IL2/H - Skipton Road east

Support

Representation ID: 21588

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Neil Harris

20 dwellings is not too significant and this has been a “scrubby” piece of land for many years so its development would seem reasonable as it is in effect a brownfield site.

Object

Representation ID: 21852

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Toni Minou

This is likely to extend the Ilkley sprawl in a significant way and will doubtless impact on the historic Hollin Hall nearby. It is probable that the future possible use of the surviving railway sidings as a footway/cycle route would also be compromised. Possibly two or three houses facing the road would be allowable.

Object

Representation ID: 22462

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Diane Hopton

Government policy is that building on green belt should only be carried out in exceptional circumstances - which is not the case in this situation and also goes against the governments aims and objectives on green belt to prevent urban sprawl.

The entrance to Ilkley will be ruined which is a huge tourist boost to the area seeing the site of the moor and cow and calf rocks.

Infrastructure will not be able to cope. Peak time traffic is already a problem. Extra traffic, particularly around Ben Rhydding station.

Dentists and all schools in Ilkley are over subscribed the schools have no room for expansion.

Object

Representation ID: 23455

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Danielle Moor

I am objecting to the proposed plans for the development of houses on green belt land.

Object

Representation ID: 23766

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs P.A. Linnegan

I would like lodge a formal objection to the proposed housing sites in Ilkley (IL1/H; IL2/H; IL3/H; IL4/H).

Green Belts are vital resources for residents and wildlife. With problems of global warming and target to reduce pollution, I see infill of every green space is a backward step.

More housing adds to the pollution problem with more CO2 from gas central heating and car emissions. There would be more congestion on A65 and further parking problems.

Ability of cope with current levels of waste water is poor with effluent pouring into the river. How will it cope with more sewerage?

Schools are already at maximum capacity. How will it cope with more children?

Lockdowns have proved that people need green spaces for their mental health.

I am sure there are many brownfield sites that could be better uses. Empty buildings could be converted, with no loss of precious green sites.

Object

Representation ID: 23861

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Ann Marie Cousins

Proposals seem to take no head of natural beauty of Ilkley and need to protect it to safeguard the character of the town and surrounding countryside. Must surely consider brownfield development before building on greenfield sites. None of these developments are on brownfield sites. No justifiable reason for building on Green Belt when brownfield sites are available elsewhere in the District.

No consideration of flood risk of the Countances Way site. Will consign homeowners to high insurance premiums as well as problems due to surface water/flooding.

Services are already overburdened. Ilkley Grammar School is at capacity, with no other schools nearby or plans to build a new secondary school. More housing would cause children to be bussed to Keighley/Guiseley, causing additional traffic pollution. Given the climate emergency declaration, this is in direct opposition to goals set out when Council announced its intention to be a net-zero carbon region by 2038.

Object

Representation ID: 23990

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Rachel Warren

-Concern regarding use of Green Belt land.
-Green Belt is to protect an area from over development and becoming joined up.
-All four sites have flood risks of 2 and 3 meaning that they are at risk of flooding and this will not improve as climate change increases the risk.
-Environmentally important area.
-Impact on wildlife.
-Mature trees / TPOs.
-Sewage works is already at capacity.
-Impact on local character
-Impacts on schools – IGS at capacity / primary schools and inadequate nursery provision.
-Effects on roads must be considered. Current congestion, accidents and near misses.
-Lack of infrastructure to cope with so many new dwellings.
-Impacts on health care.

Comment

Representation ID: 24045

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Melissa Pickering

Whilst not opposed to the development of the proposed sites, I would like to have my concerns recorded regarding supporting infrastructure. In particular, given current existing pressures in Ilkley, I feel that all new housing sites should have adequate parking for the number of occupants included in their plans. Furthermore, there will be additional pressure on school places and local transport (esp. road congestion, road width, commuter trains) that all require increased capacity.

Object

Representation ID: 24144

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: John & Alex Cockshott

Number of people: 2

We wish to object to the inclusion of the three sites IL1/H IL2/H and IL3/H as preferred site allocations.

We do so because these are green field areas fundamental to the character of Ilkley and its identity.

