IL1/H - Ben Rhydding Drive, Wheatley Grove

Object

Representation ID: 22767

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Jane Cockcroft

•The Local Plan want to pass plans for several hundred houses in Ben Rhydding and Ilkley – together with the overturned appeal at Burley for 500 homes, and a new garden centre which will generate traffic.
•There are plenty of brownfield sites that should be used before greenfield.
•Following COVID there will be lots of scope for developing old industrial areas.
•Many mills have been empty for years. Lister Mills is only just being developed.
•No infrastructure (doctors, schools) to support these additional houses.
•Difficult to get a doctor’s appointment even before COVID.
•Ilkley Grammar is full.
•Flooding in Ilkley is a problem with the field opposite Manor Park having standing water for the past year.
•The worst thing is traffic congestion, especially on the A65 in summer.
•In Burley in March 2020 on a warmish weekend the traffic was horrendous. In the summer with the new garden centre and almost 1000 more houses the congestion will horrendous with people travelling out of Leeds/Bradford to Ilkley and the Dales.

Object

Representation ID: 23454

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Danielle Moor

I am objecting to the proposed plans for the development of houses on green belt land.

Object

Representation ID: 23471

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Sue & Tim Staton

Number of people: 2

•Sites proposed on Green Belt without justification.
•Significant brownfield sites available within Bradford.
•Green Belt aims to prevent urban sprawl, keep land permanently open and encourage recycling of derelict land.
•In Bradford there is a need to focus on brownfield land and regeneration.
•The approach does not adhere to Green Belt principles of merging of neighbouring towns.
•These sites have no defined edges and will blur the contrast between urban and rural facets.
•No proposals for any social housing at these sites.
•Proposals would significantly change the character of the town and surrounding areas.
•Increased traffic through the Wheatley Road rail bridge/junction with Valley Drive. These are areas of congestion/high risk of accidents. Significant impact on local air quality.
•Ilkley Grammar is at capacity. No ability to expand further. No additional secondary school capacity proposed.
•Demand for GPs will be extreme. No plans to create additional medical centre.
•Pressure on utilities capacity, particularly sewage sites and broadband.
•Proposals go against the local plan to protect the environment. Wheatley Grove site is only 350m from the Ilkley Moor SSSI. Countances Way is a significant area for Curlew feeding. Also provide wildlife habitat and corridors, plus area of TPOs.
•Both sites are significant rainwater sinks which delay the flow of water. Existing flood risk and development would further exacerbate issues on surrounding areas.

Object

Representation ID: 23508

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Robin & Sheila Wright

Number of people: 2

-Ben Rhydding does not have the capacity to accommodate 285 more houses. This is a hugely disproportionate amount.
-Impact on the conservation area and surroundings.
-The B road is already bottlenecked at times each day with its narrow access under the Railway Bridge necessitating traffic lights to control the flow of traffic and reduce accidents.

-Underground streams taking runoff from rainfall and as such pose a flood risk.
-Council has had to repair water runoff flooding B road Wheatley Lane.
-Development would also cause subsidence with water backing up and overflowing existing drainage.
-Impact on essential services in Ilkley and Ben Rhydding - Schools, Health Services, Fire Services and Community Policing.
-One Secondary School in the town with no room to expand further and all primary schools are full. No plans for another secondary school and bus-ing pupils out of the area would only add more congestion to the A65.

Object

Representation ID: 23638

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Jordan Ince

•Ilkley Grammar is already at capacity and is unable to expand further. The combined impact on secondary school capacity of approved/proposed housing in Wharfedale has not been considered.
•Trains to Leeds/Bradford are over-crowded at peak times. The combined impact of additional housing in Wharfedale on passenger numbers has not been considered.
•Both sites will increase traffic through the railway bridge, the junction at Valley Drive and junction with Wheatley Grove which is narrow with poor visibility. These areas are already congested with traffic and at high risk of accidents.
•The Wheatley Grove site is only 350m from the Ilkley Moor SSSI. Development should be avoided in this area.
•Both sites provide significant wildlife habitat with curlews and lapwings present. Both sites have mature tree with TPOs.
•Both sites provide rainwater sinks to delay water flow and alleviate flooding. These areas are often wet with intermittent springs.
•Sewage infrastructure are unable to cope with the level of wastewater from existing houses.
•Both sites are green belt. New homes should be built on brownfield sites that are available in Bradford.
•Development would reduce the separation between Ilkley and Burley.

