Object

Representation ID: 16964

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Bob Lafbery

impact on infrastructure - the number of proposed houses planned for Burley, Addingham and Ilkley and impact on school capacity and Roads.
- no regard to First time buyers living in Ilkley but who cant afford to buy

Object

Representation ID: 16972

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs J A Whitehouse

Object most strongly to all the proposals in Ilkley - so much for Ilkley being an interesting small spa town with lots of visitors. It will turn into just another district of Bradford, totally overrun with traffic/people and all the remaining green spaces built over.
314 new dwellings respresents how many more residents? Would the planners be in control of the type of housing on these sites?
The Health Centre/dental practices are already so busy that it is difficult to get appointments, a situation made even worse by the pandemic. So many extra residents will create even more problems, not solve them. Other services/facilities e.g. banks, pharmacies, opticians, refuse disposal site, supermarkets, hairdressers/barbers will be all the more difficult to access when needed and no doubt the schools are overflowing/fit to burst.
Ilkley had a lot of publicity over the summer both in the local/national press and television, portrayed as a "hot" tourist spot. I don't think this suggested expansion scheme is in keeping with that image and I sincerely hope it does not get approval.

Object

Representation ID: 16997

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Neil and Jo Jerome

Number of people: 2

I would like to raise the following points with regard to the Local Plan in the Wharfe Valley.

The number of houses proposed in Ben Rhydding will:
1. Swamp the roads
2. Create pollution issues especially sewage and rainwater
3. Overcrowd the local schools especially Ilkley Grammar School.
4. Require Addinham secondary pupils to be bussed to Keighley schools. This is not sustainable.
5. Destroy valuable Green Belt Land. It is not infill.
6. Probably MOST IMPORTANTLY - This should not be considered until the results of the National Census have been published and analysed. YOU do not know what the local housing needs will be until this important data collection exercise has been completed.

Object

Representation ID: 17008

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Paul Smith

4) The plan seems far too simplistic given the infrastructure of Ilkley will be unable to support the additional population - specifically schools, doctors and roads.
5) Ilkley sorely needs a bypass, this was mooted 20 years ago - where is that in the plan.

Object

Representation ID: 17039

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: David Rees

If Bradford embarks on a plan to cram 300 plus new houses into a notoriously narrow 'pinch point' in lower Wharefedale which would affect Ilkley so drastically, future generations would doubt our civic sanity and environmental responsibility. Bradford would create terminal traffic congestion, gross overloading of scarce facilities and services as well as misery for all who live in or visit this jewel in Yorkshire's crown.

Comment

Representation ID: 17342

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: CFK Developments (Ilkley) LLP

Agent: ID Planning

PROPOSED GREENWAYS ROUTE AT A65/ ASHLANDS ROAD, ILKLEY
Chapter 5.17 of the Preferred Options plan provides the local area strategy and details for Ilkley. Within Chapter 5.17 and the Proposals Map indicates a route for ‘Greenways, Walkways and Cycleways’ to accompany policy TR1 of the plan.

To the east of Kimberley Street, Ilkley, the proposed Greenways route is shown to leave the A65 at the eastern end of Kimberley Street and pass diagonally in a north west direction to Ashlands Road, thereby running directly across an area of open land.

The site at Ashland Road has permission for development and whilst it is acknowledged that the route on the Proposed Map is indicative, it is prudent to ensure the plan is up to date in its preparation. The route on the plan should be amended to run around the site to avoid the central development area. The proposed Greenways route would therefore exit the A65 at the existing footpath location and run directly north toward the Sewage works before turning west at a right angle to meet with Ashlands Road. The proposed amendment will ensure that the proposed maps and plans show an accurate route to ensure they are effective.

Object

Representation ID: 17487

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Timothy Usherwood

Not objecting to the plan, but opposed to significant development in a small town on its Green Belt. Also aware of the need for increases in affordable housing for current and future generations.

Do not feel that I have enough to time to be consulted on this matter. Decision to change the size and feel of Ben Rhydding to extent proposed warrants an equivalent degree of scrutiny.

Consultation period was incredibly short - cannot have given those affected enough time consider the proposals before putting views forward. Residents - the most important stakeholders- have not been afforded air time.

By waiting for a matter of weeks, consultation could have been held in a public forum, not in an online seminar. Disagree with the conduct of the process. Should reconsider an extended consultation period.

