Consultation Question 120

Object

Representation ID: 27927

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Jason Harden

•Use of Green Belt land - against Environmental Bill 2020.
•Use green space - needed for health and wellbeing, trees are used to reduce climate change.
•Increased flood risk
•Increase in carbon emissions & roads witrh additional cars that will result from development.
-Increased strain on local roads.
•Impact on local infrastructure e.g. supermarkets; train and bus transport - car parking at station will get worse; police support; parking within Ilkley; health care; school places; employment opportunities.

Impact of toursim - leads to increased parking issues, anti-social behaviour leading to a police ban on people using the area to gather which also affected the local community.

There needs to be public leisure facilities which means supporting development at the lido and more needs to be done for the youth within Ilkley

Object

Representation ID: 27936

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: John Wilkinson

Not only are the proposed houses on dwindling green belt land when other brown field sites should be considered first the shear numbers of houses are going to put a huge strain in the local public services. All the local schools and doctors practices are full to capacity. New houses can’t continued to be built without consideration for the impact on local services and increased traffic on local roads.

Object

Representation ID: 28083

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr & Mrs J Wilkinson

Number of people: 2

-Green Belt Land and should be left as such. In line with the Government's Green Belt Policy / protect open land and thus prevent urbanisation.
-Brownfield sites should be built on first
-Impact on wildlife and their habitats
-Impact on natural landscape and character of Ilkley
-Impact on town and local services.
-Secondary school provision at capacity
-Many primary schools in the area are also over stretched on funding, resources and staffing.
-Drainage is huge risk, we cannot let flooding increase any further.
-The field on Ben Rhydding Drive is often flooded and boggy.
-Doctor's surgeries, community health services and NHS dentists, both are hugely in demand in this area and extra housing with families will put an increased strain on these services.
-Increased traffic in Ilkley/Bolling Road, impact on congestion into and out of town, pollution and noise
-Any new housing developments must come with increased funding to allow the services provided in this town to provide a full service to everyone.

Object

Representation ID: 28245

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Member of Parliament (Conservative)

Green belt should not be considered for development as it is in contravention to Governments aims and objectives.
Local Authorities should maximise the use of brownfield sites before considering changes to Green Belt boundaries.
There are no exceptional circumstances to justify releasing sites from Green Belt protection. All other reasonable options to meet housing need should be considered.
Inadequate proposals have been presented with regards to upgrading local infrastructure to cope with proposed extra housing. and extra pressures on local services.
There is no clear vision to increase passenger capacity on local public transport. This is in contravention to the Governments Decarbonising Transport strategic priority.
No justification for the proposed housing numbers identified for Ilkley and Ben Rhydding to warrant removal of areas of Green Belt.

Comment

Representation ID: 28364

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Ruth Jones

Regarding the Ilkley section, what provision will be made to support local schools in meeting the needs of an increase in pupils attending?

Comment

Representation ID: 28371

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Liz Bowen

Many thanks for your recent consultation document and your request for our views.

My view:
The need for the provision of additional housing for the increase in population is apparent. The provision of over 300 houses in Ilkley is reasonable and the siting as indicated by the plans has been made sensitively.

I have two queries: firstly, What provision will there be for an increase in additional school facilities/or new schools? and secondly but importantly, Will The Council ensure that for these new builds there will be a comparable number of trees planted?

Comment

Representation ID: 28375

Received: 25/03/2021

Respondent: David Blackburn

Introduction - Shaping Places

5.0.1: replace “while” with “whilst”.

5.0.2: delete “our” between “maximising” and “brownfield”. Insert “of” between “terms” and “public”

Object

Representation ID: 28376

Received: 25/03/2021

Respondent: David Blackburn

Local Area Strategy - Ilkley

5.17.1: R Wharfe flows through centre of town? Not according to Fig 3.

5.17.2: Principal town of Wharfedale with its public administration. Town Hall emptied of public admin staff years ago.

5.17.9: Co-op omitted.

5.17.12: Good provision of public transport - only to certain places and deteriorating. Wharfedale Greenway, surprised to see no protection for old railway line route to Addingham.

5.17.17: Needs more emphasis on seniors & younger locals housing needs. Government policy allowing office to residential causing employment space loss.

5.17.23: No compliance with Green Belt exceptional circumstances policy.

5.17.26: Former Georgian spa town. Town principally Victorian.

5.17.30: Typos - some sites given 2 lines. Only 1 of the allotment sites listed.

5.17.33: Health centre on Alexandra Rd – its on Springs La. Two Post offices - only one

5.17.35: Omits Airedale hospital

9 errors, not indicating good understanding of Ilkley.

