Object

Representation ID: 18258

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Hannah Walton

I would like to add my objections to the current proposed home building strategy in Ilkley.

I am very concerned that local infrastructure is not sufficient to deal with the proposed additional number of people. Ilkley Grammar school has already expanded recently and I understand that it is now operating at capacity and how will the additional need for health services be met?

There will be a significant increase in heavy traffic along the A65 and along Wheatley Road train bridge and junction with Valley Road - already subject to congestion.

Object

Representation ID: 18272

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr David Hughes

It is unacceptable that this large site is only earmarked for 9 dwellings, which are likely to be of the expensive “executive” type. Since there are already multi-storey flats opposite, I believe that this site should only go ahead for the development that includes a significant proportion of “affordable” homes. Any development must include the stipulation that each property can have no more than one motor vehicle allowed, in order to prevent further strain on Ilkley’s on-street parking problems.

Object

Representation ID: 18340

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Elaine Thornton

•I also have concerns around the number of houses proposed for Stockeld Road IL4/H, due to the already congested Parking conditions in this parking permit area, I cannot find details of whether the houses would have off road parking facilities.

Object

Representation ID: 18487

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Nick Thompson

The building of new homes within the greenbelt area should not be allowed to go ahead.

Ilkley has a sensitive natural landscape - the surrounding areas within and bordering the greenbelt have become even more important to the wildlife seeking sanctuary.

Adding so many new houses, taking up the greenbelt area, would significantly detract from the character and 'feel' of the town, decreasing its attractiveness and popularity with visitors.

Concerns about the increase in traffic on the many narrow roads and know full well that the school capacity both in primary and secondary schools in the area is already extremely limited.

Having over 300 new homes will bring approximately 1200 new people living in the town; over 600 additional cars and 600 additional pupils to the schools; all putting additional strain on the environment, infrastructure and increasing traffic.

Increasing building in these areas risks further flooding problems with water catchment.

Comment

Representation ID: 18548

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: William & Noemy Ellis Martin

Number of people: 2

I do not object to IL2/H or IL4/H.

IL2/H could almost be considered a brown field site, it has been a bit of an eye-sore on the way out of Ilkley for some time.

Building on IL4/H would not have a major impact as it is a built-up area, and the field is not currently used for anything.

Object

Representation ID: 18712

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Mr John Saltmarshe

Inadequate infrastructure
- Ilkley grammar school is already oversubscribed
- the local sewage treatment plant is already unable to cope in conditions of heavy rain,
- several of the roads are already at capacity.

There are alternative brownfield sites available in Bradford which should be prioritsed over Green Belt in the Wharfe Valley.

Object

Representation ID: 18771

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Matthew Archer

I object for the following reasons:

1) Loss of green belt / plenty of brownfield sites and empty buildings in Bradford. Ratings for these sites are moderate or major impact.

2) Loss of Ilkley's historic character, impact on parking which is already a problem and reduced tourism;

3) Flooding - these proposals will increase flooding;

4) Impact on the environment - Ilkley Moor SSSI and buffer zone, impact on wildlife, curlews etc, loss of mature trees, increased problems with sewerage capacity.

5) School capacity - Ilkley Grammar school already full. No additional places have been provided despite planning approvals here and neighbouring villages;

6) Road safety - The additional traffic will increase those using the Wheatley Lane railway bridge, it is already busy, it will increase traffic along Bolling Road -which situates a primary school. The junction to Valley Drive is awful whether you are a pedestrian, or driver.

Object

Representation ID: 18775

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Jenna Holmes

I’m writing to include my objections to the building proposals for the above sites.

Of particular concern are the proposals for IL3/H and IL1/H. These will have significant impact on green belt and the rural character of Ben Rhydding and would infringe onto the buffer zone for Ilkley moor, changing this landscape forever. It has not been made clear why these sites have been selected over many other brownfield options. I am also concerned about the additional impact that building in these areas would have on wider infrastructure in the town (schools, services).

Object

Representation ID: 18779

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Claire Emmott

• Impact on local schools, NHS and traffic, and the increased risk of road accidents and potential fatalities.

• No traffic assessment has been carried out.

• Impact from the building phase of danger from lorries and other heavy vehicles.

• Pollution from increased traffic

• Ilkley already lacks sewage processing capacity. Given the new protected ‘beach’ status of the Wharfe at Ilkley, it is hard to legally reconcile this extent of further development.

• Several of the sites appear to be in flood risk areas. As flooding is only going to worsen, this appears problematic.

• The two main development sites – making up 97% of the proposed homes – are on green belt land.

