Consultation Question 120

Object

Representation ID: 1459

Received: 13/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Paul Smith

The proposed development on Coutances Way is on green belt. It has been designated green belt for a reason, so to override that at a time when the environment is so important is simply reckless. This is exacerbated by the huge development at the other end of the green belt at Burley-in-Wharfedale. In addition, there is no plan relating to the infrastructure, including traffic control, school and healthcare capacity.

Object

Representation ID: 1473

Received: 13/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Jamie Swinstead

You are killing our planet by eating into our greenbelt. You are eroding the charm of our town by taking away its natural, beautiful surrounds.

Our infrastructure is struggling. Growing the town with more houses for more people is not the answer.

Object

Representation ID: 1479

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Flora Raby

I object to the proposed plans for Ilkley. I believe that with the proposed locations and the number of dwellings that the town will not be able to manage a massive increase to the population size. Schools, shops and GP Surgeries are all very full and will not handle a larger population. Locations 1 & 3 will have a huge impact on traffic flow as well as the businesses of the roads and I think it will cause delayed and increased traffic flow in Ben Rhydding. Location 2 will have a similar effect as due to positioning there will be increased traffic on the other side of the town on a narrow and busy corner.

Object

Representation ID: 1540

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Francis Tindall

Before hundreds of more house are built in the area there needs to be more infrastructure and better roads. Will the plan provide more doctors. schools, pharmacies, shops etc?
Before building on green belt consider reestablishing brown field site of which there are many in the Bradord district, although more costly better in the future. It also is better for the environment.
Don't spoil Ilkley, think again

Object

Representation ID: 1553

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Mr John Bray

Development IL1/H and IL3/H allow for 285 new dwellings. There is no mention of extra provision for school places or medical services in the document. The parking situation in Ilkley is poor now and yet the document states this will be improved. How? The increased population to the east of the town will result in considerably more traffic movement along the routes into town resulting in more congestion and inconvenience for residents. Development IL3/H is on land which is frequently very wet and likely to be flooded. Development of 130 dwellings at IL1/H will dramatically alter the character of this area.
IL2/H is reasonable as it develops what has been an eye-sore for many years.
IL4/H would be regrettable as it would turn what is now a pleasant open aspect towards the park/river area to a more 'built-up' feel.

Object

Representation ID: 1554

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Paul Davies

Ilkley is victim of poor planning decisions from the past which have negatively impacted on capacity for population expansion. For example, the absence of sufficient parking provision at Ilkley station when land was available. There is also inadequate parking at Ben Rhydding station. The town is overdeveloped with excessive in-filling and tandem development. Any significant increase in local housing will overwhelm the town Centre and local roads. The A65 is at maximum capacity. The rosy and prosperous description of Ilkley in the document does not make reference to the grossly inadequate provision of basic visitor facilities such as public toilets, and riverside parking. . Roads and pavements are falling apart. There is a poorly designed residents' parking scheme. The is insufficient provision of NHS dental care. Any growth in housing must be matched with additional investment to address these matters. Section 106 agreements alone are unlikely to be sufficient.

Object

Representation ID: 1645

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Alexander Grant

Development should not take place on greenfield sites (otherwise what is the point of designating such areas?) Prioritisation should be given to the redevelopment of brown field/ light industrial area that would otherwise blight/ not contribute towards the delivery of the local plan (housing) goals.

Object

Representation ID: 1660

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Connie Bedworth

Green belt land should not be built on if climate emergency is to be tackled and health of future generations protected. Building at Ben Rhydding would increase water flowing from moor, through golf club and exacerbate flooding on A65. Ancient woodland needs to be preserved and nature protected. Road access problematic : Wheatley Grove narrow, single lane under railway bridge, junctions with Springs Lane and Valley Drive dangerous.
Stockheld Road site is opposite historic packhorse bridge and the area often floods.
Extra dwellings will have impact on utilities . Sewerage infrastructure in Ilkley is insufficient currently and certainly will not be enough for another 314 dwellings.
Brownfield sites should be prioritised.

Object

Representation ID: 1701

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Jonathan Procter

Building on Green Belt land is in contravention to the Government’s aims and objectives.
The NPPF demands that there should be “exceptional circumstances” before Green Belt boundaries can be changed and states that inappropriate development is harmful to the Green Belt and should be approved only in “very special circumstances”. These circumstances do not apply here. BDMC has not shown that Ilkley's housing needs warrant releasing greenbelt land in accordance with the NPPF requirements , nor that it has considered appropriate alternatatives . Ilkley is a cash cow for BDMC and is yet again being milked for the benefit of other districts . It is an tourist spot because of its green belt surroundings , and BDMC's proposals will damage this and promote a dangerous precedent

Object

Representation ID: 1733

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Paul Stephens

The Ilkley Local Area Strategy should use the same structure and objectives as the Ilkley Neighbourhood Development Plan. This will make it much easier to see how the 2 plans fit together and avoid potential arguements about the meaning of slightly different wording. This will also mean greater clarity as regards the link between policy and delivery.

