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

Support

Representation ID: 1922

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Burley Parish Council

We support the enhancement, protection and expansion of trees and woodland. We agree that development proposals which result in loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats should be refused. We would like to see more clarity on what constitutes “wholly exceptional reasons” (B). How can we realistically compensate for something which has been deemed “irreplaceable”? Preemptive felling can create a fait-accompli scenario and we would like to see more enforcement and deterrence against such actions. As such, we broadly support EN3 but would like more clarity on some items.

Support

Representation ID: 1923

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Burley Parish Council

We support a policy which proactively preserves, protects and enhances our historic environment. In the case of Burley-in-Wharfedale, we agree that the significant views of, in our case, our semi-rural village’s iconic views, should be properly identified and protected (A4). We broadly support the aims outlined in EN4, but note that the medium and small sized villages are only mentioned in general terms. It may perhaps be necessary, to provide more detailed and specific policy for each settlement by working with residents and their Town and Parish Councils? Cooperation between those Town and Parish Councils, community groups and BMDC is crucial in defining where responsibility lies for protection of these assets and also where support from District Council is appropriate and required.

Support

Representation ID: 1924

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Burley Parish Council

We agree that the countryside should be under protection. We also support the proposals A1 through A6. The definition of countryside described in 4.30.3 appears to include Green Belt. A1 through A6 describe the limitations of development on countryside, but don’t appear to fully describe exceptions or refer to mechanisms used to potentially declassify Green Belt or extend settlement boundaries. The impression, from EN6 A1 through A6 alone, could be given that countryside is protected, but doesn’t highlight that countryside could essentially be declassified as such. Any development located within Green Belt as per SP5 should have rights of way protected and enhanced.

Object

Representation ID: 1925

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Burley Parish Council

Flood risk assessments appear to focus on historic data. We believe that projected increases in the number and severity of flooding events should be considered. The effects of Climate Change have a direct statistical impact on potential flooding events in terms of regularity and severity. We recommend that independent academic science be used as a resource to estimate projected impact on proposed development sites. We observe that recent developments in Bradford District, close to rivers have experienced property damaging floods in recent times. This begs the question - are the current limitations on development on land prone to flooding sufficient? We believe that the barriers to development on sites with a high flood risk, should be strengthened. We also suggest that the impact of flooding on settlements downstream from close-to-river sites be raised in priority for assessment. This includes the effect on settlements in neighbouring districts/ authorities.

Support

Representation ID: 1926

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Burley Parish Council

We support the idea of developments being at least “air quality neutral” (D1) and find little to disagree with in EN8. Clearly defined enforcement measures, with consequences for infringements are of high importance. We should ensure that any knock-on effects of the development are considered and minimised - including increase of traffic in bottle-neck locations on the road network as a whole. This should include the effects on residents travelling to work in neighbouring districts/ authorities. A holistic approach to this issue is encouraged. Does this policy also apply to commercial development, if so - would regulations be different to those which apply to housing development?

Support

Representation ID: 1927

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Burley Parish Council

We support the whole of EN9, but would suggest that impact assessments should include both local effects and wider effects, including the effect on neighbouring settlements. We would also like to see rigorous enforcement of resultant regulations.

Object

Representation ID: 1928

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Burley Parish Council

BMDC has a target to be net zero on carbon emissions by 2038 and the aim of making significant progress on this by 2030. These policies do not apply to existing developments, so, we can only assume that the highest standards in energy efficiency will need to be applied to achieve those targets. Will BDMC be able to apply such standards immediately as a priority - even in advance of finalising these policies and the target date of 2024/2025, given that large developments are already proposed and we have net zero target dates which are fast approaching? Why not consider existing housing stock in these policies for retro-fitting? Retro-fitting renewable energy systems on existing housing stock and public buildings, will potentially reduce dependence of new developments on fossil fuels.

Object

Representation ID: 1929

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Burley Parish Council

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: 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.