Object

Representation ID: 10969

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Ian & Julie Hepworth

Appreciated that more houses are required, but where should they go?

Ought to take into account a number of factors, including environmental ones. Development away from city centres means more commuting, creating more CO2 emissions. Several main roads go past schools resulting in increased emissions. Emissions will also increase due to greater congestion. The closer to the City Centres that houses are built, less emissions will result.

Would be better to use brownfield sites first rather than greenfield sites, include those in the centre of Bradford. Housing need in Bradford is for low cost/social housing. Better to meet this in the centre rather than building in higher cost areas. Better to build three houses than one.

Local Plan does include plans for extra services, whilst additional homes in Ilkley and surrounding area will result in pressure on schools with no capacity. There also services where there is no extra provision.

Object

Representation ID: 10998

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Jennifer Solomon

Query the sort of demand to live in Ilkley. Housing attracts a premium price and cost of living is higher than elsewhere. Demand is from first time buyers and those with modest incomes.

Green Belt - should not be considered until other options have been exhausted – but is not the case. Community needs green lungs (large and small), but recent building has concentrated on infilling of available spaces.

Skipton Road East - a sensible site for reasonably priced dwellings, provided infrastructure was sufficient to support more residents. Schools are full, roads blighted by congestion and lack space for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles. Pollution resulting from congestion should be addressed.

Coutances Way – access poor due to traffic lights and narrow bridge. Would be conspicuous and a blot on the landscape. Ben Rhydding Drive site – access difficult and dangerous. Historic reasons to preserve it.

Housing should be built in more sensible areas.

Object

Representation ID: 11030

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Kathy Noble

more long term, joined up planning is needed. Global, national and local policies and initiatives need to have the same focus.
-Green belt areas and designated nature reserves need to be protected.
- impact on infrastructure
- local public transport
- affordability of new houses

Comment

Representation ID: 11216

Received: 11/03/2021

Respondent: Sir Rodney Brooke

Bradford has an abundant supply of available building sites, many polluted. These brownfield sites should be developed.

Shouldn't allow development of commuter houses in the Wharfe Valley green belt because it is cheaper option.

Preserve the green belt.

NPPF favours the use of brownfield sites.

Development of green belt shouldn't be allowed when sites are available elsewhere.

The types of houses most attractive to developers, which would be constructed if planning consent were available, are not those for which there are greatest need.

Development would provide over-spill housing for Leeds commuters.

Infrastructure - schools and sewerage, is already under great strain.

It is important Coutances Way is used for Park and Ride carpark, as its the only suitable site.

Destruction of green belt, development would form continuous conurbation, ruining the most popular approach to the Dales National Park.

Impact on 18th century bridge, a scheduled ancient monument.

Loss of open space in conservation. would remove pleasant atmosphere of the area.

Development would ruin the local environment.

Comment

Representation ID: 11297

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: A Greaves

The building of 300 houses on Green Belt sites in and around Ilkley are of great concern to me, with the loss of green fields on the entry to our iconic town.
The extra cars on the already busy A65 would block up the roads into the centre as there is still no by pass round Ilkley Town Centre.
All these houses would put extra pressure on our schools, medical facilities and car parks. Please keep our beautiful green spaces for all to enjoy

Object

Representation ID: 11397

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Andrew Munro

- no proposals to improve the infrastructure in Ilkley to improve schools, health care and parking
- increase in cars and impact on parking and highway network
- development will completely alter the approach to Ilkley along Coutance Way to its detriment.
- Have all the brownfield sites been examined/exhausted? - Are any of these proposed dwellings going to be affordable housing?
- Has consideration been made to all the proposed housing along the Wharfe valley from Menston to Addingham .
- This will reduce property values and, Council tax revenue.
- re-appraise Il/3H and IL2/H t and abandon them or substantially reduce at worst

Object

Representation ID: 11677

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Jane Carney

•Objecting to the green belt development planned for Ilkley.
•There are several brown belt areas within the Bradford area that could be developed for housing before this green belt land is permanently transformed.
•We already have issues with over subscribed schools, stretched medical facilities and traffic difficulties. Added to this there is a major problem with flooding and an inadequate sewage system during heavy rainfall.

Comment

Representation ID: 11802

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Mr David Anderson

- No objections to new development but concerned about the numbers of houses considered for each site.
- concerned about the size (or lack of) of these buildings and whether the windows will be tiny.
- highlight the importance of energy efficiency and exceeding building regulations

Object

Representation ID: 11838

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Dan Sedlak

Planning objection to sites IL1/H, IL2/H, IL3/H, and IL4/H especially (IL3/H) and (IL1/H) sites:

Use of Green Belt land - no justification. The council has recognised this will have a moderate or major impact. There are plenty of brownfield sites available.

