IL1/H - Ben Rhydding Drive, Wheatley Grove

Object

Representation ID: 54

Received: 10/02/2021

Respondent: Mr Peter Bastow

Limited access - a minimum of 130 cars
Junction Wheatley Grove to Wheatley Lane is dangerous due to traffic coming up Wheatley Lane not being visible to vehicles leaving Wheatley Grove and vice versa. The junction from High Wheatley is dangerous from vehicles coming up the hill not being visible entering and leaving.
The sewage disposal systems overloaded and raw sewage has in the past come up onto the surface in the proposed development site.

Object

Representation ID: 61

Received: 10/02/2021

Respondent: Mrs Leanne Farrow

The removal of this Green Belt land for the development of 130 houses is not appropriate. The loss of the site and the development of so many new houses in a concentrated area would have a significant detrimental impact on the existing character of Ben Rhydding.

Loss of Green Belt land.
Impact on character of Ben Rhydding.
The local transport infrastructure and school facilities cannot support so much housing development.
Impact on trees and environment.
The public right of way is key to the recreational amenity of the area.IL1/H - The removal of this Green Belt land for the development of 130 houses is not appropriate. The loss of the site and the development of so many new houses in a concentrated area would have a significant detrimental impact on the existing character of Ben Rhydding. The local transport infrastructure and school facilities cannot support so much housing development. The site has a number of well established protected trees and a copse, so development would have a detrimental environmental and landscape impact. The public right of way is key to the recreational amenity of the area

Object

Representation ID: 64

Received: 10/02/2021

Respondent: Mrs Rebecca Stevenson

Increased traffic and noise
Increased pollution due to an already busy junction
Loss of a very precious green belt site

Object

Representation ID: 75

Received: 10/02/2021

Respondent: Miss Amelia West

I strongly object to the proposed plans. Not only is preservation of the environment is becoming ever more pressing, green space is crucial for mental heal and wellbeing.

Object

Representation ID: 100

Received: 12/02/2021

Respondent: Mr David Lynch

No justification in your documents that support development in the Green Belt. What is the point of having a Green Belt if you just ignore it and support development on it?

Object

Representation ID: 115

Received: 13/02/2021

Respondent: Mrs Carolyn Emerson

130 houses inappropriate in this area.
Pressure on schools and medical centres etc
Loss of a semi rural traditional pasture land with ancient trees .

Object

Representation ID: 120

Received: 13/02/2021

Respondent: Ben Rhydding Bowls Club

Misuse of greenbelt land off private road.

Object

Representation ID: 123

Received: 13/02/2021

Respondent: Mr Thomas Lowe

2 submissions to 1 site were received and have been merged and summarised by Local Plan Team as follows
A) The site is unsuitable for 130 new dwellings- tainable pressure on roads and infrastructure. The Council should be looking to plant trees and rewild the 7+ ha available around Coppywood, rather than building more houses to achieve it's legally binding climate targets. New build properties in this part of Ben Rhydding do not match the prevailing style of the conservation area and there is no commitment made by the Council to build properties that are sympathetic.
B)The two nearby roads - Ben Rhydding Drive and Wheatley Grove - would not support this development. There is not space to widen either of these roads. Building further houses in this area would create traffic bottlenecks near the station and school. Development would undermine the conservation area and the unique character of Ben Rhydding. The proposal would also involve building on the Green Belt and changing the aspect of the local area.

Object

Representation ID: 129

Received: 13/02/2021

Respondent: Dr Nicola Coldwell

Loss of Green belt & narrowing the gap to Burley will change the feel of Ilkley.
-Increased traffic & pollution: locally and passing through the heart of Ilkley.
-Ilkley's Victoria sewage plant discharges every third day into the river (granted clean water status) development adds to the problem.
-Every opportunity to reuse brown field sites/unoccupied houses must be exhausted?
-Sites are: wet

Object

Representation ID: 136

Received: 13/02/2021

Respondent: Ms Kate O’Brien

• Strongly object to IL/H BR Drive/Wheatley Grove
•. Would substantially increase traffic/pollution/noise Leeds Road/Wheatley Grove, roads into Ben Rhydding, Ilkley Town Centre, shops + highly increased demand for parking.
•. Not in line with Government’s Green Belt policy.
•. Negative impact on wildlife/nature conservation, 30,000 species/driven to extinction annually, 80% by habitat destruction. Unprecedented tree felling contributing to climate change.
•. Is our duty to keep green spaces for healthy/clean environment where nature can thrive.
•. Although less profitable for Developers/Council Revenue, Brownfield sites should be used.
•. Ultimately, cost of developing every green space is destruction of Earth+ourselves.