Wish to have a fair chance to weigh up pros/cons, given the impact on countryside, wildlife, road, safety, flooding and schooling.

Object

Representation ID: 17773

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Andrew Devonald

My objections in relation to IL3/H are as follows

- no plan for how the new housing will be supported within the community - all primary and the secondary schools are full. Doctors and dentists are full. Increasing the population of ilkley / Ben Rhydding with this (and the other development near the golf club) cannot be made with also increasing public services such as schools and access to NHS services etc

- There are provisional plans for carparking for the station. This will further increase congestion problems and overcrowding at the station and trains

Object

Representation ID: 17783

Received: 22/06/2021

Respondent: Mrs Melissa Batters

I must write to voice my serious concerns and sadness about proposed planning submissions. Felt I needed to let Council know my feelings.

Have seen many changes over the years but this planning application is quire unbelievable.

More precious green land being used to fit far too many houses on to it and if these were all to go ahead I just worry how Ilkley will be able to cope with the extra burden on schools (already oversubscribed) and all the facilities e.g our Health Centre (already over-worked and worse now in our present Covid situation).

Please re-consider, at least cut down the number of sites proposed and the number of houses to be built on them, I worry for our lovely town and what it is turning in to.

Thanks to Ilkley Town Council for letting us have the chance to view these proposals and make our feelings known.

Object

Representation ID: 18035

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs LC Pearson

I do not feel Bradford have addressed the infrastructure needs for this additional number of houses. It is not only school places but doctors facilities and better parking that is required. The latest parking restrictions recently implemented in ilkley together with costs for parking mean it is harder to park in the town centre and support our local high street.

Object

Representation ID: 18077

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Kathleen Hannam

Number of people: 2

No mention is made on how extra provision will be made for increase pupil numbers in the Local Plan.
The Local Plan is set to deliver;
625 dwellings in Burley in Wharfedale
350 …in Menston
300 …in Ilkley
175…in Addingham
A total of 1,450 additional dwellings and how many additional children of school age?
So far as children of secondary education are concerned the main options for these area are Otley Prince Henry’s Grammar School and Ilkley Grammar School.
Both are heavily over - subscribed now without any additional housing development and the latter has no land for on-site development.
It will be a disaster for parents wanting a place for their children in these local Schools.

Object

Representation ID: 18127

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Karen Gardner

No evidence of meeting Plan ambitions in Ilkley due to reduction in Green Belt/natural environment, increase in car journeys and congestion in area not supported by increased employment, school places, amenities or public transport networks

Does not consider combined impacts of the proposed developments in Ilkley (300 houses, Burley (625) and Addingham (175) on Ilkley and its services/facilities.

Public transport – description does not accurately reflect true position. No reference made to rail services being at capacity during peaks. Vus travel to listed destinations is not feasible/practical due to congestion.

Open spaces/recreation – description is misleading – majority of listed sites are private. Few public facilities and no council leisure centre. No reference to improvements that are needed now.

Limited green belt release references misleading – 97% of proposed housing planned on Green Belt.

Wharfedale Greenway – no progress made and no firm commitment to it. Would be valuable addition.

Green infrastructure corridors/habitats/ecology networks – building on Green Belt not consistent with aim to protect/enhance them.

Object

Representation ID: 18253

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.

97% of the proposed homes will be built on green belt land. Whilst I accept there is a need for more affordable housing, the destruction of green belt land should come when there are no other options available. What is the justification for choosing green belt land over other available areas?

Object

Representation ID: 18309

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Suzanne Whelan

I wish to object with the planning of new housing in Ilkley, I am an Ilkley resident, there are not enough school places for more children, I don’t agree with using all the lovely greenery for building on plus it’s green belt, the housing won’t be affordable, and that’s just a few things.

Object

Representation ID: 18482

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Linda Cracknell

•Appalled at the plan to build over 330 houses in the over-crowded, small town of Ilkley.
•Over the last 20-25years the character of the town has been lost due to relentless building of new housing.
•300 houses means at least another 1,000-1,500 people clogging up the town. They will add pressure to over-subscribed schools, doctors beauty-spots, roads, parking and shops.
•The roads are grid-locked half of the time. Parking is a complete nightmare.
•With climate change we know green spaces and trees are important for our survival.
•The proposed developments will ruin four green areas including a small coppiced wooded area. More trees should be being planted and conserving the green areas we have left not building on them.
•Building at both end of Ilkley will see it eventually joining up with Addingham and Burley destroying the beautiful green space in between.
•Building more houses here has to be stopped.

