Consultation Question 121

Object

Representation ID: 12979

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Enid Briggs

•Greenfields, trees, shrubland etc ALL ABSORB WATER. Buildings, roads do NOT.
•Newly built houses will all have cars therefore much more pollution and flooding, which we already have in Ilkley. If council planners would use brown sites to rebuild on perhaps this would be the answer. More house building will cause more pollution to our air, and also more traffic on our roads, which are already causing accidents and pollution.
•Infrastructure will soon be at breaking point, with more people using it. Doctors, nurses, hospitals, buses, will all be at breaking point soon.
•Why was green belt land introduced to keep Britain pollution free, if it is now disregarded, by house building, road building.
•Bicycles would be much safer to we pedestrians if they all had bells which were used, before hitting an unsuspected pedestrian. If they would ride single breasted, instead of two/three abreast, they would not cause traffic to build up.
•Electric cars would be safer if they were fitted with some form of sound.

Object

Representation ID: 13700

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Miss R.A. Cousins

Oppose sites IL1/H, IL2/H, IL3/H & IL4/H most strenuously.

Infrastructure could not cope with additional properties. Schools are full and doctor’s appointments are difficult to obtain.

Parking problem exacerbated by recent zone and charging, pushing it further from the town centre. Many residential streets are dangerous owing to lack visibility for pedestrians and drivers. The increase in residents will make this problem worse

Has been a lack of investment by the Council in Ilkley that could improve it for residents and as a tourist destination. Ilkley viewed as a cash cow with Council initiatives being burdensome to residents. No benefit derives from developing new housing estates, let alone that the proposed developments are on Green Belt land.

The reason Ilkley attracts tourist and has premium property prices is that it is a small town in green countryside. Consideration needs to be given to protecting town from wanton expansion and inappropriate development.

Object

Representation ID: 15342

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: A.C. & M.J. Rodley

With reference to the proposed developments within the Ilkley area we strongly object to the fact that three of the site locations are on Green Belt land.

The effect on the local infrastructure will certainly increase and create enormous pressure on schools , medical services and create further congestion within the area, not to mention the huge impact on the environment.

Comment

Representation ID: 15510

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Highways England (Yorkshire & North East Team)

It is not considered that locating development within the
settlements within Ilkley, on their own, will have a severe impact on the capacity, operation and safety of the SRN, and this will be identified through the transport evidence base being prepared by the Council / the individual assessment of the transport implications of the sites by the sites’ promoters.
However, the quantum of sites forms part of a wider cumulative impact within Ilkley and the rest of the development aspirations
within the Plan could severely impact the SRN, and this cumulative impact will need to be established by the Council and considered by
Highways England.

Object

Representation ID: 16225

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Robin Lancaster

Objection to plans for over 300 new homes, 97% proposed are in green belt.

No justification for developing green belt, given the number of brownfield sites available in the Bradford district.

In Bradford, use of Green Belt is 20%, a disproportionate value against Ilkley.

‘Ilkley is set within a scenic/sensitive natural landscape’, and the three sites show moderate or major impact on the green belt.

Reduction of separation between towns and creation of a ‘Wharfedale corridor’ of development.

Changes to the character of town and the surrounding areas.

Development would exacerbate issues of flood risks on the surrounding areas.

Impact on Ilkley moor SSSI, development should be avoided in these areas.

Coutances Way is a nationally significant area of Curlew feeding.

Impact on wildlife corridors and habitat for wildlife, and mature trees with Tree Protection Orders/Woodland protection.

Sewage sites are unable to deal with the capacity required, and regularly overflow their storm surge capacity.

Schools at capacity.

Increased traffic/congestion, high risk of accidents.

No account taken of previous developments.

Object

Representation ID: 16374

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr & Mrs John Nash

Number of people: 2

My wife and myself are against the Bradford proposed local plan to build houses in Ilkley and Ben Rhydding.
Plots in Ilkley should be allowed to be built on.
Save the Green Belt and agricultural land. The land is riddled with streams and landslips have occurred above the railway line in Ben Rhydding this could happen if things are destroyed below.
People may want to live in Ilkley and Ben Rhydding and it is of benefit for Bradford Council but nobody wants to try and park in town because its a night mare. Added pressure on utilities, schools and NHS not in walking distance anything.

Object

Representation ID: 16375

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Margaret Pack

The green party and friends of the earth would agree that proposals will have a devastating effect, particularly on out Green Belt.
Some of the areas proposed are subject to flooding
The density proposed is too high.
Ilkley has a serious parking problem and the possibility of at least 300 more cars would cause more congestion and is insupportable.
The schools are short of spaces.
Proposals will make it much harder for medical services.
I particularly object to the plan for 9 dwellings on Stockfield Road
There are too many houses on what was two tennis courts.
Loss of green space.
The serious problem of parking will be increased by the loss of some of the spaces on Stockfield Road. This will have an effect on the parking for Catholic Church Services, customers of Ilkley Moor Vaults, and customers of the nursery garden at the Old Bridge. This will put pressure on parking in Stockfield Way.