Object

Representation ID: 414

Received: 24/02/2021

Respondent: Mr C Elliff

You assume access from Wheatley Grove only (BR Drive is private) - this is steep and rarely gritted in winter. Exit onto Wheatley Lane is extremely poor and dangerous; transport assessment required now. The site has numerous important TPOs/key habitat, and still discernable is original drive up to the historic BR Hydro (first in Ilkley) through the centre of the site - this would be lost. You mention only internal views, but there are fine external views from the footpath across the south of the site, in all directions encompassing this Giggleswick Field. Surface water drainage/flooding is a big issue.

Object

Representation ID: 449

Received: 25/02/2021

Respondent: Dr Ros Brown

-No GB exceptional circumstances
-The level of habitat, landscape character and surface water flood risk/drainage mitigation plus the need for replacement of an area of open space of high visual amenity and biodiversity and tree cover with compensatory Green Belt enhancement and a new area to replace that which would be unnecessarily destroyed in order to achieve a development with limited accessibility to local services and a need to depend on cars begs the question as to why this site has been included.

Sustainability Assessment(s) – significant inaccuracies between reports which misrepresent this beautiful and much used site:- E.g. IL1/H Site Proforma and IL/009 in the SA report - not accurately assessed and should b e removed from PO. (SEE COMMENTS AGAINST Q.121)

Object

Representation ID: 517

Received: 25/02/2021

Respondent: Colin Burn

I repeat the observations made in respect of Question 120, which are probably more appropriately made here. In respect of the context of this site and the development plan, I add that the development of green belt land should not be permitted simply in order to fulfill a self-imposed (or imposed) target for housing where there is no appropriate space for development without damaging the essential character of the location. Ilkley is, as the development plan describes, a Wharfedale 'market town' on the fringes of the National Park. This development, with the others proposed, on green belt land will move Ilkley towards being a commuter 'ribbon' suburb of Leeds and to a lesser extent Bradford.
PLEASE ALSO NOTE by way of information re: archaeological survey that there is a Roman road running directly across this site (Ilkley-Tadcaster, recorded I. Margary 72b)- I believe that this has never been properly surveyed.

Object

Representation ID: 542

Received: 26/02/2021

Respondent: Mr Paul Birch

Detrimental impact on the environment, natural beauty, green belt, local infrastructure, schools, medical services.

Object

Representation ID: 549

Received: 26/02/2021

Respondent: Mr Neil Scarlett

Greenbelt land. Greenbelt land should not be used for development. There is ample opportunity to provide properties through infill development in Ilkley and Ben Rhydding.
This steeply sloping site despite appearance to the contrary has poor drainage. The site is a natural reservoir in winter and any development will increase flood risk downstream which will be exacerbated by climate change.
Infrastructure. Access is not ideal and additional traffic into and out of the village via the constrained railway bridge will cause congestion.
Schools/Medical resources. The local schools are already over-subscribed, and there is no scope to increase the Grammar school.
Loss of habitat. The site is home to insects, birds and other wildlife.
Loss of amenity. The site is used by local walkers.

