Object

Representation ID: 20769

Received: 11/03/2021

Respondent: Peter, Shelley & Catherine Lain

Number of people: 3

The majority of the houses are planned to be on green belt land, causing destruction of wildlife and green space in sensitive areas close to the moor and river.

Flood Risk – water management is already a challenge in Ilkley and Wharfedale, with vast accumulations of water associated with both the moor and River Wharfe already impacting the proposed locations, particularly IL1/H and IL3/H. New homes will be subject to this risk, with implications for neighbouring properties.

Increased demands on local infrastructure and amenities - demand for school places at IGS, and increased pressure on medical and dental facilities.

Transport and traffic implications – increasing population in locations outlying the town centre is highly likely to accelerate car use and movement, increasing pollution and danger.

Risk of creating a continuous urban sprawl along the Wharfe valley, undermining the very character and quality of life that inhabitants and visitors value most.

Object

Representation ID: 21001

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Jon Round

1. Green Belt. There are many brownfield sites in the Bradford area that would be better suited to new developments and less destructive of precious green belt. Together with the proposals in Addingham and Burley there would be serious erosion of the separation between the three towns.
2. There is significant flood risk and any development would increase run off and flood risk in surrounding areas, particularly Coutances Way.
3. Impact on the environment / trees / wildlife - Wheatley Grove falls within the buffer zone for the Ilkley Moor SSSI. Coutances Way is an important area for curlews. Both form part of a wildlife corridor.
4. Impact on s Sewage works capacity.
5. Ilkley Grammar School is already at full capacity and unable to expand. A bussing solution is not fair or viable in the long term.
6. Impact on road safety due to additional traffic on Wheatley Lane.

Support

Representation ID: 21012

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Janet Wilkinson

I am writing to give my views on the current proposals IL1/H, IL2/H, IL3/H & IL4/H before the close of the consultation tomorrow.

I do understand that Ilkley & Ben Rhydding need more homes for people and am broadly supportive of the proposed IL2/H and IL4/H.

Object

Representation ID: 21015

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Janet Wilkinson

Loss of green belt and its habitat of trees, hedgerows, wildlife and meadow. A tragic loss of greenspace providing beautiful views.

Adding large-scale development (100+ units) to an already crowded town will add yet more pressure to our heavily congested roads, increasing air pollution and risk to safety for cyclists and pedestrians.

Impact on drainage and ground stability.

Benefit vs cost - Given the number of houses that will emerge at the end is it really worth it to lose our green belt for such a development? Surely we should be looking at brownfield sites or historic buildings that can be converted for residential purposes.There will be years of dust, noise and pollution adding considerable stress for local residents. How will access to this site be facilitated, both for the build AND afterwards given the “pinch point” created by the Wheatley Lane railway bridge and the Leeds Road?

Object

Representation ID: 21070

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Peter Ferguson

-Green Belt – no significant justification for use of green belt land, especially given the number of brownfield sites available in the Bradford district.
-97% of homes in green belt as opposed to 20% elsewhere - hugely disproportionate value against Ilkley.
-The three sites are rated as either having moderate or major impact on the green belt.
-These developments, plus those proposed in Addingham and Burley, would significantly reduce the separation between the towns.
-Impact on the character of the town and surrounds.
-Flooding – Three sites have significant existing flooding risks, and development of this land would further exacerbate issues on the surrounding areas.
-Impact on Environment – proposals go against the defined local plan to protect the local environment.
- Impact on SSSi
-Impact on Ben Rhydding and Ilkley sewage sites are already unable to deal with the capacity required, and regularly overflow their storm surge capacity.
-Secondary School at capacity. No additional secondary school capacity has been proposed for any local areas.
-Road Safety and increase in traffic.
-No traffic assessment has been carried out on these areas.

Comment

Representation ID: 21071

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Paul Heierman-Rix

- what land will be utilised, i.e. will the carpark be developed?
- If the church carpark will not be developed, the space is considered too small for 9 houses that are in keeping with the style of the area. impact on the setting of the old bridge,
- Has a parking study been completed to determine how residents will park their cars throughout the year without the stress of summer tourism parking?

Object

Representation ID: 21099

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Naomi Curry

I am concerned by the environmental and social impact of developing on the green belt. The area is both characterful and home to varied wildlife. Also after the known impact of the pandemic on mental health it is recognised that green spaces are essential to well being.

