IL1/H - Ben Rhydding Drive, Wheatley Grove

Object

Representation ID: 26998

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Lisa King

Not in keeping with Green Belt policy. Council’s responsibility is to protect it, build housing by maximising brownfield sites and consider it only in very exceptional circumstances.

Will exacerbate surface water run-off, waterlogging & flood risk.

Access roads inadequate for increased traffic. Junctions would become more dangerous. Ben Rhydding drive is narrow - would be unsafe for pedestrians. Coutances Way would exacerbate the dangerous situation at Valley Drive/Wheatley Lane junction.

Lack of sufficient infrastructure to support current needs. Grammar School is at full capacity and separate location for a 6th Form needed. Primary schools struggle to accommodate increasing pupil numbers. Ben Rhydding station is inadequate. Medical centre at full capacity with no plans in place for further surgeries.

Traffic congestion/lack of parking are problems - extra traffic will increase them. Situation on A65 will be worsened. Sporting facilities/community spaces are insufficient.

Should acknowledge lack of infrastructure. Focus on developing facilities before proposals for further housing.

Object

Representation ID: 27088

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Ms E. McAuslan

Not in keeping with Green Belt policy. Council’s responsibility is to protect it, build housing by maximising brownfield sites and consider it only in very exceptional circumstances.

Will exacerbate surface water run-off, waterlogging & flood risk.

Access roads inadequate for increased traffic. Junctions would become more dangerous. Ben Rhydding drive is narrow - would be unsafe for pedestrians. Coutances Way would exacerbate the dangerous situation at Valley Drive/Wheatley Lane junction.

Lack of sufficient infrastructure to support current needs. Grammar School is at full capacity and separate location for a 6th Form needed. Primary schools struggle to accommodate increasing pupil numbers. Ben Rhydding station is inadequate. Medical centre at full capacity with no plans in place for further surgeries.

Traffic congestion/lack of parking are problems - extra traffic will increase them. Situation on A65 will be worsened. Sporting facilities/community spaces are insufficient.

Should acknowledge lack of infrastructure. Focus on developing facilities before proposals for further housing.

Object

Representation ID: 27257

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Sarah Saxton

Proposals not in keeping with Green Belt policy. Council has responsibility to protect it. Should maximise potential of brownfield sites and only consider it in only very exceptional circumstances.

Should consider springs/underground water courses sourced from Moor. Ilkley seems susceptible to flooding. Also more surface water issues and drains cannot cope. Development is going to make these problems worse.

Lack of sufficient infrastructure. Medical centre is at capacity and no plans for further surgeries. Facilities for older people are at breaking point, whilst sporting facilities/community spaces are insufficient.

Grammar School is at capacity and separate location is needed for a 6th Form College. Primary schools struggle to accommodate growing numbers of children. Also difficult to find nursery places.

Development will worsen A65 traffic problems. Extra traffic will cause increase parking problems and congestion in Ben Rhydding. The railway station is inadequate.

Access roads (Ben Rhydding Drive, Wheatley Grove) are inadequate for increased traffic. Their junctions with Wheatley Lane would become dangerous.

Object

Representation ID: 27481

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Alice Ryan

Increased traffic on Wheatley Lane, exiting Valley Drive is difficult, will be made worse with development.
Valley Drive is used as a rat run to avoid the A65.
Numbers of cars and speed at which they travel is detrimental, no traffic calming measures have been proposed. The traffic on the A65 is constant, adding more cars will make it unbearable.

Ben Rhydding is prone to flooding. Loss of natural irrigation system.
Sports pitches flood, this will worsen by development. The field opposite the garden centre has been waterlogged for months.

Development will increase school aged children into the area. Class sizes will increase, but ultimately change the catchment area meaning children can no longer go to their closest school.
Ilkley Grammar is at capacity breaking point, the catchment area will have to be reduced.

97% of proposed developments are on green belt land. There is a wealth of brown belt land in Bradford that is not being used.
Destroying large swathes of green belt land will eradicate the beauty/desirability of Ilkley.

Infrastructure needed before 300 houses are developed.

Object

Representation ID: 27501

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Angela Chappell

Plans are to build on Green Belt, undermining its stated principles.