Object

Representation ID: 24485

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Isabel Ashman

•The majority of the land for these proposals appears to be on Green Belt and given the amount of Brown Belt that is available I can see no defence for building in those locations.
•Ilkley is known for its natural setting and to devastate one whole end of town seems wreckless and almost deliberately inflammatory.
•Additionally, these developments will almost destroy the distinct space and separateness of character between the village of Burley in Wharfedale and Ben Rhydding / Ilkley. The impact on the feel of the two separate towns will be devastated, not to mention the impact on the wildlife.
•There are other strong reasons to question the whole thinking behind this. Where is the infrastructure for education and health going to come from? Our primary and secondary schools are all oversubscribed with the current town populous.

Object

Representation ID: 24535

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Nicola Wharmby

In particular, I am concerned with the development off Wheatley Grove. To get out of Ilkley at that end of town, the only way to cross the railway line is the single carriageway road at Ben Rhydding. This is already a bottleneck and there is no way to increase it's capacity, either by widening it or building another crossing.

In addition, I object to building on green belt land; once this principal is breached what's the point of having such protection? There is plenty of non-green belt land in Bradford MDC which the council should be prioritising.

Support

Representation ID: 24677

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Georgina Marks

I have no problem with this, the existing site is an eye sore, however the access must be carefully thought out. A lot of cars could be emerging onto a very busy already congested road. Also all points above apply.

Object

Representation ID: 24878

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Eileen & Ken Bernard

Number of people: 2

•Sites are greenbelt. Justification for development on greenbelt has not been made when there are numerous brownfield sites available throughout the district.
•Considerable risk of flooding on all sites. Over the last few years there have been more severe floods than experienced in 40 years. These are likely to increase with climate change. Development will exacerbate the flood issues.
•Developments at odds with the Council’s determination to improve the environment and encourage biodiversity. Site encroach on wildlife corridors.
•IL2/H used to be a haven for wildlife, wild flowers, shrubs until the owner treated them with herbicides.
•The sites contain TPO trees which should be protected.
•Infrastructure is not sufficient to cater for this large increase in houses.
•Roads cannot sustain the current level of traffic and developments will add further cars. Goes against the commitment to reduce road traffic and improve air quality.
•Serious safety concerns for all sites.
•There will be an increase in vehicles turning across the flow of traffic at the Skipton Road site increasing the risk of accidents.
•Ilkley Grammar is at capacity with no room for further expansion and therefore not be able to accommodate extra children. This has not been addressed in the proposals.

Object

Representation ID: 24882

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Ilkley Design Statement Group

Group’s comments are based on the provisions of the Ilkley Design Guide (2002)

Green Belt – should be preserved and not encroached upon by future development, and no inappropriate to buildings with in it [paras 22(a) & 22(c)]. Therefore, should be no new development within it – ruling out IL1/H, IL2/H & IL3/H.

IL3/H should rejected as further development on the valley bottom should be prohibited and further building in the flood plain should not be permitted [paras 17(b) & 17(d)], as well as impact on views across the valley and need to maintain open and woodland aspect of the town [para 68(a)]

IL1/H should be rejected density similar to the surrounding area will not be achieved [para 67(a)] and is a steep, away from public transport.

Schools capacity needs to be considered (para 121(d)] – understood they are over-subscribed. Families will move to the area unless children can get into local schools. All sites should be withdrawn.

Object

Representation ID: 25258

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Georgina Shuttleworth

Ilkley and Ben Rhydding are joined. Wheatley Grange Farm is now the only working farm in Ben Rhydding/Ilkley and should be the first site to be withdrawn from the planning proposals.
Given the vast amount of brownfield site available in the Bradford District, the Bradford Plan includes an extremely low percentage being allocated for development of new homes. A highly disproportionate amount to Green Belt.
Change the character of the town and surrounding area.
Wharfedale is going to become a corridor of development instead of a corridor of villages with open farmland.
No significant justification as to why there is development of Green Belt Land.
Alternative sites are available.
Flooding/Drainage/Sewerage Issues.
Impact o Wildlife and birds
Traffic/congestion issues.

