Object

Representation ID: 6740

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Stuart & Joan Quarmby

Number of people: 2

We object to this unnecessary loss of valuable green belt land. It is important that Ilkley retains it’s identity through it’s clearly defined boundaries and that these boundaries are not lost by urban sprawl.

Whilst we sympathise with the Council’s obligation to identify land for housing, using this part of the country’s green belt is not the answer. One only has to travel by train from Ilkley into Bradford to see acres upon acres of surplus brownfield land ripe for re development as housing. The Council should use this in it’s entirety before even thinking about developing our green belt.

Further, there appears to be an error in the online description of IL2/H, at the top of the description it says 20 indicative dwellings but later on states 30 estimated. Which is it?

Object

Representation ID: 6756

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Dr Oliver Sykes

•Need to maintain greenbelt and no properties should be built on greenbelt.
•Any building should be on brownbelt or redevelopment opportunities.
•There are significant issues re pressure on the towns infrastructure. Particularly with respect to schools. An additional proposed increase is not appropriate for the level of infrastructure the town has.
•Also concerned re the effect on traffic.
•Development IL2/H is in an area where traffic would be difficult to access the A65. This area would be better served by allowing it to re naturalise.
•Also an significant environmental issue. We need greenbelt area to help absorb water and planting more trees in this area would delay water release and reduce the risk of flooding. The town already has a significant issue with flooding as seen over recent years. Adding housing and its associated loss of surface area for drainage and slow release increases flood risk in the area.

Object

Representation ID: 6817

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Dr Roger Cook

I object to ALL developments on green belt land in Ilkley.

Object

Representation ID: 6854

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Jon Tighe

I would like to log an objection to then current local plan out for consultation. Specifically areas IL1/H, IL2/H, IL3/H, and IL4/H.

I do not believe green belt land should be used for development and there is no clear explanation how local services will meet increased demand.

Support

Representation ID: 7054

Received: 02/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Sam Hadfield

Site is a perfect place for housing to be build on. It is an old spoil from the train tracks which used to run through the area and needs regeneration in some regard as it is currently an ugly scar in the area. Housing here I fully encourage and am looking forward to seeing, provided it is built in a way respectful to the area it will be located in.

Object

Representation ID: 7218

Received: 11/03/2021

Respondent: Rebecca Lee

The areas are in flood risk zones which if built on make the flooding problems in Ilkley worse.
The areas are places where numerous different species of wildlife are homed.
A big issue would be with the already maxed out high school places available to current residents of Ilkley, burley and Addingham - there wouldn't be enough places to accommodate all the additional children.

Object

Representation ID: 7222

Received: 10/03/2021

Respondent: Alan Strachan

Why are you planning to build houses on Green Belt in this area ?

The Government’s policy on protection for the Green Belt is set out in chapter 13 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in 2012, which clearly states the importance of Green Belt land and emphasises that when protecting the Green Belt, local authorities should maximise the use of suitable brownfield sites before considering changes to Green Belt boundaries. -I have attached a copy of the Government National Planning Policy Framework for your reference

The Brownfield Sites available in Bradford Council is huge and according to your website it states:

“The purpose of the register is to promote sites with unimplemented planning permission for residential development and to identify further opportunities where land is suitable for new homes in the District, to encourage re use of the land/buildings, stimulate regeneration and drive up housing delivery.”

There are NO Brownfield Sites in Ilkley.

Object

Representation ID: 7396

Received: 07/03/2021

Respondent: Nancy Moss

Land is vital to retain a good habitat for wildlife, and trees need to be protected and nurtured for universal benefit.
We are worried about potential flooding and drainage, and alarmed at the prospect of increased traffic with the attendant congestion and pollution.

Comment

Representation ID: 7424

Received: 07/03/2021

Respondent: Maureen Johnson

Whilst the site is possibly the only semi- brownfield site which might benefit from a change of use, the lower part of the site could also affect flooding of the houses below it as well as the Tennis Club

Support

Representation ID: 7965

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Rachel Huxham

Supportive of the release of greenbelt areas IL1/H, IL2/H, IL3/H for sustainable housing development noting proximity to services & existing housing, and not within flood zone.

