IL2/H - Skipton Road east

Object

Representation ID: 12287

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Trevor & Patricia Scarrow

First three sites are Green Belt. Designations made to protect the environment and benefit the local population as well as visitors. Development sets precedent for the future. Area is one of the most beautiful in the country - all means necessary should be employed to preserve it.

314 dwellings mean at least 600 new vehicles. Roads through Ilkley are too busy and extra vehicles will make life intolerable. No use citing public transport as mitigation - people own and use their cars.

Conflicting reports about the cleanliness of the River Wharfe. If sewage works cannot handle current volumes, it will worsen with new households, causing public health issues.

Fourth site appears to be over-developed for 9 dwellings. Development should be respectful of current architecture and ambience of the immediate area. Should be affordable housing, with controls to limit sale price.

Council should resist attempts by developers to change planning constraints/agreements.

Support

Representation ID: 12320

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Andy Flaxman

I would like to comment on the recent local plan consultation for Ilkley.

I think the IL2/H 20 dwellings is a good use for this land but I think the other areas proposed are not ideal.

Object

Representation ID: 12348

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Lauren Barron

I wish to object to the proposals for building on 4 sites in Ilkley and Ben Rhydding:

This will have a negative impact on our community - impact on these historic spa towns; increasing the population destroying the landscape and increasing overall carbon emissions due to more cars on the road.

Potential merging with Burley in Wharfedale.

There are 4000 empty homes in Bradford -you should be looking elsewhere to develop / meet housing targets.

Local infrastructure will not support further housing -schools, traffic, inadequate parking at rail station. Rush hour trains are overcrowded.

Flood risk and loss of drainage capacity. Stocked Road site floods.

Inappropriate access - Wheatley Grove. Wheatley lane railway bridge is already a bottleneck.

Loss of green belt land and trees.

Loss of a local recreation resource.

Object

Representation ID: 12525

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Jeff Davitt

Main reasons for objection are:

Environment - facing climate and biodiversity crisis, therefore we must protect the environment:

Wheatley Grove and Coutances Way are valuable wildlife corridors with mature trees/hedgerows;

Wheatley Grove is 350m from Ilkley Moor SSSI;

Coutances Way is important feeding ground for Curlew

Infrastructure – will put considerable strain on existing infrastructure:

Sewage works unable to deal with existing capacity and regularly overflows

Ilkley Grammar School is at capacity and unable to expand.

Green Belt & Character – Green Belt provides the town’s character

97% of housing on Green Belt land - Bradford District has brownfield that could be used.

All brownfield options should be assessed before development on virgin land. Should take account of potential of empty retail/office space that could be refurbished.

Will create a continuous corridor of development in Wharfedale.

Green Belt land is valuable as green space for residents and beneficial for wellbeing.

Object

Representation ID: 12543

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Helen Atkin

Green Belt
97% of homes in Green Belt land. No justification given for proposing Green Belt land. Have brownfield sites in have been considered?

Character
Will result in no fields between Burley and Ilkley.

Flooding
Will increase the damage caused by flooding in the area.

Environment
Law and local plan says environment is to be protected. Ilkley is a model of environmental protection. Should be no building near Ilkley Moor.

Wheatley Grove is 350m from Ilkley Moor SSSI;

Coutances Way is important feeding ground for Curlew – have reports on impact on plants and animals been prepared?

Wheatley Grove and Coutances Way are valuable wildlife corridors with mature trees/hedgerows

Sewage works unable to deal with existing capacity and regularly overflows. Are there proposals to improve this?

School capacity
Ilkley Grammar School is the only secondary school and is full.

Road safety
Have traffic assessments been carried out?

Object

Representation ID: 12547

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Roger Whitehouse

1. Our roads and infrastructure cannot possibly stretch to accommodate all this new housing.

2. Our medical and dental facilities are already fully used making it very difficult to get an appointment particularly in this situation.

3. The same applies to schools which are again at full capacity.

4.I am particularly concerned about the proposed development of the Skipton Road East site since it will cause terrible traffic jams as it faces on the main A65 road, and also it is on a bend.

5. It will be almost impossible to park in Ilkley with no doubt the many cars that will be in evidence and difficulty in getting to the shops in Ilkley that are still left.

