IL1/H - Ben Rhydding Drive, Wheatley Grove

Object

Representation ID: 25257

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 Wheatley Grange Farm is now the only working farm in Ben Rhydding/Ilkley and should be the first site to be withdrawn from the planning proposals.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: 25260

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Sue Towler

1. Impact on local highway network- A65 is already congested. Wheatley Lane is unable to accommodate such an increase in traffic flow. Ben Rhydding Drive/Wheatley Grove are minor roads and will be unable to cope with further traffic.
2. Infrastructure- The schools are at capacity. The grammar school has no further ground space on which to expand
3. Ilkley facilities will be unable to cope
4. impact on sewage systems currently operating.

Object

Representation ID: 25272

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: John Thomson

Objection to the proposed encroachment of Green Belt and open farm land

Object

Representation ID: 25300

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Roya Helme

1. Why such a high percentage on green belt? Effecting character of area.

2. Flooding. We have experienced increased flooding living in ilkley last years, removing surface field draining and why build onto flood areas ?

3.School and infrastructure already stretched. Cars and parking a significant problem.

Object

Representation ID: 25305

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: James Garry

Developing Green Belt land unacceptable, and counter to Bradford Councils responsibilities, aims and objectives.
Harming the character of the area.
Lack of local employment opportunities, Ilkley has no major employers, proposed additional population will commute, adding strain to already bottlenecked infrastructure and harming the air quality and noise levels. This places additional mental health stress on local residents.
Local schools are oversubscribed. Provision of a primary school will not alleviate these problems.
Damage to wildlife, including Amber listed Curlew. There are also a large number of mature trees, hedgerows and related eco systems that would be damaged by the construction of the development.
Flood Risk, A portion of the site is at risk of flooding, development will contribute to faster water run-off and adverse downstream effects. These fields act as a sponge to attenuate heavy rainfall.
Effect on the moors and fragile eco system.
Light pollution/other general pollution.
Unsuitable infrastructure.
Additional substantial amount of traffic, noise, pollution and disruption. Ilkley town itself is a bottleneck so transport west will be effected.
Destruction of the very aspects which give these towns an identity.

Object

Representation ID: 25317

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Deborah Craig

IL1/H is Green Belt. To put 130 houses on it would damage the local area.

Area gets very wet when it rains. Flooding is an increasing risk in Ilkley. Concerned about effects of building on land that soaks up water coming down off the Moor.

Ben Rhydding’s infrastructure cannot cope with extra traffic that additional housing would cause and effect on demand for secondary school places, meaning children would not be able to attend their local school.

More traffic would travel over the Moor on roads that often have accidents. Worry about the risk of road traffic accidents at junction of Wheatley Grove and the main road, particularly at peak times.

There are brownfield sites that can be developed before greenfield sites are lost for good? Ilkley will struggle to cope with the extra demands these dwellings will bring both in the increased people and traffic.

Object

Representation ID: 25340

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Steve Jex

I wish to object to the proposed housing development Reference IL1/H

This is designated green belt area and will significantly alter Ben Rhydding and seems disproportionate when there are alternative Brown field sites available and not being utilised in the district.

The proposed site has a significant flood risk and further building will obviously worsen this situation.

Ilkley moor is an SSSI site and this development is only 350m from the moor and surely therefore falls within the buffer zone for this.

The large number of dwellings proposed will put further strain on local services in particular Ilkley Grammar school and the local health service provision. In addition such a large development would generate serious road safe issues due to increased traffic.

Ben Rhydding and Ilkley sewage sites already regularly overflow their storm surge capacity and such large numbers of additional housing would obviously worsen this situation.

Object

Representation ID: 25418

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jill Jex

This is designated green belt and will significantly change the nature and character of this part or Ben Rhydding. There has been no justification for the use of green belt and there are large numbers of brownfield sites in the district.
These proposals go against the local plan to protect the natural environment. Ilkley is known for it’s countryside setting and the moor, an SSSI, is only 350m from this site.
Effect on habitat for wildlife and number of mature trees.
It is my understanding that the sewage sites struggle to cope with the existing capacity and increasing this will cause further overflow.
This number of houses will significantly increase the number of school places required in the area. Ben Rhydding Primary School will be unable to accommodate this and ILKLEY Grammar School is already at capacity and unable to expand further.
Massive increase in the traffic entering and leaving Ben Rhydding.