Query how IL1/H and IL3/H constitute ‘limited green belt releases? Protect and enhance green infrastructure does not fit with this.

Object

Representation ID: 28483

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Colm McCann

-Lack of justification for 314 houses in this area (on GB land) and analysis of local demographic trends to demonstrate need and type of housing.
-Opportunity within plan to help stimulate city centre regeneration, support economy and aid recovery.
-Query how much of the housing target fulfilled by brownfield sites / re-purposing mill sites.
-Tourism/leisure: Long term infrastructure plan required. Swimming pool is badly in need of replacement with a modern leisure facility. Library is under threat as a council run facility.
-Capacity of sewage treatment system for additional housing without further deterioration in water quality of the River Wharfe
-IGS oversubscribed. Coutances Way site previously considered for a new school. Justification for reserving site for a replacement school and current IGS site used for housing.
-Countances Way site will erode the boundaries between Ben Rhydding and Burley and will lead to overdevelopment
-Impact on traffic volumes
-Impact be on air quality and aesthetics of the village
-Alternative option: development of flood resistant housing on the field between the river Wharfe and Langbar Road.

Object

Representation ID: 28489

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Rachel Scott

-No evidence of exceptional circumstances to justify these two sites and contrary to NPPF
-Protect greenfield sites
-Develop brownfield sites – regeneration etc
-IL01 and IL03 will serve to increase ‘unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas’ as well as continue the gradual increase of ribbon development between Ilkley and neighbouring villages.
-Impact on countryside, wildlife, flora and fauna, SSSi (SPA/SAC and buffer zones);
-Impact on setting and special character of Ilkley
- Impact on parking – current issues will be exacerbated as sites not within walking distance to town.
-Both Ilkley Grammar School and all local primary schools are full. Ilkley GS is unable to expand any further.
-Traffic/Congestion - query traffic assessment.
-Risk of flooding
-Proposals completely tone deaf to our environmental emergency.
-Impact on trees with TPOs

Comment

Representation ID: 28492

Received: 25/02/2021

Respondent: Dr Ros Brown

-5.17.1 -Insert ‘South’ before Pennine
-5.17.2 -Define Ilkley’s public administrative functions
-5.17.2 -There has been no direct bus service to Bradford for c10 years
-5.17.3 -We have been using the Ilkley Ward Profile (March 2020) data unaware of the Local Insight Profile for Ilkley (16 December 2020). Will the latter be made avaliable?
-5.17.4 -Comment re INDP Reg16 Consultation progress
-5.17.7 -Does this mean a ‘small office’ market or a small ‘office market’?
-5.17.7 -Update this to reflect the current state and impact of the Covid-19 pandemic
-5.17.9 - Insert ‘and The Grove’ after Brook Street
-5.17.15 -It is impossible to see the detail on the Interactive Policies Map. The Ben Rhydding Park and Rail Scheme in the LIP is not mentioned in this overview or shown on the map (Figure 8?) as a strategic infrastructure project although the potential for its development is mentioned in IL3/H
-5.17.12 - Provide reference for survey data
-Table 1 -‘Waking’? Typo error
-5.17.27 -Provide reference for heritage data
-5.17.31 -Provide reference for open space data
-5.17.33 -Alexandra Road health centre is in Shipley

Object

Representation ID: 29039

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Anne & H Graham Peacock

Number of people: 2

Infrastructure Issues

Most state primary schools in Ilkley are at capacity.

Medical services are already under severe pressure. NHS dental services are also of limited provision.

Concern locally about the raw sewerage which enters the River Wharfe from the Ilkley treatment centre in wet weather. The existing plant is already in need of reconstruction/extension and certainly could not now cope with additional effluent from the additional housing proposed for Addingham and Ilkley.

Completion of the Greenway on from Burley, through Ilkley and on to Addingham - needs to be the most direct route.

The only access roads to the proposed new housing areas would be off the congested A65 as this is the only through road in this part of Wharfedale.

There needs to be significant planned improvements in public transport, with more capacity on the Wharfedale line – longer train sets on peak hour services and an upgrade of the signalling to permit more frequent services.

A completely redesigned series of bus services is needed, to enable people to directly access the suburbs of Leeds and Bradford for work.

Object

Representation ID: 29107

Received: 29/03/2021

Respondent: Historic England

The Local Area Strategy for Ilkley currently makes no
reference to the importance of conserving and enhancing
the areas key heritage assets, including the distinctive
Victorian and Edwardian heritage of Ilkley the significance of the archaeology of Rombald’s Moor, and the contribution which these assets make to the visitor appeal of Ilkley.
Local Area Strategy, add the following additional key element:
‘Conserve and enhance key heritage assests and their setting, especially those elements which make a significant contribution to the distinct character of this area, including the distinctive Victorian and Edwardian heritage of Ilkley and the prehistoric landscapes and
rock art of Rombald’s Moor.'

