Consultation Question 120

Comment

Representation ID: 8656

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: James Wood

There is no need for significant additional housing in Ilkley. Houses are needed where there are jobs, and employment opportunity in the town are small for those that need to work locally.
The school system that is already fit to burst, access to a dentist or GP is impossible to come by, and a road system consisting of one road in and out so how anyone in their right mind could think this is a suitable place to build a significant number of properties is beyond me.
300 houses require 1.3GW/year of power. Better get started building that energy from waste plant in Keighley to power it if this is the route we are taking

Object

Representation ID: 8718

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Jan Bunch

I am very concerned about the proposed building of over 300 houses in Ilkley and Ben Rhydding.
The destruction of greenbelt land would not only destroy natural habitat, but areas of beauty. The surrounding area as well as the beautiful town is what makes Ilkley the desirable town it is and adds to its uniqueness and character.
Ilkley does not have the infrastructure to support this many new homes. There are not the schools, roads and parking facilities.
As Bradford Council refers to Ilkley as the "jewel in Bradford's Crown" why destroy this image?
As a resident in this area, I object to these plans.

Object

Representation ID: 8728

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Esther Bechelet

As a life time resident of Ilkley I object to the proposed plans for 300+ dwellings in Ilkley and Ben Rhydding. The proposed plans will destroy green belt and have an enormous impact on the towns infrastructure and environment. This will in turn spoil the area and it will no longer be a place people want to live. Nor will the infrastructure be able to provide services adequately. I do not agree that these plans should be approved.

Support

Representation ID: 8760

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: Julie Mountain

I am in support of the planning for housing development in Ilkley.

I would urge plans to include more affordable housing for young families and no more retirement flats as the age balance in Ilkley for retired/pensioners is almost double the national average at 20%.

It is extremely difficult for young people who have grown up here to afford to live here as adults, mostly impossible.
It seems unfair to me that they are priced out of the market in their home towns.

Comment

Representation ID: 8776

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: Mr M A Coaker

new housing for Ilkley and Ben Rhydding.
I cannot understand how this can possibly go ahead. The infrastructure, schooling, doctors surgeries etc would not be able to cope with a large influx of people, children and cars etc in the town.
Surely this cannot be allowed to go ahead and I am certainly against it.

Object

Representation ID: 8863

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Jonathan Bunch

I am very concerned about the proposed building of over 300 houses in Ilkley and Ben Rhydding.

The destruction of greenbelt land would not only destroy natural habitat, but areas of beauty. The surrounding area as well as the beautiful town is what makes Ilkley the desirable town it is and adds to its uniqueness and character.

Ilkley does not have the infrastructure to support this many new homes. There are not the schools, roads and parking facilities.

As Bradford Council refers to Ilkley as the "jewel in Bradford's Crown" why destroy this image?

As a resident in this area, I object to these plans.

Object

Representation ID: 9082

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: Jens Schneider

I hereby would like to object to the proposed local area strategy for development in Ilkley :

(i) Traffic burden. The increased traffic from IL1 H from both residents and deliveries will overwhelm the capacity of Wheatley Lane, particularly at the single lane bridge at Ben Rhydding station. Similarly the traffic from both developments will produce an unacceptable amount of additional traffic onto the B6382 where it joins the A65. There are already now frequent long tailbacks at these traffic lights.

(ii) In addition an additional 285 homes from both projects will exacerbate the shortage of school places that already exists in Ilkley.

Support

Representation ID: 9125

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: Richard Watson

Have read through and considered the four particular proposed dwellings, I commend your proposals for adoption as they seem to be wise and reasonable.
The areas outlined are ripe for development and the housing, if with a proportion of affordable homes, will be a welcome addition to easing the housing problem in the Bradford District. The proposal for the Skipton Rd east will rid the town of a long-standing eyesore at the approach to the town whilst the Stockeld Rd site will be a "plum" site close to the Park and the river, and should command a high land value. At present it is only used on Sundays as a private car park.
At one time in the not too distant past, the Coutances Way site was earmarked for Grammar School development, but being close to the railway station, seems to be ideally suited to encourage use of the trains to Leeds and Bradford.
Similarly, the the Ben Rhydding Drive site is equally favourably sited for access to the train services

May I congratulate the Planning Team for wise and appropriate proposals with which I concur.

Object

Representation ID: 9644

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Janet Munro

I am writing to voice my concerns and opposition to some of the proposed dwelling sites proposed for housing in Ilkley.
Where will additional infrastructure be - schools and medical practices are oversubscribed, parking has been an issue for years.
Protected rights of way - on the Ben Rhydding Drive and Coutances Way plans.
Covid is going to be around a long time; parents & children & the elderly need space to walk.
Adding more people, less space is going to curtail movement.
Building houses on the Coutances Way is devious & unethical as it is a virtual flood plan. To sell houses to people on land like that is obscene & also will further imbalance the flood plains causing more damage to our already damaged environment.
Whilst I uphold the need for housing, they are never affordable for first time buyers and elderly will certainly need more services!!