Object

Representation ID: 23664

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Dina & Joe Saleh & Hendrie

Number of people: 2

•We moved to Ilkley from a more urban area. The searches prior to purchase did not reveal the proposed plans. We are devastated about the impact the development will have.
•Additional houses will create significant traffic, noise and air pollution. The road is dangerous to cross. Concerned about the volume of traffic and school children on foot. An increase in traffic will exacerbate the problem. Noise and air pollution will impact physical and mental health of residents.
•There are alternatives to developing greenfield sites. It undermines the purpose of protecting greenfield sites.
•Existing houses will be overlooked by the new housing. The view of the field/farm will be removed undermining our purpose from choosing to live here. We cannot see how the development is in the best interests of the local community.
•Existing residents utilise on-road parking due to the nature of the terraced housing. Concerns that the developments will create even greater parking issues. This needs to be addressed for existing residents.
•Existing amenities particularly schools already strained. What action will be taken to address this?
•There is an abundance of wildlife in this rural area. Concerned about its displacement and wider impact on the ecosystem.

Object

Representation ID: 23688

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.
-Site provides a wildlife corridor and significant habitat for wildlife.
-Mature trees/Tree Protection Orders / Woodland protection
-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: 23761

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Adrian Townson

Objections

Contradicts many of the proposals in Bradford Councils own Local Area Strategy Plan

These are less than 1 mile apart and represent a huge increase in the size of Ben Rhydding without any suggestion how the infrastructure will cope.

The sheer size of the housing estates will dwarf the local residential area.

Significantly change the character of the town and reduce greatly the separation between B. Rhydding and Burley in W.

Loss of green belt

Local of local infrastructure - for example Ilkley Grammar School at capacity

Local Roads are overloaded. Access problems.

For site 1L1/H Wheatley Grove the only entry to Wheatley Lane is barely wide enough to cope with 2 cars passing.

The junction is at a point where Wheatley Road ramps up dramatically to the moor and the other side is a residential home

Will the homes be affordable - for whom?

Object

Representation ID: 23765

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs P.A. Linnegan

I would like lodge a formal objection to the proposed housing sites in Ilkley (IL1/H; IL2/H; IL3/H; IL4/H).

Green Belts are vital resources for residents and wildlife. With problems of global warming and target to reduce pollution, I see infill of every green space is a backward step.

More housing adds to the pollution problem with more CO2 from gas central heating and car emissions. There would be more congestion on A65 and further parking problems.

Ability of cope with current levels of waste water is poor with effluent pouring into the river. How will it cope with more sewerage?

Schools are already at maximum capacity. How will it cope with more children?

Lockdowns have proved that people need green spaces for their mental health.

I am sure there are many brownfield sites that could be better uses. Empty buildings could be converted, with no loss of precious green sites.

Object

Representation ID: 23779

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Cheryl Donnison

•Green Belts are there to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. The development of these two sites will have a major negative impact on purpose 3 which should be enough to rule them out for development.
•These development would also significantly reduce the separation between the towns and create a Wharfedale corridor of development.
•Existing flood risks would be exacerbated by development of these sites. They are significant sinks of rainwater delaying the flow of water. They are regularly wet and springs appear. They are in flood risk areas 2&3 meaning they are expected to have significant river/surface flooding. Climate change is likely to increase these risks.
•Proposals go against the local plan to protect the environment. Wheatley Grove site is only 350m from the Ilkley Moor SSSI. Countances Way is a significant area for Curlew feeding. Also provide wildlife habitat and corridors, plus area of TPOs.
•Sewage sites are at capacity regularly overflowing their storm surge capacity.
•Ilkley Grammar is at capacity. No ability to expand further and already limiting the catchment area.
•Increased traffic through the Wheatley Road rail bridge/junction with Valley Drive. These are areas of congestion/high risk of accidents. Walking every day is encouraged but with extra cars there is likely to be more accidents.

Object

Representation ID: 23792

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: J.H. Hawkesworth

I object to the above plan insofar as it affects sites IL1/H and IL3/H for the following reasons.

