Support

Representation ID: 21072

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Paul Heierman-Rix

Please demonstrate a full assessment of costs associated with these developments:
- increase in school places,
- expansion of medical and other public services, social care arrangements and care for elderly people?

Object

Representation ID: 21073

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Peter Ferguson

- No justification for use of green belt land
- Brownfield sites available
-97% of homes in green belt as opposed to 20% elsewhere - hugely disproportionate value against Ilkley.
-Reduce the separation between the towns.
-Impact on the character of the town and surrounds.
-Lead to increased flood risks
-Impact on Environment
- Impact on SSSi and local wildlife
-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.

Object

Representation ID: 21074

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Pam Hearnshaw

I believe 300 houses will swamp a small historic town
like Ilkley.

Infrastructure is inadequate to cope with such large influx. Schools especially Ilkley grammar school already have problems admitting all who want to attend and primary as well.

Local doctors and other social and care services will be over stretched.

About 450 extra cars etc clogging our roads. Safety on our roads will be a problem.

What type of layouts,and type of housing?

What influence and say will Ilkley have and it’s town Council

Ilkley is a small historic town and we are enthusiastic to maintain its Tourist-reputation and visitors which help provide local work.

Object

Representation ID: 21253

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Emma Dowson

objection to the housing developments at the sites IL1H and IL3H in Ben Rhydding. These proposed sites are huge and not in keeping with the area. The combined proposal of approx 300 properties is not at all in keeping with the area and could potentially add another 600 cars to the already busy infrastructure.

Object

Representation ID: 21282

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: 21368

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Jeff Gardner

Objection to plans for green belt development and the following observations on the Ilkley section (for more detail see submission):

The Ilkley proposal makes no reference to or consideration of the combined impacts of all the proposals in Wharfedale

5.17.13 re public transport facilities makes no reference to the train services being at over capacity at peak times and travel by bus to these designations is not feasible;

5.17.30 is misleading as the majority of these sites are private facilities with membership costs to join.

Reference to 'limited green belt releases' is misleading - 97% of the proposed homes are on green belt land.

The plan references “Support for the delivery of the Wharfedale Greenway" - after many years no progress has been made, is clearly no firm commitment to making this happen.

The plan states a key element is to protect and enhance key green infrastructure corridors, ecology and wildlife habitats - building on green belt land is not consistent with this.

Object

Representation ID: 21416

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Fran Shilton

I am emailing to strongly object to the proposed development of over 300 house in Ilkley and Ben Rhydding.

The schools, roads, train station, parking etc simply could not cater for this level of additional people. It will cause much disruption to the area and hugely affect its appeal.

Object

Representation ID: 21586

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Neil Harris

- 314 new homes/1000 more residents is a huge increase for a town of Ilkley's size with many facilities already stretched to capacity.
- Impact on infrastructure, sewerage and highways-
- Impact on Flood Risk- increase run off and exacerbate flooding risk

Object

Representation ID: 21605

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Sue Towler

Ilkley is a small town with restricted access and amenities which struggles to cope with its present population and these planning proposals will totally detract from the town and huge developments are a bad representation.
As a tourist spot it needs protecting from these types of planning applications

Object

Representation ID: 21778

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Gillian Gilroy

I am writing to oppose the building of 314 new homes in Ilkley.

We are currently at capacity as a community, the demand on local services and infrastructure is already too high and will have a big impact on people who already live here.

Local schools have already reached capacity. It is a sad irony that Ilkley Grammar School was to have been relocated to one of the sites now proposed for 155 new houses. Instead they had to stay where they are under increasing pressure to educate more and more children - they really have no more room.

The roads around Ilkley are busy, we have queues of traffic and pot holes galore.

I really think this number of houses will have a dramatic impact on our lovely town.

Object

Representation ID: 21855

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Toni Minou

I hope all these schemes (in Ilkley) will be thrown out in their current format and further thought be given to developing brown field sites.

