Consultation Question 121

Comment

Representation ID: 6179

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Peter Mate

I wish to comment and contribute to the Consultation Process regarding Ilkley Proposals. (Four proposed sites of development).
I will first comment on the process of consultation as set out. It is untimely, and rushed as a process, with a very short deadline of 24 March. It relies heavily upon IT based responses, limiting the process to those with email, and at a time when public access is limited by closure of our Libraries. A public meeting is not feasible due to the pandemic, and virtual meetings again rely on IT. These would seem to be significant proposals, with complex factors, and thus I suggest the consultation process is flawed and open to challenge for being untimely, unfair and unreasonable. At a minimum, the deadline of 24/3 should be extended by at least a further four weeks.

Object

Representation ID: 6574

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Richard Pickett

•The protection of Green Belt land is enshrined in planning documents.
•Green Belt land should only be used as a last resort in "exceptional circumstances".
•No evidence provided for the proposed development sites in Ilkley. There is no legal standing to take this action. It defies logic that you cannot find suitable brownfield sites to allow 300 plus houses to be built in the next 17years.
•No provision for the addition traffic;
•Demand for GP services would increase;
•Ilkley Grammar is over-subscribed;
•Additional school support and other essential services would be stretched.
•Ilkley centre and A65 are already a traffic bottlenecks, current air quality is poor in summer and this proposal would make the situation worse.
•The number of brownfield sites in Bradford, must be substantial, given the historic "Mill/industrial sites" now standing derelict/un-used.
•The Council should re-consider these proposals and leave the Greenfield sites alone.

Object

Representation ID: 7366

Received: 07/03/2021

Respondent: Jemma Walker

I am writing to object against the proposed new homes in Ilkley the vast majority of which are proposed to be built on green belt land.
My first reason for objecting is the destruction of green belt land that results from the proposals. It is not sustainable to use up green belt land. Given the impact on Covid on businesses and working from home, there may be the option to convert commercial buildings in Bradford into housing instead of using green belt land and this should be considered.
Impact on the local infrastructure
- The roads are already very busy and will struggle with hundreds more cars (risk of accidents)
- pressure on public transport
- Impact on school places
-Parking
- Pressure on sewage systems

Flooding risks, the A65 already regularly floods and the river bursts it’s banks regularly. Building houses on fields which currently are saturated with water will increase the flooding risk
Removing the fields will also impact the wildlife which need somewhere to live.

Support

Representation ID: 9852

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: Adam Driver

•In favour of developments on four proposed sites provided there are sufficient school places and GPs made available.
•Unable to get on the property ladder in Ilkley. Struggled to get a large enough deposit for a suitable house in Ilkley. Looking Silsden instead.
•New developments in Ilkley should be of good mix of starter homes and desirable larger family homes in keeping with the local area.
•Limited number of properties on the market – keeping prices high.
•Additional houses will be great for the community. Bringing 300 more families to the town, benefitting local shops, restaurants whilst maintaining the exclusivity of the area.
•A mix of house sizes will also give opportunities to young families.

Support

Representation ID: 9956

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: Iain Spence

Just emailing in support of the local plan. On the 4 proposed developments, I don't believe any would materially affect the town adversely.

However, it would be good to:

1) confirm that the school places available are sufficient to handle the additional families, and

2) ensure that some reasonable proportion of the housing is affordable, under £150k or £200k, rather than all luxury housing.

Our younger residents who have been born and brought up in Ilkley can no longer afford to buy homes and live here which is a great shame for the community.

Object

Representation ID: 10361

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Helen Sefton

I am contacting you in response to the proposed plans for Ilkley town.

I am particularly concerned about the proposed sites feeding into Wheatley Lane and the increased traffic this will cause into an already narrow road.

In addition the number of dwellings proposed will put strain on doctors, schools and other services in a small town.

Object

Representation ID: 10487

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Kate Davy

Strongly object to building 300 houses, in fact any houses, within the Ben Rhydding area on Green Belt land.
1. Coutances Way site already floods on regularly – would be exacerbated by development and affect roads and existing dwellings.

2. Major concern is the increase in traffic and residents from new homes. More need to travel to access shops and servies, and potential for dangerous driving. Ben Rhydding railway bridge is a pinch point and dangerous for pedestrians. Will also be an environmental impact.

3. Railway station is inadequate. Access to Leeds/Bradford line is difficult.

4. What would the impact on schools be? Doctor’s is over-subscribed as are dentists.

5. With the proposed expansion of housing in Burley there is a very real danger of blurring the lines between the two towns and completely losing the boundaries. Ilkley is not like every other town. Cutting into natural beauty is unforgivable.