Object

Representation ID: 25452

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Dr Francesca Abigail Ridley

Bradford Council should protect Green Belt, should maximise the potential of brown field sites and only in exceptional circumstances build on Green Belt.
Effects of flood risk. The proposed developments will worsen the flood risk in Ben Rhydding.
The access roads for the Wheatley Grove site are inadequate for the increased traffic the proposed developments would create. The junction from these roads with Wheatley Lane are already difficult and would become hazardous with increased traffic. Increased traffic would lead to hazardous risk at the junction for the traffic emerging from Valley Drive into Wheatley Lane. As would be caused by the proposed site on Coutances Way, as this is the access route.
There is insufficient infrastructure to support the current needs of the population.
Schools won't be able to take additional numbers
Railway Station has insufficient parking
Commuter trains would become severely overcrowded.
The Medical Centre is at full capacity.
The extra burden of traffic will cause increased parking problems and congestion.
Public Sporting Facilities and the diminution of community spaces are insufficient even for the current population of Ilkley and Ben Rhydding.

Object

Representation ID: 25543

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Christian Hills

Number of people: 2

The development will have a detrimental effect on the area:

Traffic Congestion combined with increased air and noise pollution.

At a time when councils and governments are committed to reducing harmful emissions and improving air quality, this seems like a step backwards - removing valuable green belt land that can help combat emissions and increasing traffic levels on streets already blighted by high volume of cars, buses and HGVs.

Extra houses, both and Wheatley Grove and elsewhere, will add additional pressure on local services - schools, dentists and doctors.

Loss of Green Belt - at a time when the environment and green space is prized - not only for individual mental health but also for greater environmental factors.

Where is the line drawn and where does the encroachment stop? When the houses reach Burley? Or Addingham?

I’d like to lodge my objection to the Local Plan in relation to the development at Wheatley Grove and the other sites with Ilkley as I believe the impact needs wider consideration.

Object

Representation ID: 25545

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Anne McNaughton

Object to the planning issues IL1/H & IL3/H on the grounds that:

• It is Green Belt. The need has not been demonstrated to warrant its use;

• It is a site for Curlews;

• There are many other empty, unused sites within the District;

• School infrastructure is at capacity and not ready to cope with additional demand from new homes. Concerned that the health centre/local NHS services will not be expanded to cope with additional demands.

• Junction of Valley Drive/Coutances Way is problematic. There have been numerous incidents/accidents. It is hard to clearly view traffic when exiting Valley Drive, and cars often travel at speed. Traffic management is very problematic and with more houses, will make it even more so.

Object

Representation ID: 25547

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Alison and Toby Starr

Number of people: 2

Flooding Issues.
Located between a site of special scientific interest and the Ben Rhydding Conservation Area.
Represents a high number of houses proposed in a small area, 97% planned on greenbelt.
Bradford Council’s Conservation Area Assessment and Appraisal documents has a section dedicated to Open Spaces and Natural Elements and specifically comments that “Fields and moorland surround the village and serve to remind the resident or visitor of the village’s past rural connections”. The fields are the subject of this planning application and 285 homes on this greenbelt land is inconsistent with the Council’s commitment to preserve the character of the Conservation Area.
The single lane under the railway bridge and narrow path could see an additional c.285 cars using this one road as the link to the A65 and to Ilkley. This hot spot has been of concern to parents walking children to school and children walking by themselves to school. The recently installed traffic lights has slowed the traffic down but this will not cope with the scale of the proposed developments.
No capacity in the local schools. Sewage regularly overflows into the Wharfe. The roads are already full of traffic.
Use of greenbelt land needs full scrutiny.

Object

Representation ID: 25551

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

Strongly object to 4 proposed sites.

97% is to be built on Green Belt. Goes again sustainability criteria seeking to “Minimises the use of Green Belt land”.

Would lead to urban sprawl, leading to lack of defined spaces between settlements/developments.

Access to IL3/H would exacerbate issues around Valley Drive/Wheatley Lane junction

Wheatley Grove is unsuitable for higher traffic levels.
Flooding is a serious issue. Will be exacerbated by development.

Infrastructure issues are not addressed.

Likely to create more pressure on sewage system.
Potential increase in students needing to attend secondary school. Ilkley Grammar School is at capacity. No site identified for expansion.