Object

Representation ID: 16578

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Anne Graham

I wish to object to the housing proposals in the Ilkley area and the possible loss of green belt land.

I did not move Ilkley to have the area ruined by large scale housing estates.

The town already has a high density housing in flats and more housing will swamp the town and ruin its character.

Object

Representation ID: 16588

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Sheila Walker

I wish to object to the housing proposals in the Ilkley area and the possible loss of green belt land.

I did not move to Ilkley to have the area ruined by large scale housing estates.

The town already has high density housing in flats and more housing will swamp the town and ruin it's character.

Object

Representation ID: 16831

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Raj Kumar

I moved to Ilkley many years ago, it has so much natural beauty, the proposed building of 300 new homes on the green belt will totally destroy the natural beauty, for which Ilkley is recognised. Not only will the proposal destroy the green belt, it will have a huge impact on the environment, and natural habitat, not to mention the pollution that will be created by additional hundreds of cars that will come along with the proposal.
Ilkley is a small town, it doesn’t have the infrastructure for any new homes.
If Ilkley is to remain the Crown Jewel of Bradford then the council has a duty to reject any such proposal that will destroy it.
I strongly object to these proposed new homes.

Object

Representation ID: 17007

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Paul Smith

2) Some of the proposed development should be split with Middleton. Why are those areas rejected ?
3) Similarly, the old hospital site on Carters Lane would be ideal - why has that been rejected ? Can we see valid reasons for this and its not just more Nimbism!?
Use of true green field sites IL1/H and IL3/H should not be used when this brown field site exists nearby!

Comment

Representation ID: 17323

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Avant Homes

Agent: ID Planning

Objecting to the proposed rejection of site IL/044 and consider sites IL/044 and IL/012 should be allocated as a sustainable western extension to the principal town of Ilkley.

The distribution to housing to Ilkley should be increased and additional sites should be identified to provide sustainable housing. At the very least, additional safeguarded land sites should be identified to protect the Green Belt boundary well beyond the plan period. It is our case that site IL/044 to the west of Ilkley should be identified as a residential allocation to address housing need in the area and provide choice for local people.

The sites currently lie in the Green Belt. They would not result in unrestricted sprawl and would not result in neighbouring settlements merging. The site is adjacent to the historic core of Ilkley but views to the core are limited. Development of the Greenfield sites would result in encroachment into the countryside but the Council has recognised there are exceptional circumstances through the release of three sites around the town to meet housing need.

Object

Representation ID: 17634

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Alison Schofield

•Sites are in green belt with no justification given the number of brownfield sites available. Also all three sites have moderate or major green belt impact.
•Developments would reduce the separation between towns signficiantly altering the character of the town and surrounding areas. Further exacerbating issues with associated amenities/infrastructure.
•Wheatley Grove acts as a sink delaying the flow of water through Ilkley.
•Ilkley is defined by its natural setting and the proposals go against the local plan to protect the local environment. Ilkley Moor is an SSSI and Wheatley Grove is only 350m from it.
•Wheatley Grove provides a wildlife corridor and habitat for wildlife with mature trees protected by TPOs.
•Sewage sites are already unable to cope and regularly overflow their storm surge capacity.
•The two site in Ben Rhydding will significantly increase traffic through the Wheatley Road train bridge and junction with Valley Drive. These areas are already congested and at risk of accidents.
•Ilkley Grammar is already at capacity and unable to expand. The catchment area has been limited and children are often working in portacabins.

Object

Representation ID: 18744

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Matthew, Jonathan & Robert Brooksbank

Number of people: 3

Site IL/012B Skipton Road should be allocated for housing.

The green belt -approx 1.2 miles distance to Addingham will not be significantly affected. The green belt assessment under purpose 4 is wrong - the site lies 1.2 miles from the centre of Ilkley and there are no vioews of the historic core from the site.

The site has a strong woodland defensible boundary which will be further strengthened this year with additional planting.

We own Briery Wood which forms part of the western boundary. A total; of 17 acres will be dedicated to a woodland trust and legally protected via planning conditions.

The site is low quality pasture / low ecological value.

The landscape impact will be v limited.

The site will have the benefit of footpaths running south from the A65 to the top of Grove Rd.