• The Countances Way site in particular, if developed, would further disintegrate the space between Ilkley and Burley and lead to a built-up corridor;

• Loss of Ilkley's historic character – impact on tourism

Object

Representation ID: 18863

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Nicola Thompson

The building of new homes within the greenbelt area should not be allowed to go ahead.

Ilkley has a sensitive natural landscape important to the wildlife seeking sanctuary.

This scenic area attracts visitors from all over the UK. Adding so many new houses, taking up the greenbelt area, would significantly detract from the character and 'feel' of the town, and would be damaging for the local hospitality, bars, restaurants and pubs that enjoy such good trade.

I have significant concerns about the increase in traffic on the many narrow roads.

School capacity both in primary and secondary schools in the area is already extremely limited.

Over the last few years, the incident and severity of significant flooding to most of the proposed areas for building has been very evident. Increasing building in these areas risks further problems and flooding of homes.

Comment

Representation ID: 18909

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Zoe Whittaker

I do not have a problem with the 9 dwellings proposed for Stockfield Road (IL4/H)

Nor do I have any issues with the proposals for 20 dwellings at Skipton Road (IL2/H)

I am not unreasonable and I feel these plans are acceptable and manageable for growth in the area.

Object

Representation ID: 18913

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Jill Ferguson

I object to the proposals to build an excessive number of houses in this area on unsuitable sites. The 314 houses, 97% on green belt land, would have too great a detrimental impact on many aspects of life.

No justification for building on important green belt, when there is plenty of brown belt land available across the district.

My main concerns are around traffic, drainage and flooding issues and school places. We have one secondary school here in Ilkley that also serves Addingham and Burley (where excessive insensitive developments are also proposed) and that school is at full capacity with no room for expansion

For users of the roads and pavements in Ben Rhydding, between the two largest proposed development sites IL1/H and IL3/H, it is obvious there would be issues of congestion for traffic and safety for pedestrians and cyclists.

The two large sites at Ben Rhydding are both regularly saturated and as such are important natural drains for rain water.

Object

Representation ID: 19397

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mary K Marshall

Bradford District Local Plan Consultation

I write to you as a resident of Ilkley regarding the above plan for our town.

Whilst all of the proposed areas of development concern me greatly, IL2/H and IL4/H concern me most.

Ilkley is a town with a considerable parking problem at present. The building of 314 new houses is going to exacerbate that problem hugely.

314 New houses could well mean another 600+ cars in and around the town and another 500+ children. Are the existing schools expected to accommodate the increase in numbers?

With regard to IL/4, it will be within the Ilkley Conservation Area boundary which is bounded by Middleton Conservation Area on the north side of the river.

Support

Representation ID: 19532

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Linda Little

IL4/H Stockheld Road 9 dwellings
This appears to be infill and although it is a difficult site, being on the hill, I cannot see any real objection to this being built on so long as the houses are built fairly high up to avoid flooding as Bridge Lane can flood very badly in extreme weather.

Object

Representation ID: 19606

Received: 10/02/2021

Respondent: Mrs Rebecca Stevenson

As a resident of Ben Rhydding, I would like to submit an objection to the building proposals in Ilkley and Ben Rhydding at sites IL1/H, IL2/H, IL3/H, and IL4/H.

Object

Representation ID: 19624

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Lisa Hilderbrandt

Developing on this site (and also the Ilkley, Burley in Wharfedale and Addingham sites) will have a significant impact on the greenbelt land which is being continuously eroded by development.

It will also impact the biodiversity of the area.

There will be issues with access to the area, as there is only one minor road (Wheatley Grove) which already experiences congestion as a result of the one-way system imposed by the railway bridge as you enter Ben Rhydding.

The existing primary schools and secondary school are already oversubscribed. The nearest local amenities are in Ilkley, which would further increase the congestion in the centre of Ilkley unless yet more greenbelt land is taken up to build supermarkets and general recreation facilities (the current facilities mentioned in your plan are actually private facilities for which you have to pay subscription fees e.g. the Ilkley tennis/squash club).

Object

Representation ID: 19628

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr & Mrs D Earle

Number of people: 2

Proposed erection of 314 dwellings on land at See above.

I write in connection with the above planning application.