Object

Representation ID: 9667

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Mr M Moran

I refer to the current proposal to build heavily around Ilkley /Burley in Wharfedale and object strongly.
We shall see a merging of towns.
There will inevitably be more flooding risks.
The significant use of green belt is simply unacceptable.
Basically green belt is not green belt if Bradford Council decide it can be built on. Where does it end? Once this starts, then anything goes.

Comment

Representation ID: 9668

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: David & Carol Elliott & Hedderman

We are concerned to hear that Bradford Council plans to impose new housing developments on Ilkley and Ben Rhydding which are mostly on green belt land with associated damage to the environment and tendency to ribbon development. Further, the proposed developments will put more pressure on already stretched infrastructure. There are clearly implications for schools and shops, and there will be knock on effects on rainfall run off and flooding. There will also obviously be increased traffic. The A65 is already busy and queues regularly build up at the junction with Brook Street, but the plan to site 155 dwellings next to the dangerous single lane bottleneck under the railway bridge on Wheatley Lane beggars belief. We hope that these plans will be ditched, or at the very least scaled back severely.

Object

Representation ID: 9670

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs E Moran

re proposal to build heavily around Ilkley /Burley in Wharfedale and object strongly.

I wish to object.
.
There has got to be more flooding risks.
And I cant believe you are proposing to build on Green Belt. Use of green belt is simply unacceptable

Object

Representation ID: 9701

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Lydia Bunch

I am very concerned about the proposed building of over 300 houses in Ilkley and Ben Rhydding.
The destruction of greenbelt land would not only destroy natural habitats but areas of beauty.
The surrounding area as well as the beautiful town is what makes Ilkley the desirable town it is and adds to its uniqueness and character.
Ilkley does not have the infrastructure to support this many new homes. The A65 is allready burdened with heavy traffic. Not to mention the parking facilities that have also recently caused concern for residents.

As Bradford Council refers to Ilkley as the "jewel in Bradford's Crown" why destroy this image?

As a resident in this area, I object to the proposed housing plans.

Object

Representation ID: 9753

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillors (The Independents)

Ilkley/Ben Rhydding, has reached its optimum capacity-except for small and discrete windfall opportunities.
Coutances Way is the entrance to the Settlement, a gateway site.
Impact to the extent, size and prominence of development intruding into the Green Belt.
Development of sites in Ilkley together with the site Burley would result in the narrowing of the “lung” between settlements.
Creation of urban sprawl and ribbon development.
Green Belt Policy should retain green space between settlements.
Land is in the flood plain and EA flood risk zone, important water courses cross the site.
Issues with Yorkshire Water and Network Rail - blockages of a watercourse which threatens the stability of the railway embankment causing landslips.
Flooding of houses in Wheatley Lane, the A65 road and Ben Rhydding Sports club.
Impact - on habitats, water voles and birdlife.
Impact from traffic at Whetley Lane increased by development of new car park.
Loss of spellbinding landscape.
Damage to the tourist economy.
No evidence for a housing need.

Object

Representation ID: 9862

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Roger Whitehead

I am totally against proposed site IL3/H-Coutances Way . This is green belt land and will completely ruin beauty of the town . I was born and bred here and cannot believe this is been considered . Not happy with other proposals either , there are so many brown field sites round Bradford and Leeds or is that Bradford council make more money out of ruin the beauty of Ilkley , disgusted !!!

Support

Representation ID: 9918

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Oxley

Number of people: 2

Ilkley planned 314 homes
We would like to agree to the houses being built as per the proposals.
We would like to see more affordable houses built but only if they were to remain rented or owned at the original cost plus inflation.

Comment

Representation ID: 9950

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Felicity & Richard Rathmell & Hebbert

Number of people: 2

Ilkley has housing shortage, particular affordable.

Buying-to-let removes housing from the market

Enforced sale of social housing.

Removal of rent restrictions means renting has become as expensive as buying.

Increase in property values excludes many from property ownership.

These points, properly addressed could ease the pressure for housing.

New housing is needed and Wharfedale must take its share, without loss of green belt, natural beauty, open space, recreation and the most accessible location for the cities of Bradford and Leeds.

Wharfedale becoming increasingly built-up leading to merging of settlements and urban sprawl.

Increasingly congestion.

Less destructive locations, although relatively small, IL2/H and IL4/H; find other locations within the town.

Our children won't be able to afford to live in the town.

Developers will find ways of getting round the provision of affordable housing.

The number of new properties should be considered with alternative policies to simply building.

Developing green belt is permanently environmentally destructive.