Object

Representation ID: 18907

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Zoe Whittaker

The plans would ruin Ilkley and its beautiful surroundings and force current residents who have worked hard to live in such an area to move out. It would put pressure on local schools and services.

Having spent 40 minutes on your planning website I could not figure out how to register my views - I imagine you have made this so incredibly difficult to navigate that you hope people give up! I will not be deterred by your complicated and impossible website.

We contribute a huge amount of council tax to Bradford City Council but are so often ignored. It’s obvious this ‘affluent’ area supports other ‘less affluent’ areas under the Bradford umbrella, it’s about time our voices were heard. We are not communists, we don’t all have the same things in life sadly.

Why not regenerate areas elsewhere rather than build on green belt.

Object

Representation ID: 19215

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Louise Wilcock

I am writing to you this evening to object to the proposed planning developments within Ilkley.

Concerns include traffic and access and highway safety, loss of green belt, flood risk, inadequate local transport, impacts on amenities e.g. schools and impact on wildlife / SSSI.

Object

Representation ID: 19395

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.

Object

Representation ID: 19398

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Pamela & Brian Ravenscroft

Number of people: 2

As residents of Ilkley, we have viewed the proposed plans for dwellings in our area and our concern is that the local infrastructure will be unable to accommodate the increased numbers of residents this number of dwellings will provide, traffic wise, for schooling and medical care.

Object

Representation ID: 19453

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Malcolm Lee

On a broader note, the description of Ilkley in the introduction accurately portrays the character of the town however, these proposals to squeeze another 300 houses into it´s boundary risks jeopardising this character and attractiveness.It is already blighted by major problems from traffic and parking caused by overdevelopment. Any further development should not require the removal of sensitive and important Green Belt sites. I would describe alternative and less sensitive or important sites in Ilkley as land adjacent the OFS on Wheatley Road, or extension of the residential area adjacent Skipton Road at the town boundary.

In terms of housing provision until 2038, I would suggest the development of less sensitive areas such as South of Silsden on the Keighley Skipton corridor with excellent road and rail links with acccess to the nearby Airedale Hospital. This may mean less annual revenue from Council tax but practical in terms of housing provision.

Support

Representation ID: 19937

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Climate Action Ilkley

Number of people: 7

6. We support the inclusion in the plan of the Wharfedale Greenway, a long-overdue safe means of active transport between neighbouring communities, and suggest that work on this project is prioritised to allow its realisation early in the development of any site, i.e. as soon as practically possible, rather than risk its non-completion through delay.

Object

Representation ID: 19939

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Climate Action Ilkley

Number of people: 7

7. We are concerned that there is a commitment to “improve [car] parking provision” in Ilkley (paragraph 5.17.37), which we believe should not be taken to mean “increase car parking provision”. Wherever possible, there should be increased provision for alternatives to the use of private cars, for example through the use of car clubs, lockable cycle shelters, electric cargo bike sharing schemes, and active travel (walking and cycling). The term “parking” should not be solely car parking but be widened to include cycle parking.

Comment

Representation ID: 19940

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Climate Action Ilkley

Number of people: 7

8. We believe that it would be helpful if the Ilkley Local Area Strategy used the same structure and objectives as the Ilkley Neighbourhood Development Plan. This would make it more straightforward to see how the two plans fit together and avoid potential pitfalls where there is slightly different wording. It would also mean greater clarity as regards the link between policy and delivery.

Comment

Representation ID: 19941

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Climate Action Ilkley

Number of people: 7

Our response is provided in the context of both BMDC and Ilkley Town Councils’ resolutions acknowledging an ongoing climate emergency. An emergency requires radical and transformative solutions. New housing and other developments provide an opportunity to help address these crises with imaginative and forward-thinking solutions; otherwise, they literally fan the flames of global heating and necessitate costly remedial action in the short-medium term which could otherwise have been avoided (e.g. through extra insulation and installing non-fossil fuel heating).

We know such housing is possible because these high standards have been achieved at a number of projects in the UK with council involvement, for example in Exeter and Norwich.

Our aim is not to provide support or otherwise of particular sites for housing or other infrastructure. We accept that new houses and other developments are needed, although we ask that the council first assesses opportunities to exploit existing properties, particularly those vacant for a long period. We also ask that full details of all brownfield sites in the district are made available including any reasons why developers are not using these first.