Object

Representation ID: 1741

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Jessica Guilding

You have stated the greenbelt provides little room for growth or expansion within Ilkley and it concerns me that despite recognising the local economy relies heavily on tourism and visits due to it's history and green spaces you appear willing to reduce the green spaces significantly in order to build more houses. Green belt's were developed to protect the famed English countryside and to preserve the ability of individuals working in the city the opportunity to spend time in nature to improve both their mental and physical health. Your proposed plan to enforce housing developments on green belt does not appear to take into consideration the need to preserve green belt for both the wildlife and those living in surrounding areas who benefit from using these green spaces to improve their wellbeing.

Object

Representation ID: 1790

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Alan Chandler

Rail services are already full at peak commuting time and current access to Ilkley by road has long tailbacks at peak times.
Additional "affordable" housing requires additional employment and schools.
Inadequate provision of schools in plan. Existing secondary school has little room for more expansion.
No emergency medical facilities in Ilkley.
No justification for permanent destruction of Green Belt land.
Ilkley is a "principal town" in name only.

Object

Representation ID: 1792

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Terence Hainsworth

The proposed developments in Ben Rhydding of 285 dwellings will be using green belt land, which provides great benefits to the local population in terms of their physical and mental well-being. Friends coming to Ben Rhydding by train have often remarked how beautiful the approach to the station is. Should the development plans be passed, they will henceforth be looking at housing estates on both sides instead.
A further 285 dwellings will also mean a minimum of at least 285 cars and god knows how many more children, putting intolerable pressures on the local schools and on the road network through Ilkley, which already matches Otley as a traffic bottleneck.
Having thoroughly enjoyed living in Ben Rhydding for the past 20 years I can tell you that my wife and I are both horrified at the prospect of our beautiful area becoming just another rat- run suburb.

Support

Representation ID: 1794

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Mike Daw

Mostly, I support these measures. However, I am concerned about the commitment to “improve [car] parking provision” in Ilkley. I believe that this is not sustainable and should not be taken to mean “increase car parking provision”. Wherever possible, there should be increased provision for alternatives to the use of private cars, for example through the use of car clubs, electric cargo bike sharing schemes, prioritising means of active travel, and public transport.

Support

Representation ID: 1861

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Paul O'Looney

We need affordable dwellings in Ilkley

Object

Representation ID: 1889

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Alistar Hunter

1. Erosion of the green belt on sustainability grounds - loss of habitat, with several sites used by swans, ducks, red kites.
2. Water Pollution - there are already unacceptable releases of raw sewerage into the Wharfe in Ilkley - this will exacerbate the situation.
3. Congestion & Air Pollution - the local roads are already congested. The location of the all the larger sites will require cars for residents.
4. Healthcare - already very stretched at the medical practices; and there is no national health service available for dentists
5. Infrastructure - not enough schools etc.
6. Ilkley does not need more tourist traffic.
7. No one (beyond the developer, council, land owner) in the town wants this development - so your reasons for doing this entirely disregard local opinion. Carry out a survey of the existing households if in doubt.

Object

Representation ID: 1890

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Alex Raistrick

There is a significant lack of school places in Ilkley. Transport is generally overloaded, both road and rail. The land that sits to the east of Ben Rhydding would be better used to expand Ilkley Grammar school. The addition of 285 homes to the easy of Ilkley would introduce over 300 vehicles. Traffic is already an issue at the junction of Wheatley road and the A65. Overall, the town does not have capacity for this number of new homes.

Object

Representation ID: 1964

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Helen Miller

Objections to development in Ilkley include:
1. It is on Green Belt land;
2. The need for these houses has not been evidenced;
3. Will not be the type of housing Bradford needs;
4. Congestion and parking problems;
5. Will not be affordable housing;
6. Infrastructure lacking;
7. Loss of neighbourhood amenity and huge visual impact;
8. Access to Wheatley Grove and particularly site IL1/H is very limited.
See attached.

Support

Representation ID: 1997

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Sarah Haines

I am very pleased to find mention of the Wharfedale Greenway, a superb way to increase levels of activity and decrease car use. Please prioritise.
I am not sure we need 300 new dwellings especially if they are placed on Greenbelt land. Once that green space has gone, it has gone. In terms of serious climate change mitigation we need to be planting trees here not houses.

Object

Representation ID: 2034

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Janet Wilkinson

I support the development of Coutances Way (nothing special about the field), Skipton Road & Stockheld Road (need improving). I object to the development of Ben Rhydding Drive. This is a beautiful field, with a lovely copse (with TPOs) and should be protected if at all possible. There will also be an unacceptable increase in traffic levels, pinch point at the railway bridge, and huge disruption due to site traffic, all likely to have an impact on safety. What is the likely impact on IGS?