Object

Representation ID: 18868

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Jane Coupe

1. There will be a major increase in traffic in Ilkley and surrounding areas as most households own 2 cars that means that with the proposed houses for Coutances Way ( alone)that will mean 310 extra vehicles in a town where there are already parking issues. The roads are already overcrowded
2. Our schools and health centre are full and where can another secondary school be built?
3. The beauty and wildlife will change and be under further threat.
4. No provision for low cost housing.
5. The sight of modern ugly houses instead of the beautiful moorland.
6. What about using brownfield sites or utilising all the empty buildings that are numerous across the county and have grown in numbers since the pandemic?

Object

Representation ID: 19819

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Simon Concannon

•Development of large sites by national house builders would impact upon the character of the town.
•Breaking sites in to smaller sites to encourage SMEs would: a. reduce the impact of any single development; b. provide opportunities for local businesses; c. create sustainable local employment d. provide for skills to be developed locally.
•Whilst the unit cost may be higher there will be only limited impact on the profit accrued by the landowner/developer.
•Existing problems with the water/sewage system.
•Additional housing will add to this with raw sewage being flushed into the river Wharfe.
•Any development should include designated soak away areas to minimise additions to the existing drainage system.
•Large developments at Burley/Addingham were linked to road projects to bypass the A65.
•Ilkley is already a bottleneck. Additional development in Ilkley will generate traffic and pollution causing respiratory diseases.
•Any development must be linked to a plan to reduce traffic in the town.
•Existing parking problems will be exacerbated by new large scale developments. These developments should at least incorporate sufficient parking for the dwellings created.

Object

Representation ID: 20006

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Philip Petty

GREEN BELT
In case you hadn't realised this is land designated not to be built on

There are plenty of brown field sites available in Bradford but then you wouldn't make a fortune on it as with the land you already own in Ben Rhydding.

153 houses at say £200,000 per plot = £30,600,000 - will Ilkley ever see a reasonable portion of the proceeds?

INFRASTRUCTURE
Can't cope with what is already built. Where are the new schools, surgeries, sewage works and transport links?

COVID EFFECT
Convert redundant offices to residential properties and revitalise our towns and cities

You have today (24th March) commenced cutting down the ancient oak tree at what will be close to the entrance of the proposed development.

You have already decided on this development and this consultation period is taking place during lockdown making it more difficult to object.

This is merely a PR exercise on your part
SHAME ON YOU

Object

Representation ID: 20330

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: James Whittington

Alternative areas or sites which should be considered for development instead of sites such as IL1 and IL3:

Over the next few years the demand for shops will dwindle, in order to keep the town alive the focus has to be on the Grove and Brook Street.

Support should be given to turning peripheral shops back into houses. West street is an obvious example, perhaps Wells Road, Hawksworth Street. Let those retailers move to other locations including the Moors Shopping Centre, which you own.

Another development opportunity has to be the building off Leeds Road in Dansk Way, is anyone in this building as it gives the impress of being derelict. This could surely be turned into a reasonable number of houses, whilst being more aesthetically pleasing.

A simple search for office or retail space will show that there is so much empty space.

Object

Representation ID: 21046

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Ian & Diana Robinson

Number of people: 2

We write to object to the proposed development of dwellings on Ilkley’s Green Belt. Green Belt was created for the benefit of everyone to enjoy and was set aside from building plans. Whilst we understand the necessity for new houses these should not be built on the Green Belt.

Aside from that, Ilkley is congested enough with traffic and pollution.

Object

Representation ID: 21069

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Leigh & Ruth Dixon

Number of people: 2

As residents of Ilkley we would like to make our views known regarding the proposed housing development in the Ilkley area.

We strongly object to the proposals on the basis that green land will be used and the overall effect is of a general sprawl of the town and surrounding countryside. Ilkley is already extremely congested in the summer months and these developments will only make the problem worse with a slow, but sure detraction to a popular visitor destination.

Object

Representation ID: 21115

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Hilary Boon

I am concerned about my safety and the safety of my family, should the development go ahead.

I am registered blind as are two other members of my family and therefore have to access my home via Ben Rhydding Drive. Being blind, I have to always walk to my home, along Ben Rhydding Drive, which is narrow and virtually all without a footpath (a small section near the bottom has footpaths). Even with the current traffic along this road, there are risks.

There would be a huge increase in the number of vehicles and just the construction phase would cause dangerous conditions on the road for the pedestrians.

Already the speed limit is ignored by some road users.

The local infrastructure e.g. schools is not sufficient to accommodate so many new properties.

Why are these green belt sites being developed when were are plenty of brown fill sites and derelict buildings in the Bradford area?

Object

Representation ID: 21500

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Marilyn Greaves

I would like to object to the building of homes on green belt land in Ilkley and Burley. These areas are already over populated and the continued damage to the environment is without question. Is Bradford council determined to spoil these areas when there are plenty of alternatives?

