IL2/H - Skipton Road east

Object

Representation ID: 16599

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Denise Kirk

Local plan preferred site allocation - My first concern is how these proposals will impact on schools particularly on the 11 - 18-year age group. There is already overcrowding at Ilkley Grammar school resulting in the most recent additional building. Although this gives extra teaching rooms it reduces the area that pupils can use outside of lessons which I think is equally important.

There were plans for a new school to be built on the Coutances Way site. Unfortunately, these plans were withdrawn due to a change in finance shortages within Bradford council. I feel now that plan should be reinstated as the site appears larger and could accommodate the larger intake of pupils from both Ilkley and Burley-in-Wharfedale.

Overall I am against the proposals as they will put a further strain on drainage, sewage and transport.

Object

Representation ID: 16602

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Chris Scott

No demonstration of exceptional circumstances to build on greenbelt land.

Brownfield sites which there are multiple locations within the council area should be exhausted prior to turning to greenbelt area for building, including Brownfield sites less than 0.25ha.


Over building will lead to further degradation to local infrastructure/quality of life.

No acknowledgement that circa 30 houses a year are built in the Ilkley in recent years. This mitigates the need to build so many houses.

Impact on footpaths.

Impact on local roads including the A65 causing speeding and accidents.

Rail travel – The Wharfedale Line is already at full capacity.

There is no traffic impact assessment survey included in the draft plan.

Schools at full capacity.

Doctors’ surgeries are already busy.

Only one Post Office available.

Plan should support Building net zero carbon houses at scale

Priority should be Regeneration of inner- city Bradford

Support

Representation ID: 16792

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Sarah Wilde

• I am generally in favour of new housing provided it is affordable and that there is some social housing. Too often new housing tends to be large detached housing with an extremely high price tag.

• IL2/H – excellent idea. That area has been an eye sore for years!

• I know there are a lot of people in Ilkley who are against expansion and change but I feel we should do our bit to provide greater housing stock that is affordable to young people and growing families. I myself moved to Ilkley 21 years ago to raise a family and I can’t expect to draw the drawbridge up behind me.

• I want to share what this beautiful town has to offer. I am also aware of the benefits of a bigger population to local businesses including shops and restaurants.

Object

Representation ID: 16974

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs J A Whitehouse

The main A65 through road - very busy at all times and to place 20 dwellings on that small site would cause further traffic congestion as well as blocking such views as exist there to the hills to the north of the town.

Object

Representation ID: 16993

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Lynn Sanders

See full submission:
A number of issues including:
- Green Belt
- Sustainability Appraisal/Strategic Environmental Assessment
- Flora and Fauna
- Flooding

Object

Representation ID: 17072

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Catherine Clarke

IL2/ H Skipton Rd East . This area again is subject to flooding from both the downward lie of the land and the increasing number of flash floods of the river Wharfe. The sheep in this field were drowned this Winter I have been told.

Green belt land

Comment

Representation ID: 17139

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: S.M.B Wilson

Two of the plans proposed are totally unsuitable on this scale in Ilkley and should not be developed in this density. These are IL1/H Ben Rhydding Drive, Wheatley Grove and IL3/J Coutances Way.

These two with a total of 285 dwellings are totally out of character with Ilkley town because there is no where in Ilkley that has a development of more than approximately 50 houses maximum and these large developments simply would not be appropriate here, would not fit in with the surroundings and would spoil the entire area.

The other two sites, IL2/H and IL4/H are on a much smaller scale and much more in keeping with the lay out of the town.

Support

Representation ID: 17142

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: W & M Shaw

Number of people: 2

An eyesore. Development preferable if site access to A65 can be achieved.

Support

Representation ID: 17453

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Dr and Professor Gwenda & Michael Pilling CBE

Number of people: 2

Overall we are very concerned about the concentration of the proposed developments on Greenbelt land.

We support development at IL2/H (Skipton Rd East) and IL4/H (Stockeld Rd).

We feel that these are appropriate sites that could provide good accommodation in Ilkley.

