IL4/H - Stockheld Road

Object

Representation ID: 7220

Received: 11/03/2021

Respondent: Rebecca Lee

The areas are in flood risk zones which if built on make the flooding problems in Ilkley worse.
The areas are places where numerous different species of wildlife are homed.
A big issue would be with the already maxed out high school places available to current residents of Ilkley, burley and Addingham - there wouldn't be enough places to accommodate all the additional children.

Object

Representation ID: 7224

Received: 10/03/2021

Respondent: Alan Strachan

Why are you planning to build houses on Green Belt in this area ?

The Government’s policy on protection for the Green Belt is set out in chapter 13 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in 2012, which clearly states the importance of Green Belt land and emphasises that when protecting the Green Belt, local authorities should maximise the use of suitable brownfield sites before considering changes to Green Belt boundaries. -I have attached a copy of the Government National Planning Policy Framework for your reference

The Brownfield Sites available in Bradford Council is huge and according to your website it states:

“The purpose of the register is to promote sites with unimplemented planning permission for residential development and to identify further opportunities where land is suitable for new homes in the District, to encourage re use of the land/buildings, stimulate regeneration and drive up housing delivery.”

There are NO Brownfield Sites in Ilkley.

Object

Representation ID: 7398

Received: 07/03/2021

Respondent: Nancy Moss

Land is vital to retain a good habitat for wildlife, and trees need to be protected and nurtured for universal benefit.
We are worried about potential flooding and drainage, and alarmed at the prospect of increased traffic with the attendant congestion and pollution.

Comment

Representation ID: 7426

Received: 07/03/2021

Respondent: Maureen Johnson

Site is also very close to the river. Any more housing in close proximity to a river which is renowned for the speed with which it rises and its history of flooding homes in the near vicinity seems to me to be asking for trouble.

Object

Representation ID: 8073

Received: 08/03/2021

Respondent: William James

1. The proposed site is on green belt land with no natural boundary to stop them expanding further in the future. This would put even more green belt land at risk on top of the currently proposed sites.
2. Brownfield sites should be developed ahead of removing green belt

Object

Representation ID: 8129

Received: 10/03/2021

Respondent: Joan Matthews

•Green Belt land is important for environment/well-being.
•Importance of green corridors for local wildlife.
•Brownfield sites available in wider Bradford should be used rather than green belt. Brownfield redevelopment can be of huge benefit to community. Green belt development is of no benefit to the local area.
•500 houses approved in Burley-in-Wharfedale will lead to encroachment into the countryside. The proposed developments will encroach further reducing the green belt/separation between Ilkley/Burley-in-Wharfedale.
•Additional homes lead to additional residents/cars. Concern for children walking to school from increased traffic.
•Ilkley Grammar already over-subscribed. School cannot expand on existing site. Some pupils from Ilkley will be unable to gain a place.
•Coutances Way/Manor Park Bends often underwater. Increased run-off from developments would increase flood risk/further exacerbate flooding.
•Existing sewage sites regularly overflowing their storm surge capacity and unable to cope with existing demand.

Object

Representation ID: 8181

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: CPRE West Yorkshire

We’ve not been able to visit the site ourselves, but concerns have been brought to our attention by local groups in Ilkley. In addition to the strategic level, we have identified the following sites which we believe to have an impact on the local area:
▪ IL1/H
▪ IL2/H
▪ IL3/H
As stated in our objection comments on policy SP5, proposed development within the Green Belt across the district shows a net density averaging around 26 dpha, well below the HO2 minimum of 35 dpha. These sites identified in Ilkley are lower still, with gross densities of 18.11, 16.95 and 20.92.
We also note that IL4/H, while not in the Green Belt, is also the subject of significant local concerns especially about flood risk.
We would suggest that the development needs of Ilkley need to be re-examined from the perspective of producing more compact development at significantly increased density, thereby improving walkability, having much-reduced landtake and allowing for real enhancements to green infrastructure and flood management.

Object

Representation ID: 8192

Received: 11/03/2021

Respondent: Mael Matthews

•Green Belt land is important for environment/well-being.
•Importance of green corridors for local wildlife.
•Brownfield sites available in wider Bradford should be used rather than green belt. Brownfield redevelopment can be of huge benefit to community. Green belt development is of no benefit to the local area.
•500 houses approved in Burley-in-Wharfedale will lead to encroachment into the countryside. The proposed developments will encroach further reducing the green belt/separation between Ilkley/Burley-in-Wharfedale.
•Additional homes lead to additional residents/cars. Concern for children walking to school from increased traffic.
•Ilkley Grammar already over-subscribed. School cannot expand on existing site. Some pupils from Ilkley will be unable to gain a place.
•Coutances Way/Manor Park Bends often underwater. Increased run-off from developments would increase flood risk/further exacerbate flooding.
•Existing sewage sites regularly overflowing their storm surge capacity and unable to cope with existing demand.
•Thorough environment impact study not undertaken.

Comment

Representation ID: 8198

Received: 11/03/2021

Respondent: Martin Smith

•IL4/H is a valuable open space for the church.