I have examined the plans and I know the sites well. I wish to object strongly to the development of these houses in these locations for the following reasons:

1. Highway safety - junctions nearby that are dangerous.
2. Traffic generation from the development itself
3. Loss of accessible informal green space and open land
4. Pressure on local schools
5. Health Centre
6. Drainage issues - Have you experienced drainage or flooding issues? Are you concerned that more houses may cause further issues?
7. Layout and density of buildings
8. Road access - concerns about access for emergency vehicles
9. Effect on and conservation area

Object

Representation ID: 19757

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Paul Blake

Most of the houses will be on green-belt land. Green-belt land, once built on, is gone forever. Future generations will not enjoy the limited amount of countryside land in the Bradford/West Yorkshire area. There are plenty of other brown-field sites in the Bradford area that should be built on first. There is a risk that the Wharfe valley will become one long ribbon development with negative impacts on the scenic nature of the area.

There is no capacity increase in local facilities e.g. schools, waste treatment and transport. E.g. IL3/H will result in enormous extra pressure on the one-way road underneath the Ben Rhydding rail bridge. Ilkley Grammar is at capacity and there are the well-publicised problems with Ilkley waste treatment plant.

The proposed sites are at significant risk of flooding. Building on these sites will also increase the risk of flooding at existing properties. The sites regularly get saturated with springs appearing during times of heavy rainfall.

Comment

Representation ID: 19888

Received: 01/04/2021

Respondent: Natural England

The site lies in proximity to the South Pennine Moors (Phase 2) SPA and has potential to lead to the loss of functionally linked land for SPA birds.

We welcome the approach taken in the draft plan, SPD and assessments to loss of functionally linked land.

The council has a copy of a model to identify the suitability of sites for SPA golden plover and recommend that allocations are screened against this dataset taking the following approach:

• Maximum Training Sensitivity plus Specificity (MTSS) layer: full survey for Golden Plover likely to be required. The WY Ecology Service SPA Bird Survey Methodology should be followed.

• Minimum Training Presence (MTP) layer or 10 Percentile Training Presence (10PTP) layer: scoping survey to determine if a full Golden Plover full survey required. A desk based survey may be sufficient for sites within the MTP whereas a walkover survey may be required for sites within the 10PTP;

• Not within an area of predicted presence: No survey required for Golden Plover.

Where loss of functionally linked land cannot be ruled out at this stage we recommend that allocation requirement text in the plan sets out survey and mitigation requirements clearly.

Object

Representation ID: 19944

Received: 23/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Phil Batman

Number of people: 33

(See attached images)
•This area of Bridge Lane floods and has become worse in recent years. The drains here overflow during flooding making the road impassable. Building will increase run-off and therefor flood risk. The existing area acts to slow rainwater and reduce flooding. Changing the land use would need to be professionally evaluated to understand the drainage consequences.
•This is a conservation area with historical significant including the Old Pack Horse Bridge, a schedule monument and view point. This site should be included in the Heritage Impact Assessment and rated red. New housing will destroy the character of this important site.
•Current serve parking issues will worsen. Cars often speed on Bridge Lane. Additional housing will add to these problems with access to the site will be close to a sharp bend.
•The significant housing quotas across Wharfedale are not supported by adequate infrastructure. Ilkley Grammar is already over-subscribed.
•The extent of the available site does not include the church car park, therefore can the remaining area meet the minimum site area requirement of 0.2ha?

Object

Representation ID: 20026

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Andrew & Sue Lambert & Varley

Number of people: 2

IL4/H will probably cause issues with the longer parking allowance on Stockeld Road and again 9 houses is excessive, reduce this to 5 or 6 as a maximum.

Object

Representation ID: 20075

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Valerie Simpson

The basis of my objections are;

1. Building on Green Belt or non-Brown Belt land should not be allowed. This land should be kept undisturbed for ecological reasons.

2. The infrastructure of Ilkley cannot sustain such a large increase in dwellings.Services such as schools , transport in/out of the area particularly the road network, parking , GPs & other support services are already under pressure and could be strained to breaking point

3. Increase risk of flooding

Comment

Representation ID: 20081

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Paul Holmes

The space on Stockeld Road is underused and is surrounded by other buildings (house, church, pub) and is not Greenbelt. A development on this site would have desirable views, excellent access to the park and river, and also a short distance from the town centre. No objection.

Object

Representation ID: 20094

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Rachel Lawton

Dear sirs, please accept this as my complete opposition to all for proposed sites on Ben Rhydding Drive/Wheatley Grove, Skipton Road, Coutances Way and Stockeld Way.

Ilkley and the surrounding villages are in danger of being merged into one great big bank of housing. This will destroy all remaining green belt land and all habitats for every type of nature. No infrastructure - schools, transport, parking excetra has been considered and the reason that we choose to live in these beautiful places is because they are beautiful. Bradford Council has many other options to build affordable housing and they should look at those options before destroying green belt land and the villages and towns we are proud to call home. Enough building on green belt. It is time to look at truly affordable housing options.

