96 replies to this topic

[BurleyOwl]

Does anyone know where they're going to be built?

[wharfedalegas]

BurleyOwl, on 11 November 2011 - 04:07 PM, said:

Does anyone know where they're going to be built?

On top of the Coop

[matthew]

wharfedalegas, on 11 November 2011 - 05:02 PM, said:

On top of the Coop

LOL

[ex-user]

Where will the new kids go to school?

[catbazza]

greenhowleadman, on 13 November 2011 - 02:36 PM, said:

Where will the new kids go to school?

In the empty premises which the Co-oP will vacate in Station Road.

[spyglass]

BurleyOwl, on 11 November 2011 - 04:07 PM, said:

Does anyone know where they're going to be built?

The obvious place would be on the fields between Sun Lane and the A65. You only have to look at Google satellite pictures. The route of the old pre by-pass road could be brought back into use as one access or one could be created on to the roundabout which would be attractive to the planners/highways. At the rear of the development another access could be created via Sun Lane near where it joins on to Hall Drive. Sun Lane might have to be widened. Unfortunately this would mean lots more traffic down the narrow one way bit of Sun Lane and on Hall Drive especially by those at the back of the development with people going to the shops and schools. Wherever they are built Burley will be spoiled even more than it has been already and some of the services will struggle to cope.


All my posts have to be approved by the moderator before publication.

[catbazza]

In this day & age with the BDMC allowing buildind houses Ad Lib more or less & thus a higher population why don't they provide schools for all the extra children.

Three schools have been closed ie; St Phillips, Weslyan School & the National School so we have less than we had before, but then!, why should they build a new school when they can build a lot of new houses in the same space.

[BurleyOwl]

catbazza, on 15 November 2011 - 08:41 PM, said:

In this day & age with the BDMC allowing buildind houses Ad Lib more or less & thus a higher population why don't they provide schools for all the extra children.

Three schools have been closed ie; St Phillips, Weslyan School & the National School so we have less than we had before, but then!, why should they build a new school when they can build a lot of new houses in the same space.

Thanks for the serious reply spyglass.

Only reason I ask is I have it from a very good source that the proposed sites have been decided. Apparently the one in Ilkley is on the farmland between Skipton Road and Hebers Ghyll (on the left, exiting Ilkley just before you hit the Addingham bypass).

If anyone can shed any light on the Burley site I would be most grateful.

Thank you

[Harveybos]

Not unsurprisingly, the information on proposed Green Belt development sites hasn’t been released yet!

The only clue is on the Core Strategy DPD leaflet

Leaflet here

Which gives an indicative marker for potential green belt deletion to the Ilkley side of Burley, but I’m not sure if this accurate.

There’s a public drop in session organised for 29^th November at Ilkley Kings Hall 2- 7pm – could be worth going along and asking.



After this issue was raised by Chris Greaves at the last neighbourhood forum meeting, I’ve looked at the Core Strategy Development Plan Document (DPD) which you can find here

Consultation Info

It’s worth a look if you have the time.

Burley in Wharfedale is to be designated as a ‘local growth centre’ (P73 on the consultation document) providing a focal point for ‘affordable’ and market housing. Current transport congestion needs to be addressed but they don’t give any indication of how it would cope with the addition of 3000 new homes in Wharfedale. My guess is that we would be left to our own devices! The provision of education facilities in the medium and long term isn’t addressed either, other than to mention ongoing consultation on the provision of a new Secondary School for Burley and Menston.



It’s also worth looking at the ‘evidence’ base used

Core Strategy Document

Wharfedale starts on P138 – note that is based on views from just 74 contributors(P135) on the spatial options.



I would suggest that it’s worth looking through the consultation document and submitting your comments, you have to download 3 forms to do it, unfortunately!


We have until Friday 20^th Jan 2012 to comment - if no -one comments then presumably the assumption is that we all think it's a good idea.

[spyglass]

Clearly I was spot on with my assumption of where the development would be - the fields between Sun Lane and the A65. The other bit is the triangle between the two eastern roundabouts and the church.

We are only in this position because we have been "accidently" linked to Bradford who are seeking to farm out their housing difficulties. If we had still been part of a smaller council or been part of North Yorkshire which is more our natural resting place this would not be happening. How many small villages like Burley in North Yorkshire will be having this volume of housing forced upon them? Surely Bradford must have lots of brownfield sites which should be redeveloped. There must be plenty as all meaningful industry ceased there years ago.

The voluminous documents (for which thanks Harvey) are full of technical stuff and "spatial" issues but on a quick read dont cover the sensitivities of the "villageness" of Burley or the progressing destruction of its character. The expansion of Ilkley and expansion of Burley mean we get ever closer to being one place. Some would say it is inevitable - as Ben Rhydding disappeared into Ilkley. Eventually Otley, Burley, Ilkely and Addingham will just end up as a long sprawl along the valley and the roads/trains struggle to cope as it is.

Ilkley Grammar School already has the annual problem of accommodating the numbers of pupils and we get the anxiety of (usually Addingham parents) over the possibility their children will have to go the the hell hole which is Keighley.

We must fight this. Are not local opinions not now supposed to decide on planning issues - in which case if enough Burley residents dont want the redevelopment it should not happen. maybe we should have a referendum.

Come on councilors. Do something and actually meaningfully represent us for once.



All my posts have to be pre-approved by a moderator before publication - although I dont know why.