Such developments on green belt areas further limit the availability of these areas to people within the community and further afield.

There is also already a significant pressure on both primary and secondary schools in the area and these developments would further impact negatively.

Increase in traffic on the surrounding roads I consider would also have a detrimental impact.

Within the Bradford district there are a number of brownfield sites that could be developed and a significant number of empty houses which could be improved providing more accommodation in the area without impacting on the green belt.

Object

Representation ID: 21103

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Henry Simpson

The basis of my objections are:

1. Building on Green Belt or non-Brown Belt land. This land should be kept undisturbed for ecological reasons.

2. The infrastructure of Ilkley cannot sustain such an increase. Infrastructure meaning services like schooling, transport in/out of the area particularly the road network, GP’s & other support services.

3. The absolute size of the application in terms of dwelling numbers exacerbates the problems discussed at points 1 and 2.

Object

Representation ID: 21173

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Stephen Hallam

- 'a scenic and sensitive natural landscape'.
- Conservation area.
- Flooding issues - Replacing a field's worth of ground that currently soaks up rainwater, with tonnes of poured concrete, speaks to the disregard shown in general to the avoidance of flooding.
-Develop available brownfield sites.
-Renovate and reinvigorate areas that have been allowed to fall into disrepair and abandonment.

Object

Representation ID: 21283

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Linda Bradley

Ilkley Town Council have drawn my attention to this plan. Firstly as the press are reporting one million people have left the UK due to Covid and the excess deaths this year, wouldn’t it be better to await the results of the census before embarking on such huge schemes.

Turning to the sites proposed which are all using the green space around town:

Stockheld Road - this is a lovely location close to historic Ilkley Bridge and a density of 9 new dwellings seems excessive.

Skipton Road - this could improve the entrance to the town.

Coutances Way - should consideration be given to closeness to Ben Rhydding railway station and the need for more parking before building more houses in this location.

Generally the whole proposal will put extra traffic in the town and this is a serious issue already.

Object

Representation ID: 21372

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Jeff Gardner

Objections are as follows:
1) Use of Green belt land
2) Character
3) Flooding
4) Environment
5) School capacity
6) Road safety and congestion
7) Additional building
8) Train / road capacity to Leeds and beyond

More details on each issue are provided in the submission.

Object

Representation ID: 21383

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Brian Cousins

With regard to your above planning proposals, I feel that so many new properties would have a really detrimental effect on Ilkley. The schools, already full, couldn't cope with the additional numbers. I also think that destroying the precious green belt is totally un accessible.

Please think again !

Object

Representation ID: 21406

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Fay Gray

I am emailing to register my concerns regarding the proposed building plan for Ilkley.

This is based upon a number of factors. The large scale projects proposed for IL1/H and IL3/H are on green belt land and will significantly impact the character of the area and approach to the Yorkshire dales. I cannot see why green belt is being put forward this way, given there is undeveloped brown belt in the district. The creation of housing here is a precedent and using green belt to ‘fill in ‘ between the villages completely changes their nature.

The proposed plan will allow many more people to live locally and rely on local resources. Traffic on the roads is already high. The local schools are oversubscribed, in particular our only senior school Ilkley Grammar school.
Similarly the area is popular for commuters. Creating even more demand on packed trains or on busy roads

Object

Representation ID: 21410

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Madeleine & Peter Birkinhead

Number of people: 2

As a local resident I would like to register my objection to the proposed building on four sites in the Ilkley area.

This would take precious green belt which is home to various birds and wild life added to which the local infrastructure, schools, doctors, roads etc cannot cope with what would be large increase in the population.

Could we request that you reconsider this option and think of the many brownfield sites which would be nearer the city centre and much more convenient for residents to travel to work, school etc.

Object

Representation ID: 21423

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs E J Winterburn

The areas you are proposing are on a significant FLOOD plain, the town is often cut off Burley and Addingham during winter months - these proposals will only increase the problem.

Why build on green belt when the Bradford area has so many brownfield areas better suited to this sort of development?

The route into Ilkley is one of natural moorland and along this is a WILDLIFE corridor and of scientific importance attracting curlews and other birds and mammals which will be directly affected.

There INFASTUCTURE is not able to cope with anymore traffic on the A65. There’s only one fire station manned by volunteers, one secondary school that is already over subscribed, one surgery and parking is already a big issue in Ilkley.

