Q141. Please provide your

Object

Representation ID: 2069

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Geoffrey Harrison

Too much emphasis on useage of 'Green Belt' sites - surely useage of 'Brown Field' sites would be more ecologically sound.
Sufficient 'Brown Field' sites are available - is it because they would cost more to develop ?.
Ilkley does not have the medical/health and schooling infracture to accept the level of population increase due to the proposed developments.These are already at maximum capacity.
The quantity of dwellings proposed for IL1/H Wheatley Drive and IL3/H Coutances Way are too large , half the proposed quantity
could be sustainable given the already overstretched health and education facilities in Ilkley.

Support

Representation ID: 3761

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Andrew Lund

No comment required

Object

Representation ID: 3778

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr C Duke

Comments are made relating to improvement to consultation processes, and to EIA screening and scoping, coined developments, S106 monies, Community Infrastructure Levy. It is stated that the policy is largely academic and does not expressly identify delivery or performance related targets to ensure viability and necessity of vital services or infrastructure which should be met through EIA and Environmental Statements.

Object

Representation ID: 4540

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Richard Walker

Concerned at the release of green belt land, the area on crack lane suggested is already congested with traffic and further dwellings would contribute to this. The junction is busy and having the open field there allows drivers to safely see what is coming. Also over population of the area.

Object

Representation ID: 5728

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr John McKee

The Infrastructure Plan has no milestones and reads as if a separate plan to the Local Plan. The two have to be integrated to work together otherwise there is likely to be conflicting priorities and completition for resource. The Infrastructure Plan is heavily dependant upon other organisations see 6.5.5 so no guarantee of agreement. "Support" of the Local Infrastructure Plan is likely to be insufficient to guarantee successful outcomes.
The Whole Plan Viability. Will this include the Infrastructure Plan. If not it must do to ensure cohesion, and affordability.
If the Local Plan is deemed not viable what are the next steps?

Comment

Representation ID: 11568

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Yorkshire Wildlife Trust

Local Infrastructure Plan - as outlined above, we would welcome inclusion of consideration of Building with Nature Standards throughout this document to ensure good quality multifunctional green infrastructure is delivered.

Comment

Representation ID: 15531

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Highways England (Yorkshire & North East Team)

With regards to the delivery of infrastructure across the district over the course of the Plan period, it is considered by CH2M that the Local Plan is required to be nderpinned by a robust transport evidence which is linked to the Infrastructure Delivery Plan [IDP].
The IDP should clearly set out the transport infrastructure required to enable the Plan to emerge sustainably, reducing the number of single-occupancy vehicle trips produced by the quantum of development proposed. Furthermore, the identified infrastructure should also be costed, with the appropriate funding streams identified, as well as timescales identified for when the infrastructure is required to come online.
It is recommended that the Council works with Highways England regarding the emergence of sites in the vicinity of the SRN and/or with significant trip making potential both individually and cumulatively to ensure the SRN is not severely impacted in terms of its capacity, operation and safety.

Object

Representation ID: 18402

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Johnson Mowat

Johnson Mowat objects to part I of draft Policy ID1 which suggests ‘all residential and new employment development should consider the mobile telecommunications requirements of the development proposals and ensure and demonstrate that there would sufficient coverage’. This requirement is considered to be disproportionate to the scale of smaller developments and likely to be beyond the reasonable ability of a developer to ensure there is sufficient coverage.

This part of the draft Policy should therefore be amended to apply to major development proposals only.

Comment

Representation ID: 27764

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: National Gas Transmissions

Agent: Avison Young

Further Advice
National Grid is happy to provide advice and guidance to the Council concerning their networks. If we can be of any assistance to you in providing informal comments in confidence during your policy development, please do not hesitate to contact us.
To help ensure the continued safe operation of existing sites and equipment and to facilitate future infrastructure investment, National Grid wishes to be involved in the preparation, alteration and review of plans and strategies which may affect their assets. Please remember to consult National Grid on any Development Plan Document (DPD) or site-specific proposals that could affect National Grid’s assets.

Comment

Representation ID: 27859

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: North Yorkshire County Council

NYCC highway officers welcomed the approach from colleagues at Bradford to discuss the status and progression of its local plan. NYCC looks forward to working with officers to ensure that any adverse impacts on the highway network within the North Yorkshire County Council boundary area are mitigated against and any required infrastructure within the NYCC area are included in the emerging infrastructure delivery plan.