IL2/H - Skipton Road east

Object

Representation ID: 5855

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Vicki Nunns

- There are other adjacent brown belt lands which should be considered over green belt land
- The local primary and secondary school are already over subscribed

Support

Representation ID: 5878

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Pauline Munro

This utilises old railway land which is an eye sore and makes sense to develop to improve the loaction. However the nature of the development and the materials in which it is built need to be carefully controlled to enhance the approach to Ilkley

Object

Representation ID: 5890

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Jonathan Smith

Ilkley's infrastructure is already stretched - schooling, transport and services are not adequate to provide to even more housing in the area. An exit on the busy A65 seems dangerous and would add to the current traffic problems we incur most weekends.

Object

Representation ID: 5903

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Leanne Hollins

Ilkley is already a saturated town with regards infrastructure- schools are oversubscribed, roads are too busy, parking is now a total nightmare, the gps are too full to take on any more patients. The town cannot support the residents it has. We need to improve the facilities and amenities to support current residents and absolutely not bring in more and put further strain on the above.

Object

Representation ID: 6000

Received: 03/03/2021

Respondent: Joanna Glover

Loss of green belt - reducing divide between settlements
Unfair weighting on Ilkley
Brownfield sites in Bradford
Change to local character - damage to perception of town, tourism and local economy
Development will exacerbate flooding
Impact on wildlife
Lack of school places, doctors and trains
Increase of traffic

Object

Representation ID: 6009

Received: 03/03/2021

Respondent: Nick Greaves

1. Flooding - major flooding on Coutances Way
2. Character of the local area
3. Increase in traffic - will cause further traffic build up, greater congestion and more pollution in Ilkley and surrounding areas.
4. Environmental concerns - Ben Rhydding and Ilkley sewage sites are already stretched and unable to deal with current capacity, regularly overflowing.
5. Schools - secondary school at full capacity,
6. Additional building - the proposals doesn’t take into account other developments that have been taking place and are already planned (approx 30 per year recently in Ilkley).

Object

Representation ID: 6013

Received: 04/03/2021

Respondent: Sarah Irwin

Brownfield sites should be prioritised before building on greenbelts.
Flooding/drainage - impact on existing systems- sewage overflows into the river
Primary schools are over subscribed. - Local infrastructure is not sufficient (dentists, doctors)
Parking and road safety with extra traffic and poor access.

Object

Representation ID: 6032

Received: 01/03/2021

Respondent: Dr Rebecca Barron

The 4 sites will have a negative impact on our community, increasing the population, destroying the landscape and increasing overall carbon emissions due to more cars on the road.

Detrimental impact on uniqueness and tourism of the historic spa towns.

Building (on A65) may result in a merging with Burley.

With 4000 empty homes in Bradford and brown site land available, green belt should be the last resort.

The infrastructure will not support any further housing.

The A65 is already overused.

Inadequate car parks at train stations and trains overcrowded.

Flooding is a problem.

The Wheatley Grove site has 4 natural springs.

Access is limited to Wheatley Grove, extra vehicles will be dangerous.

The railway bridge (Wheatley Lane) causes a bottleneck to traffic.

Destroying green belt and trees protected by TPO should not be allowed.

Land used for recreation.

The old packhorse bridge is a site of historic importance.

Object

Representation ID: 6041

Received: 01/03/2021

Respondent: Kathleen Smith

I object to the proposed housing developments on green belt land in Ilkley, Addingham and Burley in Wharfedale.

Apart from destroying the environment, are there plans to increase the infrastructure to accommodate the large numbers of residents who will occupy the houses. Our schools are full and the existing residents have difficulty getting an appointment at our doctors' surgeries.

The traffic through Ilkley is horrendous and parking is impossible at the weekends.

During the week people travel to Ilkley to take the train into Leeds or Bradford and park their cars on the roads outside resident's houses making peoples lives a misery.