1. Ilkley is a mature settlement without the infrastructure to cope with an additional 285 dwellings

2. Site IL3/H (which is in the ownership of the council) is a gateway site to the town. Development would ruin this gateway

3. The two sites are in the greenbelt. There is no compelling reason to alter their status

4. Both sites are in the waterflow down the valley side. Development would exacerbate the flooding in the area

5. The access to both sites is appalling, with no way of improving it

6. Site IL3/H is below a railway embankment constructed in 1865. It stands in the way of waterflow down the valley side. Railway embankments “slip” with little warning and that is a hazard for this site

Object

Representation ID: 23814

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Alistair Scott

Concerned about drainage issues. Water travels through the sites from Ilkley Moor. Sites are boggy/marshy. Flooding will be made worse by losing these sites. Problems will be pushed downstream.

Current infrastructure cannot support 285 extra homes. Ilkley does not have the ability to support extra people at schools, doctors, dentists, shops, sewage works and emergency services. Schools are at their limit.

Impact on traffic on Wheatley Lane and Valley Drive will be huge – they are already congested at peak times. How can they cope with extra houses?

Will affect Ilkley’s identity and reduce the gap with Burley. Character will be lost.

There are a large number of brownfield sites in Bradford District which would be suitable for building on. Derelict/abandoned houses and buildings could be transformed into housing – much more environmentally conscious. No justification to use land when other more suitable land is available.

Object

Representation ID: 23840

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Lynn Haygarth

To summarise, my objections are:

- An inappropriate number of dwellings inconsistent with the number of dwellings in the local area.

- Inappropriate access to the site with substantial increase in traffic, carbon emissions and risks of traffic incidents.

- The loss of substantial greenbelt with mature trees and natural wildlife and visiting birds and resulting increase in carbon emissions.

- The destruction of a site of historical interest

- The failure of the council to consider the implications of the effects of the increased number of dwellings, adults and children on the local infrastructure.

- The negative effect on an unadopted narrow road.

Object

Representation ID: 23860

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Ann Marie Cousins

Proposals seem to take no head of natural beauty of Ilkley and need to protect it to safeguard the character of the town and surrounding countryside. Must surely consider brownfield development before building on greenfield sites. None of these developments are on brownfield sites. No justifiable reason for building on Green Belt when brownfield sites are available elsewhere in the District.

No consideration of flood risk of the Countances Way site. Will consign homeowners to high insurance premiums as well as problems due to surface water/flooding.

Services are already overburdened. Ilkley Grammar School is at capacity, with no other schools nearby or plans to build a new secondary school. More housing would cause children to be bussed to Keighley/Guiseley, causing additional traffic pollution. Given the climate emergency declaration, this is in direct opposition to goals set out when Council announced its intention to be a net-zero carbon region by 2038.

Object

Representation ID: 23866

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Peter Roll & Penny Coulthard

Accept there is a general shortage of affordable housing and more is required.

No consideration of fact that services are unable to meet current needs, let alone the additional 310 dwellings.

Schools over-subscribed/under-funded. Ilkley Grammar School has no room for expansion. Option would be to build an annex on one of the proposed sites.

Waste water treatment capacity not able to meet current needs.

Despite proximity to Ben Rhydding station, it is assumed that not all residents can get to work by train. Means more traffic and congestion. No details of site accesses.

IL1/H - there is high likelihood of flooding caused by run-off. Will cause flooding into existing housing.

No mention of utilities. Assume no gas will be required to avoid fossil fuel consumption. Electricity and phone/internet services not capable to meet the town’s needs – will need to be improved.

Old Hospital, Carters Lane – proposals before Harrogate BC regarding this site. Could put pressure on local infrastructure.

Object

Representation ID: 23868

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: John & Janelle Hein

Strongly object to the proposed site because:

It is a greenfield site. Many brownfield sites available in the district.

Site is home to host of wildlife and plants/trees.

It has significant drainage problems and will add to flooding problems for the community and railway line below

At a time of climate emergency, should be shielding these sites not developing them

It represents an over development of the site in contrast to the surrounding neighbourhood

It has hazardous and limited access from both Wheatley Grove and High Wheatley

It is an inaccessible site in winter months with no access from Ben Rhydding Drive

It would exacerbate parking problems at Ben Rhydding Station and access under the bridge.

There is no further capacity at local Primary and Secondary schools, and insufficient amenities.

Ilkley/Ben Rhydding is a fully developed settlement. Expansion should be resisted to preserve its independence from urban sprawl and retain its character.

Object

Representation ID: 23871

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Tim Lowe

Green Belt: protection provided by NPPF. Grave concerns about building in it.

Sites have long distance views to the wider countryside and beyond, are prominent in the landscape and provide Ilkley’s rural setting. Would have significant impact on openness and reduce separation between towns.