Middleton brownfield site (identified by NYCC for development) would add extra housing to the Ilkley area. Not considered by the plan.

Plan does not benefit Ilkley residents. Town has suffered over-development. Building more houses will add to existing infrastructure issues (parking, flooding, school places).

Look to develop suitable brownfield sites elsewhere in the District.

Object

Representation ID: 25607

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Colin Macdonald

I would like to object to the Local Plan proposed developments at IL1/1 and IL3/H

- it is green belt, and the need has not been demonstrated sufficient to warrant green belt use and both schemes would contribute to urban sprawl
- The sites are of ecological and biodiversity benefit which would be lost if the site is developed
- there are many other empty unused houses within the Bradford district and development should prioritise brownfield development over greenfield.
- Both sites form a natural boundary to the town that would be lost if developed.
- the IL3/H site to the site is constrained with an already poor junction at Valley Drive
- the IL3/H site has active springs and would require significant drainage / flood risk work to develop
-Nationally housing requirement for local plans has been overestimated.

Please take this view into account when looking at the planning policy.

Object

Representation ID: 25624

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Gordon Perry

There is higher value Green Belt which deserves protection, but other which do not and could be developed. Exceptional cases should be considered for them.

I feel this site inappropriate for development to which I object. It is quality greenbelt adjacent to the moor via the golf course.

It is a steep site and has very limited access. It has a corpse of valuable trees at its centre which deserve protection.

130 homes would put serious pressure on Wheatley Lane which is already under significant stress.

Many residents living up the hill already use Ben Rhydding Railway Station making on-street car parking almost impossible for residents living up to and beyond The Wheatley Arms and surrounding streets - a separate issue which needs to be addressed via a Residents Parking Scheme now, never mind if this site was developed but is a major concern. Traffic pollution and noise would also significantly increase.

Object

Representation ID: 25626

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Matthew and Rachel Twigger

Number of people: 2

No demonstrated need for additional housing, particularly 3/4/5 bed “executive”
No prospect of an increase in job availability in the town which would connote additional need.
It directly contravenes Bradford’s own green belt policies, the loss of these spaces has a “major” impact
The infrastructure, schools, roads, rail, cannot be mitigated for the increasing numbers of
households in Ilkley. When Addingham and Burley numbers are added to the mix, the
situation is even worse.
The Wheatley Grove site covered by WPOs and TPOs.
Construction on the site would mean removing a large section of the WPO boundary.
BMDC’s stringent approach to locally enforcing the WPOs and TPOs is in clear
contradiction of the local plan proposals. BMDC cannot objectively determine significant
valuable amenity value of the woodland character while simultaneously attributing little
significance to the same Green Belt land.
The traffic problems associated with servicing these sites would be severe; the Wheatley
Grove junctions are impossible to improve due to topography.
Significant ecological impact which cannot be mitigated including loss of nationally significant Curlew breeding grounds at Coutances Way and diverse habitat on Wheatley Grove.

Object

Representation ID: 25660

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: John Hunt

This is the only green space for hundreds of Ben Rhydding residents. It is basically a dormitory settlement that has already grown far beyond the amenities the original village offers. Who thinks that swapping the last remaining green field for a 130 houses (with 2 or 3 that number of cars) is a good deal?

Object

Representation ID: 25684

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Emily Sheedy Davies

Green belt land should be protected.

The council decides what we can do to our homes and gardens and should apply the same to keeping green spaces for our children to grow up with. 97% of the land is Green Belt with no justification and it will cause character, flooding and environmental damage.

The schools, particularly Ilkley Grammar, do not have the space and the Council have not taken into account the previous 30 per year houses built and there is no regard for the road safety issues

Object

Representation ID: 26311

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Nicholas Allon

Area is Green Belt, situated with 2.5km buffer of the SPA/SAC and SSSI impact zone. Also mature trees within and along the edges of the land – removal would damage biodiversity. Land is a wildlife haven with Curlews often over-wintering.

Wheatley Grove is not suitable for increased traffic. Road has not footpaths and is dangerous for pedestrians. Increased traffic will add to already congested areas, particularly at the railway bridge.

Development will not reduce the number of cars. Climate emergency has been declared to reduce carbon levels, air pollution and road noise. People will use cars to access services, increasing the carbon footprint.

Field has known drainage problems, particularly after heavy rain.