Object

Representation ID: 2055

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Simon Muncaster

Ilkley Local Area Plan. The plan to build 314 dwellings and not increase school places or medical facilities is unsustainable. No doubt these will be 2/3/4 bedroom townhouses, so allowing for anywhere between 2-6 people, or even more. The schools are already oversubscribed. These new dwellings could easily provide for another 600-1000 children. Where are they supposed to go to school? It was short sighted to close Ilkley Middle School, which could have catered for hundreds of children. There is now little capacity for an increase in the size of Ilkley Grammar School, or any of the local primary schools. Likewise with the medical facilities. Can the local doctors, dentists and pharmacies cope with the increase in numbers? Unlikely. As for the roads they are already congested. Another 400 cars buzzing around Ben Rhydding will not be a pretty sight and totally unsustainable.

Object

Representation ID: 2090

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Debra Comer

This proposal is an abomination and should not be allowed to go ahead. The provision of this many new houses in such a small area will do nothing to enhance the overall quality of life in Ilkley.

Object

Representation ID: 2095

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Gareth SAmuel

All sites will be built on green belt land. This is completely unacceptable and will change the nature of the town. There is also insufficient infrastructure for the existing population so adding in 300+ more houses will cause major issues.

Object

Representation ID: 2144

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Elizabeth Marjoram

• The presumption remains that brownfield sites will be used before green belt. Two of the sites are very important green belt spaces
• There is an abundance of brownfield sites within the Bradford city area.
• Further, if green belt were to be developed, where will the ‘compensation’ come from, certainly not from within Ilkley’s boundaries.
Development of the sites is acknowledged to have a MAJOR negative impact on purpose 3 of the NPPF GB policy “To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment”. This alone should be enough to rule two sites out for development Coutances Way and Ben Rhydding Drive/ Wheatley Grove.
No protection of the ecology- both green field sites have a number of ancient trees are protected by TPOs, blue bell woods, a huge number of wildflower species and curlews use the sites as a feeding area in Spring.

Support

Representation ID: 2201

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Jessica Robinson

Ilkley needs more housing. The three sites in the proposal all present technical challenges, but ultimately they can all provide much needed housing for the local community. The local opposition seems focused on NIMBY related issues and appear to come from residents that already own their own homes. Clearly work needs to be done to resolve concerns around issues such as flooding but, ultimately, if these can be managed then it makes perfect sense to build on these sites (all three of them). The important thing to me is that the housing is of high quality.

Object

Representation ID: 2280

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Paula Smith

School places - primary and secondary schools are already struggling to provide the space required to teach the local community. Rail service - is already inadequate. Traffic within the town, entering and exiting is already high with queues and delays at peak times and throughout the holiday season.

Object

Representation ID: 2306

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Veronica Driver

Objection. I do not believe that Ilkley can sustain any further development. The local strategy plan says that it aims to deliver over 300 homes, whilst also stating that it wishes to support tourism, provide better transport links and parking, support natural flood risk management and protect open spaces, increase allotments and parks where possible and enhance green infrastructure corridors, ecology etc. These objectives cannot be met with the building of 300 new homes; they are mutually exclusive. It is also unclear whether the extra facilities mentioned will just provide for the new homes, and not anything actually additional for Ilkley as it stands today. The town would not be able to cope with any additional traffic, and the area already suffers from pressure on school and nursery places. Ilkley Grammar School is at full capacity and over subscribed. Has secondary education been considered? These areas are subject to flooding.

Object

Representation ID: 2308

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Veronica Driver

Ilkley cannot cope with this level of housebuilding and the proposed rise in its population with regard to access to the basics such as education and healthcare. Ilkley is a beautiful town to live in, especially with its feeling of openness which will be affected if these developments were to go ahead. Access to the town from these areas would most likely involved a car journey, which would put more pressure on the road and parking systems which are already stressed.

Object

Representation ID: 2449

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Michael Baldwin

I accept the need for more housing across Bradford and 150-300 homes for Ilkley seems fair. Housing development in Ilkley should prioritise affordable and social homes which are needed here.

But, I would prefer that windfall development, very common in Ilkley, is considered more in the plans. Its likely hundreds of homes will be built via windfall in Ilkley over the next 10 years, especially larger homes replaced by multiple smaller homes. So greenbelt allocations and extension of the town boundary may not be required to obtain 300 extra homes.

Any housing growth (including windfall) must be manageable within the town’s infrastructure, especially school places and sewage treatment, which may not be physically expandable even if funding is available.

New housing should preferably be within the existing town boundary to reduce traffic congestion and car dependency. This is one of my main concerns affecting my response on each site.

Object

Representation ID: 2515

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Dudley Feather

I feel that the proposals IL1/H and IL3/H are too high density.
IL4/H is too near the Old Bridge monument and will damage the character of the area
IL2/H is supported with fewer dwellings