Object

Representation ID: 21632

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Barry Moore

I wish to object to the proposed plans for 314 new dwellings in ilkley the main reasons being

1. the schools are already over subscribed and there is no room for expansion
2. the local medical practice would be streched even further
3. putting more and more cars onto the local roads is counter productive
4. more off the Greenbelt which we have managed to protect for so long will just be sacrificed for profit and most of these new dwellings will be beyond the price range of many local first time buyers

Object

Representation ID: 21637

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Deborah Crannigan

I agree with the need for affordable housing but not until there is at least one more secondary school in the Ilkley/Addingham/Burley in Wharfedale/Menston area.

Each town and village has one or more primary school but these all feed into Ilkley Grammar School. IGS has intolerable conditions - I was a student at IGS between 1968 and 1971 when they had approximately 450 students and Ilkley also had a secondary modern school at that time. IGS now has close to two thousand students on one site which now has no land for exercise. Overcrowded schools are a real health risk.

Other issues to consider - traffic congestion, health services etc. lack of NHS dentists capacity.

Flooding is a huge problem which will get worse with all new building work - no logic to building in the Leeds Road/Coutances Way area as that land floods frequently.

Object

Representation ID: 22465

Received: 10/03/2021

Respondent: Louise Miller

I have concerns about the proposed housing developments on green belt land in Ilkley.

The use of our beautiful greenbelt land makes no sense given other land available (a large site recently given over to a garden centre for instance and plenty of other brown sites crying out for development in the Bradford District)

What measures you are putting in place to see how Yorkshire Water intend to deal with the additional sewage created by these new builds.

We have an old system that has not been upgraded for many years which is unable to cope with the the current housing in Ilkley, resulting in many days when raw sewage is released into our river.

Adding large numbers of housing to the area should be stopped until there is a clear understanding of measures to be taken, and plan for our sewage and water systems to be upgraded.

Object

Representation ID: 24142

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: John & Alex Cockshott

Number of people: 2

Q121
We wish to object to the inclusion of the three sites IL1/H IL2/H and IL3/H as preferred site allocations.

We do so because these are green field areas fundamental to the character of Ilkley and its identity.

Comment

Representation ID: 24680

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Georgina Marks

In total this is over 300 houses. This is massive and must be planned for. This will attract over 1000 people, and maybe as many cars, many children needing schooling, doctors surgery’s, police, fire fighters, parking, good road systems. This must be phased in slowly for the towns to cope. I believe a minimum of ten years.

Object

Representation ID: 24686

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Julia Bryson

•Strong concerns about how the development of 314 homes over four sites will affect the look of the area. Removal of vital greenbelt and impact on provision for traffic, schools and services.
•The area bordering the two development sites at Ben Rhydding is characterised by its proximity to this greenbelt land. Building on this land will remove the distinction between Ilkley and Burley making it merge into one.
•Strongly object to removal of greenbelt when there are plenty of brownfield sites that could be used.
•Impact on the environment would be detrimental – increasing the risk of flooding and removing natural habitats. Coutances Way is nationally significant for Curlew feeding.
•Concerned about how the extra children living in these development will be educated. Ilkley doesn’t have the school provision.
•Large developments at Addingham and Burley will put immense pressure on Ilkley Grammar school meaning children will have to commute out of the area for education.
•The scale of the developments so close to the moorlands is shocking and seems way over and above what would be reasonable for Ilkley.

Object

Representation ID: 24924

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Sephra Greening-Jackson

I would like to formally object to the local area strategy for Ilkley and preferred site allocations that are proposed for the following reasons:

• No clear need for this housing. If there were, the size of the houses would increase the issue of housing being too expensive for the majority of those wanting to live here or get on the property ladder for the first time.

• Congestion on roads and increase of people using public transport would be absolutely ridiculous. Trains are already completed packed at rush hour. Parking in/around Ilkley is very limited, expensive and would become more so with demand from new residents.

• It would make flooding with the river and rainwater run-off worse. Also, it Would threaten open green and wildlife habitat.

• Development would be a huge waste of time and money and spoil what makes this area so special.

Object

Representation ID: 25544

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Christian Hills

Number of people: 2

The development will have a detrimental effect on the area:

Traffic Congestion combined with increased air and noise pollution.

At a time when councils and governments are committed to reducing harmful emissions and improving air quality, this seems like a step backwards - removing valuable green belt land that can help combat emissions and increasing traffic levels on streets already blighted by high volume of cars, buses and HGVs.

Extra houses, both and Wheatley Grove and elsewhere, will add additional pressure on local services - schools, dentists and doctors.

Loss of Green Belt - at a time when the environment and green space is prized - not only for individual mental health but also for greater environmental factors.

Where is the line drawn and where does the encroachment stop? When the houses reach Burley? Or Addingham?

I’d like to lodge my objection to the Local Plan in relation to the development at Wheatley Grove and the other sites with Ilkley as I believe the impact needs wider consideration.