IL2/H - Skipton Road east

Comment

Representation ID: 10063

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Phil Bishop

Wish to respond to the consultation, specifically for sites IL1/H, IL2/H, IL3/H and IL4/H.

I understand the pressures on housing and the need in the UK for additional housing, particularly affordable housing.

I would support increases of this scale in dwellings and consequently in population BUT ONLY PROVIDED:

1) equivalent increases were put in place for necessary infrastructure within Ilkley including School Places, Parking in the town centre, Green/ Sustainable Transport links etc.

2) There is regular flooding within Ilkley in several places. All proposed development must not reduce at all the land available for minimising the impact and likelihood of flooding. IL3/H is a particular concern in this regard.

3) The mix of dwellings is weighted significantly towards properties affordable by those on normal incomes, with priority given to those young people brought up in Ilkley who would otherwise not be able to afford a home within the town.

Support

Representation ID: 10298

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Chris Bunting

I support using unoccupied land for housebuilding.
Speed of traffic at this location needs reducing.
Access onto A65 is unsafe, addition of households will increase the risk. The access road is narrow, needs improving.
Traffic on A65 needs to be slower to avoid risk
Turning out of access road toward Ilkley can sometimes be difficult, with cars travelling at 40mph
Effectively impossible to turn toward Skipton.
Very risky non-car access to the location.
There should be a cross-Ilkley safe cycle route.
When I have biked, I have been intimidated by speeding cars It is very dangerous.
The road is not a "motorway" -- it is supposed to accommodate all kinds of traffic, cars are dominating a street in a residential area.
Pedestrian access is unsuitable.
Impose a 30 limit along whole stretch of road
Create cycle lanes on either side of the carriageway with a crossing point.

Support

Representation ID: 10343

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Andrew Loy

IL2/H Skipton Road
I welcome this suggested development. The site, although classed as green belt, is an eyesore. Provided the planned houses were attractive and in keeping with the style of nearby houses, this would be a great improvement.

Object

Representation ID: 10372

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Richard Thomas

Building on Green Belt Land - stop urban sprawl, to preserve character of existing settlements and to encourage development within existing built up areas.
Not demonstrated the only viable way of satisfying the current housing need in the entire district is to build on greenbelt land.
Detrimental impact to character of Ilkley
Lack of Infrastructure with no further plans to develop - parking, doctors, schools dentists and sewage
Road safety - increase of traffic, impact on Whetely Lane train bridge and Valley Drive junction, risk for accidents, danger to pedestrians and lack of parking.
Additional development already in place - The proposals ignore the additional building which is already continuously ongoing in Ilkley.
Use brownfield sites first and ensure proposals in Ilkley are in keeping with the average impact on Green Belt land which applies to all developments in the district (20% of developments, not 97% on Green Belt).

Object

Representation ID: 10505

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Bernice Corbett

This objection is not because I feel that dwellings should not be built but it is the amount of dwellings I object to. Our town is already full to capacity with amenities at full stretch and parking a nightmare. I feel that these proposed dwellings will un -balance the town and that we would loose our identity and the charm.....surely the reason visitors come here in the first place Please re consider not the sites but the amount of houses.

Comment

Representation ID: 10519

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Geoffrey Bowen

The four site allocations for dwellings in Ilkley are sensible and acceptable provided development conforms to the requirements of the Ilkley Sustainability Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 10567

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Chris Jelley

Ilkley experiences severe traffic congestion, within the town and on the A65.
The A65 blocks all the way back to the Burley bypass and beyond, and coming into Ilkley from the west can also be very slow indeed.
Proposed developments could add upwards of 500 more cars into our queues at rush hours as well as causing more pressure on scarce parking spaces, particularly for commuters.

There have been many new houses built in Menston and in Burley, which have already contributed to the problems of traffic queues on the A65 and the IL1/H and IL3/H planned housing developments on the west side of Ilkley would condemn us all to gridlock.

