Consultation Question 120

Object

Representation ID: 2544

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Victor Brown

The strategy is contradictory, stating the intention to "Continue to protect important areas of open spaces" whilst also proposing the development of, not "limited" but, significant areas of Green Belt. The strategy goes on to state that releases will be in "sustainable locations". No development or Green Belt can ever be considered sustainable and the use of such phrase by BMDC in this context is abhorrent. Likewise, I cannot fathom how development of Green Belt areas to the east of the town will "Protect and enhance key green infrastructure corridors, ecology and habitat networks". Instead, fields that are used year round by wildfowl, insects, deer, etc will be destroyed for ever. Once Green Belt is developed, it is gone and cannot be made "sustainable".

This strategy provides little benefit to the existing residents of Ilkley and will take away areas precious to many if approved.

Support

Representation ID: 2646

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Martin Nash

Great concern over quality of housing and housing densities well below the 35 dwellings per hectare.

Object

Representation ID: 2661

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Neil Matthews

Scale of proposed developments will damage the character of the town and its 'tourist draw'. Important in this is the increase in the physical size of the town, the impact on the surrounding (beautiful) landscape and access to this by those within the town, access both by walking and by sight
Permanently destroys green spaces with corresponding damage to the environment
Unclear how public infrastructure which are already overstretched will be enhanced to meet the needs of new residents, my expectation is that all of these will be degraded - transport links, schools, parks, allotments, medical facilities, parking
Homes may be small but will not be 'affordable', further they will bring in more people and end up driving up prices of larger homes, leading to further development pressures (infill)

Object

Representation ID: 2676

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Susannah Lawless

I object to the proposed building on the Town's Green Belt on the grounds of the negative impacts the developments will have on: local biodiversity, flood risk, air quality, infrastructure (in particular in relation to the impacts the developments will have on the already overburdened road and school infrastructure. E.G. outside of lockdown, the A65 is regularly grid locked), openness and character of the town. I also object to the unreasonable nature in which this consultation has been conducted - the inappropriate timing and online nature of the consultation during a national lockdown has excluded many families from responding either due to lack of access to the online portal or as a result of the immense pressure that families are under due to the ongoing pandemic.

Object

Representation ID: 2684

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Adam Scott

In summary therefore I am concerned at the detrimental effect on residents of the area who use Ben Rydding Drive as their pathway into town as well as the loss of further green belt land to ongoing urban sprawl; I try to use the local bus/train services now that I am retired and am concerned about pressure on these routes/stations as well as the stability of the very railway line itself due to run off water from the moors above; I believe that the increased 'hard standing' linked to modern housing can only exacerbate the problem?
I am worried too about over-subscription of local schools and medical services, as well as threat to local wildlife amongst which I have discovered still includes wild deer up towards the golf course as well curlews and the owls I hear at night.
This proposal was poorly communicated to local residents such as myself.

Object

Representation ID: 2780

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Jack Hanson

My main objection is to the proposed development of new homes in a town that has no demonstrable need for them. Ilkley is overcrowded - traffic and parking are often a nightmare, the trains are overcrowded during rush hours, children already struggle to secure places at local schools, and tourism is booming. If sustainability, climate mitigation, flood risk management, and wildlife, habitat, and green space protection and enhancement are key concerns, building new houses is entirely contradictory to this aim. Development will increase flooding, destroy green corridors for deer and other wildlife, increase traffic, and further increase the burden on schools, local services, transport links, facilities, and parking provisions which are already under strain. Ilkley green belt categorically should not be developed when there is clearly no need and many negative impacts, especially when there are plenty of usable brown belt sites in Bradford and the surrounding area.

Object

Representation ID: 2804

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Owen Higgs

The problems are numerous but the basic tenet is that the infra structure of Ilkley is creaking already and can't/won't cope with greater demand.
- Primary Schools are oversubscribed and bursting at the seams
- as are the medical practices
- There is no improvement to provision for NHS dentistry
- Parking is already a major issue in Ilkley
- Traffic is already a major problem
The provision of 300 more houses will only make these issues worse and until they are addressed then further housing is crazy.
Also the land proposed is GREEN BELT. does this not mean anything any more

Object

Representation ID: 2823

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Agnieszka Stachura

I am objecting the delivery of residential development of proposed dwellings, most of them within Green Belt location. The scale of the project will disturb the unique character of the green touristic town, part of the National Character Area. It's infrastructure is not ready to accommodate additional 1000 citizens requiring access to parking space, transport, health services and schooling.