Object

Representation ID: 20179

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Kathryn Leake

•The sites are 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. In view of the extremely damaging impact climate change is likely to have/already having on our environment, I would expect my council to be making every effort to protect green spaces, not build on them.
•Sites IL1/H and IL3/H would increase the already busy traffic on the local roads. Valley Drive and Bolling Road already have a high volume of traffic as they are used as cut-throughs to and from the town centre. The volume of traffic would increase exponentially if these new houses were built, making these residential roads even more unsafe for local residents/pedestrians/school children.
•The roads around Ben Rhydding are already constrained by the train line (e.g. the single lane under the train line on Wheatley Lane has a dangerously narrow pavement and cars racing to beat the new traffic lights), meaning an increase in traffic would be highly damaging, with no way of increasing road capacity.
•Brownfield sites should be considered ahead of removing green belt, and building on it would irreversibly damage scenic/natural landscape.

Object

Representation ID: 20336

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Rachel Whitham

1) Loss of green belt when there are so many brownfield sites in Bradford which have never been considered. Within the overall figure within Bradford this is only 20% which is a significant disproportionate difference compared to Ilkley. The ratings for these sites is moderate or major impact.

2) Impact on the historic character and landscape setting of the town.

3) Loss of green fields will increase flood risk;

4) Impact on Ilkley Moor SSSI

5) Impact on wildlife e.g. Curlews. These sites are important wildlife corridors.

6) Lack of capacity at Ilkley Grammar School;

7) All the sites will increase traffic within Ilkley - one area of direct concern is the Wheatley Road train bridge and the junction to Valley Drive.

Object

Representation ID: 20369

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: John Forster

The proposals would adversely affect the character of Ilkley and its attractiveness to residents.

The proposals are contrary to national policy on green belts and contrary to 'Gallagher Homes Limited v Solihull MBC (2014/2015)', "it is not arguable that the mere process of preparing a new local plan could itself be regarded as an exceptional circumstance justifying an alteration to a Green Belt boundary". There are plenty of viable sites within the wider Bradford area that are perfectly suitable to be developed but are not as desirable for developers because it will cost them more to ensure the site is free from any contamination.

If any houses are needed to be built, they should be limited in number and of exceptional design (not a Barat homes or Georgian recreation).

Local infrastructure - school places, parking, congested roads - are already issues which will be exacerbated.

Object

Representation ID: 20386

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Chris Brown

I would like to voice by objection against this proposal on the following grounds:

- 97% being built on Greenbelt land.
- flooding risk.
- schools are already at capacity.
- environment impact due to more people, more houses and more cars.
- road safety being compromised.
- quality of life for existing residents.

These dwellings should not go ahead as further building in Ilkley cannot be supported by the existing infrastructure.

Object

Representation ID: 20390

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Natalie Brown

I understand the need for more housing but these plans have many problems. The key one being the proposal for 97% of the current land being green belt. Building houses on this land would negatively impact on the local environment - namely flooding, car pollution and emmisions, habitat destruction and so on.

Additional to these concerns is the strong negative impact this would have on the local education provision. We have primary age children who will hopefully be attending Ilkley grammar school in the future.

Regarding cars in a small town, I believe there would be a disproportionate number of vehicles which would make it unsafe for a family town. The location of the two big applications would result in more cars driving to and from the centre of Ilkley.

From an educational, environmental and safety point of view, I strongly hope this is not approved.

Object

Representation ID: 20396

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs S Keenan

• Loss of habitat (grassland, meadows, hedgerows, trees and watercourses); loss of agricultural land, and natural views; loss of opportunities for schools / community engagement with countryside;
• Priority should be given to reusing brownfield land.
• Detrimental impact on residential amenity
• Lack of infrastructure – transport links, busy roads, schools, medical services, increased traffic congestion, increased drainage
• Ground stability, drainage and flood risk
• Increased air pollution and risk to highway safety for cyclists & pedestrians
• Impact on tourism;
• Presence of viable alternatives – such as brownfield sites or commercial premises see CPRE response to the consultations.
• Loss of open green space detrimental to resident’s mental health and well being
• Loss of a beautiful piece of Yorkshire countryside (Wheatley Grove development)
• The proposed development site off Wheatley Grove has a public footpath through the field.
• Proposals conflict a number of strategies - Safeguarding Our Soils / 25 Year Environment Plan / Biodiversity 2020 / Planning for the Future White paper