Object

Representation ID: 23473

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Daisy Gilroy-Bewell

- Ilkley Grammar School is very full. I am concerned that if you build more houses, there will be more students however they will have nowhere to go.
- Ilkley isn't a very large town and more people will create busier roads, busier shops and these new people will have nowhere to work.
- Impact on wildlife that lives in these areas.

Object

Representation ID: 23498

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Robin & Sheila Wright

Number of people: 2

-There is a disproportionate disruption to Green Belt land 97% for Ilkley but only 20% overall for Bradford District. The destruction of Green Belt land has a large environmental cost and alters the character of a sensitive landscape.
-Impact on the conservation areas of Ilkley Moor, the centre of Ilkley and Ben Rhydding.
-Brownfield sites available in the Bradford District.
-While there is a need for a smaller amount of affordable housing for the Ilkley area, there are some open spaces available that are not Green Belt.
-Disagree with projected population increase - reports of falling birth rates.
3. Infrastructure - A65 is often bottle necked in and around Ilkley with no alternative route through the valley. - Additional 314 dwellings & vehicles means that traffic management through the valley would be unsustainable.
-Services such as waste management, flooding defences, access for emergency vehicles and schools would be under severe strain.

Object

Representation ID: 23687

Received: 22/07/2021

Respondent: Richard Walton

-No justification for the removal of Green Belt sites
-Disproportionate use of GB land in Ilkley
-Brownfield sites available in District.
-Reduce separation, create a wharfedale corridor of development
-Impact on character
-Increase Local flood risk
-Impact on the countryside and setting
-Impact on Ilkley moor/SSSI – development should be avoided
-Impact on wildlife - Curlew bird feeding.
-Impact on Ben Rhydding and Ilkley sewage - already at capacity and regularly overflow their storm surge capacity into the adjacent river
-Road Safety – significant congestion and are already at high risk of accidents.
-No traffic assessment has been carried out.
-Park & ride for the Ben Rhydding train station will encourage even more cars
-Ilkley Grammar School operating at capacity. No additional secondary school capacity has been proposed.
-Numbers proposed are excessive.
-Ben Rhyddding not an adequate size to cope with the additional number of car journeys that will be generated.

Object

Representation ID: 23750

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Rita Tetlow

I am appalled at the number of houses you intend to add to Ilkley as I think it is already pretty crammed with so many cars and schools already busting at the seams.
We also need our green spaces otherwise the pollution will overwhelm us.

Object

Representation ID: 23760

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: J Robinson

I’ve lived around Ilkley and my husband too since early 60s. We now have pay and display boxes and people checking the vehicle has paid, shops are shutting the lovely atmosphere of Ilkley is so different now and now Bradford Planners want to put another – 130 dwellings – 20 dwellings – 155 dwellings and 9 dwellings plus more people for the medical centre, more children at the school, the sewers, the gas, the water, electricity all to have the areas dug up. Plus 600 extra cars. Out of all the areas of dwellings I bet there are no bungalows for the elderly to move to, to release houses too big now for those elderly people – NO LOGIC.

Object

Representation ID: 23839

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Lynn Haygarth

Current infrastructure struggles to supporting existing residents, visitors and tourists. Developments (IL1/H, IL2/H, IL3/H) suggest increase of 305 homes.

Marketing will include information on schools, transport links and doctor’s surgeries. Pressure on these services is already substantial.

Commuter trains to Leeds are crowded. No capacity to increase seating by adding extra carriages due platform lengths at Ben Rhydding. Extra houses along the line will increase pressure on busy trains. Parking restrictions in Ilkley have increased traffic in Ben Rhydding. Many commuters now travel to Ben Rhydding and utilise on street parking, making it impossible to park. Will cause more congestion with new builds.

Are Leeds & Bradford working together on transport infrastructure? Needs to be more joined up planning between councils. More consideration must be given to effects of individual planning decisions on the whole area. Ilkley’s parking restrictions have had fall out for commuter parking in Ben Rhydding. Has affected ability of residents to access shops.