Development could area with people needing to use cars to travel anywhere. May lead to social isolation for those with poor mobility will be able to walk to Ben Rhydding/Ilkley.

Do not think this site should be developed.

Object

Representation ID: 26385

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mark Lawrence

Pushing more people into Principal towns would not be in the best interests of the residents, nor the localised town economy.

This plan represents a significant external influence on that organic balance, and a threat to the green space which helps to drive the attractiveness of the area in terms of visitation.

Loss of open spaces/vistas.

Increasing residential traffic.

The siting of additional housing may well have a positive effect, when located in areas surrounding "principal District towns", as there exists an opportunity
to boost revenues in other sectors important to the locality.

Bradford Council's parking strategy doesn't work.

There is no guarantee of driving the prosperity of a town's High Street, by putting more people on the periphery of that town, owing to the rise of eCommerce (e.g., Amazon) and the ability to travel to major commercial centres (e.g., Leeds and Harrogate).

The proposed plans will devalue existing properties.

Need for parking, or school places.

This plan is risky and based upon assumptions that amount to a false economy.

Object

Representation ID: 26445

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Tamsin Emma Wood

The aim of Green Belt is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping the land permanently open.
Green Belt should be protected.
New housing should be on brown field sites.
Sould only consider infringement on Green Belt in very ‘exceptional circumstances’
Issues of Flood risk.
Lack of sufficient infrastructure to support even the current needs of the population in Ben Rhydding and Ilkley.
- The Medical Centre
- Ilkley Grammar School
- Ben Rhydding Railway Station
- Public Sporting Facilities
- The extra burden of traffic for the proposed developments through the village will seriously detract from village life and cause increased parking problems and congestion.

I object to the development of the Wheatley Grove site as the access roads Wheatley Grove and Ben Rhydding Drive are inadequate for increased traffic and their junctions with Wheatley Lane, which are already difficult would become dangerous with increased traffic hence my objection with the proposed development.

Object

Representation ID: 26466

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Barrie & Celia Sinton

IL1/H

The land forms a vital part of the Green Belt delineating the border of the town with open countryside. Building on it would invite development creep into open countryside.

The number of houses is far too dense for the nature of the area.

Access on to Ben Rhydding Drive is, as noted, not an option. Therefore all traffic will use an access on to Wheatley Grove which is steep and like all the roads in the area - narrow residential roads not fit for the amount of extra traffic.

Object

Representation ID: 26606

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Jessica Morgan-Smith

I am writing to object to the proposals to allocate two housing sites in the Ben Rhydding Green Belt. The majority of allocations for Ilkley are located in Ben Rhydding with only 29 of the 330 in Ilkley itself.

Neither sites are appropriate for such a large number of houses. Both sites are important green spaces in the Ben Rhydding area which should be retained as such to prevent inappropriate development that WOULD inevitably impact upon the openness of the Green Belt here.

Object

Representation ID: 26620

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Bethany Wright

Prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open.
Protect the Green Belt.
Build new housing by maximising the potential of brown field sites.
Only to consider development of Green Belt in exceptional circumstances’.
Goes against Green Belt Policy.
Flood risk.
Traffic Issues.


Lack of infrastructure in Ben Rhydding and Ilkley. Ilkley Grammar School and need for a separate location to build a 6th form college.
Primary Schools
Ben Rhydding Railway Station is inadequate with insufficient parking.
Medical Centre is currently working at full capacity
Traffic and parking problems causing congestion
Ilkley and Ben Rhydding create bottle necks to traffic on the A65.
Public Sporting Facilities and the diminution of community spaces (with many community spaces having been converted into flats).

Object

Representation ID: 26628

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr A Gudgeon

I am vehemently opposed to the proposed building on several green belt areas of Ilkley.

These proposals appear ill considered and selfish. No consideration has been given to the residents living locally who'll suffer as a direct result. A transparent public consultation must be held so all plans can be viewed and scrutinised properly.

Ilkley is a spa town, a place people aspire to live. But, that does not mean poorly considered new build properties should be erected on the last remaining green belt spaces. It would change the town, not for the better, and detract from what attracts people to Ilkley in the first place; Gateway to the Dale's, a town with a village 'feel', aesthetically pleasing and not busy.