Object

Representation ID: 10979

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: JO Steel Consulting

Site formerly comprised a railway embankment.

No Green Belt Assessment.

Reasons for rejecting site are challenged.

Existing dwellings to west, attaching site to urban area. This is not an extension into open country. Dwellings to east - listed Hollin Hall and also site IL02/H. There is a Caravan Club site adjoining the northern boundary .

Site is visually contained, can be justified as a “rounding off “site.

Less impact on landscape than historical case when site was an embankment.

No impact on views into/out-of the ANOB.

Site not suitable for agriculture

Impact on listed building to east will be neutral.

Access to the A65 with good sight lines is available.

Site could yield 30 units.

Site ideal to accommodate SB&CB housing.

Available/deliverable now.

Adjoins highway that carries public transport and close to bus stops.

This is a brownfield site.

Site will assist in reducing the shortfall of five year supply.

Object

Representation ID: 11068

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Alan Calder

Happy to agree with the use of existing brown field and non-agricultural land for building but very unhappy about further encroachment upon greenfield land:

Reference IL3/H - Coutances Way (155 dwellings on greenfield land).

Reference IL1/H - Ben Rhydding Drive, Wheatley Grove (130 dwellings on greenfield land).

With the other 2 proposed sites in Ilkley (IL2H Skipton Road East and IL4/H Stockheld Road) this makes a total of 314 additional dwellings in Ilkley/Ben Rhydding comprising approximately 1200 additional people of which approximately 600 will require schooling. What are the proposed infrastructure plans to support this.

What is the point of designating land as ‘green field’ if you can change the designation whenever you like!! It’s disgraceful. Ilkley is a separate entity on the River Wharfe but if you have your way it will be a ribbon development stretching almost from Otley. Where will this end and when will it stop.

Comment

Representation ID: 11074

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Simon Smithson

Re. the four proposed housing sites in Ilkley. No objection to IL4/H (Stockheld Road), an urban infill site, and IL2/H (Skipton Road East) formerly occupied by railway lines and effectively brownfield.

IL1/H Wheatley Grove and IL3/H Coutances Way are designated as green belt, preservation of which is of vital importance. Erosion of open land/green belt should be avoided. Once built on it is highly unlikely that it will be returned to its current status as a natural resource.

Essential that policy stops gradual erosion of natural resources and plans for greener future to help avert continuing overuse of natural resources and protects the natural environment.

Fully support new housing using technology and building techniques to create low impact housing. Brownfield sites, infill sites and redevelopment sites should be the only options available to create new homes.

Smaller scale housing schemes generally produce better quality housing than the large developments.

Object

Representation ID: 11251

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Alice Hills

Refuse planning permission for the proposed 300+ houses in Ilkley, a town located in a narrow valley where traffic and NHS infrastructure is already under significant strain.

Additional 314 dwellings mean potentially an extra 1,000 inhabitants with 400-500 cars. New householders are unlikely to exchange cars for bicycles or public transport. Empty bicycle racks makes this clear, as do buses containing only a handful of OAPs.

The impact of IL1/H and IL3/H’s extra 285 households with an average of two cars each means joining the queue for the traffic lights (Wheatley Road/A65 junction) before the crunch point (railway bridge) near Valley Drive. Returning will be even worse - queue stretches from Burley roundabout to traffic lights by the Factory shop. Traffic equally bad from the traffic lights towards Brook Street and at the Addingham end. Must have significant implications for the emergency services. Affects pollution levels and quality of life.

Object

Representation ID: 11277

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Eleanor Sedlak

Object to proposals to build 314 new homes in Ilkley/Ben Rhydding (IL1/H, IL2/H, IL3/H, IL4/H).

Use of Green Belt land - 97% of new homes would be built on green belt land. No justification given as to why it would need to be used. Given that there are plenty of brownfield sites available, why have these sites been chosen?

Environment - proposals go against plans to protect Ilkley's local environment. Ilkley Moor is a SSSI and priority habitat and should be protected

Schools - Ilkley Grammar is at capacity with space for expansion. No new school has been proposed.

Safety - Ben Rhydding sites would lead to a significant increase in traffic, leading to reduction in safety.

Flooding - three sites have significant flood risks - Coutances Way and Wheatley Grove are regularly sodden/flooded. Development would exacerbate this issue.

Character - would significantly change the countryside character of the town.

Comment

Representation ID: 11285

Received: 06/05/2021

Respondent: Viv Halliwell

I wish to make a few comments on the plan to build 300 houses on various sites around Ilkley.

1. Can Ilkley’s present infrastructure honestly cope with more housing?

2. Consider the parking problems Ilkley already suffers from. There will likely be upwards of 600 cars extra coming into town.