Schools - Ilkley Grammar is at capacity - no space to expand further.

Environment - Ilkley Moor is a SSSI and the Wheatley Grove site is within the buffer zone. The moor is a priority wildlife habitat. There are a number of TPO's.

Safety - would lead to a significant increase in traffic, e.g. Bolling Road/ Wheatley Lane junction, the single file railway bridge, the junction with Valley Drive - all are already congested and at high risk of accidents. Yet no traffic assessment has been done. Also increase risks to pedestrians.

Flooding - three of the sites have significant flood risks already.

Would significantly change the countryside character of the town.

Given the development in Burley, it will mean Ben Rhydding and Burley almost link up.

Comment

Representation ID: 11930

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Richard Jennings

Regarding Local Plan for Ilkley, proposed dwellings total 314, the general infrastructure of the town is insufficient to support such an expansion.

Education - applicants for IGS outnumber places available. The current site is now working at full capacity, where will additional pupils be educated?

After 2003, the governors looked for an alternative site to build a larger school. The only council land available to develop on was Coutances Way.

Planning for a new school was refused, one of the reasons being that the fields on Coutances Way were the nesting grounds for sand martins and this area had to be preserved. What has changed to consider building on these fields? Have the birds flown?

I believe that the large number of proposed dwellings, will be the breaking point for the town of Ilkley and its education system.

Comment

Representation ID: 12126

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Ann Powell

What is the justification for additional houses, when schools/infrastructure are under strain.

What infrastructure is proposed for additional housing/people/traffic:
Sewage facilities - water treatment plant in Ilkley is already unable to cope.
Schooling
Flood prevention
Additional parking needs at train stations.
Additional medical facilities needed.

Justification for building on green belt land, where planning applications previously denied.

Council Tax increases
No major improvements in Ilkley, alot of the work is done by volunteers keeping the riverside and areas of Ilkley clean/tidy.
How Will Bradford council retain the integrity and beauty of these small places.

Protection of Green Belt land was in Conservative Manifesto, in 2019, the Government pledged to protect Green Belt land and continue to pursue a brownfield first strategy

How many trees are proposed to be felled for each site?

What brownfield sites were considered as an alternative
and reasons for not using brownfield sites

People of Wharfedale are ignored by Bradford Council,

Object

Representation ID: 12255

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Hazel & Derek Symonds

Number of people: 2

Preferred site allocations:- would prefer none!

Ilkley will be spoilt if the four sites proposed are implemented - 300 new houses is appalling.

Another 600 cars - there is not enough parking spaces, roads are congested and there are "pinch" points within the town

We need to preserve tourist town with open space and amenities.

Bradford Council services not adequate, happy to collect the rates but do not spend on our town

No decent toilets in the park, we shall be lucky if the refurbishment is carried out this year

Refuse services at playing fields/riverbank not adequate

Cemetery used as a park for visitors and locals alike

Inadequate school places, doctors/health providers (getting appointments is a nightmare)

lido/riverside amenities inadequate.

Bradford doesn't look after the population, additions on this scale will only dilute what we do have

Ilkley not the town it used to be!!!

Preserve and enhance what we have for the enjoyment of all.

Object

Representation ID: 12834

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Gwyneth Wilcock

roposals to build on 97% Green belt in Ilkley.
Green Belt should be protected.
Impact on scenic/sensitive natural landscape. Impact on wild life, deer (photo 1), bats, barn owls, tawny owls and little owls.
Loss of agricultural land (grazing sheep, horses) growing crops (photo 2).
Impact on SSSI only 350m away, development must avoid the buffer zone.
Land is used by many for running, walking dogs along footpaths, horse riding, helped people’s mental health, children's play, picnic area and for sledging (Photo).
Field is safe to use with minimum traffic.
Soil/earth is a non-renewable resource that Bradford Council should protect.
Reuse land/buildings.
Flooding Issues - caused by rain, photos 4 5 & 6. The field significantly delays the flow of water into the river and local housing.

Sewage problem, regularly overflow the storm surge capacity.

School at capacity

A proposal for 12 dwellings was refused due to limited access and dangerous junction out of Wheatley Grove. This road hasn’t changed!

No justification for the current housing numbers of 1,703 over the 2020/2038 period.

Problems of snow/ice.

Object

Representation ID: 13214

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Janet Brumfitt

Objection to the proposed plans to build on green belt land in Ilkley and Ben Rhydding.

The proposed sites are part of an invaluable buffer between the populated areas of Burley in Wharfedale and Ilkley/ Ben Rhydding. The tract of land between the two settlements is already potentially compromised by the impending development of 500 houses on Sun Lane, Burley.
These areas of land are valuable wild life corridors and their loss would be extremely detrimental.