6. It will also cause already more difficult parking for local residents.

Support

Representation ID: 12663

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Leonie J Pratt

To convey fairness I do believe that the other proposed sites for housing stock in Ilkley are a good decision.
The 20 dwellings on the Skipton Road would enhance an ugly piece of derelict land that has not undergone any landscaping for the old railway embankment.

Comment

Representation ID: 12808

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Will & Kerry Stoker

An infill site. No objections to this as the site has been an eyesore for far too long. How is traffic to be controlled in and out of the site as it is directly onto the busy A65?

Comment

Representation ID: 12818

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Bob .

IL2H Skipton Road east. This is more acceptable in that it is using a brown field site formerly part of the old railway. One issue that needs attention will be access onto the busy A65.

Object

Representation ID: 12838

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Shiona Dawson

1. Use of Green Belt land
Will reduce amount of Green Belt. NPPF requires evidence of exceptional circumstances for its use. No exceptional circumstances - there are alternatives (brownfield sites) that have not been adequately explored.

2. Increase in traffic
Will increase traffic volume and volume of emissions (when the authority is committed to their reduction). Authority must demonstrate brownfield sites, resulting in lower traffic and emissions, are not available.

3. Climate/Environmental impact
Area plays important role in managing flood risk. Development will raise a cost from flooding for future generations. Developing brownfield sites mean costs can be minimised.

4. Destruction of scenic environment
Will compromise the area’s value for tourists, impacting on revenues for local people and the authority.

5. Road safety
Will increase traffic and risks to pedestrians/cyclists. Ben Rhydding station area is already very risky. Limited space for safety improvement measures. Increased parking provision has not occurred.

Support

Representation ID: 12902

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Antony Gilroy

IL2/H and IL4/H (Skipton Road East and Stockeld Road) are acceptable developments and make good use of existing land.

Support

Representation ID: 12908

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Margaret Scott

This site has been an eyesore for decades, and I would welcome housing there.

Support

Representation ID: 13398

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Paddy Hagan

IL2/H - no objections - this is a current eyesore and development will be a relief provided it is sensitively done.

Object

Representation ID: 13506

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Sue McClay

Detrimental impact on our community.

Community identity lost: Ilkley has always been Bradford’s ‘jewel in its crown’ due to its
unique setting in the Wharfe valley.

Ilkley should retain its character but the building of
a further 314 homes will see the town being extended towards Burley and Addingham.

Detrimental to Ilkley’s uniqueness and attractiveness to tourism.

Insufficient infrastructure for the current population in terms of school places, ongoing parking concerns,
Another 1000 or so people needing these local services.

Congested Roads

Increased carbon emissions.

Increase pressures on rail services.

Station car parks inadequate.

Protect green belt sites; however,

Destruction of land with trees with a preservation order on them should not be allowed.

There are thousands of empty homes in the Bradford area and brown site land available.

Alternative sites should be found for development.

Object

Representation ID: 13847

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Philip Tigg

Almost all of these buildings will be on greenbelt, loss of "scenic and sensitive natural landscape".
Alternative brownfield sites available.
The character/surroundings of Ilkley would be affected.
Reduction in the gap between Ilkley and Burley.
Impact from flooding made worse by additional building works.
Schools and childcare are at breaking point. School places are difficult to get.

Increase in road traffic to a road network which is not designed to cope with it leading to bigger queues, especially at the bottom of Wheatley Lane. The train network is crowded by the time it gets to Guiseley. Increased passenger numbers at Ilkley and Ben Rhydding will make it more difficult for people further down the train line to board. If the road network is busier, then buses will be delayed more too.

Approximately 30 new properties per year have been developed for the last few years; another 314 properties is a significant increase.

The idyllic nature will be compromised, benefits of living in such a beautiful area will be eroded.

Object

Representation ID: 13906

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Elaine & Terry Hennessey

Object to sites IL1/H to IL4/H.

The negative and damaging developments they would inflict on quality of life is acknowledged - no alternatives offered. Many brownfield sites in Bradford - proposals are weighted towards Green Belt. Other issues support views that proposals are flawed:

• Schools (primary & secondary) fully subscribed – how would additional children be accommodated?

• Traffic is heavy in terms of through traffic and parking – increase in housing will make this worse.

• Increased traffic means Wheatley Road, Bolling Road and surrounding roads would become “rat runs”.