Flooding: sites have significant existing flood risk. Development would exacerbate issues on the surrounding areas.

Environment: Ilkley’s character is defined by its setting and proposals go against defined local plan to protect the environment. Ilkley Moor is a SSSI and 350m from IL1/H within its buffer – development should be avoided. Both provide wildlife corridors/habitats as well as mature trees include several TPOs. Sewage works unable to deal with capacity required.

Schools: Ilkley Grammar School is operating at capacity and unable to expand.

Road Safety: sites will directly/significantly increase traffic through railway bridge and junction with Valley Drive – two areas of congestion and at high risk of accidents.

Object

Representation ID: 23989

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Rachel Warren

-Concern regarding use of Green Belt land.
-Green Belt is to protect an area from over development and becoming joined up.
-All four sites have flood risks of 2 and 3 meaning that they are at risk of flooding and this will not improve as climate change increases the risk.
-Environmentally important area.
-Impact on wildlife.
-Wheatley Grove site is right on the edge of the moor/SSSI - development should be avoided for this reason.
-Mature trees / TPOs.
-Sewage works is already at capacity.
-Impact on local character
-Impacts on schools – IGS at capacity / primary schools and inadequate nursery provision.
-Effects on roads must be considered. Current congestion, accidents and near misses.
-Lack of infrastructure to cope with so many new dwellings.
-Impacts on health care.

Comment

Representation ID: 24044

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Melissa Pickering

Whilst not opposed to the development of the proposed sites, I would like to have my concerns recorded regarding supporting infrastructure. In particular, given current existing pressures in Ilkley, I feel that all new housing sites should have adequate parking for the number of occupants included in their plans. Furthermore, there will be additional pressure on school places and local transport (esp. road congestion, road width, commuter trains) that all require increased capacity.

Object

Representation ID: 24143

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: John & Alex Cockshott

Number of people: 2

We wish to object to the inclusion of the three sites IL1/H IL2/H and IL3/H as preferred site allocations.

We do so because these are green field areas fundamental to the character of Ilkley and its identity.

Object

Representation ID: 24226

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Debbie Shuttleworth

•Amount of traffic will increase too much for the infrastructure. Roads in a poor condition. Parking makes journeys very difficult. There is a bottle neck in and out of Ilkley.
•Road safety will be an issue as traffic increases.
•Infrastructure for the houses built is not put place. It is all about getting more money out of the system with no thought for local residents.
•In Australia roads/facilities have to be put in place in before the houses can be built.
•Promises made but not kept and builders taking the money - Highroyds was promised a medical centre/other amenities. The houses went ahead but no amenities were provided.
•Allowing building on greenfield sites sets a precedence which will be used as an argument to build more.
•A town is a town, a village a village not a sprawling mass of suburbia and the loss of something special you can never get back. People want communities not to be lost in a jungle of houses, cars, tramac, concrete.
•We need green space. Lockdown has taught us how important these spaces are. Even if we don't have access to them it is an open space not a sea of bricks.

Object

Representation ID: 24484

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Isabel Ashman

•The majority of the land for these proposals appears to be on Green Belt and given the amount of Brown Belt that is available I can see no defence for building in those locations.
•Ilkley is known for its natural setting and to devastate one whole end of town seems wreckless and almost deliberately inflammatory.
•Additionally, these developments will almost destroy the distinct space and separateness of character between the village of Burley in Wharfedale and Ben Rhydding / Ilkley. The impact on the feel of the two separate towns will be devastated, not to mention the impact on the wildlife.
•There are other strong reasons to question the whole thinking behind this. Where is the infrastructure for education and health going to come from? Our primary and secondary schools are all oversubscribed with the current town populous.

Object

Representation ID: 24534

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Nicola Wharmby

In particular, I am concerned with the development off Wheatley Grove. To get out of Ilkley at that end of town, the only way to cross the railway line is the single carriageway road at Ben Rhydding. This is already a bottleneck and there is no way to increase it's capacity, either by widening it or building another crossing.

In addition, I object to building on green belt land; once this principal is breached what's the point of having such protection? There is plenty of non-green belt land in Bradford MDC which the council should be prioritising.