3. Will the new developments enhance the appearance of Ilkley, sensitively and imaginatively, fitting into its history?

4. Consider access onto the A65 from Skipton/Leeds Roads; already horrendous and dangerous.

5. Ilkley is the ‘Jewel in Bradford’s crown’. Consider how easily that can be ruined by overdevelopment and poor quality housing, thereby losing its unique ambience and charm.

Having said all that, I am not against more housing so long as building materials are high quality and that there is an attractive mix of detached, semis, town houses and bungalows. Area opposite the Old Bridge needs to be particularly attractive.

Object

Representation ID: 11413

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Mr & Mrs David Lloyd Wallbank

Number of people: 2

Site IL/012B Skipton Road
•Reasons for rejection include habitat/ecological impact but there are no ecological features on the site. The direct impact on ecology is minimal and at worst very low.
•Indirect impact on adjacent woodland in unlikely. Measure can be put in place to protect trees.
•Proposed that the wood be protected and handed to a Trust.
•Woodland to be extended as part of site to provide a continuous Green Infrastructure link. Overall impact on habitat will be positive/neutral.
•Green Belt impact – Addingham is over 2km away and not visible. New/reinforced woodland will provide a future defensible boundary and a permanent Green Infrastructure corridor.
•Landscape impact – views are from a distance, with Briery Wood and reinforced woodland softening views from the west. New tree planting along the main road and within the site will soften views from the other side of the valley.

Object

Representation ID: 11414

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Mr & Mrs David Lloyd Wallbank

Number of people: 2

In the Specific Green Belt Assessment of site IL/012 it is indicated that Purpose 4 ‘To preserve the setting and special character of the historic town’ has been classified as having a Major impact. There are no views of the historic core from the site. In addition to the distance from the historic core the site is completely screened from any views by the tree lined Hebers Ghyll. This site will not have an impact on the historic core or character of Ilkley. It should be noted the nearest residential properties that can just viewed through the trees alongside Hebers Ghyll are post 1970’s.
The assessment under Purpose 4 should be changed to indicate a Low impact which is important as this affects the overall rating of the site.

Object

Representation ID: 11417

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Mike Dalby

•Proposed houses on Green Belt which should be protected. Sufficient Brownfield land available and should be priority.
•Traffic delays will be exacerbated with additional journeys on the single file, traffic light controlled road at the railway bridge. Only access to/from A65 via this road.
•Grammar School is at capacity. Existing primary schools will be overloaded by increased demand.
•Already difficult to access GP services. Increase in population will make this worse.
•Existing serious problem with parking. Increased traffic will increase these problems.
•Development at Ben Rhydding and at Sun Lane, Burley-in-Wharfedale will substantially reduce the Green Belt between the two towns.
•The A65 is a traffic disaster, with increased traffic flows due to housing developments in the area. Further developments in Menston/Addingham will impinge on the traffic volume. No alternative routes through Ilkley to the west.
•Local infrastructure will not be able to accommodate an increase in population of 1500-2000 people.

Object

Representation ID: 11625

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Peter Templeman

No mention of congested A65 and access to it. In addition to Ilkley traffic, it is busy through route and suffers congestion at rush hour and summer weekends.

Skipton Road East site – would be good to clear it, but there will be an issue with access/egress to/from the A65.

Ben Rhydding Drive/Wheatley Grove & Coutances Way sites – there are already queues on Wheatley Lane leading to the A65 at rush hour and development will make this worse. It will be a bottleneck and have an impact on bus services. Local people had hoped that a Park & Ride facility would be built on the area below the Scout Hut.

Destruction of the Green Belt is unacceptable. The plan describes the deficit in parks and play areas, but gives no solution. There is already a shortage of school places and access to medical facilities also.

Object

Representation ID: 11807

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Clive Brook Planning

The exclusion (and subsequent allocation) of this site (IL/020A) from the Green Belt is justified in relation to the exceptional circumstances which apply to the housing need, requirement and supply at this Principal Town and the need for a range of sites including small deletions from the Green Belt where this can logically be achieved in association with adjacent nearby changes, as is the case in these particular location and site circumstances.

The Council’s Green Belt review rejects the site on outline Green Belt grounds and does not progress this site to a full site specific review. I disagree with the conclusions reached. While the site is not currently attached to the urban area within the settlement boundary of Ilkley it is within the Growth study 500 m arc parcel which did not dismiss the potential of this and related sites and gave much greater and more realistic consideration to the housing need and demand for this Principal Town.