Building houses without providing road schemes, parking and other amenities is not building communities just frustration for both existing residents and future ones. At the very least, a new bridge by the Ben Rhydding Railway Station would be needed

Support

Representation ID: 10926

Received: 04/05/2021

Respondent: Gary and Mary Williams

Number of people: 2

IL2/H is a good use of space within the town and we would support those.

Object

Representation ID: 10974

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Heather Duke

I am writing to state my concerns about the proposed plans for additional housing at:

- Ben Rhydding Drive
- Skipton Road east
- Coutances Way
- Stockfield Road.

These additional dwellings will put strain on the existing infrastructure including roads, schools and health care.
We should be looking to build housing stock on brown field sites and to improve existing housing and neighbourhoods.

Comment

Representation ID: 10983

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Sue Hadfield

I do not object to IL2/H.

Object

Representation ID: 11032

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Kathy Noble

- destruction of green areas and harm the environment
- increase traffic traffic on local road network
- increased air pollution and impact onhealth.
- infrastructure impact on sewage and Bathing Water status
- infrastructure impact on local schools
- infrastructure impact more for health services

Object

Representation ID: 11349

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Anne Procter

Green Belt land (IL1/H, IL2/H and IL3/H) should not be considered for development. It is in contravention of Government aims and objections, as well as the NPPF. Do not believe the Council has provided sufficient justification which provides “exceptional circumstances” for why these green belt sites should be considered or detailed what the “very special circumstances” are for releasing these sites from Green Belt protection.

Council should demonstrate that it has examined fully all other reasonable options for meeting its identified need for development. Do not believe that housing requirements for each settlement have been explored sufficiently. No evidence provided stipulating Ilkley/Ben Rhydding’s housing need warrants releasing greenfield land for up to 314 houses. No justification demonstrating that all other possible options have been considered.

IL4/H – undeveloped greenfield land in the Conservation Area, closed to a Scheduled Monument. Housing would have a significant negative effect on the Conservation Area.

Comment

Representation ID: 11387

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Andrew Munro

I have no objection to IL2/H
The former is an eye sore.

Object

Representation ID: 11505

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Darren Walker

Objection to IL2/H

1) Destruction of green belt land - there are other options available, e.g. brownfield sites. Given the impact on Covid on businesses and working from home, there may be the option to convert commercial buildings in Bradford into housing instead of using green belt land.

2) The roads are already very busy - more cars bring more danger in high risk areas for accidents for example the junction of Wheatley Road and Valley Drive in Ben Rhydding.

3) Already lack of seating capacity on trains.

4) Schools - it isn’t clear where the additional places will come from especially as Ilkley Grammer is over capacity.

5) Parking in Ilkley is already a problem.

6) Sewage works aren’t adequate to meet the extra demand from these houses.

7) Flood risk.

8) Impact on wildlife which need somewhere to live.

Object

Representation ID: 11540

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Lara Tizard

•Object to proposed building sites on Green Belt.
•Brown belt land in other areas of Bradford should be used.
•No reason to build on Green Belt.
•Conservation area - New buildings will damage character of the town.
•Not allowed square dormer windows due to conservation restrictions. But building houses on the next road is fine – contradicts the definition of conservation.
•Site by the Old Bridge floods regularly. Cars written-off two years ago when parked there.
•New housing will increase flood risk.
•Park already horrendous and more houses mean more cars.
•Not the capacity of infrastructure to allow this.

Object

Representation ID: 11592

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: David Howarth

1. Houses should not be built on land that is designated as green belt. This designation is done for a reason to protect the local environment and provide quiet enjoyment to the residents and wildlife.

2. A number of these properties are likely to be on flood planes. As Ilkley had suffered flooding recently and the water cascading from the moor needs to be carefully managed. This will only get worse as the climate continues to change.

3. There is no plan for additional infrastructure in terms of schools roads and healthcare for the new residents. This should be an integral part of any plan.