Object

Representation ID: 20010

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Archie Miller

I object to the local area strategy for Ilkley and for the preferred site allocations

Of the 314 house proposed, 305 are on green belt land. Destroying green belt land to meet your housing targets is not respecting your Climate Emergency declaration.

With reference to the studies carried out by Edge Analytics, the proposed houses do not have a demonstrable need in relation to the population and housing requirements for the area. Many of the proposed builds are four and five bedroom houses with price tags in no way affordable for the people who are in need of housing in the district.

No decisions should be taken about housing until after the Pandemic is over and commercial life revives. Until the pandemic crisis is over and some economic stability is regained, people will not know where they want work and live, how much they will need to travel, how much they can afford on housing or the type of housing they need.

Comment

Representation ID: 20021

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Claire Barker

•A Park and Rail service is needed for Ben Rhydding. Cars to park on land behind the Scout hut.
•Even if people continue to work from home after the Pandemic and only go into the office once or twice a week they will still need cars (not electric possibly hydrogen) and somewhere to park.
•Ilkley and Ben Rhydding provide a wonderful holiday setting with lots of facilities (Hotels, B&Bs, restaurants, pubs, swimming pools).
•Building more houses will ruin this wonderful place. We would have to increase the size of medical facilities (e.g. Coronation Hospital) to provide NHS dentist, doctors, physios. Also need to increase primary and secondary school provision.
•The speed limit should be lowered to 20mph around schools and remove speed bumps. A better scheme would be to narrow the roads and put in chicanes – these work well in small towns in France.
•The lights installed to control traffic at the rail bridge have been a huge success.

Object

Representation ID: 20022

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Andrew & Sue Lambert & Varley

Number of people: 2

•Ilkley’s infrastructure is already overstretched. Morning trains are full to capacity with passengers not able to get on further down the line.
•Parking meters have been installed to address complaints regarding commuter parking but this has reduced footfall for local businesses. The money collected no doubt gets spent in Bradford not Ilkley.
•Existing schools are excellent but overstretched. Bradford expect the secondary school to take more students. The new homes will create a minimum of 314 children which will need a school place. Where will these children go to school? Will a new school be built and where?
•Ilkley is known as an expensive area. These homes will attract families wanting to gain places at the schools and not those people who need homes.
•It is the city that requires housing. There are brownfield sites which should be used first before greenfield. The Council takes from Ilkley but does not give back.

Comment

Representation ID: 20056

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Felicity Tomblin

•What proportion of the proposed housing will be social housing/available to those on a lower income? For the town to work effectively there needs to be a mix of soci-economic housing.
•Where will the children who occupy these new properties go to school. Existing schools are nearing capacity. Those with capacity are on the west of the town where as the sites are on the east. How will the children travel to school? If by car this will significantly increase traffic.
•Where will the children go to secondary school? Plans for a new school were shelved (the site of IL3/H). What is the capacity of Ilkley Grammar? Can it accommodate the extra pupils?

Object

Representation ID: 20062

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Diana Lury

I am writing to raise an objection to the plan to build a total of 314 new dwellings in Ilkley.

Whilst I understand the need to supply new dwellings I have serious concerns about the impact on the local infrastructure in particular:

1. The impact of this number of new dwellings on an already overloaded water treatment system which does not separate ground water from sewage before entering the local treatment works.

2. The impact on the already congested road system and parking in the town centre.

3. The impact on primary and secondary school places when local schools are already oversubscribed.

4. The impact on local medical practices which have recently struggled to provide timely vaccinations for both flu and coronavirus.

There appear to be many brownfield sites available for development in Bradford which would avoid eroding greenbelt and having the added benefit of leading to much needed regeneration.

Object

Representation ID: 20327

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: James Whittington

I am extremely concerned about the extra pressure that you are putting on all the resources in Ilkley.

First and foremost my concern is with the local schools, especially the Grammar School where the main body of the school must be approaching 100 years old. The school is not able to cope with the present need, never mind with even more pupils. The older part of the building is crumbling.

As you drive into Ilkley there are just a few fields which separate us from Burley and they are pleasant viewing as they enter the town.

Can the doctors surgery cope, can the train station car parks cope, this was certainly not the case prior to the pandemic.

Flooding in the town has been a big problem which cannot be helped by building on green belt and the general condition of the surrounding roads are a picture of potholes and patchwork repairs.