Object

Representation ID: 561

Received: 27/02/2021

Respondent: Mr Neil Hanson

Unnecessary over-development destroying Green Belt and removing a green corridor for roe deer and other wildlife
130 houses will add c500 people and 200+ cars to already overcrowded Ben Rhydding and Ilkley streets. Lack of parking already a serious issue.
Morning commuter trains already seriously overcrowded.
Distance from station via steep hill, means most journeys, even local ones, will be made by car.
Primary school(s) already full
Ben Rhydding Drive and path across IL1/H field heavily used by walkers and cyclists drawn by its semi-rural character, which will be destroyed by development.
In heavy rain, surface water already floods from field into Ben Rhydding Drive, development of 130 houses will greatly increase run-off.
Ample brownfield sites elsewhere in Bradford district should be developed before Green Belt. Priority should be reviving Bradford as a place to live and work, not unwanted over-development of surrounding suburbs

Object

Representation ID: 595

Received: 01/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Nick Robinson

This is far too many houses for this site. There is only one point of access along Wheatley Grove and the narrow single track under the bridge at Ben Rhydding station. I understand there are flood\surface water risks on this site. This over-development risks destroying what makes Ilkley a special place. It destroys a large swathe of green belt, when the council itself is committed to saving green belt. The local infrastructure cannot cope - there are already long queues on the A65 and at the Ben Rhydding station. The sewage system regularly discharges raw sewage into the Wharfe. This can only be exasperated by all these additional homes. Developers will pressure Bradford council to allow development in Ilkley so they can charge inflated prices.

Object

Representation ID: 625

Received: 02/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Bruce Piper

There is a shortage of affordable housing in Bradford District. The sites proposed for iIkley , and particularly the site off Wheatley Grove , will not satisfy that requirement .Firstly the land values and site development costs will be high which will prohibit the provision of low cost housing. Secondly any housing provision should be made with a sympathetic eye to the surrounding area. This would mean that the majority of any housing on the site would be Mid/high price housing , of which there is no shortage across the district. Indeed given the overall costs of the site , there would need to be a bias to higher price housing to subsidise any low cost housing provision.
This is a greenfield site and its development should not be used for high price housing to effectively subsidise the provision of low cost housing elsewhere.

Object

Representation ID: 640

Received: 02/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Susan Eardley

This land provides a really import pant habitat for wildlife and an essential link to the moorland for local residents (animal and human). In our years of walking here we have witness foxes, rabbits, birds of prey, owls and deer.

There is a public footpath running through the site, which must be maintained. It’s incredibly important to enable people to access nature through well maintained footpaths.

The drainage from the field is terrible. Any heavy rain and snow fall melt creates areas of bog, and turns Ben Rhydding drive into a river. Any development on this field would surely massively negatively affect this road and the properties down hill from it.

This is an incredibly expensive area of town, so I fail to see how you can successfully implement social housing. It seems more an exercise of generating high and council tax.

Object

Representation ID: 664

Received: 03/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Stephen Hey

Access for pedestrians onto Ben Rhydding Drive to walk to BR rail station would be dangerous as the Drive does not have pavements, is not very wide and people speed up and down the hill, increasingly in large delivery vans.

Wheatley Grove is not suitable for increased traffic either and the junction at the bottom near the Wheatley Arms is dangerous and increased usage would guarantee an accident. Cars come flying down the hill from Ben Rhydding Road and when exiting the Grove the angle makes it very difficult to see them.

Object

Representation ID: 763

Received: 05/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Deborah Robinson

I object to this proposal on a number of fronts. Firstly I believe it would be detrimental to the natural habitats of the local wildlife and ecological systems. The country is facing a climate emergency and we should not be building on Green Belt land we should be protecting it. There are sites in Brownfield areas which are underdeveloped which would not be as environmentally damaging as developing this one. As the area is not very close to any shops other than the very limited number in Ben Rhydding, I feel the volume of extra traffic into the town centre of Ilkley would be detrimental to the area, causing noise and air pollution. My other concerns relate to the local infrastructure, particularly in relation to schools - this number of houses would place a lot of pressure on the local primary and secondary schools - how would that be managed?

Object

Representation ID: 816

Received: 06/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Roger Falconer

Site Ref: IL1/H

Concerned about the proposed development of this site for the following reasons:

(i) Surface water flooding – in 2015 our property (24 Moorfield Road) flooded from surface runoff from this site. The high rainfall intensity led to significant runoff down Ben Rhydding Drive, with blocked drains in this private road overflowing and water flooding into our garden and cellar.

(ii) Loss of wildlife and habitat – our young grandsons love looking at the wide range of wildlife on this greenfield site, including deer, birds etc. We regularly walk up through the site for them to view the abundant wildlife.