Object

Representation ID: 11607

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Laura Ramsden

•Object to the proposal to make significant changes to Ilkley with the potential building of over 300 homes in Ilkley.
•I work in west Leeds and the commute takes 60-75 minutes each way.
•I strongly feel that more houses on the road will result in even more traffic congestion particularly at commuter times but also throughout the day.
•Only two main routes through Ilkley which will struggle to cope with the potential demands of 300 homes & perhaps in excess of another 500-600 cars on the road.
•Ilkley is becoming a town like any other. Main reason people love living here is the appreciation of a quiet rural town.
•The building of 300 houses goes against why people choose to live here.
•The local schools are already oversubscribed.
•The traffic is already an issue.

Object

Representation ID: 11620

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs S Sowden

•Those in the Wharfe Valley area are given little say in the plans.
•To build around 500 new homes without extra infrastructure to support them is foolhardy. But you’ve done it in Menston and Burley so why not Ilkley too.
•Schools haven’t got the extra places, roads are busy enough particularly in the summer with visitor traffic, parking is already a farce in the town, surgeries are overfull now; where is the sense except for the council to take more income from the changes. And not reinvest it taking account of residents opinions and priorities.
•We seriously need to redraw the boundaries to reflect the profile of the area.

Object

Representation ID: 11627

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Stephen and Kath Broscombe

Number of people: 2

I would like to object to the development of the proposed sites that are on green belt.

The sites of particular concern are those on Coutance Way (155 homes) and Wheatley Grove (130 homes).

There must be Brownfield sites available in the Bradford district for development rather than using our diminishing greenbelt. It is essential for everyone's well being that we
keep our countryside and don't allow urban sprawl to take over. Ilkley is a beautiful town that contributes significantly to Bradford both financially and by providing countryside for everyone to enjoy.

The town does not have the infrastructure to accommodate 300+more households. Ilkley secondary school is bursting at the seams and could do with a new building and the primary schools are also full. Services such as GP practices are extremely busy.

The development will be very damaging to the environment and may increase the risks of flooding.

Object

Representation ID: 11651

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Gareth Oakley

•Building on green spaces will detract from Ilkley’s natural beauty, position and attractiveness to locals and the wider public.
•Use of Green Belt land. Happening across the country too quickly as it is cheaper for developers to quickly build houses. Once gone it will be gone forever. 97% of new homes will be in green belt land.
•Brownfield sites around the district should be redeveloped as they would have a positive impact on local communities.
•Sites will be on or around floodplains. Buildings prevent the effectivity of floodplains which will further exacerbate existing annual flood risk problems.
•The new houses may also be affected by floods.
•Ilkley suffers from traffic problems and additional houses will add more pressure to the road network.
•Additional pressure and demand to schools and services regarding care for children. School are already quite full with big classes. Adding to those will reduce children’s educational experience.

Object

Representation ID: 11703

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Ciaran Cavanagh

These plans will be detrimental to the unique setting of Ben Rhydding and Ilkley and their attractiveness to tourism.

Brownfield sites and the 4000 empty homes in Bradford should be used instead to meet housing targets.

Infrastructure will not support further housing - schools such as IGS are struggling, the A65 is over used. Rush hour trains are full, station parking is inadequate.

Destroying green belt land should not be allowed.

Support

Representation ID: 11732

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs A. Gray

Finally! A plan for the unkempt, unattractive strip of land that greets visitors entering Ilkley. Good plan.

Object

Representation ID: 11774

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Robin Waxman

•Plan has been developed in lockdown and in total secrecy. No consultation has been undertaken. Only aware of the consultation days before its end from a leaflet from the Town Council.
•Housing proposed on greenfield sites surrounding Ilkley. Building on these sites will substantially reduce the scenic quality of the town. Along with the Addingham proposals will turn the area into a corridor of housing destroying the local scenic character.
•Object to IL/2 on the basis of density. This is a small site and there are no high density dwellings areas in Ilkley and this would be out of character. The site is contiguous with the greenbelt between Ilkley and Addingham. The development of this site would have to be in character with the dwellings of Hollins Hall.

Support

Representation ID: 11804

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Mr David Anderson

- I can't see why anyone would object to this site being developed when it's already cleared and looks like abandoned wasteland.
- how can 20 houses and 20 cars be delivered on this site though.
- Low level apartment blocks would make sense.