Instead of saying that Ilkley is heavily constrained by the Green Belt, you should see this as a unique opportunity for sustaining biodiversity and eco-projects providing a respite for residents of Bradford Council and the opportunity for further development of tourism and services.

Scenic and sensitive natural landscape surrounding Ilkley is what makes this place so desirable and unique. Undisturbed beauty of Ilkley Green Belt should be developed into a network of accessible public paths to make nature more valued and accessible, with new playgrounds, campsites or hotels supporting local economy.

Object

Representation ID: 2899

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Margaret Guntrip

No budget provision for infrastructure including education, healthcare, roads, sewage. Traffic concerns. Locations aren’t suitable. They’re well used green spaces.

Object

Representation ID: 2976

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Elizabeth Williams

i) green space for recreation, especially for children, is already lacking. This proposal exacerbates that problem ii) local wildlife will be affected iii) lack of infrastructure that keeps up with development pace, particularly schools iv) exacerbation of already congested traffic with only solutions apparently to expand road network (more degradation of green space, reduce air quality) v) no consideration of the social and economic changes post Covid-19 (plan built on out of date assumptions) vi) Census 2021 data not taken into account vii) no alignment with UN Sustainable Development Goals, new/green economy, climate emergency and climate resilience, biodiversity etc viii) no consideration of local character. This plan degrades what is in place and promises no real quality of life for those it purports to house.

Object

Representation ID: 2982

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Michael Waterhouse

I strongly object to the building of houses on green belt land. Particularly the Wheatley Grove site.

Object

Representation ID: 3096

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Catherine Morgans

The proposed plans 97% of which are on green belt will destroy land which is critical to wildlife and one of the key factors that makes the ilkley area attractive to residents and visitors. I do not understand why a number of available brownfield sites are not being utilised instead as these would have significantly less environmental impact. The significant increase in dwellings and therefore people and cars will place considerable pressure on the existing infrastructure including roads and schools which are already full. There is also increased flood risk in the area and removing the natural environment will further erode the flood defences it provides and be likely to exasperate the issues.

Object

Representation ID: 3175

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Alan Wilcock

The proposals for the Ilkley area will lead to:
• Loss of green belt land forever and the degradation of the landscape
• Increased likelihood of flood events, road closures and sewer discharges
• More car journeys locally and for schools, greater road congestion on the A65

Bradford Council promotes “A sustainable greener district” but these proposals are neither green in nature nor sustainable. It says the Wharfedale Plan recognises the importance of landscape and Green Belt, which is difficult to understand. For a sustainable green agenda it must remove these green belt developments.

Proposals for Ilkley are almost entirely on existing Green Belt land (97%) and in Ben Rhydding, inappropriate given Bradford’s overall proposals for land use. Continue with infill.

Ilkley Grammar is at capacity. With other developments (Addingham, Burley and Middleton) where do additional pupil go to? Travel out of the area, creating additional traffic!

Support

Representation ID: 3193

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Paul Bunting

In supporting the key objectives for Ilkley, I wish to emphasise:
a) the need for provision of a significant number of affordable homes given the already 'distorted' market;
b) given the A65's heavy traffic flows there is critical need for provision of environmentally sustainable transport connections with neighbouring settlements and further afield, including a radical shift away from the private car by providing high quality alternatives, in terms of comfort (including outside waiting facilities) and frequency of public transport and by active discouragement of car usage in the town centre.
c) the excellent but incomplete Wharfedale Greenway plan needs to be central to the Local Plan and funded by central government as part of its road strategy in relation to the overcrowded A65, and implementation integrated into approval of housing developments.
This is critical to realising both the District and Local Plan sustainability and environmental objectives.