Object

Representation ID: 8071

Received: 08/03/2021

Respondent: William James

1. The proposed site is on green belt land with no natural boundary to stop them expanding further in the future. This would put even more green belt land at risk on top of the currently proposed sites.
2. Brownfield sites should be developed ahead of removing green belt

Object

Representation ID: 8127

Received: 10/03/2021

Respondent: Joan Matthews

•Green Belt land is important for environment/well-being.
•Importance of green corridors for local wildlife.
•Brownfield sites available in wider Bradford should be used rather than green belt. Brownfield redevelopment can be of huge benefit to community. Green belt development is of no benefit to the local area.
•500 houses approved in Burley-in-Wharfedale will lead to encroachment into the countryside. The proposed developments will encroach further reducing the green belt/separation between Ilkley/Burley-in-Wharfedale.
•Additional homes lead to additional residents/cars. Concern for children walking to school from increased traffic.
•Ilkley Grammar already over-subscribed. School cannot expand on existing site. Some pupils from Ilkley will be unable to gain a place.
•Coutances Way/Manor Park Bends often underwater. Increased run-off from developments would increase flood risk/further exacerbate flooding.
•Existing sewage sites regularly overflowing their storm surge capacity and unable to cope with existing demand.

Object

Representation ID: 8179

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: CPRE West Yorkshire

We’ve not been able to visit the site ourselves, but concerns have been brought to our attention by local groups in Ilkley. In addition to the strategic level, we have identified the following sites which we believe to have an impact on the local area:
▪ IL1/H
▪ IL2/H
▪ IL3/H
As stated in our objection comments on policy SP5, proposed development within the Green Belt across the district shows a net density averaging around 26 dpha, well below the HO2 minimum of 35 dpha. These sites identified in Ilkley are lower still, with gross densities of 18.11, 16.95 and 20.92.
We also note that IL4/H, while not in the Green Belt, is also the subject of significant local concerns especially about flood risk.
We would suggest that the development needs of Ilkley need to be re-examined from the perspective of producing more compact development at significantly increased density, thereby improving walkability, having much-reduced landtake and allowing for real enhancements to green infrastructure and flood management.

Object

Representation ID: 8187

Received: 16/04/2021

Respondent: Victoria Thomas

1. Building on Green Belt Land
•The approval of 500 houses in Burley-in-Wharfedale and these proposals will significantly reduce the separation between the towns.
•Green Belt is there to protect character, stop towns merging and sprawl.
•Building on Green Belt land is against the regulations when there are adequate brownfield sites in Bradford district.
2. Detrimental impact to Character
•Proposals would significantly change the character of this historic town and surrounding areas.
3. Lack of Infrastructure currently and with no further plans to develop
•Infrastructure is at capacity and issues with a lack of parking, doctors, schools, dentists and sewerage systems unable to cope.
•Sites are proposed on flood risks areas.
4. Road Safety
•Wheatley Road (train bridge) and Valley Drive junctions are high risk for accidents and not suitable for pedestrians.
5. Additional Development already in place.
•Proposals ignore additional building of around 30 houses per year in Ilkely.

Object

Representation ID: 8190

Received: 11/03/2021

Respondent: Mael Matthews

•Green Belt land is important for environment/well-being.
•Importance of green corridors for local wildlife.
•Brownfield sites available in wider Bradford should be used rather than green belt. Brownfield redevelopment can be of huge benefit to community. Green belt development is of no benefit to the local area.
•500 houses approved in Burley-in-Wharfedale will lead to encroachment into the countryside. The proposed developments will encroach further reducing the green belt/separation between Ilkley/Burley-in-Wharfedale.
•Additional homes lead to additional residents/cars. Concern for children walking to school from increased traffic.
•Ilkley Grammar already over-subscribed. School cannot expand on existing site. Some pupils from Ilkley will be unable to gain a place.
•Coutances Way/Manor Park Bends often underwater. Increased run-off from developments would increase flood risk/further exacerbate flooding.
•Existing sewage sites regularly overflowing their storm surge capacity and unable to cope with existing demand.
•Thorough environment impact study not undertaken.

Comment

Representation ID: 8199

Received: 11/03/2021

Respondent: Martin Smith

•Previously a green space. Part could be developed for housing. Site set below A65 giving visibility problems on junction onto the main road.

Object

Representation ID: 8426

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Stephen Clough

I would like to object and state that I am against all the proposed planning proposals for extra housing in Ilkley which have been suggested in the recent Bradford District Local Plan Consultation. My objections are based on my believe that the extra housing would have a detrimental effect on local schools there is not enough places at Ilkley Grammar School already the Doctors are over full appointments are at a premium on top of which the Bradford Council appear happy to overload the area when you can't get a bus direct to Bradford itself.