Recent permission in Burley and sites will edge the settlements closer together. This is before considering other developments earmarked in the locality e.g. Addingham & Middleton.

Sites contribute significantly to Ben Rhydding’s character. They will be lost at great expense to the landscape and natural environment.

There are many brownfield sites in the District which have not been earmarked in the plan. Better they are developed rather than Green Belt.

No explanation as to why housing is needed in Ilkley over somewhere else in the District with available brownfield sites.

Valley struggles with flooding. Run-off from Moor leads to sewage overflowing into the river. Infrastructure is not adequate. River is incapable of carrying away the volume of water running of the Moor/fields. Sites absorb run-off. If developed, flooding will be significantly exacerbated.

Transport assessment not available.

IL3/H access from Wheatley Lane means increased traffic at a problematic junction. Want to know how issue will be resolved.

Object

Representation ID: 27525

Received: 13/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Robin Snook

1) Council has failed to provide evidence that there is a need to build 285 new houses in Ben Rhydding, and have not taken into account the significant number of newly built houses in the town already. On Clifton Road alone, there has been 32 new houses built in the last 10 years, including the latest plot under development for 5 Town Houses. (See image)

2) Council has failed to demonstrate that any of the proposed new build houses will be affordable (ie - below £170,000)
3) Bearing in mind Ben Rhydding’s narrow railway bridge, the Council are yet to provide a plausible traffic impact and access statement.
4) The Council have also failed to provide an infrastructure statement.
5) Worst of all, and on the back of last week’s announcement that 500 new houses are to be built in Neighbouring Burley in Wharfedale, the Council appear to want to ride rough shod over their own Green Belt policy again. The potential loss of openness and the impact of a “Housing Blot on the Green Landscape” on the approaches to Ilkley along the A65 would be an act of environmental vandalism, and should these developments be passed, then those councillors responsible for the decision, who I suspect do not live in the area, should be named and shamed.

Object

Representation ID: 27527

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Jo Batterham

Hello,

I would like to oppose the planning for the new housing in ilkley and Ben Rhydding.

Please let me know if I need to write anything further.

Many thanks,

Object

Representation ID: 27553

Received: 13/03/2021

Respondent: Emma Snook

1. How the can the council even think about building on green belt when it is their policy not to do so
2. There seems to be no Infrastructure in place
3. The A65 and Wheatley Road are two busy roads at the best of times with extra traffic from 185 new Dwellings how will this affect the junction for Valley Drive and the very narrow access under the railway bridge!
4. Driving into Ilkely what a blot on the landscape they will cause sprawling out towards Burley In Wharfedale of which planning for 500 dwellings have already been passed.
5. These fields are constantly under water, where will it now go? over the road into the Sports Club which already has issues with flooding
6. Will there be any affordable housing?
7. Ilkley Grammar School is oversubscribed where will these children be schooled?

Comment

Representation ID: 27783

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Robert Gibson

Number of people: 2

1) If the developments go ahead they should be to the highest environmental standards and design incorporating energy conservation and generation.
2) the sites in question do not have the infrastructure to support the number of new residents.
3) lack of school places
4) impact on Sewage and waste management system and resulting pollution of the River Wharfe. Water run off will need careful management
5) will planned access and surrounding road network be able to support the developments

Object

Representation ID: 27861

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Dominic Wright

-Green Belt should be protected.
-Maximise the potential of brown field sites
-Infringement on Green Belt only in very ‘exceptional circumstances’ and after reasonable consultation/ agreement with local residents.
-Increased flood risk. Recent building has resulted in unforeseen problems with surface water run off causing problems for existing properties, waterlogged land and flood risk including the proposed sites.
-Traffic Issues. Access roads Wheatley Grove and Ben Rhydding Drive are inadequate for increased traffic
-Wheatley Lane junction is difficult would become dangerous with increased traffic.
-Lack of sufficient Infrastructure to support the current population needs.
-Ilkley Grammar School is at full capacity.
-Need for a separate location to build a 6th form college.
-Capacity issues at Primary schools
-Ben Rhydding Railway Station parking is inadequate.
-Medical Centre currently working at full capacity and no plans are in place for any further surgeries,
-Traffic / parking issues - developments will cause extra burden and congestion.
-Congestion on A65
-Insufficient Public Sporting Facilities and the diminution of community spaces