If these proposals go ahead, no doubt in the future Addingham, Ilkley and Burley will become one if further development is allowed.

Please take into consideration the views of the people who live in these areas and reject any further development on green belt land.

Object

Representation ID: 6054

Received: 02/03/2021

Respondent: Julia Richardson

There is no significant justification why green belt land is proposed and plans are hugely disproportionate against Ilkley.

The Council states the three sites as either having moderate or major impact on the green belt.

The sites would reduce the separation between neighbouring towns and create a ‘Wharfedale corridor’ of development.

The proposals would significantly change the character of the town and the surround areas including removal of fields between Burley and Ilkely.

Three sites have significant existing flooding risks.

The proposals go completely against the defined local plan to protect the local environment.

IGS is already operating at capacity.

Developments in the last few years not taken into account.

Object

Representation ID: 6058

Received: 02/03/2021

Respondent: Dr Sandy Lukats

I would like to strongly object to the proposed use of green belt land in Ilkley for the purposes of building houses. There are multiple unused brown field sites in the Bradford district which should be used first.

There is absolutely no justification for destroying natural areas and disrupting local wildlife for this purpose.

The one senior school is already oversubscribed as are the doctors and primary schools.

Please see sense and do not build on this land.

My other concern is the effect this would have on traffic on the A65 which is already a bottleneck coming into Ben Rhydding.

Object

Representation ID: 6061

Received: 02/03/2021

Respondent: Leslie Barber

I am a resident of Ilkley and am making clear my objection to the proposed housing development in Ilkley and Ben Rhydding.

The 3 largest proposed areas for building and development are on designated GREEN BELT land. Why? Why? Why?
These GREEN BELT lands must remain just what they are GREEN!

Ilkley is a beautiful town on the outskirts of The Yorkshire Dales and attracts many visitors because it is surrounded by natural scenic Moors , fields and the Wharfe River. Building more homes on the surrounding Green Belt will spoil the natural beauty of the area.

And needless to say adding a further 314 new homes to the area will just add to the already crowded roads, schools, health centre and general infrastructure of the town.

Object

Representation ID: 6085

Received: 05/03/2021

Respondent: Yvonne Bradley

Building on green belt
Increased traffic - pollution
No additional infrastructure- GPs, dentists, grammar school is full

Object

Representation ID: 6094

Received: 06/03/2021

Respondent: Louise Atkinson

lkley Grammar is the only publicly accessible secondary school in the area, and is already operating at capacity and cannot expand. No additional secondary school capacity has been proposed

Object

Representation ID: 6098

Received: 06/03/2021

Respondent: Martin .

Change of local character of Ilkley and loss of fields between Burley and Ilkely.
Development will exacerbate existing flood risk issues on the surrounding areas.
Ilkley Grammar is the only publicly accessible secondary school in the area- cannot expand further. No additional capacity proposed

Object

Representation ID: 6108

Received: 06/03/2021

Respondent: Helen Thurston

Green Belt - climate emergency which cannot be reconciled when there are brownfield sites available in the Bradford District.
Development will exacerbate flooding
The Ashlands Waste Water Treatment Works is already over capacity resulting in unacceptable pollution of the river Wharfe.
School capacity - Ilkley Grammar is already operating at capacity and is unable to expand

Object

Representation ID: 6119

Received: 02/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Becky Moore

I write this mail to express my objection to the planned development of sites IL1/H, IL2/H, IL3/H, and IL4/H

My main reason for doing so is that almost all houses will be built on Greenbelt areas which surely cannot be acceptable due to the environmental impact including increased flooding risk.