Comment

Representation ID: 24676

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Georgina Marks

I do not fully object to new houses on this site, however the amount seems excessive.
What of the following will be included in this project before it can be agreed.
What will be the access?
How will so much additional traffic be catered for, new roads?
What additional school places will be made available, new school?
Ben Rhydding drive has a history of heavy flooding, which then washes down and effects many roads. With more housing and no land to soak away a heavy rainfall , what provisions have been made to cope with this ?
More cars will need more parking when visiting Ilkley or Ben Rhydding, what extra provision is being made for parking?
If the infrastructure is properly in place that might be acceptable, however I doubt this will be the case, so it would be better to phase this project in slowly so the amenities can be in place. I think this should be done over a minimum of ten years.

Object

Representation ID: 24687

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Ian Shuttleworth

I object strongly to any development on any land designated as Green Belt.

Green, open land is essential to the well being of us all and to that of all wildlife.

Our natural land and associated wildlife is already under significant threat from the actions of man. We do not need it to be damaged further.

This open land is precious and can never be regained once lost.

I can only see that permitting development on such would be the thin end of a wedge.

I think that any development should be carried out on brownfield sites.

Also extra development without extra facilities such as schools and doctors to match inevitably leads to overloading of the existing facilities.
From past experience these are rarely provided - see Guiseley as an example.

Object

Representation ID: 24689

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Ben Rhydding Sports Club

Agent: Mr Robin Snook

I would like to add a picture of newly commenced building works on Clifton Road. That makes it over 30 new houses on our road alone in the last 10 years. The point I am making is that Ilkley continues to see significant development within it’s existing boundaries, so the burning question to ask is unless Bradford Council is planning to build new affordable housing in IL1/H and IL3/H, which everyone very much doubts, why would it wish to commit environmental vandalism on everyone’s precious Green Belt.

Object

Representation ID: 24868

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Peter and Karen Farrar

Number of people: 2

We strongly object to these development plans for the proposed site because:
-It is a Greenfield site
-It has significant drainage problems and will add to flooding problems for the community and railway line below
-At a time of climate emergency we should be shielding these sites NOT developing them
-It represents an over development of the site in contrast to the surrounding neighbourhood
-It has hazardous and limited access from both Wheatley Grove and High Wheatley
-It is an inaccessible site in winter months with no access from Ben Rhydding Drive
-It would exacerbate parking problems at Ben Rhydding Station and access under the bridge
-There is no further capacity at local Primary and Secondary schools.
We believe Ilkley and Ben Rhydding to be a fully developed settlement and community, and further expansion should be resisted to preserve its independence from urban sprawl and retain its character.

Object

Representation ID: 24877

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Eileen & Ken Bernard

Number of people: 2

•Sites are greenbelt. Justification for development on greenbelt has not been made when there are numerous brownfield sites available throughout the district.
•Considerable risk of flooding on all sites. Over the last few years there have been more severe floods than experienced in 40 years. These are likely to increase with climate change. Development will exacerbate the flood issues.
•Developments at odds with the Council’s determination to improve the environment and encourage biodiversity. Site encroach on wildlife corridors.
•The sites contain TPO trees which should be protected.
•Infrastructure is not sufficient to cater for this large increase in houses.
•Roads cannot sustain the current level of traffic and developments will add further cars. Goes against the commitment to reduce road traffic and improve air quality.
•Serious safety concerns for all sites. At Ben Rhydding there will be an increase in traffic on Wheatley Road and under the railway bridge leading to congestion and safety issues.
•Ilkley Grammar is at capacity with no room for further expansion and therefore not be able to accommodate extra children. This has not been addressed in the proposals.

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: 24899

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Anna Jones

Reasons for objection are:

Area already suffers traffic congestion. More housing means increase traffic, congestion, air and noise pollution. Wheatley Lane steep making access during winter weather hazardous/impossible.

Residents use site for recreation. Would be detrimental to wellbeing to lose it.

Site inhabited by range of wildlife and is a corridor between the Moor (a SSSI) and valley. Crucial from an environmental conservation perspective to protect the area, as many of the northern slopes are developed already.

Water runs thorough/over site from the Moor. Planting trees would be more sustainable than housing and help to alleviate flooding rather than exacerbating it.

Existing waste water infrastructure cannot cope, leading to river pollution. Development will increase pressure on it, resulting in more pollution.

Ilkley Grammar School at capacity with no other secondary schools in the area. Neither sustainable nor educationally desirable to bus children to schools elsewhere.

Known to be empty housing/brownfield sites in Bradford, which should be prioritised rather using Green Belt.