IL4/H - Stockheld Road

Object

Representation ID: 11034

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

Comment

Representation ID: 11219

Received: 11/03/2021

Respondent: Sir Rodney Brooke

Bradford has a supply of available building sites, many polluted. These brownfield sites should be developed.

Shouldn't allow development of commuter houses in the Wharfe Valley green belt because it is cheaper option.

Preserve the green belt.

NPPF favours the use of brownfield sites.

Development of green belt shouldn't be allowed when sites are available elsewhere.

The types of houses most attractive to developers, which would be constructed if planning consent were available, are not those for which there are greatest need.

Development would provide over-spill housing for Leeds commuters.

Infrastructure - schools and sewerage, is already under great strain.

Impact on 18th century bridge, a scheduled ancient monument, and focal point for tourists, visitors to Ilkley and Riverside Gardens.

Loss of open space in conservation area, would remove pleasant atmosphere of the area. Development would ruin local environment. It is a key visitor attraction which contributes to the local economy.

Development would ruin the local environment.

Object

Representation ID: 11351

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: 11388

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Andrew Munro

I have no objection to IL4/H

Object

Representation ID: 11507

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Darren Walker

Objection to IL4/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: 11542

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: 11594

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: 11609

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: 11622

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: 11653

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: 11705

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.

Stockeld Rd site is liable to flooding - flooding problems will worsen.

Comment

Representation ID: 11744

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs A. Gray

This is already a built up area and the existing church and its land provides a haven of breathing space in the beautiful historic 'Old Bridge' area of Ilkley. This beauty spot attracts many visitors and more housing would alter the peaceful ambience.

An alternative plan might be to convert the area to low level parking to help with the chronic parking problems for this popular tourist spot.

Comment

Representation ID: 11776

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.
•I do not object to the development of IL4/H which is currently a green field but is not on the edge of town and is not contiguous with a green belt area and is currently surrounded by housing.

Support

Representation ID: 11806

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Mr David Anderson

Is this going to be a low level apartment block? If so get it built but consider underground parking.

Object

Representation ID: 11812

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: 11842

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: 12000

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: 12095

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: 12101

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.

Object

Representation ID: 12289

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.

Object

Representation ID: 12350

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: 12527

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: 12546

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?

Support

Representation ID: 12664

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 9 dwellings on Stockeld Road are a good infill on land that is of low amenity value within the town border.

Comment

Representation ID: 12809

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Will & Kerry Stoker

An infill site. No objections to this but hope the buildings will be in keeping with the terraced houses adjacent. Not another block of flats please!! (the new houses next to the Manor House are good)

Support

Representation ID: 12820

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Bob .

IL4H Stockeld Road. Acceptable in using lightly used car park belonging to the nearby church.

Object

Representation ID: 12840

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: 12903

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.

Comment

Representation ID: 12909

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Margaret Scott

I have no objections to seeing houses built here as it is within the town and not used for agriculture.

Object

Representation ID: 13355

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Keith Ansell

Number of people: 2

We are against this development going ahead as it would destroy an important corner of Ilkleys character.

1: This is a conservation area and therefore should remain free of any housing developments.

2: Bridge Lane is classed as a Flood Zone 1 and 2 and currently accumulates heavy standing water.

3: The Historic Old Bridge is a popular beauty spot which attracts heavy traffic/footfall which causes congested parking along Stockheld Road /Bridge Lane.

4: Parents park their cars down Stockheld Road before picking up their children from All Saints School, more traffic would be a safety risk for parents and children.

5: The area concerned would be more suited to be developed as a recreational area ie: adding extra car parking ( car park already in situ ) plus seating and green area. This would be a suitable viewing area of the iconic Old Bridge site.