• GP services under pressure – would increase if proposal is implemented

• Rail services under pressure

• 3 out of 4 sites are vulnerable to flooding

• Sewage capacity is insufficient – issue with discharge into the River Wharfe and environmental damage

• Green Belt is intrinsic part of Ilkley’s environment – to change designations when there are alternatives (brownfield land/unoccupied buildings) is wrong. Should not be allowed to happen.

Support

Representation ID: 13969

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: David & Wendy Pennock

Number of people: 2

-IL2/H will certainly be an improvement to the eyesore which has been there since the railway was removed.

Object

Representation ID: 13990

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Elizabeth Gribbin

-It is imperative that green belt land is protected and brownfield sites are chosen wherever possible.
-Lack of justification of using green belt sites when there are a number of alternative brownfield sites in the district.
-The proposed four sites pose a significant threat to Ilkley's natural landscape and it is imperative that it is protected.
-Three of the sites have significant existing threats from flooding. Development on areas with a high flood risk should be avoided at all costs.
-Detrimental impact on infrastructure and public services. There is already congestion on the A65 through Ilkley and additional homes will significantly exacerbate this problem.
-Unclear how CBMDC propose to deal with the fact that Ilkley Grammar School is currently at full capacity and cannot expand to provide places to additional children. - -Ilkley does not have the infrastructure or resources to expand in the way proposed by Bradford Council.

Object

Representation ID: 14077

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Deborah Davitt

-Impact on Green belt & Character
-ALL brownfield options should be assessed first
-Following the pandemic and the resulting significant shifts in how people live and work there will be an excess of office space in centres which could be used for redevelopment for housing.
-Combined proposals for Wharfedale will create continuous corridor of housing development along a substantial stretch of lower Wharfedale.
-Important for physical and mental well-being.
-Plan proposals go against mission to protect the environment.
-Impact on local infrastructure.
-Sewerage –Ben Rhydding/Ilkley sewage treatment works are unable to deal with existing capacity / regularly overflow.
- Access to secondary school -Ilkley Grammar is at capacity/unable to expand.

Object

Representation ID: 14081

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Jonathan & Catherine Crowther

Number of people: 2

Building 130 homes on green belt land on Wheatley Grove would entirely change the character of this rural area. An additional 500 people accessing the site from Wheatley Grove (that’s 250 cars at a prudent estimate).

Access from Wheatley Grove onto Wheatley Lane is a blind pull-out, an additional 250 cars on that road would cause road safety/environmental issues.

Loss of habitat for wildlife and mature woodland - we can hear curlews, a seriously endangered bird.

Impact of flooding, the proposed sites currently absorb excess rainfall, delaying water run-off onto adjacent areas.

Infrastructure would be unable to cope with the additional population. Parking for the railway station is already intolerable, and has increased since parking charges were introduced. This has pushed commuters to park free of charge on Wheatley Lane and Wheatley Grove. An increase in residents would worsen the on-street parking.

Gritting – Wheatley Grove is a steep road and in winter is often dangerously icy and rarely gritted.

Ilkley Grammar School is outstanding and is over-subscribed. Additional developments will add significantly to demand for non-existing places.

Object

Representation ID: 14115

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Michael Vevers

Number of people: 2

Proposals fail to meet the criteria for sustainable development
Ignore the five of the purposes of the greenbelt
Ribbon development along A65
Detrimental effect on the local environment and loss of character
Impact on the flood risk from surface water runoff
Impact on the viability of the Town
Impact on the A65 and increased traffic congestion in the town.
Concern about cumulative impact of local developments, e.g Burley PP for 500 homes
Impact on local amenities: schools oversubscribed, health care, employment opportunities

Object

Representation ID: 14378

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Tim Edwards

Hopes of reopening the rail link between Ilkley to Addingham and Skipton would be dealt a major blow if your plans to allow part of the formation to be used for building 20 houses go ahead. The proposed site would obliterate the route at the western edge of Ilkley.

highway safety- the site is located on a busy and dangerous section of the A65.

It is said to be “railway sidings”. There have never been any sidings there. It is the route of the former main line railway closed to passengers/ freight in 1965/6.