Object

Representation ID: 9968

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Tracy Russell

Reasons for objections to all four sites:
•Three of the sites are within the Green Belt and four of them within SSSI zones. There are TPOs relating to each site. Trees help reduce global warming. These housing developments would result in the felling of mature local trees.
•Local economy cannot accommodate additional houses. Many houses have been built within the gardens of houses in Ilkley in addition to other new accommodation (Bolling Road/Scholars Place/Railway Road).
•Settlements are beginning to merge with each other (e.g. Ben Rhydding with Burley and Ilkley with Addingham) Both of which use facilities in Ilkley.
•No planned employment for Ilkley leading to residents commuting.
•Current amenities and infrastructure will not suffice. What are the plans for additional infrastructure?
•Water treatment plant unable to cope. Raw sewage tipped into the river.
•Can Ilkley reservoir accommodate increased residents with reduced rainfall in summer months.
•Travelling along the A65 there are beautiful views to the surrounding fields and open moors.
•There are nature reserves on the left and right as you approach the town.
•Fields leading to Ben Rhydding are breeding grounds for curlews and are frequented by a variety of wildlife.
•The character of Ilkley will be lost with the proposed developments.
•A65 is already busy and queues frequently occur toward Addingham and Burley.
•Living near a busy road increases the risk of lung cancer by 10%.

Object

Representation ID: 10037

Received: 16/04/2021

Respondent: Matthew Schofield

The three biggest sites are in green belt land with no justification.
Use brownfield sites.
Sites have moderate/major impact on the green belt. Reduce the separation between the towns.
Create a ‘Wharfedale corridor’ of development.
Alter the character of the town and associated amenities.
Wheatley Grove collects rainwater, delaying the flow through Ilkley.
Ilkley’s is set in countryside, proposals go against the defined local plan to protect the local environment.
Ilkley moor is an SSSI, Wheatley Grove site is only 350m from the moor, and falls within the buffer zone - development should be avoided in this area.
Wheatley Grove provides a wildlife corridor and sustained habitat for wildlife.
Impact on mature trees/TPO's/ Woodland protection
Sewage are unable to deal with the capacity required, and regularly overflow.
Increase traffic through the Wheatley Road train bridge and the junction with Valley Drive, - congestion/high risk of accidents.
School operating at capacity.

Comment

Representation ID: 10072

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Gaile Meyrick

Housing development plans for Ilkley.

I want to register my concerns about the impact an increased population on the infrastructure and amenities in Ilkley.

Schools - Ilkley Grammar School is already very busy and is built on a constrained site, so any increase in pupil numbers cannot be easily accommodated by new buildings

Medical facilities - can our GP’s and dentists can take on more patients without detriment to current residents?

Car parking - a continual source of problems in Ilkley

Cheap housing - being able to afford a property in Ilkley is very hard for first time buyers, will any of these developments have cheaper, help to buy properties? There are (I believe) only 6 help to buy properties in Ilkley currently.

Will any of my concerns be addressed as the plans become more detailed?

Object

Representation ID: 10121

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Robert Mayo

NPPF "characteristics of Green Belts are openness and permanence"; construction of new buildings should be regarded as inappropriate, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt, should not be approved unless very special circumstances.

Development would be irreversible and inappropriate, applicant should demonstrate special circumstances.

LPA's-substantial weight given to any harm to the Green Belt. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

Erosion of the countryside between Ilkley, Burley and Addingham, which helps retain Ilkley’s distinctiveness.

Housing will result in urban sprawl, – an ‘urban corridor’ along the Wharfe Valley

Ilkley as ‘set within a scenic and sensitive natural landscape’.

Ilkley Moor SSSI is nationally renowned for its distinctive and rugged landscape. The Wheatley Grove site falls within its buffer zone. The importance of Ilkley Moor should be recognized, development should be avoided.

School operating at capacity, limited catchment area . No
additional school capacity proposed, Addingham and Burley both have proposed developments adding to pressure.

Comment

Representation ID: 10133

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Annette Bearpark

Of course Ilkley need to play its part in providing additional housing for Bradford, its a nice place to live. I have been a resident for 25 years.

My thoughts

1. Please ensure there is affordable housing, first time buyer houses, social housing

2. Utilities need to be upgraded in particular sewage system!! Already a massive issue with storm overflows into Wharfe please ensure this is addressed.

3. Please consult with school and GP surgeries

Object

Representation ID: 10177

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: Julie Brett

I would like to register my concerns as an Ilkley resident about the plans to build a further 300 houses in the area.

The local infrastructure already struggles in respect of the capacity at the medical practices, the rush hours travelling on the railway (pre-covid of course) , the environmental issues of more people/cars in an already busy town and in particular the capacity at the local schools.

I have read the proposals and do not feel these issues have been addressed sufficiently.