The separation between Burley-in-Wharfedale and Addingham will be reduced and Ilkley's character and uniqueness harmed.

Object

Representation ID: 21489

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs C A Sunderland

IL4/H Proposed 9 dwellings
Too high density and traffic problems already high.
This area has serious parking problems and a further 9 dwellings will exacerbate the situation.

Comment

Representation ID: 21590

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Neil Harris

as a relatively small stand-alone development it will not cause as many problems as the 2 large proposed developments.

Object

Representation ID: 21854

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Toni Minou

A development here will spoil the view of the Old Bridge looking downhill and the view of Catholic Church and associated dwellings looking uphill. The lower level of this terraced ground is also far too near the river and its natural floodplain. Yes, this is a conservation area, and as has been shown by the small-scale development on nearby Castle Road (near the Manor House) developers find it just too hard to build in traditional vernacular stye. They will also want to add on the regulation parking spaces, since there is little onstreet parking nearby. Ilkley is blessed with a certain amount of green space around the river and this should not be eaten into in any way.

Object

Representation ID: 22464

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Diane Hopton

Government policy is that building on green belt should only be carried out in exceptional circumstances - which is not the case in this situation and also goes against the governments aims and objectives on green belt to prevent urban sprawl.

The entrance to Ilkley will be ruined which is a huge tourist boost to the area seeing the site of the moor and cow and calf rocks.

Infrastructure will not be able to cope. Peak time traffic is already a problem. Extra traffic, particularly around Ben Rhydding station.

Dentists and all schools in Ilkley are over subscribed the schools have no room for expansion.

Object

Representation ID: 23457

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Danielle Moor

I am objecting to the proposed plans for the development of houses on green belt land.

Object

Representation ID: 23768

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs P.A. Linnegan

I would like lodge a formal objection to the proposed housing sites in Ilkley (IL1/H; IL2/H; IL3/H; IL4/H).

Green Belts are vital resources for residents and wildlife. With problems of global warming and target to reduce pollution, I see infill of every green space is a backward step.

More housing adds to the pollution problem with more CO2 from gas central heating and car emissions. There would be more congestion on A65 and further parking problems.

Ability of cope with current levels of waste water is poor with effluent pouring into the river. How will it cope with more sewerage?

Schools are already at maximum capacity. How will it cope with more children?

Lockdowns have proved that people need green spaces for their mental health.

I am sure there are many brownfield sites that could be better uses. Empty buildings could be converted, with no loss of precious green sites.

Object

Representation ID: 23863

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Ann Marie Cousins

Proposals seem to take no head of natural beauty of Ilkley and need to protect it to safeguard the character of the town and surrounding countryside. Must surely consider brownfield development before building on greenfield sites. None of these developments are on brownfield sites. No justifiable reason for building on Green Belt when brownfield sites are available elsewhere in the District.

No consideration of flood risk of the Countances Way site. Will consign homeowners to high insurance premiums as well as problems due to surface water/flooding.

Services are already overburdened. Ilkley Grammar School is at capacity, with no other schools nearby or plans to build a new secondary school. More housing would cause children to be bussed to Keighley/Guiseley, causing additional traffic pollution. Given the climate emergency declaration, this is in direct opposition to goals set out when Council announced its intention to be a net-zero carbon region by 2038.

Object

Representation ID: 23891

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Anna Nicholson-Little

Number of people: 33

Principal objections are:

1. Area renowned for flooding. Problem has become worse. Building will increase the risk of flooding,

2. Area is a highly protected conservation area have the Old Pack Horse Bridge 30m away from the site, a schedule monument and viewport. Site should be included in Heritage Impact Assessment and rated red. Housing will destroy the character of the site.

3. Severe parking issues will worsen. Bridge Lane used as cut through and cars frequently speed. Housing will add to these problems, as access will be close to a sharp bend.

4. New housing is not supported by adequate infrastructure. Ilkley Grammar School is over-subscribed and cannot meet the need substantial population increase on its current site.

5. Site boundary should not include the Sacred Heart church car park. Will remaining area meet 0.2ha density requirement? Could not service the proposed 9 units.