The route should surely be preserved for possible future use for light rail as its a popular commuter and shoppers route. It would also allow a much needed cycle path to be built

Object

Representation ID: 15321

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Karen Jones

I have lived in Ilkley and Burley In Wharfedale for over 30 years and seen the impact extra housing will create on all the services/schools/Dr's surgeries and more importantly traffic, which is affected when the A65 floods especially. These proposed areas of houses are on flood plains and green belt land, in an area of outstanding beauty.

The recent parking meters and charges are already impacting on local people using the town and staff/commuters parking on side roads.

I would like to object to this proposal.

Object

Representation ID: 15474

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Andrew Simpson

Proposed Additional dwellings in Ilkley. (IL1/H, IL2/H,IL3/H & IL4/H)

I am writing to object to the four proposed new dwelling applications listed above for Ilkley.

The basis of my objections are;

1) Building on Green Belt or non-Brown Belt land.

2) The infrastructure of Ilkley cannot manage today without increasing the number of dwellings. Infrastructure meaning services like schooling, transport in/out of the area particularly the road network, GP’s & other support services.

3) The absolute size of the application in terms of dwelling numbers.

Object

Representation ID: 15613

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Angela Rawling

I would like to express my dismay to the planned developments , IL1/H, IL3/H and IL2/H.

I am strongly opposed to any sort of development on green belt land. I regard it as very similar to the Brazilians destroying the Amazon trees.

Future generations will not thank you if there is consent to build.

I sincerely hope that common sense will prevail and the trees will be left to nature.

Object

Representation ID: 15817

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Kate Brown

GREEN BELT
Protection by NPPF.
Brownfield sites should be used before green belt.
There is an abundance of brownfield sites.
Developers will pressurise for early access to the sites.
No ‘compensation’ for loss of Green Belt.
Discourage the reuse of such land in other areas.
Sustainability Appraisal score suggests that the site should not be developed.
Facilities/Infrastructure are beyond walking distance from the site.
The site falls within the Habitat Regulation Assessment 2.5km zone both for Nidderdale AONB and Ilkley Moor where land is protected from development.
Impact on wildlife habitat, impacted by pets from proposed development.
Impact on TPOs/Trees/Copse
HISTORICAL AND RECREATIONAL VALUE will be lost.
Panoramic views will be lost.
Loss of area for recreation
The site regularly floods.
Flooding will risk stability and slippage issues along the railway lines.
Would be impossible to successfully harmonising with the character of the surrounding settlements along Ben Rhydding Drive and Wheatley Grove.
Impact of increased traffic
Effect on pedestrian access to rail and bus services.
Prospect of fulfilling sustainable/carbon neutral principles will be forestalled

Object

Representation ID: 16041

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Anna Ashelford

Object to the proposals to develop the sites:

1. Loss of Greenbelt and impact on landscape and merging with neighboring towns. There are alternative brownfield sites available in the District.

2. Increased flood risk and surface run off, impact of climate change will increase impact.

3. Impact on environment in particular proximity to SSSI Ilkley Moor and loss of trees with TPOs. Sewerage treatment site is already unable to deal with capacity required. Additional development could worsen overflow during storms.

4. Infrastructure- Ilkley Grammar is already running at capacity- where can additional pupils be accommodated.

5. impact on highways through increased traffic and highway safety at junction between Ben Rhydding and Valley Drive. has an assessment of road safety been carried out?

Object

Representation ID: 16126

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Faye Thomson

Green Belt- there are alternative brownfield sites available.

Impact on greenery and beauty

impact on capacity of local schools

impact on pedestrian safety.

Object

Representation ID: 16416

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Dr M J Seymour

IL2/H Skipton Road
This is a narrow site, with heavy earthworks from the railway era. It is nevertheless green belt. Access to Skipton Road will be an issue.

Object

Representation ID: 16527

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Russell Tew

Development would cause detrimental impact to the local environment.

The area is an important wildlife sanctuary with a huge number of wildflower species and curlews using the fields as a feeding area.

Loss of attractive panoramic views.

Loss of open space.

Increased risk of flooding, these sites are already prone to flooding from water flowing off the Moor .

Increase to carbon footprint.

Site is poorly served by Public Transport.

Increased car journeys, pollution, road traffic accidents.

The proposed developments cannot be balanced against our environmental responsibilities.

Brownfield sites should be repurposed.

Green belt land protected to safeguard the countryside from encroachment.

More brownfield sites becoming available in the future because of changes to work perspectives.