(iii) Increased local commuter parking – under normal (pre-Covid) circumstances Moorfield Road has become a glorified free car park for the station. Many commuters at the top of the hill park in our road during, particularly during wet weather, rather than walk home up the steep hill.

Object

Representation ID: 831

Received: 06/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Sam Lewis

Bradford Council's proposal to build on Green Belt land is unacceptable. There are no special circumstances that mean that this should be allowed. Bradford Council are elected to work on behalf of the people of Bradford. The people of Bradford do not support the destruction of Green belt land. I object to this proposal

Object

Representation ID: 845

Received: 06/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Hazel Lewis

Bradford Council's proposal to build on Green Belt land is unacceptable. There are no special circumstances that mean that this should be allowed, particularly when there are many brownfield sites available across the district.

Bradford Council are elected to work on behalf of the people of Bradford. The people of Bradford do not support the destruction of Green belt land. I object to this proposal.

Object

Representation ID: 952

Received: 08/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Patsy Bastow

IL1/H As a local resident, I am concerned about the number of houses planned for the field. The junction at the bottom with Wheatley Road is already dangerous. One can reasonably assume that 130 houses will mean an additional 260 cars on the road. As a grandmother, I have experience of using a double buggy on the footpaths. At the bottom, near the junction, the path is not wide enough for a double buggy, and the bend makes walking in the road very risky. Petrol and diesel engines can be heard approaching, but newer electric cars are very much harder to hear. In the winter, the road has regularly been impassable even for gritters. This has happened twice this year. The path through the field has been enjoyed through lockdown by many out for their daily walk, and the field is a haven for wildlife.

Object

Representation ID: 965

Received: 08/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Iain McCaskey

I object to the use of green belt land in principle. This site is currently agricultural, and enjoyed as a green amenity by locals who walk and exercise there. It is a rather lovely area, which would be despoiled by building more houses, losing valuable wildlife habitat.
Building here would also represent continual urban sprawl, removing part of the green corridor between Ilkley & Burley. This seems rife at the moment when you look at the extent of developments in Bramhope and Burley itself. If we are to protect the ecology and character of the town, we need to preserve green belt land and wildlife corridors and habitat.

Object

Representation ID: 970

Received: 08/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Alexander McKay

My main objection is that this is Green Belt which should not be built on. This is encroaching on the green space around the beautiful Ilkley Moor. It would begin to threaten the character of a beautiful country town and go some way to turn it into a suburb of Leeds & Bradford. It would surely add to the town's existing traffic and parking problems. Schools, Medical and other amenities are already stretched to the limit. There MUST be brownfield sites that could be used to avoid any further loss of the valuable Yorkshire countryside.

Object

Representation ID: 988

Received: 08/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Patricia McKay

I object to this development on the grounds that Green Belt land should not be built on. This is encroaching on the green space around the beautiful Ilkley Moor. It would begin to threaten the character of a beautiful country town and go some way to turn it into a sprawling suburb of Leeds and Bradford. It would surely add to the town's existing traffic and parking problems. Schools, Medical and other Amenities are already stretched to the limit. There MUST be Brownfield Sites that could be used to avoid any further loss of the valuable Yorkshire countryside.

Object

Representation ID: 1035

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Ben Rhydding Drive Association

The Ben Rhydding Drive Association is responsible for the maintenance of the unadopted road. Association members comprise the owners of the 180+ properties which use the Drive for access. The Association's committee consists of 8 elected members.
The committee has studied a range of impacts - green belt, flora and fauna, historical and recreational, flooding and development practicalities. It has also examined the "Site Specific Green Belt Assessment of IK/009 (aka IL1/H)" and the "Sustainability Appraisal/Strategic Environmental Assessment"
Our detailed comments on each aspect are set out in the accompanying word document, this strongly supporting the committee's view that this site unsuitable for development and therefore we object.

Object

Representation ID: 1105

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Moira Hogan

Access road is inadequate for the increase in traffic for 130 homes.
Infrastructure not in place, services and parking already stretched
Drainage and increased/runoff/flooding
Use of valuable greenbelt and resultant impact on environment/wildlife