Object

Representation ID: 6124

Received: 02/03/2021

Respondent: Jade Holdsworth

• Flooding in the fields between Ilkley and Burley is very bad. Cars get stranded. The drainage in these fields hasn’t helped. How is it OK to build on top of this?
• It is Green Belt land which helps nature and wildlife. What will happen to them?
• Burley, Ilkley, Addingham are all separate they should not be joined as that will ruin their character.
• Ilkley Grammar School will not cope with extra pupils. Pupils from Burley/Addingham which would include my children will be pushed out. I have stayed in this area because I want my children to go to the Grammar School as I did.
• Road safety is a major issue. The road between Ilkley/Burley is often at a standstill. Ilkley needs a bypass before any more houses are built.
• There are many brown belt areas which should be built on rather than green belt.

Object

Representation ID: 6128

Received: 02/03/2021

Respondent: Martin Chan

•Green belt encroachment. Difficult to justify when brownfield sites could be developed. Green belt is essential to maintain scenic worth/wildlife.
•Character of the area will be changed significantly. Green space between Burley/Ilkley/Addingham will be reduced.
•Flooding problems - increasing in recent years. New developments will worsen this.
•Environmental concerns. The moor is near to these sites.
•Pressure on the sewage works will increase. Already discharges into river.
•Schools are at capacity. There are no plans/options to accept more pupils. This includes primary, secondary and preschool places.
•Road network is at capacity. Regular jams/tailbacks are common. No potential for road expansion/parking. Doesn’t fit with green agenda. The rail system is at capacity to Leeds/Bradford. Little room to expand public transport.
•Many roads, bridges, traffic light junctions are snarled up.
•Future development should focus on affordable housing on brownfield sites aimed at regenerating city/town centres rather than damaging Ilkley and surrounding area.

Object

Representation ID: 6132

Received: 02/03/2021

Respondent: Sue Head

•Flooding risks – Coutances Way and land off Skipton Road – causing serve disruption. Building plus climate change will cause greater impact to residents/services.
•Character of current area between Ilkley/Burley will change and cause a lack of distinction.
•Increase in traffic on A65, a major traffic route which is heavily congested. Further development will cause more traffic, congestion and pollution in Ilkley.
•Environmental concerns:
Wheatley Grove within the protected Ilkley moor site. It should specifically be avoided.
Coutances Way is an area significant for curlew nesting and feeding.
Coutances Way and Wheatley Grove provide significant wildlife habitat with protection orders to protect them.
Ben Rhydding and Ilkley sewage sites already stretched/unable to deal with current capacity, regularly overflowing.
•Secondary school serves whole area and at capacity. School cannot accommodate current proposed developments in Addingham/Burley.
•The proposals fail to take account of the developments that have taken place and are planned.

Object

Representation ID: 6136

Received: 02/03/2021

Respondent: Lindsey Spencer

I wish to object to the proposed house building on green belt land in Ilkley for the following reasons:
1. There are brown field sites in Bradford which could be used instead.
2. The areas provide refuge for wildlife including curlews which will be gone forever if built on.
3. Ilkley and Ben Rhydding sewage works cannot cope with current amounts of waste and most days of the year allow waste to overflow into the river.
4. The only secondary school is oversubscribed and has no capacity to expand.
5. The area is one of natural beauty which will be eroded by building hundreds of houses on green belt land.
6. Green belt was designated as such for a reason which should be respected.

Object

Representation ID: 6145

Received: 02/03/2021

Respondent: Oliver Lewis

•How can the council justify building on Green Belt when there are numerous brownfield sites within the District?
•Development at these sites will expand the existing boundary reducing the distance between Addingham and Burley. Will the entire Wharfe valley eventually be joined up?
•There are no plans put forward to increase/expand GP services, schools or local amenities. Existing services already in high demand.
•Has the additional amount of traffic from each new property been factored into the plan?
•Has any regard been paid to the scenic setting of the town?
•Homes at IL2/H and IL3/H will spoil the landscape when entering Ilkley.
•Also the effect on local wildlife and trees in these locations.
•How can the council make these plans (building on green belt, adding to stresses in local services/infrastructure) without having regard to their own policy on maintaining the uniqueness of the town, enforcing strict planning laws and TPOs.