Object

Representation ID: 27928

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Jason Harden

•Green belt area - does this go against Environmental Bill 2020. In the development considerations it is mentioned that compensatory green belt enhancement is required - DON't USE GREEN BELT
•Public path, people walk and use the area. Typically open spaces are used to reduce people's mental health.
•Flood risk - do to being sloped
•Sprawl - Ilkley and Burley gap closing

Object

Representation ID: 27934

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: John Wilkinson

Not only are the proposed houses on dwindling green belt land when other brown field sites should be considered first the shear numbers of houses are going to put a huge strain in the local public services. All the local schools and doctors practices are full to capacity. New houses can’t continued to be built without consideration for the impact on local services and increased traffic on local roads.

Object

Representation ID: 27987

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Jo Fletcher

Object to plans to develop 314 new homes largely on two greenfield sites.

Has not been enough time to consult. Consultation period was short and cannot given those affected enough time to consider the proposals before putting forward their views.

Consultation has been rushed through in the pandemic. Should have waited to conduct it in a public forum,

Want fair changes to weigh up pros and cons, given the impact on the countryside, wildlife, road safety, flooding and schooling.

Object

Representation ID: 28078

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Emma Williams

The allocation of green belt sites when other brown field sites are available is in contravention of national planning policy.
Furthermore, if the Council has undertaken sequential testing correctly, it is wholly inconceivable that the above sites would have been prioritised or even deemed appropriate for residential development on this scale.
Of particular concern, the drainage infrastructure (flooding), impact on green belt environment, highway network (including safety) and schooling provision within Ben Rhydding and Ilkley undermine the allocations.
I request that the Council promote alternative sites that are more sustainable and accord with national planning policy.

Object

Representation ID: 28082

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr & Mrs J Wilkinson

Number of people: 2

-Green Belt Land and should be left as such. In line with the Government's Green Belt Policy / protect open land and thus prevent urbanisation.
-Brownfield sites should be built on first
-Impact on wildlife and their habitats
-Impact on natural landscape and character of Ilkley
-Impact on town and local services.
-Secondary school provision at capacity
-Many primary schools in the area are also over stretched on funding, resources and staffing.
-Drainage is huge risk, we cannot let flooding increase any further.
-The field on Ben Rhydding Drive is often flooded and boggy.
-Doctor's surgeries, community health services and NHS dentists, both are hugely in demand in this area and extra housing with families will put an increased strain on these services.
-Increased traffic in Ilkley/Bolling Road, impact on congestion into and out of town, pollution and noise
-Any new housing developments must come with increased funding to allow the services provided in this town to provide a full service to everyone.

Object

Representation ID: 28150

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Vicky Swales

I am concerned about proposed development on this green space and that many areas which appear to be brownfield land within the Bradford district remain undeveloped.

Loss of engagement for local residents/school children and those further afield wanting to engage with the local wildlife/countryside/greenspace.

Loss of a Local walks.

Loss of beautiful countryside/green space will have a detrimental impact on local residents mental health.

Loss of habitat and agricultural land - grassland, hedgerows, grazing for sheep, horses

Drainage and ground problems that are bound to occur on such a piece of land

Lack of infrastructure by way of additional school places, doctors surgery,

Noise and dust pollution for a prolonged period of time during the build causing safety issues to local pedestrians and road users.

Additional large volume of traffic at the junctions with Bolling Road/Wheatley Lane to access Wheatley Grove where the entrance is extremely narrow would have a detrimental effect and potential risks to safety of both drivers/pedestrians.

Driving conditions are already hazardous in Winter weather conditions due to the nature of the land.

Object

Representation ID: 28167

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Will Nossiter

A number of the existing primary schools have recently been increased to cope with an existing demand. An additional primary school is likely to be required and has not been planned for.

Ilkley Grammar the only secondary school for the intake of children between Addingham and Burley in Wharfedale. It is already over-subscribed with children being sent to the next valley. If these houses are built the Wharfe valley will need a new secondary school to handle the increase in children.

Insufficient transport capacity on the trains to Leeds and Bradford from Ilkley and Ben Rhydding.

Increase in road traffic. Increasing traffic on roads outside schools will increase the danger to young children.

