currently) will have exceeded its housing allocation significantly whilst many other areas in Bradford haven’t even met 50%. Why is the building being concentrated here? Why is Bradford not showing any progress in developing brown field sites? No interest on your part? Currently a approx 5000! Unoccupied properties in Bradford. BMDC solution is to build more houses?! Bradford’s Local Plan is woefully out of date. We are currently undergoing a census. Question why BDMC are trying to rush through this consultation when the Gov only needs plans finalised by 2023?

Object

Representation ID: 2539

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jacqui Woffindin

In summary therefore the development of this site for residential purposes is not
considered to be a suitable, available or deliverable option on the grounds of land
ownership, access, housing need and Green Belt considerations and I strongly object to the
proposals for any residential development on the site. There is a restriction on title
constraining the subject site to use as grazing land, there is no viable access solution and the
site meets 3 of the 5 Green Belt criteria with no exceptional circumstances for Green Belt
release.
As local residents, we strongly feel that this site is inappropriate. The shared use space outside our house is used on a daily basis by local children for football, cricket, tennis , hopscotch, roller skating, learning to ride bikes etc. It is a valuable and much appreciated amenity and part of the character of the estate.

Object

Representation ID: 2555

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Mr James Bullock

I object firstly on the basis of the numbers of houses proposed at the sun lane site. 500 houses would completely alter the village and as stated above I am seriously concerned about the impact this will have on the local infrastructure, which Bradford Council have given no concrete plans for. The 17% figure of those who get the train to work is to my understanding taken from a census completed 10 years ago and therefore not representative of the current situation. As someone who has moved to the village from Guiseley I can advise that the residents of Guiseley and Menston struggle to get on some of the morning trains which are already at capacity when they reach those stations. Burley can not be thought about in isolation, the train line is not direct to Leeds there are other stops. This needs more consideration from Bradford Council.

Object

Representation ID: 2660

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Carl Bergin

Will place a strain on local schools shops doctors and increase traffic

Object

Representation ID: 2704

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Matthew Buckley

In summary therefore the development of this site for residential purposes is not considered to be a suitable, available or deliverable option on the grounds of land ownership, access, housing need and Green Belt considerations and I strongly object to the proposals for any residential development on the site. There is a restriction on title constraining the subject site to use as grazing land, there is no viable access solution and the site meets 3 of the 5 Green Belt criteria with no exceptional circumstances for Green Belt release.
As a resident in Burley-in-Wharfedale I believe it is important to maintain the greenbelt to preserve wildlife. The infrastructure of the village is not enough to support new housing development to this scale.

Object

Representation ID: 2987

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mr David Scott

It is essential that the built environment remains viable and sustainable. Excess development will overload community infrastructure i.e. Doctors, schools etc and in addition overwhelm communication and transport infrastructure.
Serious consideration and explicit testing of the impacts needs to be undertaken. The proposed development at BU2/H - Scalebor House, Moor is not acceptable for the reasons listed in the sections / responses below.
The Sun Lane development is also considered compromised, however, understand that this has been subject to a Judicial Review and although the outcome is far from idea limited recourse is available to change this outcome.

Object

Representation ID: 3475

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Emma Liles

I object to the development at Sun lane ref BU1/H. The number of houses their is expressive and un needed. As per my earlier comment, the impact it will have on local wildlife and the environment is too great. Currently there a number on species of animals e.g. Barn owls that live in the area. Currently I don’t believe there is enough evidence to say non of those spiciest would be effected by the development.

However i think the development at BU2/H is is acceptable if no other alternative is found. Compare to BU1/H I think the impact will be at a reduced level whilst providing an adequate number of new houses, especially with the new development at Green Holm Mills.

Object

Representation ID: 4037

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Isabel Almond

Using this area to build on would be disregarding the lives of thousands of ecologically important species which reside within the Sun Lane Nature Reserve and in and around the proposed Green Belt. I urge you to re-consider this site allocation and focus on the Brown Belts that are already available to us.

Object

Representation ID: 4160

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: 4441

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Peter Cartwright

Bradford landscape architects said the sun lane development shouldn’t happen as this is part of the flood defences for the wharfe valley.
The bus services you mention for Burley are not correct and the services are provided by Harrogate bus company first bus and keighley bus company. There no direct bus service to Bradford, Skipton or the A65 corridor to Leeds.
How can Burley be a growth area for employment there are no major employers or sites of employment.
The focus on green belt building is purely for the council tax this will raise for BDMC.
You approved a new garden centre at Ben Rhydding it seats over 230 in its restaurant. The impact of traffic flow to this garden centre+ the sun lane development hasn’t been properly assessed.What action are taken to reduce pollution to below the government regulations!

Object

Representation ID: 4458

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Rachel Martin

Object

Object

Representation ID: 4481

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Chris Turner

I don't support development on either site, so can't support the preferred allocations.

Object

Representation ID: 4491

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 were built that doesn’t solve the problem of overcrowding at Ilkley Grammar.

As mentioned in response to 118, substantial building projects would impact the local environment.

Object

Representation ID: 4493

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Andina Roe11 Wrexham

Short sighted green belt land grab

Object

Representation ID: 4896

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Wendy Fisher

Plan for Burley led by developers and land owners. Resulted in Burley receiving more than fair share of development, greenbelt in particular.
Why is ongoing redevelopment of Greenholme Mills no longer included in Burley's housing allocation?
Not all objections are 'nimby-ism' - was a lot of support for redevelopments at Greenholme Mills and Scalebor Day Centre, both brownfield sites.
Well known that large greenbelt sites are hugely unpopular, yet keep on being put forward by landowners - and then included in the Plan. Consultation after consultation, yet local views not reflected in proposals.
Focus on housing without firm commitment to supporting facilities or infrastructure.
Numerous references to support for Wharfedale Greenway, but not backed up by actions or funding?
Understand that sections of Burley's Neighbourhood Plan were overruled in order to allow large housing developments. Not the case with other Neighbourhood Plans?

Object

Representation ID: 4984

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Kevin de Souza

As a resident of Burley in Wharfedale, I object to the proposals for increased residential development on the basis of harm to the local environment, green belt and urban sprawl.

I also object to the proposals because of the additional strain on health, education, social care & transport services which will require substantial investment from the Council.