The prospect of seeing 314 properties added to Ilkley is deeply concerning. How would the schools, doctors, public transport, Policing, hospitals etc going to manage with this increase in demand? The infrastructure isn't in place to service an additional 314 dwellings. Ilkley residents feel a great disconnect with Bradford Council and enforcing unwanted building like this will only serve to divide the community.

Object

Representation ID: 26703

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mark Roe

I fail to see the point in marking an area as Green Belt only to later seek to override that classification: the point of Green Belt should be to preserve existing natural habitats and outlooks for future generations and to prevent the creep of urban sprawl when a plentiful supply of brownfield sites remain within the BMDC area.

Allowing development permissions on this site and carbon-intensive activities is laughably hypocritical in light of BMDC's declaration of a climate emergency and commitment to a green economy: https://www.bradford.gov.uk/environment/climate-change/climate-emergency-and-green-economy/

Insufficient consideration has been given in BMDC's Local Plan Consultation to resurrecting brownfield sites within the Council's boundary in which the planet's resources have already been depleted to create them, yet remain underutilised: proper and full regard should be given to those before destroying Green Belt areas.

Object

Representation ID: 26745

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Lee Ryan

We plan to leave the district entirely, should development go ahead.

Planned proposals would in effect kill the golden goose.

The reasons for living in Ilkley are, good schools & the surrounding green belt. Both of which will in effect be eradicated by the current proposals.

The plan to bus children an hour away to school in Keighley, is an outright admission of failure.

There are so many brownfield sites available for development within the district.

The Wharfe Valley will become one large conurbation, the two developments will join Ilkley to Burley.

Loss of attractive character of the town, which is vital to the local economy in terms of tourism, will be ruined.

Increase flooding risk to an area which has experienced exceptional levels of flooding dozens of times over the last 5 years. This will directly increase risk to both life and property from flooding.

The A65 is already severely overburdened. Wheatley lane.

Valley Drive is blighted by speeding drivers using the route as a rat run.

Increased congestion on the A65 and the level of dangerous driving through Valley drive.

Damage to the environment.

Object

Representation ID: 26747

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Richard Sherington

Green Belt development should as a last resort. Development is inappropriate, harmful and only approve in very special circumstances.

Would have a detrimental impact on area by removing valuable green space. Sets unacceptable precedent for future Green Belt expansion and sprawl towards Burley in Wharfedale.

IL3/H abuts flood zones 2 & 3. Development of both sites will reduce lag that water takes to reach the river and contribute to making flooding worse. Will also impact on the sewage works that are at capacity.

Schools are generally at capacity. Ilkley Grammar, the only secondary school, is already at capacity and cannot expand further.

Both sites will significantly increase traffic movements in an already congested area. Traffic assessment has not been presented.

There a number of brownfield sites in the District. Proposals places disproportionate amount of housing on Green Belt in Ilkley. Council has not justified why these site should be developed ahead of brownfield sites. Very special circumstances not justified/proven.

Object

Representation ID: 26781

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Persimmon Homes (West Yorkshire)

Agent: Lichfields

Green Belt Site Assessment:

While we support the proposed allocation of the site for housing we disagree with some elements of the Council's assessment of the site against the 5 purposes (see document for detail).

Development of the site would effectively form infill development between the suburban development to the north and west and the retirement village immediately to the east.

The existing topography and tree cover to the south also naturally enclose the site to the south.

It is therefore considered that the site plays only a limited role in meeting the five Green Belt purposes, and it can be developed without harm to the wider Green Belt.

Support

Representation ID: 26782

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Persimmon Homes (West Yorkshire)

Agent: Lichfields

The site is located within a sustainable location with easy access of a good range of local services and public
transport services.

Draft Policy SP5 acknowledges that Green Belt releases are required in order to meet the future housing requirements of the District. It is considered that the proposed removal of the site from the Green Belt and allocation for housing is justified and appropriate and that this would not harm the role and overall purposes of the wider Green Belt.

The site assessment demonstrates that the site has no significant technical constraints which would prevent
its delivery for housing development.

The site could accommodate 130 dwellings whilst retaining and enhancing the PROW, providing new areas of public open space, retaining most of the existing vegetation and enhancing the ecology of the site through new tree planting. An indicative masterplan will be submitted at the next round of Local Plan consultation.

The site is available and deliverable now and would make an important contribution towards meeting the
housing requirements of the District.

In light of the above, the proposed allocation IL1/H Wheatley Grove is supported and should be taken forward in the Draft Local Plan.