Object

Representation ID: 28177

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Emma Roe

Green Belt should preserve existing natural habitats for future generations and prevent urban sprawl.
Development permissions and carbon-intensive activities is laughably hypocritical in light of BMDC's declaration of a climate emergency and commitment to a green economy.
Insufficient consideration has been given to resurrecting brownfield sites.
Green Belt - what point is there to such a classification if it can be so easily over-ridden,
The retention of key characteristics of Ilkley as a rural community and town, which incorporates outlooks of fields and key green spaces throughout the town's landscape
The impact on the climate emergency we all face collectively means it is irresponsible to future generations for us to consider planning proposals without recognition of the use of precious resources in development of new buildings. We must look to utilise our resources with more emphasis on a re-use, recycle and redevelop approach in order to meet our climate change commitments rather than repeatedly considering housing needs as only being met by new build developments.

Object

Representation ID: 28212

Received: 19/08/2021

Respondent: Margaret Huggon

I would like to object to proposed planning proposals for Ilkley.
I am concerned that this will change the character of the town to its detriment.
The development of the green field area proposed will mean a loss of separate identity and will result in a gradual merger of Ilkley and Burley in Wharfedale.
Ilkley already has a shortage of parking is congested and this proposal would make this worse.
If this development is allowed to go ahead, will the developments provide some affordable housing ?
What would the character of the buildings be ? Many of Ilkley”s current new housing developments are predictable and very dull.
I am against proposal. 1L3/H and 1L1/H but do not object to 1L2/H.

Object

Representation ID: 28241

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Member of Parliament (Conservative)

Green belt should not be considered for development as it is in contravention to Governments aims and objectives.
Local Authorities should maximise the use of brownfield sites before considering changes to Green Belt boundaries.
There are no exceptional circumstances to justify releasing sites from Green Belt protection. All other reasonable options to meet housing need should be considered.
Inadequate proposals have been presented with regards to upgrading local infrastructure to cope with proposed extra housing. and extra pressures on local services.
There is no clear vision to increase passenger capacity on local public transport. This is in contravention to the Governments Decarbonising Transport strategic priority.
No justification for the proposed housing numbers identified for Ilkley and Ben Rhydding to warrant removal of areas of Green Belt.

Object

Representation ID: 28308

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs J. Moore

Object to plans for using green belt land in Ilkley and Ben Rhydding for building purposes. The purpose of the Green Belt is to stop it being built on and to prevent urban sprawl. There are lots buildings and brownfield sites in Bradford that could be converted into housing thus bringing the city centre to life.

There are a number of issues for not building at suggested sites in Ilkley and Ben Rhydding, namely traffic problems with increase of cars in Wheatley Lane, flooding and run-off water from the moors, and where area all the children going to go school?

Why is Bradford Council so intent on ruining Ilkley when it is the best area and tourist town in the Bradford Council area.

Object

Representation ID: 28314

Received: 13/03/2021

Respondent: David Storer

I am strongly opposed to the housing developments on Green Belt land in Wharfedale, particularly those on Wheatley Grove, Ilkley. That piece of land is a valuable local amenity and building housing on it will destroy the quality of life in Ben Rhydding.

The A65 is already clogged to capacity and further housing will increase traffic. Ilkley Grammar school is already over-subscribed and other infrastructure in Ilkley is inadequate.

Council policy is to improve the environment for cycling and walking. All of these developments will do the opposite.

Object

Representation ID: 28315

Received: 13/03/2021

Respondent: Alan Priestman

I also object to the overrun of houses proposed development IL1/H-Ben Rhydding Drive,Wheatley Grove.

This green area supports wild animals and the area is most appreciated by all.

I think the town is quite big enough without these proposed developments. It would be really good if the town can keep its character.

Object

Representation ID: 28319

Received: 13/03/2021

Respondent: Alastair Burns

The requirement to build more homes I understand but NOT ON GREEN BELT SITES!

Subsidies should be provided to developers to use brown sites, making them more cost effective or build a new town in the countryside with their own facilities and road systems?

313 new dwellings = 1200 more people, adding the sites around Burley and Addingham will obviously add more. Where will these people shop, park their cars, doctors, dentists, sporting facilities like gyms etc; go? Where will the children go to school with our schools already being overcrowded.