Object

Representation ID: 11810

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Jasvinder Oldham

I would like it to be noted that I object to the proposed building of houses in Ilkley.

Object

Representation ID: 11840

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Dan Sedlak

Planning objection to sites IL1/H, IL2/H, IL3/H, and IL4/H - especially (IL3/H) and (IL1/H) sites:

Use of Green Belt land - no justification. The council has recognised this will have a moderate or major impact. There are plenty of brownfield sites available.

Schools - Ilkley Grammar is at capacity - no space to expand further.

Environment - Ilkley Moor is a SSSI and the Wheatley Grove site is within the buffer zone. The moor is a priority wildlife habitat. There are a number of TPO's.

Safety - would lead to a significant increase in traffic, e.g. Bolling Road/ Wheatley Lane junction, the single file railway bridge, the junction with Valley Drive - all are already congested and at high risk of accidents. Yet no traffic assessment has been done. Also increase risks to pedestrians.

Flooding - three of the sites have significant flood risks already.

Would significantly change the countryside character of the town.

Given the development in Burley, it will mean Ben Rhydding and Burley almost link up.

Object

Representation ID: 11907

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Cara Barrett

Object to proposed developments in Ilkley – IL1/H, IL2H & IL3/H. All are Green Belt.

Council has shown no understanding of Green Belt policy, is making no attempt to preserve valuable countryside, is promoting linear development along the A65 and pays no regard to the preservation of Ilkley’s character.

No evidence produced showing exceptional circumstances for altering Green Belt boundaries and justifying its use. Also no evidence showing as much use as possible of suitable brownfield sites. There are a number of brownfield sites in the District that should be redeveloped before encroachment into the Green Belt. Would benefit the brownfield site location and Ilkley, which would be preserved. Proceeding would have the opposite effect.

Sites are regularly flooded and hold water
Infrastructure (roads and parking) insufficient to support additional houses

Ilkley Grammar School unable to offer places to children in its catchment – additional houses would exacerbate the problem.

Object

Representation ID: 11998

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Kelli Zezulka

I would like to formally register my objection to the proposed building plans in Ilkley (IL1/H, IL2/H, IL3/H and IL4/H), Burley-in-Wharfedale (BU1/H and BU2/H), and Addingham (AD1/H, AD2/H, AD3/H, AD4/H, AD5/H, AD6/H, AD7/8 and AD8/H), particularly those that are proposed on current green belt sites.

The current infrastructure of all three of these areas will not support further housing developments and the concomitant rises in population. The proposals would significantly change the character of these towns and the surrounding areas -- the Ilkley proposals and the Burley Sun Lane proposal, in particular, would devastate the local environment and wildlife.

None of this building should be allowed to go ahead, and no building should be allowed on green belt sites across the district full stop.

Object

Representation ID: 12093

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Marianna Easter

I object about the proposed development on green belt land in Ilkley.

1. We are a small town which in my opinion lacks the infrastructure to support further developments.

2.The council currently does not maintain and enhance the infrastructure that we have already such as playgrounds, public toilets and the Lido.

3. We suffer from high congestion along our main roads already and further inhabitants and parking needs would add to this misery.

4. Local state schools are at capacity already.

5. Green belt IS and should remain Green Belt.

6. The proposals are short sighted, devoid of understanding of the local environment and lack vision.

The council is serving only itself and not the residents of Ilkley.

IF this proposal came with enhanced infrastructure around the riverside, a new recycling centre, a new school, children's centre, medical facilities etc I would be more open to considering.

Object

Representation ID: 12098

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Ian Linnegan

As a keen environmentalist, I have objections to all the proposed planning in Ilkley green belt area including IL1/H, IL2/H, IL3/H, and IL4/H

As an environmentalist, I am objecting to the proposed new developments in the Ilkley area.

All the remaining greenbelt areas are precious, first to everyone who lives in Ilkley and second, to visitors visiting on day trips and short breaks.

Our infrastructure is unable to cope with more people living here, especially with the congested A65 and parking issues.

I hope you will take these issues seriously when making a final decision.