Object

Representation ID: 25273

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: John Thomson

Objection to the proposed encroachment of Green Belt and open farm land

Object

Representation ID: 25301

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Roya Helme

1. Why such a high percentage on green belt? Effecting character of area.

2. Flooding. We have experienced increased flooding living in Ilkley last years, removing surface field draining and why build onto flood areas ?

3.School and infrastructure already stretched. Cars and parking a significant problem.

Object

Representation ID: 25306

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: James Garry

Developing Green Belt land unacceptable, and counter to Bradford Councils responsibilities, aims and objectives.
Harming the character of the area.
Lack of local employment opportunities, Ilkley has no major employers, proposed additional population will commute, adding strain to already bottlenecked infrastructure and harming the air quality and noise levels. This places additional mental health stress on local residents.
Local schools are oversubscribed. Provision of a primary school will not alleviate these problems.
Damage to wildlife, including Amber listed Curlew. There are also a large number of mature trees, hedgerows and related eco systems that would be damaged by the construction of the development.
Flood Risk, A portion of the site is at risk of flooding, development will contribute to faster water run-off and adverse downstream effects. These fields act as a sponge to attenuate heavy rainfall.
Effect on the moors and fragile eco system.
Light pollution/other general pollution.
Unsuitable infrastructure.
Additional substantial amount of traffic, noise, pollution and disruption. Ilkley town itself is a bottleneck so transport west will be effected.
Destruction of the very aspects which give these towns an identity.

Object

Representation ID: 25549

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Alison and Toby Starr

Number of people: 2

Flooding Issues.
Represents a high number of houses proposed in a small area, 97% planned on greenbelt.
Bradford Council’s Conservation Area Assessment and Appraisal documents has a section dedicated to Open Spaces and Natural Elements and specifically comments that “Fields and moorland surround the village and serve to remind the resident or visitor of the village’s past rural connections”. The fields are the subject of this planning application and 285 homes on this greenbelt land is inconsistent with the Council’s commitment to preserve the character of the Conservation Area.
No capacity in the local schools. Sewage regularly overflows into the Wharfe. The roads are already full of traffic.
Use of greenbelt land needs full scrutiny.

Object

Representation ID: 25552

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

97% is to be built on Green Belt. Goes again sustainability criteria seeking to “Minimises the use of Green Belt land”.

Would lead to urban sprawl, leading to lack of defined spaces between settlements/developments.

Access to IL3/H would exacerbate issues around Valley Drive/Wheatley Lane junction

Wheatley Grove is unsuitable for higher traffic levels.
Flooding is a serious issue. Will be exacerbated by development.

Infrastructure issues are not addressed.

Likely to create more pressure on sewage system.
Potential increase in students needing to attend secondary school. Ilkley Grammar School is at capacity. No site identified for expansion.

Middleton brownfield site (identified by NYCC for development) would add extra housing to the Ilkley area. Not considered by the plan.

Plan does not benefit Ilkley residents. Town has suffered over-development. Building more houses will add to existing infrastructure issues (parking, flooding, school places).

Look to develop suitable brownfield sites elsewhere in the District.

Support

Representation ID: 25621

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Gordon Perry

There is higher value Green Belt which deserves protection, but other which do not and could be developed. Exceptional cases should be considered for them.

This is an ugly site and at the western entrance to Ilkley. It would surely benefit from development and is especially suited to low level, smaller high quality stone farm style accommodation perhaps aimed at the downsizing market. It is less suited to affordable housing.

Object

Representation ID: 25661

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: John Hunt

Waste land but could be re-wilded or planted with trees. The A65 is already very busy and this won’t help. Probably the best Ilkley option though.

Object

Representation ID: 25685

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Emily Sheedy Davies

Green belt land should be protected.

The council decides what we can do to our homes and gardens and should apply the same to keeping green spaces for our children to grow up with. 97% of the land is Green Belt with no justification and it will cause character, flooding and environmental damage.