Object

Representation ID: 29119

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Cherry Dexter

Number of people: 2

• Brownfield sites within the District should be used first (NPPF).
• No valid justification for Green belt - designated to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open.
• Ilkley Strategy against NPPF –use of GB instead of brownfield land in the Wharfedale area.
• Impact of pandemic on centres and the importance of green space for physical, mental health and well-being.
• Concerns regarding Climate change emergency and how targets will be met.
• Plan for Wharfedale conflicts with strategic policies 1,4,5,9,10,15,16
• All building must adhere to target of ‘environmental net gain’.
• IL1 and IL3 will lead to urban sprawl
• Impact on the local shops and amenities
• Increase car use / emissions
• Impact on parking in centre
• Need for economic growth not as great in Ilkley
• Query regarding cost of affordable housing here & viability issues
• Infrastructure deficiency
• IGS at capacity

Comment

Representation ID: 29164

Received: 25/03/2021

Respondent: Ilkley Town Council

-5.17.1 -Insert ‘South’ before Pennine
-5.17.2 -Define Ilkley’s public administrative functions
-5.17.2 -There has been no direct bus service to Bradford for c10 years
-5.17.3 -We have been using the Ilkley Ward Profile (March 2020) data unaware of the Local Insight Profile for Ilkley (16 December 2020). Will the latter be made avaliable?
-5.17.4 -Comment re INDP Reg16 Consultation progress
-5.17.7 -Does this mean a ‘small office’ market or a small ‘office market’?
-5.17.7 -Update this to reflect the current state and impact of the Covid-19 pandemic
-5.17.9 - Insert ‘and The Grove’ after Brook Street
-5.17.15 -It is impossible to see the detail on the Interactive Policies Map. The Ben Rhydding Park and Rail Scheme in the LIP is not mentioned in this overview or shown on the map (Figure 8?) as a strategic infrastructure project although the potential for its development is mentioned in IL3/H
-5.17.12 - Provide reference for survey data
-Table 1 -‘Waking’? Typo error
-5.17.27 -Provide reference for heritage data
-5.17.31 -Provide reference for open space data
-5.17.33 -Alexandra Road health centre is in Shipley

Object

Representation ID: 29543

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Elizabeth & Tim Walton

Number of people: 2

•Flooding is a major problem in the bottom level of Ilkley and with more buildings and run off, this will only worsen with the influx of 300+ houses.
•Waste water and drainage systems are currently unable to cope so this will increase the problem especially with new Bathing Water Status
•Parking is already a major issue within the town and new housing can only exacerbate the situation with an increase in visitors and commuters
•Access for rubbish collection/gritters will be a problem on the steep gradients within some of the proposal areas
•Dangerous access onto Coutances Way will increase more so with new garden centre, and the narrow exit at the bottom of Wheatley Road will cause issues for large vehicles. Narrow pathways
•Infrastructure and transport links
•Railway line affected by water run off
•Run off from building sites into the river affecting the Bathing Water Status. The reservoir is at maximum capacity and there may be extended raw sewage input
•Ben Rhydding Nature Reserve Is beside Coutances Way which is a designated curlew breeding ground
•Ilkley is in a valley and has already merged with Ben Rhydding. With the proposals, Ilkley will merge with either Burley or Addingham. Any further development and we would lose the charm / character
•Addingham (with 181 additional houses) and Burley (with an additional 610 houses) both use the facilities in Ilkley putting on extra strain

Object

Representation ID: 29670

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Alison Morpeth

•Two principles in the plan (paras 5.17.1 & 5.17.23) underline the comments. These look at Green Belt, sensitivity and natural beauty. Reference made to American pioneer of conservation principles and the environment (Ralph Waldo Emerson).
•Incursion into the Green Belt to meet a perception of housing need should be resisted.
•The consequences of the pandemic on working and travel patterns, as well as the economic aspiration for retail and leisure habits have not been taken into account. Predictions about housing requirement should reflect the principle of flexibility/sensitivity to changing socio-economic, cultural and environmental considerations.
•Green space should be sacrosanct. Changing Green Belt boundaries to fit the needs of the moment is lazy and should be resisted.
•Second reason for objecting to Green Belt incursion relates to natural landscape and historic character. The tight nature of the Green Belt around Ilkley is there for a reason. It is an area of scenic and sensitive natural landscape. The boundary shouldn’t be shifted to accommodate more housing. Landscape is an amenity for the wider community. The landscape around Ilkley is unique and unmistakably different.
•The submission is based on - a need to conserve landscape and boundary, the importance of Green Belt and the reasons for its existence in sensitive natural landscapes. Also considers the historical assumptions about the rationale of housing development in the current uncertain socio-economic/cultural climate. In addition are a set of issues that connect with environmental and ecological concerns including climate change.