The proposed level of housing would put strain on the already stressed local services, eg, access to doctors and school places. Ilkley Grammar School is already over subscribed and cramped. The site has little scope for expansion.

Increased congestion on the A65.

People use Bolling Road as an alternative route to the A65 into Ilkley Town Centre and the level and speed of the traffic past Ben Rhydding Primary School is very concerning.

Object

Representation ID: 13437

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Elliot Wilkinson

I am objecting to the plans being made on Ilkley's green belts. The increase of unnecessary building would be a detriment to the surrounding area. There is no justification for it other then capital considering there are many brown belts in the surrounding areas. How flooding would not be an issue is beyond me. They were a disaster and caused a lot of trouble. why would they not? It also goes against the local defined plan to protect the local environment and its wildlife. There is also no additional capacity for the surrounding schools. The road safety would decrease as the areas of congestion are already prone to accidents, and additional building has failed to account for the developments that have already been taking place, with lots of houses already being built per year.

Object

Representation ID: 13966

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: David & Wendy Pennock

Number of people: 2

We object very strongly to the proposed new dwellings in Ilkley.

This is the only area where a new senior school could be accommodated. This would be needed as the current school certainly wouldn’t be large enough for the additional children the new houses would bring to Ilkley. This doesn’t include the children from the extra housing in the surrounding areas.

Object

Representation ID: 14006

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Gemma Pell

1. objection to the proposal to allow the development of 300 new homes on Green Belt in Ilkley.
2. NPPF- Green Belt essential characteristics openness and permanence. Inappropriate development should not be approved except exceptional circumstances
3. The development would be inappropriate in the Green Belt and an applicant would have to demonstrate very special circumstances to justify the proposals.
4. The proposed development will erode the remaining countryside between Ilkley, Burley in Wharfedale and Addingham, which a helps retain Ilkley’s distinctiveness character . The continual encroachment along the Wharfe Valley will result in a sprawl. No justification or the proposed development,
5. Impact on Ilkley Moor SSSI and sensitive landscape.
6. Secondary education capacity at Ilkley Grammar

Object

Representation ID: 14112

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Deborah Davitt

-Impact on Green belt & Character
-ALL brownfield options should be assessed first
-Following the pandemic and the resulting significant shifts in how people live and work there will be an excess of office space in centres which could be used for redevelopment for housing.
-Combined proposals for Wharfedale will create continuous corridor of housing development along a substantial stretch of lower Wharfedale.
-Important for physical and mental well-being.
-Plan proposals go against mission to protect the environment.
-Sewerage –Ben Rhydding/Ilkley sewage treatment works are unable to deal with existing capacity / regularly overflow.

Object

Representation ID: 14113

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Michael Vevers

Number of people: 2

Proposals fail to meet the criteria for sustainable development
Ignore the five of the purposes of the greenbelt
Ribbon development along A65
Detrimental effect on the local environment and loss of character
Impact on the flood risk from surface water runoff
Impact on the viability of the Town
Impact on the A65 and increased traffic congestion in the town.
Concern about cumulative impact of local developments, e.g Burley PP for 500 homes
Impact on local amenities: schools oversubscribed, health care, employment opportunities

Object

Representation ID: 15027

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Arnold Shaw

There is not sufficient infrastructure to support your proposals In 1972 there was hardly a car on the road. Between the late 80's and 2010 infilling of large gardens and flats built in available plots occurred. The increase in traffic has been tremendous particularly through traffic to Skipton and beyond at weekends and holidays. Farmers bring hay etc through and lorries with goods It would be different if the proposed bypass had been passed. The traffic is stationary for miles. Also car parking facilities are insufficient.

Comment

Representation ID: 15222

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: Roger Davy

The demise of local transport services in the 1960’s and the huge increase in private car ownership Ilkley was fortunate to retain the railway service.

The Planning Department has identified some available areas which ‘could’ be developed but the density suggested is excessive.

Green-belt areas should be preserved for present and future generations. The areas identified and the suggested density do not take into sensible consideration the infrastructure. It is not just the number of houses which are proposed, each would probably have two cars and an average of two children per household. The local Primary schools MAY cope but our Ilkley Grammar School is at the moment over-subscribed.

Access to Ben Rhydding railway station is at its best inadequate and the single-lane railway bridge over Wheatley Lane, even with the new traffic lights, is causing much frustration and specific danger to pedestrians.

Re-consider the overall scheme, a small reduction of density in the number of dwellings.