Object

Representation ID: 3222

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Dave Walker

Get lost with your 300 houses. We don't want them

Object

Representation ID: 3259

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Janet Wilkes

The extra housing proposed in Ilkley, Ben Rhydding and Burley-in-Wharfedale will place further burden on the A65 which is the only route through Ilkley and is already a very busy bottleneck. It is not clear in the Plan how this will be addressed.
I also have a concern from a conservation perspective at the proposed destruction of natural habitats on land currently protected as Greenbelt.

Object

Representation ID: 3331

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Chris Short

1. Ilkley currently has no infrastructure to support the addition of these dwellings. The local Doctors’ surgeries are currently overwhelmed by new dwellings recently completed, this before the outbreak of COVID-19. Prescriptions, for example, take five days’ notice whereas only a couple of years ago it was three and this is also reflected in waiting times to see a doctor. 2. Two of these proposals are close to the A65 at both the east and west edges of Ilkley and this road will plainly be affected with road works for the utilities. As was demonstrated with the recent problems at Kex Ghyll on the A59, the A65 is not able to cope with hold-ups at peak times. 3. What proof is there that local schools can cope. 314 dwellings must mean that around 1,000 people will be introduced to the area along with their children and cars.

Support

Representation ID: 3594

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Janet Leach

Partial and qualified support.
I'm impressed that some of these sites have been found - I didn't think there was any room for more housebuilding in Ilkley
Ilkley needs to play its part in increasing the housing availability in the Bradford District.
There needs to be a significant proportion of affordable housing - there are enough expensive properties already.
The impact on Ilkley Grammar School is likely to be an issue which will have to be resolved.

Object

Representation ID: 3648

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Alison Weston

1. A large percentage of the proposed new housing in Ilkley will be on Green Belt area - not 'limited green belt' as quoted in the plan.
2. Due to the increased number of people from 300 new dwellings local services and facilities will be over-stretched rather than 'supported and sustained' - especially health centres and schools. Capacity and provision will be vastly reduced. (5.17.20)
3. Surrounding open country side and green fields will be taken away in the plan which is a large part of the attraction of Ilkley to tourists. The plan will not improve or protect open spaces or support the tourist draw of the town.
4. Significant increase in number and use of cars to access Ilkley amenities causing traffic congestion and reduced highway safety, particularly for children going to/from school
5. Trees will definitely be lost and nature/biodiversity adversely affected

Object

Representation ID: 3733

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Rebecca Malby

1. The housing provision along with the houses planned in Addingham all feed into the Ilkley Sewage System which is over capacity, spilling raw sewage into the Wharfe 141 times in 2019. The only solution would be that all run off has to be dealt with on site and none must go into the sewage system. The new garden centre was supposed to do this, doesn't and there are no penalties.
2. Ilkley Grammar School - there is already a fight for places from local people. The school does not have the capacity to expand to the Ilkley and Addingham new home families.
3. Medical practices - the local GPs also need provision
4. Green Belt - Green Belt is there to prevent urban growth. It is possible to achieve the aims of the plan with a commute from a brown belt development.

Object

Representation ID: 3767

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Andrew Lund

Ilkley has delivered 414 housing units since 2013 without any significant Green Belt (GB) use and continues to deliver around 25 units each year from windfall which the Council chooses to disregard. The strategy for 300 homes during the plan period can, therefore be met without any GB release and the reference to GB releases should, therefore, be deleted from the Local Area Strategy and Plan.
I support all other features of the strategy but note that the Council are proposing Policies elsewhere which conflict with the strategic objectives relating to important areas of open spaces, green infrastructure corridors, ecology and habitat networks.

Object

Representation ID: 3842

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Richard and Jennifer Rundle

• Within the CBMDC area there are, no doubt, many Brownfield sites. These should always be used first. This comment is not specifically directed towards use of Green Belt sites in Ilkley, but nationally.
• We wonder what CBMDC's motive is in proposing so many sites within Green Belts, whether Ilkley or the many other areas within CBMDC.

Object

Representation ID: 3862

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Richard and Jennifer Rundle

As an aside comment on the Local Plan, there are MANY spelling mistakes just on the documents that relate to Ilkley. Presumably there will be on documents relating to other areas within CBMDC too. One might question whether it has been prepared in haste and with lack of care in other spheres too.