Comment

Representation ID: 8657

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: James Wood

The patch of land surrounded by fencing is an embarrassment and high quality housing would make sense

Object

Representation ID: 8671

Received: 12/03/2021

Respondent: Ann Gillon

The site is green belt areas. Housing on the site would be a catastrophe to Ben Rhydding and Ilkley.
Flooding areas
No infrastructure for any more inhabitants re schooling, GP services, parking.
Bradford Council have no consideration for the inhabitants of Ilkley and surrounding areas.
Money is the main objective.

Object

Representation ID: 8797

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: Iain Maden

Conservative Party promised to Protect the Green Belt.
Underutilised brownfield sites should be prioritised for new housing.
Plots of brownfield sites in the City and surrounding areas remain undeveloped
It is against the wishes of residents.
Potential infill between the four sites, turning the land between Burley-in-Wharfedale and Ilkley into one large sprawl.
ILH/1 and ILH/3 often flood.
The A65 can be closed by flooding.
Land Stability - a survey by The British Geological Survey raised concerns regarding possible land stability.
Character - very large and damaging changes or remove entirely the small number of fields between the Ilkley and Burley.
The sites have a moderate/major impact on the green belt.
Environment - proposals go totally against the defined local plan put in place to protect the natural environment.
Loss of habitat for birds and wildlife
Impact on SSSI
Impact on TPOs and protected woodland
Sewage system unable to deal with the capacity, the area regularly overflows the storm surges capacity.
School Capacity issues
Increased congestion, dangerous roads.

Support

Representation ID: 8905

Received: 21/04/2021

Respondent: Peter Balmforth

•Plans for IL2/H and IL4/H are more sensible.

Object

Representation ID: 8956

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Chris Johns

•Ilkley doesn’t need more housing. Local infrastructure cannot cope with additional dwellings and vehicles.
•Proposals will add significant additional traffic to Wheatley Lane which current backs up at busy times of the day.
•Proposals will alter the drainage of the area and add flooding pressures. Area already suffers from flooding due to proximity to the flood plain.
•Green Belt and greenfield sites should not be built on. There are numerous brownfield sites in Aire and Wharfe valleys which could be repurposed.
•Proposals will have a significant impact on the vista to Ilkley Moor, Cow and Calf Rocks and Burley from A65.
•No need for additional properties, areas proposed are inappropriate and will damage local environment and natural scenery.

Object

Representation ID: 9001

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Adam Irwin

•Ample brownfield sites available elsewhere in the region. No need to build on Green Belt land.
•Already allowed for a substantial and grotesque development in Burley, which will close the gap between Ilkley and Burley. Your plans for Ilkley will compound this urban sprawl, something that central government is against.
•There are practical issues that you seem to be ignoring. School capacity is already under strain and will not support the additional population.
•Traffic volumes are already far too high. The recent development in Burley will compound this as it is. Further developments in Ilkley will raise traffic volumes to an unacceptable level of congestion.
•The above point will compound existing issues with parking availability
The fact that Bradford Council will happily destroy green belt land in the face of climate change (and all the challenges that presents) is baffling. The fact it does so in an area that already faces significant infrastructure challenges, amounts to negligence.

Object

Representation ID: 9066

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: Tony Short

Moderate/major impact on the green belt without justification.
Impact on birds and wildlife.
Land collects rain water and run-off from the Moors.
Ilkley cut off by flooding, only access being moor road which is unsuited to large volumes of traffic.
Mitigation measures only disperse the excess water into the River Wharfe, causing flooding downstream.
Traffic congestion
Congestion will increase as lockdown eases, additional homes, compounded by housing developments in Burley in Wharfedale and North Yorkshire.
Toll Bridge crossing the river from the A65 over to Denton Road is pinch point, how will single lane bridge with weight restrictions and proximity to a busy traffic light controlled junction cope with the increase in traffic?
Impact of recently opened Garden Centre on traffic.
Impact on infrastructure.
Sewerage system (dysfunctional with raw effluent being pumped into River)
Schools oversubscribed.
Parking problems.
Impact on countryside.
Future years - further pressures to develop GB land

Object

Representation ID: 9203

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: Marion Garrod

Plans have been rushed, discriminate the elderly who may not have computer access.
Sites are more about raising revenue than sustainability. Use brownfield sites and derelict buildings in other towns.
Moderate/major impact on the green belt without justification.
Impact on birds and wildlife habitats
Sites keep us independent.
Land collects rain water and run-off from the Moors.
Ilkley cut off by flooding, only access being moor road which is unsuited to large volumes of traffic.
Mitigation measures only disperse the excess water into the River Wharfe, causing flooding downstream.
Traffic congestion
Safety concerns navigating the pavement under the railway bridge
Congestion will increase as lockdown eases and with additional homes
Sewerage system (dysfunctional with raw effluent being pumped into River)
Schools oversubscribed.
Parking problems.
Supermarkets are small, not enough parking won't be able to cope with extra demand for food
Doctors Surgery couldn't cope with extra patients
Ilkley’s unique character

Object

Representation ID: 9521

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Sarah Canelle

Impossible for developers to leave green belt land in a better state than beforehand.

