IL4/H - Stockheld Road

Object

Representation ID: 13400

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Paddy Hagan

My objections to the proposals are as follows:

IL4/H - destroys the character of this historic part of the town centre. The document announces Ilkley as a jewel in the crown. You can't the throw houses down and expect it to remain so - you are trying to have your cake and eat it.

Object

Representation ID: 13513

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Sue McClay

Detrimental impact on community.

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

The building of 314 homes will see the town being extended towards Burley and Addingham.

Detrimental to Ilkley’s uniqueness/attractiveness to tourism.

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

Congested Roads

Increased carbon emissions.

Increase pressures on rail services.

Station car parks inadequate.

The old packhorse bridge, at the bottom of Stockeld Road is of historical importance (Scheduled Monument). Its the starting point for Dales Way. Building modern properties on the current green field opposite the bridge will be out of character with this monument. This area floods, making the road impassable at times.

Protect green belt sites.

Destruction of land with trees with a preservation orders should not be allowed.

There are thousands of empty homes in the Bradford area and brown site land available. Alternative sites should be found.

Object

Representation ID: 13849

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: 13908

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.

Object

Representation ID: 13993

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: 14079

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: 14083

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: 14117

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: 15323

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: 15476

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: 15820

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: 16043

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Anna Ashelford

Object to the proposals to develop the sites:

1. Impact on landscape. 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: 16128

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: 16376

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Margaret Pack

Stockfield Road
1. There are too many houses on what was two tennis courts, together with the loss of green space.
2. As mentioned previously the serious problem of parking will be increased by the loss of some of the spaces on Stockfield Road. This will have an effect on the parking for Catholic Church Services, customers of Ilkley Moor Vaults, and customers of the nursery garden at the Old Bridge. This will also put pressure on parking in Stockfield Way, which is limited.

Object

Representation ID: 16418

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Dr M J Seymour

IL4/H Stockeld Road
This open space is in the conservation area and only very sensitive development, if any, should take place so close to the Old Bridge which is a scheduled ancient monument. This site is close to the known Roman crossing place over the Wharfe so there could be archaeology to take into account.”

Object

Representation ID: 16529

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.

Object

Representation ID: 16601

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: 16603

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: 16830

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.

• IL4/H – excellent idea. A dead piece of ground that isn’t used.

• 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: 16976

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs J A Whitehouse

You can't seriously consider building here right on the river by the Old Bridge, always very busy with locals and visitors alike. From the river there is a marvellous view back over the towering Ilkley Moor heights which would be lost for ever.

Object

Representation ID: 16995

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: 17005

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Paul Smith

1) I fully oppose the proposal to develop at Stockheld Road (ref IL4/H), this is a particularly scenic part of the town near the old bridge and any development would adversely affect the whole nature of this area. It also only adds a meagre 9 dwellings to the plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 17140

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.

Comment

Representation ID: 17144

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: W & M Shaw

Number of people: 2

A small site if car park excluded. Owned by Catholic Church which may want money to use in projects abroad.

Support

Representation ID: 17454

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.

Support

Representation ID: 17539

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Adam White

Four areas of land are allocated for housing in the draft plan (IL 1-4/H).

Of these, the last and smallest, the proposed allocation on Stockeld Road (IL 4/H), seems to me to be perfectly acceptable, indeed desirable, provided that housing of an appropriate appearance and character is built there (it lies within a Conservation Area). The land is not used at the moment for any discernible purpose and currently has no amenity value.

Object

Representation ID: 17988

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: 18020

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: 18072

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.
IL4/H – Stockheld Road
Density – proposed 39 dwellings per hectare in an urban area such as this is at the upper end of the national average, and it does seem an over-development in relation to existing adjacent dwellings.
Location – the proposal in principle would be ok were it not for its density noted above. This seems to go against the grain of a council that puts much effort into preserving the integrity of townscapes such as Ilkley, and seeks to avoid repeating of poor planning mistakes made in the past.

Object

Representation ID: 18131

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.