Object

Representation ID: 3886

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Mary Fowler

Will desecrate beautiful countryside and alter the character and entry to the town. Huge amount of extra traffic and pressure on schools and services

Object

Representation ID: 3977

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Katherine Josling

Ben Rhydding Drive plan concerns: increased volume of traffic on Bolling Road. Exacerbating traffic safety issues at Ben Rhydding Drive/Bolling Road/Wheatley Lane junction. Pressure on school places. Inadequate station parking facilities in Ben Rhydding. Destruction of green belt land and trees with TPOs. Potential issues with flooding and inadequate drainage on surrounding land. Pressure on already inadequate sewerage/drainage for existing housing stock. Destruction of the character of the area and reduction of green open space along Ben Rhydding Drive - including the harmful impact on wildlife fauna and flora. Impact on public footpath network in promoting healthy living for local residents. Lack of evidence regarding the necessity to build on green belt land. Insufficient evidence of the lack of viable alternatives that do not encroach on green belt land. It appears to be an ill-thought out and lazy proposal at risk of damaging an established community and its natural environment.

Object

Representation ID: 4003

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Ilkley Clean River Group

Ilkley Clean River Group (ICRG) object to this plan because of the adverse impact the new houses and supporting infrastructure will have on river water quality.
The combined sewage and drainage system is already overwhelmed and these new buildings will directly lead to a degradation in water quality through more unauthorised sewage discharges directly into the river.
SuDS mitigation plans for run-off water in Ilkley have been shown to be inadequate as there is currently a challenge on the adequacy of these plans at the new Moss & Moor Garden Centre.
Note: the Ilkley sewage system also serves Addingham so we also object to the plans for Addingham and any increase in sewage and run-off will directly lead to more sewage discharges in Ilkley.

Object

Representation ID: 4067

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Stephen Fairbourn

Comments on proposed housing development: properties once built will be unaffordable for those on low to average incomes. Green belt land is currently a carbon sink and also stores surface waters. Developing it will release carbon and result in considerable increases of surface water, which is unlikley to be processed via SUDs, and possibly create more flooding. The sewage from developments will increase the load on STWs which are already unfit for purpose (and additional housing at Addingham will compound this) resulting in even more discharges of sewage to the river Wharfe. So benefits to citizens from housing development are negligible but the environmental damage is considerable. Consideration should be given to redeveloping commercial/office properties/sites as affordable housing as many of these sites will be redundant post-Covid.

Object

Representation ID: 4198

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Rombalds Lane Residents Association

THE Rombalds Lane RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION REPRESENTS SOME 19 HOUSEHOLDS. SEVERAL HAVE ASKED ME TO OBJECT ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE PLAN FOR ILKLEY IS UNBALANCED. OF THE 314 NEW DWELLINGS PROPOSED, VIRTUALLY ALL WILL BE BUILT ON TWO NEAR ADJACENT SITES IN Ben Rhydding WHERE THE LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE SIMPLY WILL NOT SUPPORT SUCH LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT.

Object

Representation ID: 4215

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Dr Sheila Lewis

The strategy of development does not thoughtfully support the needs of local people and the demographics and local resources of Ilkley and Ben Rhydding and furthermore actually takes away permanently valuable resources of green field sites and local countryside from the local community.

Object

Representation ID: 4221

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Peter Rowe

Green belt, dramatic, AONB, distinctive. All the adjectives are there.

Adding houses into an ecosystem struggling to keep pace with the development already in place will not provide the assumptions outlined in 'The key elements of the local area strategy', particularly 'Provide better sustainable transport options and connections between the town and surrounding settlements. Improve parking provision for residents, businesses and visitors'.

320 houses, 640 cars, 1,000 individuals. 500 houses are going into Burley. Nearly 1,000 houses in total then with neither town having the infrastructure or capacity in place. If you want to grow a town, grow the infrastructure first and then think about the houses. I feel a conflict of interest at stake with local authorities swayed by access to funds through CILS and Council taxes. Use brownfield not greenfield. Ilkley and Burley are low hanging fruit which is unpalatable at best.