Object

Representation ID: 6153

Received: 06/03/2021

Respondent: Richard Wiley

It is not necessary to build in beautiful Ilkley as there are many brownfield sites in the Bradford area which would be suitable. The whole character of the area will be spoilt. The roads would become an eyesore

Object

Representation ID: 6157

Received: 06/03/2021

Respondent: Katie Simons

Secondary school is full- development would impact on standard and delivery of education to local children
Flooding and strain on sewerage systems
Green belt site- impact on wildlife and natural habitat, moderate risk of impact is not acceptable level
Impact of development on local character and local services (GP) and schools

Object

Representation ID: 6168

Received: 07/04/2021

Respondent: Jessica Murray

Firstly I am opposed to developing on green belt. There are plenty of brown land sites that are not being used throughout the district of Bradford. Furthermore due to the pandemic there will be plenty of office blocks which will be unable to be used in the future purely because the workforce will be working from home more often. Please think about how these can be converted into holes before destroying land.

Secondly I’m opposed due to the ‘already at capacity’ infrastructure in ilkley. Schools are at their limit which means more homes with 2+ kids means 600 potential children adding into the primary and secondary school system. The catchment area for IGS is already narrower than it was when I attended in the 90’s. I lived at the top of Addingham and my parents house is now out of IGS catchment and further houses basically will continue to devalue these houses and more.

Support

Representation ID: 6174

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Peter Mate

In relation to the four proposed sites in Ilkley/BR, I submit the following points:
1). Skipton Road East (20 units): this is a long standing derelict site, on the former railway line. It lies at the entrance to Ilkley coming from Skipton, and is currently unsightly. I strongly approve of the upgrade to this site, and the proposal seems modest and proportionate, an improvement to the town.

Object

Representation ID: 6350

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Nicole Dillon

•Object to these sites as they are green belt land.
•Green belt is there to protect wildlife and provide green space for people.
•Building on these sites will decimate the habitats of hundreds of species of plants, insects, birds and animals.
•People come to the are to enjoy the countryside location. Building on these sites will damage tourism which is valuable to Ilkley, the surrounding areas and local businesses.
•More housing will increase traffic on busy roads. It will lead to further parking problems with no mention of designated areas for parking.
•Ilkley Grammar School is already over-subscribed as are many local primary schools, medical practices, dental practices etc. More housing will add more pressure to these public services.

Object

Representation ID: 6697

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Elizabeth Scott

The proposed developments Site IL1/H Wheatley Grove, Site IL2/H Skipton Road East , Site IL3/H Coutances Way , Site IL4 Stockdale Road will not meet the overarching environmental objective of protecting or enhancing the environment including valued landscapes.
The development of the areas will increase pollution as well as increasing pluvial flooding. It will inhibit and reduce the environment that supports local wildlife , deer , birds including curlews and owls.
These developments will have a detrimental impact on the area for the following reasons:
Traffic and access, Infrastructure
See also attachment for objection to IL1/H

Object

Representation ID: 6703

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Jacqueline Watson

I very strongly object to the proposals to build houses on green belt land in Ilkley and Ben Rhydding.
This refers to plans IL1H, IL2H, IL3H and IL4H.

If more houses are needed other sites must be found.

Object

Representation ID: 6705

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Adam Scott

I write in relation to the following applications:
Site IL1/H Wheatley Grove
Site IL2/H Skipton Road East
Site IL3/H Coutances Way
Site IL4 Stockdale Road
and in particular that concerning the field on Ben Rhdding Drive where we have only just moved from Bingley; we moved indeed to escape development of the fields below our house there by the canal and are surprised to encounter again the urban sprawl that threatens what little is left of our Yorkshire countryside.
I enjoy walking now that I am retired and the traffic in this area already threatens the safety of my dog and I; we see a number of other residents similarly threatened as they walk for instance to local schools (which I understand to be full to bursting already) and I see too the pressure on local medical services.