Object

Representation ID: 17468

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Tom Birch

•Changes represent an unjustified encroachment on greenbelt, impairing enjoyment of surrounding area. It represents a material deviation from the NPPF which the plan claims to adhere to.
•Building houses on the greenbelt between Ilkley and Burley is not an emphasis on the redevelopment of brownfield sites or a measure/sensitive approach to greenbelt release. The plan contradicts itself against stated intensions in paragraphs 1.1.3 and 1.2.9.
•The Plan’s spatial vision does not include any protection of the greenbelt and is not in line with the NPPF. Its absence leads to the belief that the council have not considered the greenbelt seriously and that the plan is not in line with the government’s policies it claims to be. Although Policy SP5 mentions greenbelt it need needs to be in the spatial vision.
•Unsure there is legal basis to continue with the plan given the above points. You have not done due-diligence by incorporating local opinion before creating such an insensitive proposal.
•Development of brownfield sites in Bradford should be the focus of the plan, aimed at regenerating a deprived area.
•Development should be focused where it is needed rather than being distribute across the district.

Object

Representation ID: 17560

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Adam White

The site lies within the Green Belt - a vital defense against urban sprawl. Bradford has enough brownfield land which is not on the Green Belt to satisfy its housing needs.

The Plan has divided the District up into sections with a housing quota allocated to each section, roughly according to the size of the local population and the amount of open space available. The inevitable result is that in a place like Ilkley, where there is very little land that is not on the Green Belt, the Belt has to be built on.

The total housing proposed - 314 units will assuming three people per house, means a 942 increase in the town's population. No provision has been made in the plan for more facilities in the way of shops, employment sites or education facilities.

Object

Representation ID: 17986

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Sarah Dunhill

Green Belt: Council have not given any significant justification as to why they have proposed Green Belt land, especially given the number of brownfield sites available in Bradford district. In the overall Bradford plan, this figure is only 20%, showing a hugely disproportionate value against Ilkley.

Flooding: Three sites have significant existing flooding risks. Development would further exacerbate issues on the surrounding areas.

School Capacity: Ilkley Grammar is the only publicly accessible secondary school in the area and already operating at capacity. It is unable to expand any further and has already had to limit the catchment area in order to manage numbers.

Road Safety: Two main sites in Ben Rhydding will directly and significantly increase traffic through the Wheatley Road train bridge and junction with Valley Drive. These are two areas of congestion and already at high risk of accidents. No traffic assessment has been carried out on these areas.

Object

Representation ID: 18017

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Toni Seddon

Would like to strongly object to proposed building of 314 new houses in Ilkley. Particularly concerned about the two larger plots (285 houses) which will need access onto Wheatley Lane.

Cannot emphasise how busy this road is, with single file under the railway bridge. Is used as a “rat run” to avoid the A65 in central Ilkley. Valley Drive is also busy. Difficult to turn onto Wheatley Lane at the point where IL3/H might need access.

Ilkley has been flooded many times by the river. No plans to address this situation. Sewage works already unable to deal with needed capacity and often overflow.

Ilkley Grammar School is at capacity and unable to expand. Haven’t heard of any proposed new schools. Where will children go to school?

Building proposed on Green Belt land – what will be the environmental impact, and what effect will building so many houses have on the town’s character?

Comment

Representation ID: 18070

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Graham Taylor

I am not against all development in these areas but do have serious concerns that the proposals as they stand represent an increasing on encroachment on greenfield land and over-development within the context of the existing townscape.
IL2/H – Skipton Road east
Density – proposed 17 dwellings per hectare is similar to IL1/H but has a higher impact as it is bordering more on greenfield land.
Location – this is scrubland between a main road and old railway embankment remains, which already has some low density property to the west and more south across the other side of the road. On balance this seems ok, so long as it not used as a Trojan Horse for further development in the adjacent greenfield areas.

Object

Representation ID: 18129

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Karen Gardner

No rationale for the use of Green Belt land, given the large number of available brownfield sites in the district. Distances between settlements will be eroded.

Will impact on town’s unique character particularly its entrance as well as traffic and parking – making this worse, impacting on quality of life.

Flooding is a recurring issue along the Wharfe Valley. Development will increase run-off, leading to more flooding. All sites classed as having a flood risk of 2/3.

Will have numerous environmental impacts – on wildlife (including curlew feeding), proximity to the Moor (a SSSI), loss of open space, numerous TPO designated trees on site – reducing the developable area.

Sewage systems at capacity.