Object

Representation ID: 24424

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Luke Lynam

•Absolutely supportive of increased affordable housing, but it is quite obvious that this isn't going to be the case.
•There is so much Brownfield space across the district that could be developed to help the affordable housing crisis, however these plans to instead build on precious Greenbelt highlight Bradford Council's priority to profit from land that can be sold to developers for top council tax property.
•To show complete disregard for the amazing wildlife which inhabits these areas is extremely disappointing to see.
•Has anyone at the council considered the local infrastructure before submitting these plans for development? Particularly in my village of Addingham which has seen its allocation of houses increase from 75 to 175. This seems excessive given that no additional infrastructure has been proposed for the village. Also particularly surprising given that no increase in allocated houses has been proposed for a major town like Ilkley.

Object

Representation ID: 24616

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: C Ewan McCaig

It is evident that much of the town's infrastructure is already under pressure and it would seem that the schools, medical services, etc are already at capacity. The plan does not appear to explain what provisions are proposed to enhance the infrastructure and facilities to support the increased population. Clearly, identifying sites for more housing should not be considered in isolation.

Object

Representation ID: 24902

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Janet Petty

Green Belt purpose is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open – it maintains the rural/semi-rural appearance of the Wharfe Valley.

Green Belt to east of the town is narrow. Once Sun Lane development is built, visually Burley and Ben Rhydding will appear to almost join up.

Should be protecting this land for future generations to enjoy, especially when there are many brownfield sites in Bradford and Keighley that should be used first.

There is also the likelihood of much more office/retail space in those town centres becoming available – would make sense to re-purpose them for housing.

Countances Way site is an over-wintering site for curlews – a vulnerable species.

Local infrastructure is already stretched to the limit – Ilkley Grammar School is only secondary school covering a huge area. GPs, dentists, sewerage and traffic will all be affected in a detrimental way – no mention of how these problems will be addressed.

Object

Representation ID: 24923

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Sephra Greening-Jackson

I would like to formally object to the local area strategy for Ilkley and preferred site allocations that are proposed for the following reasons:

• No clear need for this housing. If there were, the size of the houses would increase the issue of housing being too expensive for the majority of those wanting to live here or get on the property ladder for the first time.

• Congestion on roads and increase of people using public transport would be absolutely ridiculous. Trains are already completed packed at rush hour. Parking in/around Ilkley is very limited, expensive and would become more so with demand from new residents.

• It would make flooding with the river and rainwater run-off worse. Also, it Would threaten open green and wildlife habitat.

• Development would be a huge waste of time and money and spoil what makes this area so special.

Object

Representation ID: 25112

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Tina Collins

•Ilkley Grammar School is the sole provider of Secondary level education in the Wharfe Valley, but is already operating at or near capacity. It is not clear how secondary education of the occupants of the additional houses would be provided.

Object

Representation ID: 25256

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Georgina Shuttleworth

Ilkley and Ben Rhydding are joined. Wheatley Grange Farm is now the only working farm in Ben Rhydding/Ilkley and should be the first site to be withdrawn from the planning proposals.
Given the vast amount of brownfield site available in the Bradford District, the Bradford Plan includes an extremely low percentage being allocated for development of new homes. A highly disproportionate amount to Green Belt.
Change the character of the town and surrounding area.
Wharfedale is going to become a corridor of development instead of a corridor of villages with open farmland.
No significant justification as to why there is development of Green Belt Land.
Alternative sites are available.
Flooding/Drainage/Sewerage Issues.
Impact o Wildlife and birds
Traffic/congestion issues.