Object

Representation ID: 29690

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Tracy Russell

A large percentage of the district’s population is unable to leave home and therefore (a) not aware of the planned developments, (b) not able to access the internet, i.e. at libraries, to submit objections or constructive feedback; and (c) are not able to discuss the proposed plans with friends, relatives or businesses. The fact that you are progressing these plans with a deadline that ends before restrictions ease, and only permitting on-line objections, gives the appearance that you are trying to sneak these developments in via the back door.

Comment

Representation ID: 29782

Received: 25/03/2021

Respondent: Ilkley Town Council

The Local Plan makes several mentions of the Wharfedale Greenway. ITC strongly supports the development of the Greenway and is currently actively considering a proposal to update the feasibility study for the Burley to Ben Rhydding section of the Greenway.

Comment

Representation ID: 29795

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Ilkley Civic Society

CREATION OF THE SOUTH PENNINES REGIONAL PARK
This proposed regional park with near National Park status would link the Peak District and the Yorkshire Dales National Park and the Nidderdale AONB, providing protection for the West Yorkshire Green Belt area of Wharfedale. It should be a key element of the plan for Wharfedale.

Object

Representation ID: 29796

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Ilkley Civic Society

THE IMPACT OF THE SUN LANE DECISION
The controversial decision to develop 500 houses at Sun Lane, Burley in Wharfedale, depleting the green belt, should be taken into account in any decision to develop any further green belt land between Burley and Ben Rhydding. There are impacts for the landscape, secondary school places, drainage, road use and public transport and infrastructure.

Object

Representation ID: 29798

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Ilkley Civic Society

INFRASTRUCTURE (summarised)
•Few additional jobs planned for Ilkley. New residents will have to travel for employment. The A65 is already at capacity. Trains have been at capacity prior to the pandemic. Longer trains and infrastructure improvements will be required as passenger demand develops.
•Housing should be built close to employment to reduce commuting. To afford an average-priced house in Ilkley requires substantial savings/equity/ability to pay a mortgage. Many people will have to commute to a job that pays well enough.
•Most schools are at capacity. Those people with more than one child often have to go different schools. This is the largest cause of congestion at school time –with people who have no choice but to use a car to get their children to school on time.
•Ilkley Grammar is the only state secondary in the valley between Addingham and Menston. Recent rebuilding of the school has maximised its capacity.
•Provision should be made for a new school site for all the additional children from the proposed 1306 houses in Wharfedale. This could be in the Burley/Menston area.
•Health services are already under severe pressure.
•Existing issues of raw sewerage entering the River Wharfe from the Ilkley treatment centre in wet weather when storm drains area at full capacity. Activity which exacerbates this situation should be avoided.
•Sewerage system needs increased capacity and better processing arrangements before additional homes are built.
•A65 is the only through road in this part of Wharfedale. Increases in population will increase road traffic. Car journeys will be necessary for employment/shopping/schools/health/leisure. People are unlikely to cycle on main roads in winter. If the Greenway cycle route is not the most direct, people are unlikely to use if for daily journeys.
•Wheatley Lane under the railway bridge is a bottleneck. IL1/H&IL3/H will cause substantial increases in traffic which is undesirable. The installation of traffic signals has increased the speed of traffic raising the risk to children crossing.
•There needs to be planned improvements to public transport. More ‘through’ trains to beyond Leeds/Bradford. The new plans for Bradford Interchange do not improve connections for rail users of Forster Square station.
•The trams proposal does not come near to Ilkley.
•Bus services need redesigning to give people direct access to the suburbs of Leeds/Bradford for work/study/leisure without having to change in the city centre.
•People from Ilkley need direct services to Bradford, Airedale Hospital, St James’ Hospital Leeds, BRI, Trinity and All Saints University, Leeds Beckett University.

Object

Representation ID: 29983

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Ilkley Town Council

I have carefully looked at the proposals in Bradford’s local plan for house building in Ilkley.

Firstly, I am concerned about a possible lack of building on Brown Field sites in Bradford. I am not convinced that Bradford has in fact made as much use as possible of suitable brown field sites in Bradford to fulfil its aims for increased urban regeneration.

As Bradford Council has declared a climate change emergency surely urban regeneration is of prime importance by providing decent houses and environments for people to live in and to provide 15 minute streets enabling people to walk and cycle safely to work, school, and to the city centre.