Schools are at capacity especially Ilkley Grammar School. No sensible alternatives available and few options for expansion. Ben Rhydding primary is unlikely to be able absorb increased demand for places. Also no scope for expansion. No solution in the Plan. Need to consider the wider catchment as well.

Area is already congested whilst increased traffic will impact on road safety. Parking is also an issue, whilst development elsewhere will add to traffic in the area.

Plan does not consider ongoing infill development (c. 30 homes p.a.)

Congestion on A65 corridor is a problem - has got worse with increased housing building along it with no improvements. Rail network is at capacity. Proposed development will make congestion worse. Cannot consider proposed Ilkley development in isolation.

No evidence that disadvantages above will be compensated by any improvement in housing affordability

Object

Representation ID: 18256

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Hannah Walton

I would like to add my objections to the current proposed home building strategy in Ilkley.

I am very concerned that local infrastructure is not sufficient to deal with the proposed additional number of people. Ilkley Grammar school has already expanded recently and I understand that it is now operating at capacity and how will the additional need for health services be met?

There will be a significant increase in heavy traffic along the A65 and along Wheatley Road train bridge and junction with Valley Road - already subject to congestion.

97% of the proposed homes will be built on green belt land. Whilst I accept there is a need for more affordable housing, the destruction of green belt land should come when there are no other options available. What is the justification for choosing green belt land over other available areas?

Object

Representation ID: 18270

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr David Hughes

The area of the old railway embankment and bridge has been an eyesore in all the 30 years that we have lived in Ilkley, so we are pleased that this area is going to be improved. My major concern would be the access for vehicles to the A65 and for pedestrians crossing the A65 to and from this development. We would not want to see any additional traffic impediments such as traffic lights or controlled crossings that would be likely to cause additional hold-ups on the main road through Ilkley.

Support

Representation ID: 18341

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Elaine Thornton

•I am in favour of the development of the area on IL2/H Skipton Road as this would improve an ugly area of derelict land that has not undergone any landscaping for many years. My reservation for this area is access onto the already very busy A65.

Object

Representation ID: 18485

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Nick Thompson

The building of new homes within the greenbelt area should not be allowed to go ahead.

Ilkley has a sensitive natural landscape - the surrounding areas within and bordering the greenbelt have become even more important to the wildlife seeking sanctuary.

Adding so many new houses, taking up the greenbelt area, would significantly detract from the character and 'feel' of the town, decreasing its attractiveness and popularity with visitors.

Concerns about the increase in traffic on the many narrow roads and know full well that the school capacity both in primary and secondary schools in the area is already extremely limited.

Having over 300 new homes will bring approximately 1200 new people living in the town; over 600 additional cars and 600 additional pupils to the schools; all putting additional strain on the environment, infrastructure and increasing traffic.

Increasing building in these areas risks further flooding problems with water catchment.

Comment

Representation ID: 18547

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: William & Noemy Ellis Martin

Number of people: 2

I do not object to IL2/H or IL4/H.

IL2/H could almost be considered a brown field site, it has been a bit of an eye-sore on the way out of Ilkley for some time.

Building on IL4/H would not have a major impact as it is a built-up area, and the field is not currently used for anything.

Object

Representation ID: 18710

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Mr John Saltmarshe

Inadequate infrastructure
- Ilkley grammar school is already oversubscribed
- the local sewage treatment plant is already unable to cope in conditions of heavy rain,
- several of the roads are already at capacity.

There are alternative brownfield sites available in Bradford which should be prioritsed over Green Belt in the Wharfe Valley.

Object

Representation ID: 18767

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Matthew Archer

I object for the following reasons:

1) Loss of green belt / plenty of brownfield sites and empty buildings in Bradford. Ratings for these sites are moderate or major impact.

2) Loss of Ilkley's historic character, impact on parking which is already a problem and reduced tourism;

3) Flooding - these proposals will increase flooding;

4) Impact on the environment - Ilkley Moor SSSI and buffer zone, impact on wildlife, curlews etc, loss of mature trees, increased problems with sewerage capacity.

5) School capacity - Ilkley Grammar school already full. No additional places have been provided despite planning approvals here and neighbouring villages;

6) Road safety - The additional traffic will increase those using the Wheatley Lane railway bridge, it is already busy, it will increase traffic along Bolling Road -which situates a primary school. The junction to Valley Drive is awful whether you are a pedestrian, or driver.

