IL1/H - Ben Rhydding Drive, Wheatley Grove

Object

Representation ID: 28401

Received: 13/03/2021

Respondent: Shirin Borrett

There are so many brownfield sites available in the Bradford District - why is the council even contemplating building in our ever diminishing Greenbelt!

How can they allow development of our green spaces. It is essential for everyone's wellbeing, that we keep our countryside and don't allow the urban sprawl to take over! Ilkley is a beautiful town set in the countryside that contributes significantly to Bradford both financially and by providing countryside for people to enjoy.

If over 300 homes were built, the town does not have the infrastructure to support the people who would live there. Ilkley Grammar school is bursting at its seams and primary schools are full. The surgery is very busy and does not have the capability to service another 300 households!

The developments will be very damaging to the environment and, with climate change, will increase the problems with flooding in the area.

Object

Representation ID: 28407

Received: 13/03/2021

Respondent: Julian Carter

• Greenbelt
Building on green belt sites is directly opposed to the principles of using brownfield sites first, and of urban regeneration via the recycling and repurposing of derelict land or buildings

• Environment
Building on the Greenbelt will have a number of direct and indirect consequences on the environment. The area itself has mature trees (with TPO) and an abundance of plant and wild flower species. In addition, there will be an increase in noise pollution and use of cars, reduced biodiversity

• Flooding
There is already substantial flooding within Ilkley and further run off from hard surfaces will only exacerbate the problem

• School and activities capacity
Local amenities are already at breaking point and cannot cope with the additional proposed housing

• Additional Building
In the last few years approximately 30 houses per year have been built in Ilkley – the plan fails to take into account these numbers, or those currently planned.

Object

Representation ID: 28435

Received: 13/03/2021

Respondent: Hilda Bryson

Green belts were specifically designated to prevent development on precious areas of green land.

Given climate change concerns and the fact that we are supposed to be increasing green areas where possible to combat the effect of carbon emissions and to give our threatened wild life some respite from loss of habitat it seems impossible to justify building houses on these sites.

The A65 into Ilkley is a bottle neck already and we now have a garden centre opposite the proposed sites which will increase the flow of traffic and add to the problem of tail backs.

The Grammar School is stretched for space. Are there plans for a new school or for the sewage system and for the health provision? Increased housing with no thought for the infrastructure is negligent to say the least.

Merging Burley and Ilkley into one amorphous mass destroys the community feel of both places.

Object

Representation ID: 28490

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Rachel Scott

-No evidence of exceptional circumstances to justify these two sites and contrary to NPPF
-Protect greenfield sites
-Develop brownfield sites – regeneration etc
-IL01 and IL03 will serve to increase ‘unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas’ as well as continue the gradual increase of ribbon development between Ilkley and neighbouring villages.
-Impact on countryside, wildlife, flora and fauna, SSSi (SPA/SAC and buffer zones);
-Impact on setting and special character of Ilkley
- Impact on parking – current issues will be exacerbated as sites not within walking distance to town.
-Both Ilkley Grammar School and all local primary schools are full. Ilkley GS is unable to expand any further.
-Traffic/Congestion - query traffic assessment.
-Risk of flooding - site often floods
-Proposals completely tone deaf to our environmental emergency.
-Impact on trees with TPOs

Object

Representation ID: 28516

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Dr & Dr William & Monica Tomkiss

Number of people: 2

•The two sites will provide the majority of additional houses in Ilkley within a small area of Ben Rhydding.
•The area is subject to flooding. The A65 has flood on a number of occasions near the traffic lights at the Factory shop/Denton Bridge. Building on land which absorbs water which flows down Ilkley Moor will exacerbate this.
•Busy traffic at the railway bridge, the junction with the A65 and the narrow one-way Denton Bridge. These structural issues cannot be easily remedied through usual road widening.
•These are greenfield site. Government states that only Brownfield sites should be developed wherever possible. Bradford will have several of these which can be developed.
•With the recovery from Covid and changes in habits, it is likely more brownfield site will become available and which should be used first.
•No proposal to address the impact on services from the proposed housing. Around 1000 additional people would place additional pressure on over-stretched services. The reality is that traffic associated with ‘school-runs’ will be generate and make problems worse.
•Development of the scale proposed would alter the character of Ben Rhydding. Historically, it is a distinct cultural entity, compared to the main part of Ilkley which these proposals overlook.

Object

Representation ID: 28518

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Dr & Dr William & Monica Tomkiss

Number of people: 2

•The intensity of 130 houses on this site would be out of keeping with the surrounding area which is mainly, larger, individually-designed houses with large gardens.
•The proposed number of houses would mean increased traffic both vehicular and pedestrian on Ben Rhydding Drive. This is a private road with no footpath or street lighting making it unsuitable and dangerous for increased activity. The 20mph speed limit on Ben Rhydding Drive is often ignored and current residents would not wish to see car damaging speed bumps in place.
•Giggleswick Field is a significant open space which would be lost. It has a number of mature trees which are a visual amenity and attract a range of wild life. To destroy these would be extremely detrimental to the natural environment.
•A public footpath crosses the field – officially to Wheatley Grove, but these is also a path diagonally across from Ben Rhydding Drive. This is is used by local and visitors to access Ilkley Moor.

Object

Representation ID: 28561

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Peter & Barbara O'Connell

Number of people: 2

Area between Burley and Ilkley

Scenic Landscape - We need to protect the local environment in Ilkley as its a scenic natural landscape.

Existing flooding risk - We have a problem with flooding now. The flooding problem will worsen.

Wildlife - Wildlife between Burley and Ilkley will be destroyed.

Sewage sites - Sewage sites have problems now, this problem will worsen.