The schools, particularly Ilkley Grammar, do not have the space and the Council have not taken into account the previous 30 per year houses built and there is no regard for the road safety issues

Support

Representation ID: 26312

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Nicholas Allon

Providing safe access is provided both for pedestrians and cyclists onto the busy A65 road I have no objections to this development proceeding.

Object

Representation ID: 26386

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mark Lawrence

Pushing more people into Principal towns would not be in the best interests of the residents, nor the localised town economy.

This plan represents a significant external influence on that organic balance, and a threat to the green space which helps to drive the attractiveness of the area in terms of visitation.

Loss of open spaces/vistas.

Increasing residential traffic.

The siting of additional housing may well have a positive effect, when located in areas surrounding "principal District towns", as there exists an opportunity
to boost revenues in other sectors important to the locality.

Bradford Council's parking strategy doesn't work.

There is no guarantee of driving the prosperity of a town's High Street, by putting more people on the periphery of that town, owing to the rise of eCommerce (e.g., Amazon) and the ability to travel to major commercial centres (e.g., Leeds and Harrogate).

The proposed plans will devalue existing properties.

Need for parking, or school places.

This plan is risky and based upon assumptions that amount to a false economy.

Object

Representation ID: 26629

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr A Gudgeon

I am vehemently opposed to the proposed building on several green belt areas of Ilkley.

These proposals appear ill considered and selfish. No consideration has been given to the residents living locally who'll suffer as a direct result. A transparent public consultation must be held so all plans can be viewed and scrutinised properly.

Ilkley is a spa town, a place people aspire to live. But, that does not mean poorly considered new build properties should be erected on the last remaining green belt spaces. It would change the town, not for the better, and detract from what attracts people to Ilkley in the first place; Gateway to the Dale's, a town with a village 'feel', aesthetically pleasing and not busy.

The prospect of seeing 314 properties added to Ilkley is deeply concerning. How would the schools, doctors, public transport, Policing, hospitals etc going to manage with this increase in demand? The infrastructure isn't in place to service an additional 314 dwellings. Ilkley residents feel a great disconnect with Bradford Council and enforcing unwanted building like this will only serve to divide the community.

Object

Representation ID: 26704

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mark Roe

No point designating as Green Belt only to later seek to override that classification. Green Belt should preserve existing natural habitats and outlooks for future generations and to prevent the creep of urban sprawl when a plentiful supply of brownfield sites remain in BMDC area.

Development and carbon-intensive activities is hypocritical in light of BMDC's declaration of a climate emergency and commitment to a green economy: https://www.bradford.gov.uk/environment/climate-change/climate-emergency-and-green-economy/

Insufficient consideration to resurrecting brownfield sites in which the planet's resources have already been depleted to create them, yet remain underutilised: proper and full regard should be given to those before destroying Green Belt areas.

This site appears to contain historical railway sidings and long-established mature trees: it would be extremely disappointing to see the destruction of such for ever more carbon-intensive development.

Development here would see a significant transport impact as regards access to or from Ilkley's main through-route, the A65.

Development would affect viewings from the nearby Nidderdale AONB viewing southwards despite the Plan's statements to the contrary; it's noted in the Plan that "development on this open site could [permanently] adversely alter the settings of" centuries-old heritage buildings.

Object

Representation ID: 27528

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Jo Batterham

Hello,

I would like to oppose the planning for the new housing in ilkley and Ben Rhydding.

Please let me know if I need to write anything further.

Many thanks,

Object

Representation ID: 27550

Received: 13/03/2021

Respondent: Janet Pawson

I understand that there are proposals for 130 houses to be built on Ben Rhydding Drive, Wheatley Grove,20 houses to be built on Skipton Road East, 155 houses to be built on Coutances Way, and 9 houses on Stockeld Road.

As a resident of Ilkley I have serious concerns with these proposals, as I feel that if these projects are carried out, the impact on the Ilkley and Ben Rhydding areas will be disastrous. The issues are:-
a) Traffic congestion, parking, access to and from these designated areas.
b) The detrimental impact on the environment as these proposed areas for development are on green belt land.

Comment

Representation ID: 27785

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Robert Gibson

Number of people: 2

developments should be to the highest environmental standards and design incorporating energy conservation and generation.