Object

Representation ID: 25262

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Sue Towler

Ilkley is a small town with restricted access and amenities which struggles to cope with its present population and these planning proposals will totally detract from the town and huge developments are a bad representation.
As a tourist spot it needs protecting

Comment

Representation ID: 25379

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Jan Stallworthy

“5.17.2 Ilkley is the principal town of Wharfedale with......It is a “principal town” in name only. This is a complete nonsense.
Public Transport
5.17.12 Given Ilkley's more rural location, car travel is higher to the centre than others, as indicated through the surveys................ Car ownership in Ilkley is high because the public transport provided does not go where people need to go on the days and at the times and frequency they need to travel.
Ilkley has problems with parking because much of the centre of Ilkley is a Conservation Area.
5.17.13 Ilkley has a good provision of public transport facilities.....Bus services could be improved
5.17.15 - The “Connectivity Infrastructure Plan and Mass Transit Vision 2040” seems to have been omitted from the key initiatives for Ilkley.
5.17.35 Ilkley has a number of NHS registered healthcare facilities...........Airedale Hospital is where most people from Ilkley are referred to
Green Belt, Sites, Infrastructure
- maintain the separation between the settlements of Burley in Wharfedale and Ben Rhydding.
- risk of surface water flooding
- Infrastructure issues
- Limited employment opportunities

Comment

Representation ID: 25620

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Gordon Perry

Ilkley is an area of higher than average wealth in the District with a higher proportion of owner occupation, large homes for families, and a growing ageing population. It has a lower than average proportion of affordable homes for rent and to buy.

As a consequence I would support the provision of smaller and more affordable homes for rent or shared ownership. This would support the need for homes for lower paid workers in retail, administration and care whilst also reducing the pressure on transport routes, and if smaller homes they would provide less pressure on schools, dentists and healthcare facilities which are already overstretched.

Any higher value homes for sale should be targeted at the downsizing market for older people, as options currently are limited to retirement type accommodation which is not attractive for many older people. Bungalows and smaller homes are less available as they are often demolished and sites re-developed with larger
expensive family homes.

Object

Representation ID: 25664

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: John Hunt

Ilkley / Wharfedale can’t cope with its current population and number of cars.

Object

Representation ID: 26281

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Nicholas Allon

Concerned that Ilkley is not being protected from over-development. Ilkley has little available land for building due to moorland (to south) and the Niddledale AONB (to north), and land in the valley is prone to flooding.

Not convinced that Bradford has fully exploited the development of brownfield sites, important for regeneration. Building houses in rural areas create more need to commute to work.

Due to climate emergency, we should be reducing the need to travel to work. Ilkley does not have a lot of employment opportunities. Should be minimising journeys to work. A65 is often congested – developments will increase this.

Primary and secondary schools are full. Extra houses will place increased strain on the education system.

Green Belt development is excessive (185 dwellings on greenfield sites). There is little open countryside between Burley in Wharfedale & Ben Rhydding particularly with the development of the Sun Lane development.

Object

Representation ID: 26498

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Dr. & Mrs. R.S. Edwardson

Dismayed that plan seems to add to the destruction of the green spaces separating the valley communities, worsens the tendency to flood the area along the A65 approaching Ilkley and is bound to stress the strained capacity of the primary schools and IGS - the only secondary school between Menston and Skipton.

We understand that imaginative, quality development of brown field sites with access to “green lung“ spaces is not as easy as taking a digger to those green fields......but hasn’t the last year taught us anything about planning for future wellbeing.

Object

Representation ID: 26779

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Persimmon Homes (West Yorkshire)

Agent: Lichfields

IL1/H is currently designated as Green Belt within the Replacement Unitary Development Plan (RUDP).
The Proposed Site Allocation Map identifies it as a preferred housing allocation and of course is supported.

However, the Site Allocations Map also indicates that the site as being washed over by Green Belt. It is also displayed the same way in the separate ‘Local Area Strategy and Plan’ for Ilkley as set out below paragraph 5.17.37 of the main part of the draft local plan.

This is clearly a cartographical error, as Policy SP5 (and associated accompanying text) of the draft plan relating to Green Belt is clear insofar as it identifies exceptional circumstances as required by paragraph 137 of the NPPF to remove land from the Green Belt, with part B of Policy SP5 listing the specific sites that should be released. This list includes site IL1/H.

Accordingly both the Site Allocation Map and the separate Local Area Strategy and Plan for Ilkley should be amended, with it clearly depicting the site removed from the Green Belt consistent with Policy SP5 and to solely indicate its allocation for housing.