Object

Representation ID: 8428

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Stephen Clough

I would like to object and state that I am against all the proposed planning proposals for extra housing in Ilkley which have been suggested in the recent Bradford District Local Plan Consultation. My objections are based on my believe that the extra housing would have a detrimental effect on local schools there is not enough places at Ilkley Grammar School already the Doctors are over full appointments are at a premium on top of which the Bradford Council appear happy to overload the area when you can't get a bus direct to Bradford itself.

Comment

Representation ID: 8659

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: James Wood

The bottom of that land floods, Only an idiot would build here and no owner would get insurance

Support

Representation ID: 8906

Received: 21/04/2021

Respondent: Peter Balmforth

•Plans for IL2/H and IL4/H are more sensible.

Object

Representation ID: 8958

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Chris Johns

•Ilkley doesn’t need more housing. Local infrastructure cannot cope with additional dwellings and vehicles.
•Proposals will add significant additional traffic to Wheatley Lane which current backs up at busy times of the day.
•Proposals will alter the drainage of the area and add flooding pressures. Area already suffers from flooding due to proximity to the flood plain.
•Green Belt and greenfield sites should not be built on. There are numerous brownfield sites in Aire and Wharfe valleys which could be repurposed.
•Proposals will have a significant impact on the vista to Ilkley Moor, Cow and Calf Rocks and Burley from A65.
•No need for additional properties, areas proposed are inappropriate and will damage local environment and natural scenery.

Object

Representation ID: 9003

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Adam Irwin

•Ample brownfield sites available elsewhere in the region. No need to build on Green Belt land.
•Already allowed for a substantial and grotesque development in Burley, which will close the gap between Ilkley and Burley. Your plans for Ilkley will compound this urban sprawl, something that central government is against.
•There are practical issues that you seem to be ignoring. School capacity is already under strain and will not support the additional population.
•Traffic volumes are already far too high. The recent development in Burley will compound this as it is. Further developments in Ilkley will raise traffic volumes to an unacceptable level of congestion.
•The above point will compound existing issues with parking availability
The fact that Bradford Council will happily destroy green belt land in the face of climate change (and all the challenges that presents) is baffling. The fact it does so in an area that already faces significant infrastructure challenges, amounts to negligence.

Object

Representation ID: 9068

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: Tony Short

Moderate/major impact on the green belt without justification.
Impact on birds and wildlife.
Land collects rain water and run-off from the Moors.
Ilkley cut off by flooding, only access being moor road which is unsuited to large volumes of traffic.
Mitigation measures only disperse the excess water into the River Wharfe, causing flooding downstream.
Traffic congestion
Congestion will increase as lockdown eases, additional homes, compounded by housing developments in Burley in Wharfedale and North Yorkshire.
Toll Bridge crossing the river from the A65 over to Denton Road is pinch point, how will single lane bridge with weight restrictions and proximity to a busy traffic light controlled junction cope with the increase in traffic?
Impact of recently opened Garden Centre on traffic.
Impact on infrastructure.
Sewerage system (dysfunctional with raw effluent being pumped into River)
Schools oversubscribed.
Parking problems.
Impact on countryside.
Future years - further pressures to develop GB land

Object

Representation ID: 9205

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: Marion Garrod

Plans have been rushed, discriminate the elderly who may not have computer access.
Sites are more about raising revenue than sustainability. Use brownfield sites and derelict buildings in other towns.
Moderate/major impact on the green belt without justification.
Impact on birds and wildlife habitats
Sites keep us independent.
Land collects rain water and run-off from the Moors.
Ilkley cut off by flooding, only access being moor road which is unsuited to large volumes of traffic.
Mitigation measures only disperse the excess water into the River Wharfe, causing flooding downstream.
Traffic congestion
Safety concerns navigating the pavement under the railway bridge
Congestion will increase as lockdown eases and with additional homes
Sewerage system (dysfunctional with raw effluent being pumped into River)
Schools oversubscribed.
Parking problems.
Supermarkets are small, not enough parking won't be able to cope with extra demand for food
Doctors Surgery couldn't cope with extra patients
Ilkley’s unique character

Object

Representation ID: 9523

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Sarah Canelle

Impossible for developers to leave green belt land in a better state than beforehand.

Very heavy traffic, queues, congestion When this route Traffic diverts into Burley and the Moor Road in busy times, increasing pollution, changing feel of village and will lead to more accidents.

What infrastructure is being put in place?

Use disused mill buildings around Bradford for housing.

Protect Green Belt to maintain individual conurbations and stop urban sprawl.

EDUCATION Schools at capacity.

Proposals will change the character of the valley from villages within a green landscape to another suburb.

People who live here do so because of the fields and the good education facilities - Neither of these will exist in a few years time with potentially another 1600 cars on an already busy road and 1600 children trying to get into schools.