The Council further conclude that it could only be considered for release in association with sites IL/037 and IL/039. I totally disagree with this conclusion as it could come forward, without IL/037 and IL/039, in association with IL/009 and the already developed sites in the current residential cell to either side of Ben Rhydding Drive.

I also disagree with the assessment that this site would have “a major potential impact on the Green Belt. Given the site’s association with existing development and its high degree of containment by this it cannot be concluded that its release would contribute to urban sprawl (purpose 1 in the assessment). Similarly, the development of this site would make no contribution to purpose 2 -preventing neighbouring towns from merging into one another. The site would only have a limited negative impact on purpose 3 of the Green Belt- assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. Purpose 4- the preservation of the setting and special character of an historic town we have argued does not apply in the Ilkley or Bradford wide context.

Object

Representation ID: 11824

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Clive Brook Planning

Rejected site IL/015
Site specific submission for land in my client’s ownership to the south of Slates Lane and west of Coppywood Drive.

Proposal involves five dwellings with remainder of the site being retained in the Green Belt with proposed environmental enhancements in the retained field areas.

Presents an ideal opportunity for a small housebuilder or self-build projects - will help provide the variety of site opportunities being sought in policies HO4, HO6 and the innovation sought in policy SP8.

Area closely attached to a residential outlier cell washed over by the Green Belt. Could be resolved by taking this part of Curly Hill out of the Green Belt along revised boundary lines which closely follow the urbanized curtilages of houses in this cell and along the west to east highways forming the District boundary (Slates Lane and the linked section of Carters Lane). Would provide a clear, logical and highly defensible boundary.

Object

Representation ID: 12176

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Alice Bullock

IL1/H to IL4/H

Can’t keep expanding what were once small towns, to build new, cheaply built, not eco-friendly homes, by destroying Green Belt land.

Everyone knows how serious climate change is and yet turn a blind eye in these scenarios. How can you justify building new homes which are not eco-friendly and do not have solar panels etc, built in? How can you justify destroying green land which will be the environment for birds and foxes etc to build more uniform, crass housing?

Will never be enough affordable housing. Solution is not to keep building. More systemic issue about relative prices of houses to salaries and cost of living. Won’t be affordable housing as they will be over-priced.

These kinds of decisions to destroy the environment and think short-sightedly for profit only disadvantage us all in the long-term.

Object

Representation ID: 12198

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Louise Hepworth-Wood

Object to proposals to build on Green Belt in Ilkley.

Two large sites are both wholly unfit for large, ugly builds due to location, flooding, infrastructure and wildlife that rely upon it.

Potential for Coutances Way site to join up with Sun Lane site, meanings villages will almost join.

Both sites are large, beautiful Green Belt expanses that support habitats for deer, owls and curlews (a protected species).

Flooding and run-off issues on Wheatley Lane will be exacerbated

Infrastructure – Wheatley Lane is already busy. Entrance is a death trap waiting to happen, as well as proposed car park. Ilkley Grammar School is full – bussing pupils to Keighley is not sustainable.

Council approach is disgusting. We are in a climate emergency, but Council views green fringe areas as viable. Areas not valued.

Object

Representation ID: 12318

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Andy Flaxman

I would like to comment on the recent local plan consultation for Ilkley.

I feel the lack of local schooling availability particular at secondary level is a major issue and object to IL3/H & IL1/H.

Also regarding this, the IL3/H 155 dwellings area was a suggested area to rebuild/move the IGS secondary school to. The green belt is getting eroded and feel that Ilkley is being spoilt with the amount of traffic and visitors. These sites, particularly IL1/H are home to wildlife which will be disturbed in this area.

I think the IL2/H 20 dwellings is a good use for this land but I think the other areas proposed are not ideal.

Object

Representation ID: 12544

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Roger Whitehouse

Strongly object to all the proposals.
1. Our roads and infrastructure cannot possibly stretch to accommodate all this new housing.

2. Our medical and dental facilities are already fully used making it very difficult to get an appointment particularly in this situation.

3. The same applies to schools which are again at full capacity.

4.I am particularly concerned about the proposed development of the Skipton Road East site since it will cause terrible traffic jams as it faces on the main A65 road, and also it is on a bend.

5. It will be almost impossible to park in Ilkley with no doubt the many cars that will be in evidence and difficulty in getting to the shops in Ilkley that are still left.

6. It will also cause already more difficult parking for local residents.

Comment

Representation ID: 12812

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Will & Kerry Stoker

An increase of up to 1,000 in local population on these sites. Where are the shops, schools and medical facilities, plus a large increase in traffic and pollution. How much stress will this put on Ilkley Town centre re: traffic and parking concerns?