[MrsM]

spyglass, on 16 November 2011 - 05:29 PM, said:

We must fight this. Are not local opinions not now supposed to decide on planning issues - in which case if enough Burley residents dont want the redevelopment it should not happen. maybe we should have a referendum.

Come on councilors. Do something and actually meaningfully represent us for once.

All my posts have to be pre-approved by a moderator before publication - although I dont know why.

I totally agree we should fight this. I don't want to sound like a NIMBY but I think the council's plan for "green belt deletions" is absolutely appalling. There are plenty of brownfield sites that could be re-developed to provide housing stock for Bradford within Bradford! I agree that we should seriously think about leaving Bradford MDC before they ruin the Wharfe Valley completely!

[ex-user]

Laughable that a discreet Turf roofed house
near the church
has planning refused
yet several hundred concrete boxes
to obscure that classic view
will be green lighted.
Where do our esteemed councilors stand?

show yourselves!

[appropriatebridge]

I think we need a little thought on this issue. There is justification for some extra houses in Burley, possibly some affordable homes so that our own younger people can afford their own place. Property prices here are such that houses must be beyond the scope of most first time buyers unless the "bank of mum and dad" can help.

However 400 or more is just too many which will swamp the village with too many people at once. I have in my mind that the number of houses in Burley is about 3000, although I do not know where this came from (anyone know if this is about right?). That means that an extra 400 is 13% and to increase one place by that much certainly will erode some of what we hold dear. So, yes, we are right to fight the full development but we cannot take the head in the sand approach to any development at all. Call me half a NIMBY!

[MrsM]

appropriatebridge, on 16 November 2011 - 09:08 PM, said:

There is justification for some extra houses in Burley, possibly some affordable homes so that our own younger people can afford their own place.

I do actually agree with you on that front. Some development is necessary and we are a growing population after all. I do think we should be doing everything we can to protect our green spaces though.

I am also concerned about the scale of the development overall. An additional 3100 homes in wharfedale (the plan actually says 500 for Burley), that is a lot of extra people in a fairly small area with limited resources and already stretched services. On the plus side the co-op's profits would improve though! (sorry couldn't resist mentioning the co-op)

Edited by MrsM, 16 November 2011 - 10:00 PM.

[ex-user]

I agree about affordable.
But the way the rules work,
I think....
Is that only a few new houses
have to be affordable.
and sometimes they might not even be built
alongside the expensive ones.
So the cheap housing
might end up in Bradford.
Offsetting.
So don't give this nightmare
a foothold
in the hope the homeless
will get a leg up.

[spyglass]

Pound to a penny Bradfords allocation of required housing has been done on a simple numerical basis probably just per head basis. I cannot believe any external people actually want to go and live in Bradford unless they live there already and want to upsize/downsize and stay (or are bonkers!). So the majority of the housing is for expansion of the existing population. The rapid population expansion in Bradford is largely down to the Asian community who prefer to live together in specific areas. They would not want to live in Wharfedale. So who are all the houses in Menston Burley Ilkley and Addingham for? The logical answer is Leeds commuters which has nothing to do with Bradfords needs and will certainly considerably worsen the traffic/train situation. There is already an action group fighting development all along the Guiseley/Rawdon/Horsforth corridor because of the intolerable traffic and lots more houses in Wharfedale will just make this worse - and has anyone used a commuter train recently? People already commute to Burley for trains because they cannot get a seat from Menston or Guiseley and may be some of the parkers on Prospect Road referred to elsewhere. There is not the infrastructure to cope with this number of houses.

If Greenhowleadman is right about us getting the posher houses they will have two cars per household so that is another 800 to 1000 cars using our roads. 500 new households probably equates to 500 breadwinners. I wonder how many of these will seek to use the train to Leeds. 200 does not seem an unreasonable guess.



All my posts have to be pre-approved by a moderator before publication - although I dont know why.

[Harveybos]

The info on the potential development sites is now on the Bradford Council website in the form of the SHLAA - Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment.
To get the full picture you have to look at 2 separate documents - one with the map, and one giving the site descriptions, the proposed timetables and housing yields.
Main Report

Map (scroll to page 9)

Sites Info (scroll to page 8 for details and p66 for timetables and housing yields)

[Harveybos]

There's now a summary of the information on the Burley Website under LDF documents
Link

[Harveybos]

appropriatebridge, on 16 November 2011 - 09:08 PM, said:

I think we need a little thought on this issue. There is justification for some extra houses in Burley, possibly some affordable homes so that our own younger people can afford their own place. Property prices here are such that houses must be beyond the scope of most first time buyers unless the "bank of mum and dad" can help.

However 400 or more is just too many which will swamp the village with too many people at once. I have in my mind that the number of houses in Burley is about 3000, although I do not know where this came from (anyone know if this is about right?). That means that an extra 400 is 13% and to increase one place by that much certainly will erode some of what we hold dear. So, yes, we are right to fight the full development but we cannot take the head in the sand approach to any development at all. Call me half a NIMBY!

The number of houses on the potential development sites put forward for Burley is actually 556.
So with approx. 3000 existing dwellings thats almost a 20% increase. How are we going to deal with a 20% rise in road traffic, 20% more passengers on the railway, 20% more children in the schools etc etc

How many houses is 556? The Long Meadows Estate is approximately 230, so think about twice the size of Long Meadows......

[MrsM]

Harveybos, on 30 November 2011 - 10:56 AM, said:

How many houses is 556? The Long Meadows Estate is approximately 230, so think about twice the size of Long Meadows......

That is my concern, it is just too many......

Edited by MrsM, 30 November 2011 - 05:31 PM.