Object

Representation ID: 9628

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Tim Hills

•Will adequate infrastructure, both physical/service, be improved to deal with increase in population?
•GP services already under pressure. Only one dentist offering NHS treatment.
•Traffic/parking already at absurd levels. Town confined to narrow valley bisected by one major route.
•Adding extra vehicles will cause further problems.
•Education capacity in Ilkley is inadequate with some children travelling to Menston.
•Traffic will increase due to development. Only other route out of these sites is via the Wheatley Lane continuation of Bolling Road towards Valley Road or the traffic lights at the A65/Bolling Road junction.
• Bolling Road is a residential street. It suffers from speeding problems, congestion and parking problems. Traffic collisions occur at the intersection with Manley Road.
•Will drainage be able to cope with runoff from IL1/H and IL3/H?
•Both currently absorb and slow runoff from the moor, protecting the A65 lower down. Concreting the valley sides during a period of global warming is plain stupid.

Comment

Representation ID: 9954

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Alison Roberts

IL4/H has merit, loss of this greenfield is regrettable but it is bordered by other development on 3 sides. The only caveat here is that any proposed houses have adequate parking facilities so as not to exacerbate the congestion caused by visitor parking, school run parking particularly afternoons, parking for the Plant Nursey and of course users of Sacred Heart Church.
Site would have potential for affordable housing for the younger members of the community.

Housing should be aimed at the lower end of the market - starter homes where the profit margins are lower and less favourable to developers. Towns like Ilkley surrounded as they are by greenfield land require sensitive and sympathetic consideration which are perhaps less of an issue in more urban areas. Conservative use of land coupled with acknowledging a less profitable need for affordability and non vehicular dependent services and amenities are a starting point.

Object

Representation ID: 10012

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Alistar Hunter

Decisions should be made by residents of Ilkley before planning consent. It's against local democracy and the localism agenda for this decision to be made by Bradford Council.
The council wants more housing to increase its funding to invest in other geographic areas.
Erosion of green belt and the ecological agenda
Inconsistent with the Paris Agreement and the 2050 Net Zero targets.
Impact on Birds.
Insufficient infrastructure to support additional housing
Yorkshire Water Ilkley water treatment facilities discharging sewerage into river.
Schools are at capacity.
The healthcare/medical practices are at capacity.
Case for additional housing is unsupported.
The pandemic has freed up huge volumes of office space that can and will be converted to affordable residential property.
Consultation is driven by the legislative framework, no rationale to support the proposed development.
Development is in the financial interests of Bradford City Council, the developers and the land owners.

Comment

Representation ID: 10066

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.

Object

Representation ID: 10145

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Ken Whittington

Object against proposals for residential development of sites IL1/H, IL3/H & IL4/H.

IL1/H & IL3/H infringe the green belt and this is totally unnecessary as there is a need to develop brownfield sites prior to these. The number of houses being proposed will cause serious issues for the infrastructure of Ilkley (schools, health provision and traffic). The town suffers from traffic congestion and this will only add to the problem. Schools are already full.

It is important to keep green belt and concentrate on using up any brownfield sites that are available.

Development should be in keeping with the locality and schemes of this size are totally unsuitable.

Stockheld Road - any development adds to an already built up area where further houses are not needed. There are problems in this locality with parking and flooding at certain times. Another 9 houses will only add to this

Object

Representation ID: 10354

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Andrew Loy

Strongly oppose. Would be a severe detriment to the view around the Old Bridge and Riverside Gardens, and remove an attractive open green space. Detrimental to tourism and mental/physical health of residents due to the reduced green spaces. Removal of church car park would add to parking problems. Proposed houses would be susceptible to flooding due to proximity to the river. Given these problems, would not be worth going ahead for 9 houses. Doubt the site is large enough, given confusion over whether the car park would be included.

Would like to see agreement with the church to open the car park for public use. Could help to ease parking problems due to proximity to Riverside Gardens and All Saints Primary School, and is empty for the majority of the time. Would be a great boon for tourism, due to its proximity to Riverside Gardens and Old Bridge.

Object

Representation ID: 10507

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: 10521

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: 10569

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: 10927

Received: 04/05/2021

Respondent: Gary and Mary Williams

Number of people: 2

IL4/H is a good use of space within the town and we would support those.

Object

Representation ID: 10976

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.

Object

Representation ID: 10982

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Sue Hadfield

ILH/4 is a small site but it is in an important area of the town and I appreciate this area not being developed. It can be said this area is unattractive at the moment but surely the landowner could be incentivised to change this. I also object for 9 dwellings to be sited - this is a large number for such a small site.

Object

Representation ID: 10994

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Geoffrey & Valerie Naylor

We refer to the local development plan for 4 sites in Ilkley. In particular we wish to state our objection to the proposal for 9 dwellings in Stockeld Road. During week-ends, Bank Holidays, school holidays in both Bridge Lane and Stockeld Road (there is no H in Stockeld) the area is crammed with vehicles and pedestrians. We were always given to understand that the area is a conservation area. 9 houses would be an eyesore particularly being so close to the old packhorse bridge built in 1645. It would be sensible if someone from the Planning Department to visit the site at the times quoted to see for themselves that this development has not been given enough thought.