Comment

Representation ID: 15509

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: National Highways

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: 15665

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Ian Shepherd

1. Proposed creation of 314 dwellings will place additional strain on existing services particularly without indication of any enhancement.
2. Increase in vehicles will lead to higher volumes of traffic on already congested roads and increase delays with provision for additional access on and off this road (A65).
3. Additional vehicles will cause further parking problems within the town.
4. Additional pressure will be put on other local services e.g. schools, health and social care. Ilkley Grammar and medical practices are already at full stretch.
5. Impact on the environment and way of life of those resident’s closest to the proposed sites.
6. Cumulative impacts of recent council initiatives have all adversely affected the fundamental character and attraction of Ilkley rather than enhance the environment.

Comment

Representation ID: 15677

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Owen Wells

•283 houses for Ilkley does not seem unreasonable.
•Housing needs to be suitable for young families, single people, people with special needs.
•More varied development with a mix of dwelling sizes and tenures is needed (e.g. 2/3 bedroom houses for young families, flats for single occupancy), rather than large executive homes in the highest council tax band.
•Need housing that enables people to live close to their work. Ilkley has a high proportion of large expensive housing whereas a large proportion of the jobs is in the low paid sector. Housing need is for modestly priced accommodation.
•Housing densities for the proposed allocations in Ilkley are much lower than the standards set out in the plan.
•Given that three of the sites are on green belt it is impossible to justify building at a rate as low as 18/21 per ha.
•Area of land required for 283 dwellings at 50dph is a minimum of 5.66ha. No substantial brownfield site in Ilkley therefore greenfield site(s) will be required. There are a few greenfield sites that are not green belt but those would be more controversial.

Object

Representation ID: 16414

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Dr M J Seymour

The need for these houses has not been made by the council.
There is a need for smaller units (not flats) for starter homes and for older people downsizing to release family housing.
Of the 314 homes allocated to Ilkley, 305 would be on green belt sites, which are protected through the NPPF. Brownfield sites should be developed before green-belt. Bradford Council area has many brownfield sites, easily accessible to the city centre.

Primary Care services/facilities in Ilkley were already at full-stretch,
Significant shortfall in school places.
Deliberately to add to the pressure on these critical services/facilities by building so many new family homes, is at best irresponsible and wilfully endangering the healthcare/education prospects of existing and prospective new residents.
Sewerage processing is at capacity, demonstrated by overflow discharges into the River Wharfe. Notwithstanding the recent designation of sections of the river as suitable for swimming, the chronic sewerage problems have not been resolved.

Object

Representation ID: 16429

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Thomas Gillon

Ilkley is already swollen. Services and structures are not in place for any more influx of human and motorised traffic.
This area is (was) renowned for its peace, tranquillity and desirability.
This is slowly being eroded to the denigration of the town and in complete disregard to the wishes of most town dwellers.

Comment

Representation ID: 16609

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Jude Hamon

I'm emailing in response to the plans for new-build houses in Ilkley although the principles below should apply to all areas of new housing you are planning to build.

Although I'm not massively in favour of building new houses, I appreciate that they are needed due to the ever increasing population in the UK.

My initial concern would be to avoid greenbelt land but I think we're pretty well only left with that now.

However such housing should incorporate green design, limit impact on environment and build in ability for nature to share the space with new inhabitants i.e.
- carbon neutral homes designed with environmentally friendly boilers, solar panels
- nature friendly so include swift bricks etc.
- tree lined streets
- green spaces between buildings
- incorporate bikes lanes and footpaths into layouts;

Object

Representation ID: 16681

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Carol McRink

Number of people: 2

Object to proposals to develop on the Green Belt around Ilkley
- urban sprawl would be detrimental to the town.
- highways infrastructure- detrimental Impact on already busy roads through and out of Ilkley
- queuing traffic results in poor air quality.
- rising numbers visiting especially river side, increases litter and spoils the town.
- impact on infrastructural- Ilkley Grammar is already oversubscribed
- Ilkley is unique in the Bradford area, the surrounding fields add to the attractiveness of the town and the loss of wildlife and flora would be detrimental to the area.

Object

Representation ID: 16686

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Mark Barrett

objections to the planned developments in Ilkely
- loss of Greenbelt
- impact on wildlife
- alternative brownfield sites should be developed first
- increased traffic congestion and impact on highway safety
- impact on education infrastructure local schools are already at capacity
- surface water flood risk- run off from surrounding hills

Support

Representation ID: 16790

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Sarah Wilde

I have the following views on the proposed building of new houses in Ilkley:

• I am generally in favour of new housing provided it is affordable and that there is some social housing. Too often new housing tends to be large detached housing with an extremely high price tag.

• I know there are a lot of people in Ilkley who are against expansion and change but I feel we should do our bit to provide greater housing stock that is affordable to young people and growing families. I myself moved to Ilkley 21 years ago to raise a family and I can’t expect to draw the drawbridge up behind me.

• I want to share what this beautiful town has to offer. I am also aware of the benefits of a bigger population to local businesses including shops and restaurants.