Object

Representation ID: 18773

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Jenna Holmes

I’m writing to include my objections to the building proposals for the above sites.

Of particular concern are the proposals for IL3/H and IL1/H. These will have significant impact on green belt and the rural character of Ben Rhydding and would infringe onto the buffer zone for Ilkley moor, changing this landscape forever. It has not been made clear why these sites have been selected over many other brownfield options. I am also concerned about the additional impact that building in these areas would have on wider infrastructure in the town (schools, services).

Object

Representation ID: 18777

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Claire Emmott

• Impact on local schools, NHS and traffic, and the increased risk of road accidents and potential fatalities.

• No traffic assessment has been carried out.

• Impact from the building phase of danger from lorries and other heavy vehicles.

• Pollution from increased traffic

• Ilkley already lacks sewage processing capacity. Given the new protected ‘beach’ status of the Wharfe at Ilkley, it is hard to legally reconcile this extent of further development.

• Several of the sites appear to be in flood risk areas. As flooding is only going to worsen, this appears problematic.

• The two main development sites – making up 97% of the proposed homes – are on green belt land.

• The Countances Way site in particular, if developed, would further disintegrate the space between Ilkley and Burley and lead to a built-up corridor;

• Loss of Ilkley's historic character – impact on tourism

Object

Representation ID: 18861

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Nicola Thompson

The building of new homes within the greenbelt area should not be allowed to go ahead.

Ilkley has a sensitive natural landscape important to the wildlife seeking sanctuary.

This scenic area attracts visitors from all over the UK. Adding so many new houses, taking up the greenbelt area, would significantly detract from the character and 'feel' of the town, and would be damaging for the local hospitality, bars, restaurants and pubs that enjoy such good trade.

I have significant concerns about the increase in traffic on the many narrow roads.

School capacity both in primary and secondary schools in the area is already extremely limited.

Over the last few years, the incident and severity of significant flooding to most of the proposed areas for building has been very evident. Increasing building in these areas risks further problems and flooding of homes.

Comment

Representation ID: 18908

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Zoe Whittaker

I do not have a problem with the 9 dwellings proposed for Stockfield Road (IL4/H)

Nor do I have any issues with the proposals for 20 dwellings at Skipton Road (IL2/H)

I am not unreasonable and I feel these plans are acceptable and manageable for growth in the area.

Object

Representation ID: 18911

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Jill Ferguson

I object to the proposals to build an excessive number of houses in this area on unsuitable sites. The 314 houses, 97% on green belt land, would have too great a detrimental impact on many aspects of life.

No justification for building on important green belt, when there is plenty of brown belt land available across the district.

My main concerns are around traffic, drainage and flooding issues and school places. We have one secondary school here in Ilkley that also serves Addingham and Burley (where excessive insensitive developments are also proposed) and that school is at full capacity with no room for expansion

For users of the roads and pavements in Ben Rhydding, between the two largest proposed development sites IL1/H and IL3/H, it is obvious there would be issues of congestion for traffic and safety for pedestrians and cyclists.

The two large sites at Ben Rhydding are both regularly saturated and as such are important natural drains for rain water.

Object

Representation ID: 19396

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mary K Marshall

Bradford District Local Plan Consultation

I write to you as a resident of Ilkley regarding the above plan for our town.

Whilst all of the proposed areas of development concern me greatly, IL2/H and IL4/H concern me most.

Ilkley is a town with a considerable parking problem at present. The building of 314 new houses is going to exacerbate that problem hugely.

314 New houses could well mean another 600+ cars in and around the town and another 500+ children. Are the existing schools expected to accommodate the increase in numbers?

With regard to IL/4, it will be within the Ilkley Conservation Area boundary which is bounded by Middleton Conservation Area on the north side of the river.

Support

Representation ID: 19531

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Linda Little

IL2/H Skipton Road East 20 dwellings
I have lived here for well over 30 years and that area has been an eyesore for all that time so I support that development on the whole, though I can see turning right out of the estate could be a big problem as it is near a blind corner.

Object

Representation ID: 19605

Received: 10/02/2021

Respondent: Mrs Rebecca Stevenson

As a resident of Ben Rhydding, I would like to submit an objection to the building proposals in Ilkley and Ben Rhydding at sites IL1/H, IL2/H, IL3/H, and IL4/H.