Ilkley is a tourism hotspot in the local area. Adding more people can only put serious pressure on the facilities, environment. The plans will mean Ilkley, Addingham and Burley will no longer have a separate identity.

The council need to provide better roads/more roads, more street lighting, repair the current roads, build more shops, schools, health facilities, parking which are all already struggling with current demands.

Object

Representation ID: 28365

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: A D Walbank

The proposals do not accordance with the draft Ilkley neighbourhood plan.
Green belt should only be considered in exceptional circumstances.
The proposals will exacerbate the overloaded infrastructure.
Traffic congestion on A65 and the roundabout at the east of Ilkley at Burley.

Adversely affects the vista to the Cow and Calf area.
Ben Rhydding Drive is a private road and the access via Wheatley Grove is already very dangerous.
Flooding issues, River Wharfe
Green belt should be preserved as valuable green space to benefit the existing community.

These developments cannot be absorbed into Ilkley town as they are on the extremities of the town. Ilkley has now reached a saturation point with new houses.
Parking issue, roads are permanently lined with cars on both sides.
Schools are oversubscribed.
Many shops are empty as the rates are too high.
Outdoor spaces are overwhelmed with visitors in hot weather.
Developments need to use brownfield sites first nearer the centres of employment to reduce the need for travel.
Impacts for visitors to Ilkley.

Support

Representation ID: 28366

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Judith Dennis

Number of people: 2

We would like to record that we have no objection to any of the proposed developments in llkley IL1/H, IL2/H, IL3/H, IL4/H.

We think it would be beneficial to the age and social mix in the town to have at least some sites (or sections of sites) designated for social housing. What are the plans for this, please?

Object

Representation ID: 28374

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Norma & Alan Scott

Number of people: 2

Ben Rhydding Drive is narrow and has become busy/dangerous due to increased traffic from retirement village. Wheatley Grove is narrow with dangerous access from Wheatley Lane.

Green Belt provides a green lung. Area borders Ilkley Moor, is home for wildlife/ancient trees and crossed by underground streams. There is problem with water retention. What are the proposals for the drainage network?

Infrastructure at groaning point - inadequate transport, roads, schools, doctors, parking.

Coalescence with Burley & Addingham will detract from area. Ilkley is a tourist/spa/country town – industry belongs in mill towns.

Transport links not good.

Want to know about construction on brownfield sites in Bradford and plan for the future 5 years.

Ilkley limited in ways in which it can expand. Its character is derived from the surrounding Green Belt and moorland.

Needs clean transport to surrounding commercial areas, which need affordable housing that cannot be supplied by building in Ilkley.

Will increase congestion, pollution and traffic on A65.

Object

Representation ID: 28377

Received: 25/03/2021

Respondent: David Blackburn

The appraisal leads me to come to the opposite conclusion that the site is unsustainable and does not comply with the findings of 5.0.1 & 5.0.2. a long list of environmental reasons provided in the appraisal and access is poor both Wheatley Grove and the junctions in Ben Rhydding plus the single lane railway bridge on Wheatley :ane are major highways constraints.

Object

Representation ID: 28395

Received: 13/03/2021

Respondent: Professor David N & Sussi Louise Smith

Number of people: 2

In conclusion I would submit our opposition to the specific plans to build on land outlined in:

IL1/H - Ben Rhydding Drive, Wheatley Grove

Our judgement, based on frequent observation and use, is that the potential impact on the Green Belt is not merely moderate. Impact on openness would be far more serious and amount to a significant loss of amenity.

The core of this submission is based on the need to conserve landscape and boundary. It focuses on Green Belt specifically and the raison d'être for its existence in sensitive natural landscapes. It also casts a critical eye on some of the historical assumptions about the structure and underpinning rationale of housing 'development' in the current uncertain socio-economic and cultural climate. Hidden in this are an additional set of issues that connect with environmental and ecological concerns in light of other global challenges, most notably climate changes.

Object

Representation ID: 28397

Received: 13/03/2021

Respondent: Karen Leafe

I wish to object to the proposed plan to build a substantial number of houses in Ilkley reference numbers IL1/H IL2/H IL3/H and IL4/H.

There isn't the infrastructure to maintain these homes.

The plan would make significant changes to our town.