Very heavy traffic, queues, congestion When this route Traffic diverts into Burley and the Moor Road in busy times, increasing pollution, changing feel of village and will lead to more accidents.

What infrastructure is being put in place?

Use disused mill buildings around Bradford for housing.

Protect Green Belt to maintain individual conurbations and stop urban sprawl.

EDUCATION Schools at capacity.

Proposals will change the character of the valley from villages within a green landscape to another suburb.

People who live here do so because of the fields and the good education facilities - Neither of these will exist in a few years time with potentially another 1600 cars on an already busy road and 1600 children trying to get into schools.

Object

Representation ID: 9626

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Tim Hills

•Will adequate infrastructure, both physical/service, be improved to deal with increase in population?
•GP services already under pressure. Only one dentist offering NHS treatment.
•Traffic/parking already at absurd levels. Town confined to narrow valley bisected by one major route.
•Adding extra vehicles will cause further problems.
•Education capacity in Ilkley is inadequate with some children travelling to Menston.
•Traffic will increase due to development. Only other route out of these sites is via the Wheatley Lane continuation of Bolling Road towards Valley Road or the traffic lights at the A65/Bolling Road junction.
• Bolling Road is a residential street. It suffers from speeding problems, congestion and parking problems. Traffic collisions occur at the intersection with Manley Road.
•Will drainage be able to cope with runoff from IL1/H and IL3/H?
•Both currently absorb and slow runoff from the moor, protecting the A65 lower down. Concreting the valley sides during a period of global warming is plain stupid.

Object

Representation ID: 9642

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Helen Etchell

The reason for my objection to the 305 new dwellings proposed is simple. Ilkley does not have the infrastructure (schools,medical centres, hospital, sewage works etc) in place to support so many new houses. There would not be enough primary schools to provide for so many new residents and Ilkley Grammar School is already struggling to accomodate the needs of the town, a problem which has been going on for many years now. Ironic that the Coutances way site was proposed as a site for an extended Grammar School site but rejected.

All sites are also on green belt land which should instantly deem them inappropriate sites for development. Green belt is by definition a buffer between towns and a space for wildlife to remain undisturbed , something that in the present climate is surely more important than ever.

Comment

Representation ID: 9952

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Alison Roberts

IL2/H holds true merit being a ‘brown field ‘ and has for decades been an eyesore on the approach to Ilkley and frankly any development here has to be an improvement!

The only caveats I have are;
1) Issues regarding possible land contamination - the site has never been reclaimed by vegetation

2) There must be properly managed access onto the busy A65

3) Proper consideration as to design and materials used on a site which is prominent on the approach into Ilkley

4) Consideration given to true affordable housing/ starter homes for the younger Ilkley residents possibly in the manner of All Saints Court.

Housing should be aimed at the lower end of the market - starter homes Towns like Ilkley require sensitive and sympathetic consideration. Conservative use of land coupled with acknowledging a less profitable need for affordability and non vehicular dependent services and amenities are a starting point.

Object

Representation ID: 10010

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Alistar Hunter

Decisions should be made by residents of Ilkley before planning consent. It's against local democracy and the localism agenda for this decision to be made by Bradford Council.
The council wants more housing to increase its funding to invest in other geographic areas.
Erosion of green belt and the ecological agenda
Inconsistent with the Paris Agreement and the 2050 Net Zero targets.
Impact on Birds.
Insufficient infrastructure to support additional housing
Yorkshire Water Ilkley water treatment facilities discharging sewerage into river.
Schools are at capacity.
The healthcare/medical practices are at capacity.
Case for additional housing is unsupported.
The pandemic has freed up huge volumes of office space that can and will be converted to affordable residential property.
Consultation is driven by the legislative framework, no rationale to support the proposed development.
Development is in the financial interests of Bradford City Council, the developers and the land owners.