Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Object

Representation ID: 24881

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Ilkley Design Statement Group

Group’s comments are based on the provisions of the Ilkley Design Guide (2002)

Green Belt – should be preserved and not encroached upon by future development, and no inappropriate to buildings with in it [paras 22(a) & 22(c)]. Therefore, should be no new development within it – ruling out IL1/H, IL2/H & IL3/H

IL3/H should rejected as further development on the valley bottom should be prohibited and further building in the flood plain should not be permitted [paras 17(b) & 17(d)], as well as impact on views across the valley and need to maintain open and woodland aspect of the town [para 68(a)]

IL1/H should be rejected density similar to the surrounding area will not be achieved [para 67(a)] and is a steep, away from public transport

Schools capacity needs to be considered (para 121(d)] – understood they are over-subscribed. Families will move to the area unless children can get into local schools. All sites should be withdrawn.

Object

Representation ID: 24882

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Ilkley Design Statement Group

Group’s comments are based on the provisions of the Ilkley Design Guide (2002)

Green Belt – should be preserved and not encroached upon by future development, and no inappropriate to buildings with in it [paras 22(a) & 22(c)]. Therefore, should be no new development within it – ruling out IL1/H, IL2/H & IL3/H.

IL3/H should rejected as further development on the valley bottom should be prohibited and further building in the flood plain should not be permitted [paras 17(b) & 17(d)], as well as impact on views across the valley and need to maintain open and woodland aspect of the town [para 68(a)]

IL1/H should be rejected density similar to the surrounding area will not be achieved [para 67(a)] and is a steep, away from public transport.

Schools capacity needs to be considered (para 121(d)] – understood they are over-subscribed. Families will move to the area unless children can get into local schools. All sites should be withdrawn.

Object

Representation ID: 24883

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Ilkley Design Statement Group

Group’s comments are based on the provisions of the Ilkley Design Guide (2002)

Green Belt – should be preserved and not encroached upon by future development, and no inappropriate to buildings with in it [paras 22(a) & 22(c)]. Therefore, should be no new development within it – ruling out IL1/H, IL2/H & IL3/H

IL3/H should rejected as further development on the valley bottom should be prohibited and further building in the flood plain should not be permitted [paras 17(b) & 17(d)], as well as impact on views across the valley and need to maintain open and woodland aspect of the town [para 68(a)]

IL1/H should be rejected density similar to the surrounding area will not be achieved [para 67(a)] and is a steep, away from public transport

Schools capacity needs to be considered (para 121(d)] – understood they are over-subscribed. Families will move to the area unless children can get into local schools. All sites should be withdrawn.