Road Safety - Wheatley Road Train Bridge is already a high risk area, there will be an increase in traffic and an increase in accidents

Object

Representation ID: 28565

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Rachel Hanson

Object for the following reasons:

Nature/Environment
• Green Belt development should be last resort. There are brownfield sites and empty properties which should be developed first.
• It is a natural environment providing an important wildlife habitat, including feeding ground for Curlews, which should be protected.
• IL3/H part of a working farm.
• Will have negative impact on village’s nature/character.
• Would narrow gap between Ben Rhydding & Burley-in-Wharfedale.

Traffic & Congestion
• Wheatley Lane busy, with long queues at traffic lights.
• Junction between Valley Drive/Wheatley Lane is dangerous.

Drainage & Flooding
• Fields provide drainage for the surrounding area. Would worsen flooding issues.
• More water will run-off onto roads/adjacent homes.
• Drainage system under stress.

Lack of Infrastructure
• Schools operating at capacity.
• Places for doctors/dentists lacking.
• Trains full, station platforms not long enough for more carriages.
• Sewage system needs upgrading to cope with current demand.
• Development would need significant infrastructure investment to cope – would damage the character of the village.

Object

Representation ID: 28603

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Peter & Susan Lithgow

Number of people: 2

•Clear and obvious conflicts with existing amenity and welfare to locals arising from the planned developments. Negative impacts will be long lasting and undermine the attraction that Ilkley is known for. The heritage of Ben Rhydding will be lost. If Bradford Council recognise the ‘scenic and natural landscape’ of the district then it can be concluded these plans are ill-judged.
•Past poor developments have given rise to increased traffic, worsening flows, increased accidents (Wheatley Road Railway Bridge), noise and pollution. New developments can only make these problems worse, with parking in residential streets and across the drives of homes. No road traffic assessment has been provided.
•The areas are prone to flooding. Denying natural drainage and surface absorption through the addition of hard surfaces will provide a greater flood risk along Coutances Way and the River Wharfe floodplain.
•This area has been shown to flood many times and occasionally blocked the road.
•Development will result in permanent change to natural habitats and have a damaging impact on Flora and Fauna.
•Local infrastructure and institutions are at their limits. Increased population can only further stress limited medical services, schools and other amenities.
•The catchment areas are becoming extended means the social amenities should be extended.
•The proposals do not appear to have considered the potential for overloading existing facilities or considered the impact on existing residents. The proposals should be withdrawn as they are not credible.

Comment

Representation ID: 28612

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Environment Agency

Site in Flood Zone 1 ONLY
Mitigation should be set above the 1 in 100 plus cc level for the site as suitable for the proposed vulnerability classification (EA standing advice should cover this).

If the site is considered Greenfield then surface water discharge rates post development should be restricted to the pre development Greenfield discharge rate. If the site is considered Brownfield then there should be a 30% reduction in surface water discharges, or restricted to Greenfield rates, there should be no increase in brownfield surface water discharge rates post development. So as to support prevention of cumulative increases to flood risk and should be in line with SuDs design principles.

For developments near ordinary watercourses we would recommend an 8 metre easement strip along the length of the riverbank, or a 45degree angle from the bed in the case of culverts, to be kept clear of permanent structures such as buildings. This is to maintain access to the riverbank for any improvements or maintenance. A Flood Defence Consent may be required for the LLFA for works in/affecting an ordinary watercourse.

For main rivers, we generally require an 8 metre easement strip along the length of the riverbank to be kept clear of permanent structures such as buildings, or a 45degree angle from the bed in the case of culverts. This is to maintain access to the riverbank for any improvements or maintenance. Environmental Flood Risk Activity Permits may be required for development near rivers.

It is possible the sites within close proximity to Flood Zones 3b, 3 and 2 may be subject to future risk identified within the SFRA (to follow) which may affect its allocation or how development should be sequentially laid out on the site.

Consideration must be made to making space for water and providing betterment in terms of flood risk management where ever possible.

Object

Representation ID: 29040

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Anne & H Graham Peacock

Number of people: 2

This is an attractive green belt boundary site supporting the rural aspect of Ben Rhydding Drive.

The site access has to be via Wheatley Grove and not via the private road Ben Rhydding Drive.

There is a difficult junction to access Wheatley Grove from Wheatley Lane. The junction of Wheatley Lane and Bolling Road has poor sight lines and there is single line signal controlled traffic movement through the railway bridge.

North of the railway bridge there is another poor junction with Valley Drive where traffic exiting Valley Drive has poor sight lines.

Up from Wheatley Lane, Wheatley Grove rises up a steep curving bank. It has been found that this is too difficult for the Council gritting vehicle to negotiate, so during winter weather, the un-gritted Wheatley Grove can be perilous. Wheatley Grove is a residential road not designed for additional domestic and service vehicle traffic.

The field which is used for livestock is also a wildlife haven, and it has substantial recreational value. The top section is within the protected zone for Ilkley Moor.
There a possibility of the E-W Roman road crossing the field – this will need investigating.

Local residents tell us that the field has drainage problems. After heavy rain, water cascades off the golf course at the top of the site, through the field onto Ben Rhydding Drive and overwhelms the storm drain system.

Object

Representation ID: 29122

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Cherry Dexter

Number of people: 2

• Green belt
• NPPF Brownfield first approach
• Ilkley strategy against NPPF – GB sites with justification as little brownfield land in the Wharfedale area.
• Contradictions between site Sustainability Assessment and the SA assessment for IL/009
• Against the plan focus upon connecting and improving open spaces, GI and the importance of landscape/green belt.
• Contrary to building to adhere to target of ‘environmental net gain’.
• