Consultation Question 120

Object

Representation ID: 22

Received: 09/02/2021

Respondent: Mrs Katherine Dobkin

Houses to be built on vital green belt land. They will destroy natural habitats and the sites are prone to flooding which adversely affects local existing housing and residents.
Traffic increase on the already busy Wheatley road as well as reduction in green belt land and ecosystems will negatively affect air quality

Object

Representation ID: 31

Received: 09/02/2021

Respondent: Mrs Alexis Riley

Green belt is precious land which makes Ilkley what it is. The volume of proposed houses is excessive for requirements. The town centre, education and healthcare provision is already stretched. There are no details about how this will be supported in the summary document. It needs addressing with facts. Other brown field sites have been available in the past (e.g. Spooners factory site) which has been turned into retirement flats. Better decision making would result in less green belt destruction. The strategy is not water tight.

Object

Representation ID: 47

Received: 10/02/2021

Respondent: Service 2 (HVAC) Limited

Destroying green belt for houses that won’t meet the needs of the the town on the edge of Ilkley is a disgusting use of green belt.

No residents want it, and the infrastructure isn’t there to support it

Object

Representation ID: 53

Received: 10/02/2021

Respondent: Miss Lorna Nash

Ilkley needs it green space. The roads and schools can’t cope with more people

Support

Representation ID: 71

Received: 10/02/2021

Respondent: Mr Chris Clarke

New housing is needed to support growth / investment / future sustainability of the town etc.
You have identified, within the constraints of geography and many other limitations, what seems to be a sensible way of achieving this primary objective. Subject to you ensuring sufficient consideration of a) how to manage flooding risks (given proximity of the Wharfe to some sites) and potential impacts on other housing etc, and b) additional required infrastructure (including schools, healthcare etc) then you have my support. Thank you for undertaking what appears to be such a well considered and detailed exercise.

Object

Representation ID: 74

Received: 10/02/2021

Respondent: Mr Neil Pomfret

Move industry out of the town centre and build houses on brown field sites. Keep options for school relocation. Plan for climate change 100 year floods every 5-10 years....

Object

Representation ID: 76

Received: 11/02/2021

Respondent: James Ford

Building on greenbelt land is not consistent with the councils declaration of a climate emergency. We should be densifying not extensifying to meet these goals. The houses planned will be low density - building on Wheatley Close for example is steep land where high density will not be possible. There is plenty of small plots available for building in Ilkley: e.g. reducing the size of playing fields by 25% would still maintain their primary function; lots of spare space in low density suburbs with creative thinking (e.g. by reducing unused green sidings, space taken up by un-needed large road intersections).

Object

Representation ID: 121

Received: 13/02/2021

Respondent: Mr Thomas Lowe

My opposition is very specific and focuses on building houses on the Green Belt in and around Ilkley. Doing so will change the character of the town, which the Council acknowledges is a key part of the town's attraction. Building on the Green Belt is not aligned with the council's and country's commitment to achieving net zero and tackling climate change. At least some parts of the proposal involve building on areas that flood regularly, a situation which is expected to get worse over time owing to the irreversible parts of climate change.

Comment

Representation ID: 197

Received: 16/02/2021

Respondent: Mrs Susan Piper

I am concerned that the homes which will be built will not fulfil the type of housing required - enough expensive houses already. Lower cost housing is needed instead so maybe other sites would be better being considered.

Object

Representation ID: 202

Received: 16/02/2021

Respondent: Mrs Louise Harris

Area of outstanding beauty. Ilkley is a small town and the schools cannot support the increase in number of residents this would bring.

Object

Representation ID: 257

Received: 17/02/2021

Respondent: Mr Adrian Wheway

This proposed developments are too large. The size of the proposed developments will sacrifice a significant amount of green belt.
Some of the land on which housing will be developed is in a flood risk zone 1 area.
Secondary school provision in Ilkley is already stretched - with little capacity to cope with more residents.

The A65 often has traffic queuing throughout Ilkley - building more houses around the A65 will worsen the problem.

Object

Representation ID: 349

Received: 21/02/2021

Respondent: Mrs Lucy Roach

Given the number of brownfield sites available in the district, there is no justification to eat away at Ilkley's green belt. The plans will change the nature & character of Ilkley, Ben Rhydding & Burley-in-Wharfedale, destroying each area's unique nature & community. The strain of 300 new houses/families on an already full secondary school (on an unsuitable site for its size) & on medical provision, plus the increase in traffic that will follow, is indefensible.

Object

Representation ID: 452

Received: 25/02/2021

Respondent: Mr Alan Moody

1 Building on Green Belt before all other options have been exhausted is not acceptable or sustainable. If it’s not essential it should not happen.
2 Demand for houses in Ilkley will exceed supply for the foreseeable future and where do you stop? All that happens is prices will continue to rise making it unaffordable for many. Far better to concentrate on less affluent areas where economic benefits matter most.
3 Ilkley already suffers from excessive traffic and 300 more homes will generate even more demand for road and parking space and create undesirable environmental impact.

Object

Representation ID: 458

Received: 25/02/2021

Respondent: Mr Neil Collins

Bradford has a plentiful supply of brownfield sites that have not been developed.
In her judgement dated 8/6/2020 in Aireborough Neighbourhood Development Forum vs Leeds City Council, Mrs Justice Lieven found that it was wrong to leave Green Belt sites in a development plan solely because the Council wished to reduce the numbers around the district proportionately. Green belt should be removed from the plan and brownfield sites built on first.
This judgement is surely just as relevant to Bradford.
Our Prime Minister's "Build Build Build" announcement on 30/6/2020 said brownfield building would be made easier to protect Green Belt. This should be bourne in mind and our Green Belt not built on.

Object

Representation ID: 514

Received: 25/02/2021

Respondent: Colin Burn

I am concerned about the effects of the development of site IL/1 H upon the stated aim of promoting the well-being and positive experiences of living, working and visiting Ilkley. The irreversible allocation for housing of this greenbelt land will significantly alter the green, 'leafy' and 'semi-rural' feel which is so attractive to the many hundreds of walkers who use Ben Rhydding Drive as an attractive and rural route from the town up to the Burley end of the moor. Building development will push back the rural boundary of the moor, so attractive for runners, walkers and cyclists right up to the top of Ben Rhydding Drive and will completely destroy the current rural feel of this access route to Ilkley's most precious and most frequented amenity.

Object

Representation ID: 539

Received: 26/02/2021

Respondent: Professor Anthony Magee

300 houses, many to be built on greenbelt sites, is far too many for organic development of Ilkley. This represents something like at least a 5% increase in population, more if it is biased towards families with children. The town does not have the infrastructure capacity to cope with such an increase (schools, medical services). This is particularly worrying as the expansion is to be onto greenbelt land. This would be to the serious detriment of the local environment. It would cause a major increase in car traffic and pollution which is already a problem as Ilkley has only one major road through the town. Redevelopment of brown field sites should be strongly prioritised over greenbelt development.

Object

Representation ID: 593

Received: 01/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Nick Robinson

Ilkley is a sought after place to live because it is not over-developed and surrounded by green belt land. Ilkley does not need all these additional homes and does not have the capacity (schools, doctors) to accommodate them. As it is, a large number of new houses are being built in Ilkley each year that do not feature in your plan. I believe these are referred to as "windfall" developments. Your plans risk destroying what makes Ilkley so special. You risk linking Menston, Burley and Ilkley, creating an urban sprawl in Lower Wharfedale. There are many undeveloped brown field sites in Bradford. Bradford city does need more people to live and shop there so why not focus on those brown field sites and make Bradford City a vibrant place to live rather than destroying the green belt so that developers can make excessive profits on houses they build in Ilkley.

Support

Representation ID: 642

Received: 02/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Susan Eardley

One the whole, the objectives of the plan seem sensible, however I think the methods of delivery are flawed.

Flood management is a massive issue, yet you have failed to mention protecting riverside park, Denton road, the lido, Ben Rhydding sports field, Ben Rhydding gravel pits nature reserve. Despite claiming that these are essential natural areas for the area. You claim the importance of protecting green space, yet plan on destroying much of it.

Object

Representation ID: 766

Received: 05/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Peter Garland

Ilkley does not have the infrastructure to support 300 homes (5%)
All but 9 of the 314 homes are in the green belt - this would have a negative impact on openness and sprawl
The proposals will damage the character of the town and make the town less attractive to visitors
Ilkleys landscape is sensitive to change particularly the SSSI
The land is important for managing flood risk - development will increase risk elsewhere
Ilkley needs jobs not housing
Increased pressure on public transport, parking, school places and health services
River Wharfe and moorland is a site of wildlife importance- negative impacts if 300 homes built

Object

Representation ID: 844

Received: 06/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Hazel Lewis

Bradford Council's proposal to build on Green Belt land is unacceptable. There are no special circumstances that mean that this should be allowed, particularly when there are many brownfield sites available across the district.

Bradford Council are elected to work on behalf of the people of Bradford. The people of Bradford do not support the destruction of Green belt land. I object to this proposal.

Object

Representation ID: 964

Received: 08/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Iain McCaskey

I do not think that green belt should be used for housing. In the wider Bradford area, and in the conurbations particularly, there is substantial brown field that could be used to provide housing, but this would not be as profitable for the developers or council, but would help in the regeneration of these areas. The term "affordable" is relative when it comes to Ilkley as developers will charge a premium.
The town itself is thriving, with no need of additional residents to prop up local businesses. The same cannot be said of either Keighley or Bradford itself.
It is also inaccurate/dishonest to not count recent and ongoing housing developments in the town, of which there have been many, including sheltered accommodation, as part of the housing plan numbers.
Instead of protecting ecology as you state, you would destroy green belt countryside.

Object

Representation ID: 1011

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Maureen Smith

Building on green belt land in Ilkley destroys precious areas of habitat and aesthetics. There is no proven need to build so many houses in Ilkley. Some development but far less than what is proposed . Also building close to the River Wharfe is madness. Flooding is regular and increasing year on year

Object

Representation ID: 1044

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Mr John Muchlinski

For sites IL1/H, IL2/H and IL3/H - development is on green belt land. NO development should occur on green belt land in the district unless all opportunities to develop on brown field sites has been exhausted.

It is likely development in these areas would be of large, single family dwellings of high value. Alternatively development would likely be retirement accommodation which would further skew the age profile of residents in Ilkley and put additional strain on existing medical facilities. Neither of these categories is needed to improve the vitality and viability of Ilkley. Such development would have greater impact on the vitality and viability of other, less economically advantaged areas of the district.

The Ilkley area currently suffers from significant road congestion which the proposed developments would compound. The developments would also put additional pressure on other key community infrastructure (medical facilities, schools etc).

Object

Representation ID: 1169

Received: 18/02/2021

Respondent: Mr Alan Breese

Cumulative impact of further houses in the Wharfe valley
Use brownfield land in Bradford

Object

Representation ID: 1177

Received: 19/02/2021

Respondent: Mairead O Donnell

Loss of Green belt - merging of Ben Rhydding with Burley, Ilkley and Addingham
Utilise brownfield sites across the Bradford Dsitrict
Use of greenfield sites will not address impact of climate change
Flooding
Impact of more cars- congestion, unsuitable accesses
Impact on wildlife
Strain on infrastructure, schools, sewage

Object

Representation ID: 1246

Received: 11/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Carolyn Emerson

Protect the conservation/green belt.

Object

Representation ID: 1278

Received: 26/02/2021

Respondent: Aleksandra Despotova

Disagree with plan to build houses in Ilkley (Ben Rhydding) area
Green belt provides much needed outdoor greenspace and contact with wildlife

Object

Representation ID: 1298

Received: 11/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Michael Rayner

Why and how were the 300 houses determined? What number of these will be "affordable?" How will any "affordable houses be placed in In IL2/H and IL4/H? Surveys have shown over 60% of people are against new development on the grounds them being of poor quality, how will quality be determined? IL3/H is greenbelt on the gateway to the town with views of the world famous Cow and Calf rocks. This proposal will not protect this. Section 5.17.10 refers to town parking. The centre cannot cope now even with the recent changes. How will that be addressed? I cannot see reference to the Ashlands site are those houses included? It was a stated position by Bradford Council some time back that ribbon development would not take place along Coutance Way, this proposal goes against that. I totally object to green field development.

Object

Representation ID: 1409

Received: 13/03/2021

Respondent: Suzanne Holdsworth

Re: 5.17.20 and 5.17.21 - I disagree with the scale of the proposed new housing in Ilkley, i.e. 300 new units is an approximately 5% increase. My rationale - 1) There is no evidence to show that such levels of further growth are required to maintain the economy and support the provision of services and facilities in Ilkley. 2) Whilst the aspiration for 'affordable' housing is important for a thriving and diverse community, there is nothing in the plans to say what proportion will fall into this category, how affordability will be determined, and how it will be maintained. 3) There is nothing in the plans to say what infrastructure demands arise from such an increase in housing, and plans for how these will be delivered. In particular I am concerned about increased road traffic into and through an already congested town centre; increased requirements for school & medical facilities.

Object

Representation ID: 1437

Received: 13/03/2021

Respondent: Dr Geoffrey Cloke

To create 300 extra houses in Ilkley, without improving local transport and local facilities is a mistake. Ilkley already has insufficient parking to support commuters and the roads through the town are already overcrowded. 300 extra houses will be 300 extra cars.