Object

Representation ID: 23992

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Rachel Warren

-Concern regarding use of Green Belt land.
-Green Belt is to protect an area from over development and becoming joined up.
-All four sites have flood risks of 2 and 3 meaning that they are at risk of flooding and this will not improve as climate change increases the risk.
-Environmentally important area.
-Impact on wildlife.
-Mature trees / TPOs.
-Sewage works is already at capacity.
-Impact on local character
-Impacts on schools – IGS at capacity / primary schools and inadequate nursery provision.
-Effects on roads must be considered. Current congestion, accidents and near misses.
-Lack of infrastructure to cope with so many new dwellings.
-Impacts on health care.

Comment

Representation ID: 24047

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Melissa Pickering

Whilst not opposed to the development of the proposed sites, I would like to have my concerns recorded regarding supporting infrastructure. In particular, given current existing pressures in Ilkley, I feel that all new housing sites should have adequate parking for the number of occupants included in their plans. Furthermore, there will be additional pressure on school places and local transport (esp. road congestion, road width, commuter trains) that all require increased capacity.

Object

Representation ID: 24487

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Isabel Ashman

•The majority of the land for these proposals appears to be on Green Belt and given the amount of Brown Belt that is available I can see no defence for building in those locations.
•Ilkley is known for its natural setting and to devastate one whole end of town seems wreckless and almost deliberately inflammatory.
•Additionally, these developments will almost destroy the distinct space and separateness of character between the village of Burley in Wharfedale and Ben Rhydding / Ilkley. The impact on the feel of the two separate towns will be devastated, not to mention the impact on the wildlife.
•There are other strong reasons to question the whole thinking behind this. Where is the infrastructure for education and health going to come from? Our primary and secondary schools are all oversubscribed with the current town populous.

Object

Representation ID: 24537

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Nicola Wharmby

In particular, I am concerned with the development off Wheatley Grove. To get out of Ilkley at that end of town, the only way to cross the railway line is the single carriageway road at Ben Rhydding. This is already a bottleneck and there is no way to increase it's capacity, either by widening it or building another crossing.

In addition, I object to building on green belt land; once this principal is breached what's the point of having such protection? There is plenty of non-green belt land in Bradford MDC which the council should be prioritising.

Comment

Representation ID: 24679

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Georgina Marks

I have no problem with this.
What of the following will be included in this project before it can be agreed.
What will be the access?
How will so much additional traffic be catered for, new roads?
What additional school places will be made available, new school?
Ben Rhydding drive has a history of heavy flooding, which then washes down and effects many roads. With more housing and no land to soak away a heavy rainfall , what provisions have been made to cope with this ?
More cars will need more parking when visiting Ilkley or Ben Rhydding, what extra provision is being made for parking?
If the infrastructure is properly in place that might be acceptable , however I doubt this will be the case , so it would be better to phase this project in slowly so the amenities can be in place. I think this should be done over a minimum of ten years.

Object

Representation ID: 24880

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Eileen & Ken Bernard

Number of people: 2

•Sites are greenbelt. Justification for development on greenbelt has not been made when there are numerous brownfield sites available throughout the district.
•Considerable risk of flooding on all sites. Over the last few years there have been more severe floods than experienced in 40 years. These are likely to increase with climate change. Development will exacerbate the flood issues.
•Developments at odds with the Council’s determination to improve the environment and encourage biodiversity. Site encroach on wildlife corridors.
•The sites contain TPO trees which should be protected.
•Infrastructure is not sufficient to cater for this large increase in houses.
•Roads cannot sustain the current level of traffic and developments will add further cars. Goes against the commitment to reduce road traffic and improve air quality.
•Serious safety concerns for all sites.
•Ilkley Grammar is at capacity with no room for further expansion and therefore not be able to accommodate extra children. This has not been addressed in the proposals.

Object

Representation ID: 25076

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Niki Connor

Principal objections are:

1. Area renowned for flooding. Problem has become worse. Building will increase the risk of flooding,

2. Area is a highly protected conservation area have the Old Pack Horse Bridge 30m away from the site, a schedule monument and viewport. Site should be included in Heritage Impact Assessment and rated red. Housing will destroy the character of the site.

3. Severe parking issues will worsen. Bridge Lane used as cut through and cars frequently speed. Housing will add to these problems, as access will be close to a sharp bend.

4. New housing is not supported by adequate infrastructure. Ilkley Grammar School is over-subscribed and cannot meet the need substantial population increase on its current site.

5. Site boundary should not include the Sacred Heart church car park. Will remaining area meet 0.2ha density requirement? Could not service the proposed 9 units.