It looks like the houses will be jammed in close together and would suggest this is more use of Ilkley as a cash Cow and Calf exercise.

How about making good things that need doing in Ilkley like the Riverside toilets and the state of the roads which deteriorates year on year. Patching up does not work.

Comment

Representation ID: 12821

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Bob .

Other general comments are about the impact on the local infrastructure.
•Are local utility services capable of handling another 314 households?
•Are local transport services capable of handling this extra influx?
•Are there sufficient schools to bear another 1,000 pupils?
•What about the parking problem in the centre of Ilkley and Ben Rhydding which still exists despite the introduction of permits and charges?
•What about the strain on other facilities including doctors, dentists and the almost non-existent full time police force where community police are inadequate?

Much to consider before you give consent.

Comment

Representation ID: 12898

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Marilyn Heron

All 4 proposed developments:

As there will be over 300 new dwellings in total other “infrastructure” will need to be increased to cope, e.g.:
•Increased school provision in Ben Rhydding and at Ilkley Grammar School
•extra doctors and car parking at the medical centre on Springs Lane
•extra car-parking at the town’s supermarkets (and even larger supermarkets)

Comment

Representation ID: 12907

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Margaret Scott

•Prefer that houses are only built on green belt when all other sites have been built on.
•Some towns/cities have old mills which could be converted/former industrial sites which could be developed. However, I recognise that houses will be built on green belt whatever views people have on the matter.
•Average house prices in Ilkley are well above the West Yorkshire average. Concerned that the houses will only be affordable to the wealthy. New houses should be social/affordable houses, and if sold on, the price should be kept low to enable others to benefit. There's no point in building affordable homes if they are later sold at inflated prices. Consider building affordable houses as a priority.
•All homes should be built to the highest environmentally friendly standards, i.e. photovoltaic panels installed, large double glazed windows to make the best use of natural light, high standards of insulation, collection of grey water for toilets. The size of rooms should be considered; many new homes are too small and do not have adequate storage space.
•Accessibility should be considered, i.e. no outside steps. See the small development next to the Manor House Museum.
•Adequate areas for play/recreation, safe cycle paths, interconnected streets should be provided, not endless cul-de-sacs. Adequate services are needed and an upgrading of the sewerage system so untreated sewerage does not end up in the river.

Object

Representation ID: 12944

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Juliet Green

Object to proposed 314 new dwellings in Ilkley(IL1/H, IL2/H, IL3/H & IL4/H).

Understand that 97% of these dwellings are planned for Green Belt land, despite the availability of alternative Brown Belt sites in the District. Council noted that ‘Ilkley is set within a scenic and sensitive natural landscape’ and rates the sites as having moderate or major impact on the Green Belt. If we do not protect Green Belt land, we set a precedent for further developments, thus endangering our countryside and its biodiversity for generations to come, and at a time when Climate Change is already at crisis point. District should be setting an example, rather than eroding/ downgrading values and principles expressively designed to protect nature and our environment.

Add to this increased risk of flooding, increased traffic in already congested streets, lack of infrastructure (particularly schools) to support growth - proposed plans appear to be ill–considered.

Object

Representation ID: 12972

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Victoria Furness

I object to all of the housing proposals for the following reasons.
•Both Primary and Secondary schools in the area are already oversubscribed without the numerous other houses that are proposed, which will attract families.
•Cases of Anti-Social Behaviour have increased significantly due to the building of new houses. The families from outside the area who were given housing association properties were trouble causers committing crime.
•The sewerage system is not adequate so how can more houses be being considered.
• The River Wharfe is already an open sewer without more waste being proposed. The river is to be a swimming/bathing site.
•Traffic is already high and proposed houses will only make this worse. I am concerned at the speed and volume of traffic in the area.
•The field and Greenland is a positive thing so why build houses on it. Yorkshire is renowned for its beauty so why spoilt it.

Comment

Representation ID: 12973

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Stephen Smith

Seems to be four proposals for housing in Ilkley. Difficult to comment on each plan and address collective issues raised by 314 proposed new dwellings.

1. Plans do not indicate price bands of the proposed properties. Looks like more properties in the price bands already available in Ilkley, which needs more starter homes (costing less than £250,000 or ideally less than £200,000).

2. Plans take up land that might be required for school expansion. How many more will need to register with the struggling GP network. Cannot find documentation on the plans for increased infrastructure capacity.

3. Ben Rhydding sites on drainage route off the Moor. What is the plan for dealing with flooding risk? Coutances Way site prone to standing water.

4. Have local issue with sewerage discharge into the river during peaks. What is the plan to increase capacity for sewerage treatment with the increased number of sources?