I am hoping this is the correct way to register my concerns.

Object

Representation ID: 10357

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Andrew Loy

General - infrastructure
My greatest concern is the lack of a plan to expand and upgrade local infrastructure and services while building 300 new houses. The Local Plan makes a vague commitment to consider these issues in future, but this must come first, before any plans for new houses can be considered. There must be firm plans in place to expand primary and secondary school capacity to accommodate several hundred additional children. There must also be urgent work to expand parking provision - this is already a disaster, even without housing developments on the outskirts of Ilkley resulting in hundreds more cars in the town centre (also consider the impact of over 700 additional houses in Addingham and Burley-in-Wharfedale - many of the residents of these new houses will drive into Ilkley to shop, as the two smaller settlements lack supermarkets and substantial high streets).

Object

Representation ID: 10358

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Andrew Loy

General - green belt and greenfield
The Council should not be allocating houses on green belt and greenfield sites while there are still many brownfield sites in Bradford city - which would also be better placed to be close to areas of economic growth and regeneration, as well as much better transport links. In addition, Ilkley Civic Society has meticulously recorded the number of windfall sites, which are not considered at all when reaching the housing allocation in the Local Plan. Its figures show that there were around 50 additional houses built in Ilkley even in 2020 during the lockdown, and far more in a normal year.

Object

Representation ID: 10475

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Judith Law

Loss of Recreation land.
Impact on wildlife.
Impact on footpath to Ilkley Moor.
Flooding problem, site collects run-off
Concern about design/materials.
A housing estate which includes affordable housing in the middle of this neighbourhood is going to be very unsightly.
Ben Rhydding Drive is an unsuitable access to the site.
Increased traffic in Ben Rhydding.
Impact on conservation area causing major changes.
Impact on schools in Wharfedale.
Affordable housing doesn't exist in Wharfedale.
Keighley/Bradford have dilapidated houses, and “Brownfield sites” should be used before Green Belt.
Office space becoming available could be converted.
Lack of parking at Ben Rhydding station.
If Wheatley Grove site is developed, that extra parking is mandatory.
Ilkley is a commuter town for Bradford/Leeds, many residents drive to the station.
Parking on pavements to use the train station will get worse.
Employment opportunities from the building work will be temporary, What other “new employment opportunities”?
Wheatley Grove site is wrong place for new housing.

Object

Representation ID: 10621

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Antony Hannam

Number of people: 2

No mention is made on how extra provision will be made for increase pupil numbers in the Local Plan.
The Local Plan is set to deliver;
625 dwellings in Burley in Wharfedale
350 …in Menston
300 …in Ilkley
175…in Addingham
A total of 1,450 additional dwellings and how many additional children of school age?
So far as children of secondary education are concerned the main options for these area are Otley Prince Henry’s Grammar School and Ilkley Grammar School.
Both are heavily over - subscribed now without any additional housing development and the latter has no land for on-site development.
It will be a disaster for parents wanting a place for their children in these local Schools.

Object

Representation ID: 10697

Received: 11/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs P M Fisher

Question the number of new houses required.
The need for affordable homes near jobs in the city and large towns.
Developers should be incentivised to regenerate Towns/Cities.
Loss of easily accessible green spaces.
Green Belt should be preserved for recreation, carbon storage and water retention purposes.
Existing planning permissions and all brown field sites should be exhausted before Green Belt is used.
Shop closures and business failures may provide more housing opportunities.
Regenerate derelict sites to provide more homes.
Once greenfield sites have been used they are lost for ever!
Loss of individual communities
Create urban sprawl along the Wharfevalley.
IL3/H iconic view of Ilkley Moor will be lost and one of the highest landscapes value should be preserved.
Additional development increases run off and exacerbates flooding problems.
Lack of adequate infrastructure: provision of utilities, health services, education and transport etc.
A65 is extremely congested and slow moving.

Comment

Representation ID: 10788

Received: 13/03/2021

Respondent: Rachel Carter

Greenbelt - Building on green belt sites is opposed to the principles of using brownfield sites. 97% of the proposed homes are in green belt land. There are plenty of brownfield sites within the Bradford district. Ilkley is significantly disproportionately impacted in this regard.
Impact on natural landscape.
Ilkley Grammar school is already at capacity with no further room to increase. More housing requires the provision of services and recreational activities to support physical and mental health. There are already substantial waits for many children’s activities (swimming lessons, sports football, gymnastics, athletics and scouting and guiding). Where is the plan and investment for new infrastructure required as a result of increased housing?
Additional Building - In the last few years approximately 30 houses per year have been built in Ilkley – the plan fails to take into account these numbers, or those currently planned.

Object

Representation ID: 10925

Received: 13/03/2021

Respondent: Sam Brown

Insufficient infrastructure - policing and schools
Ilkley is already busy and does not need more houses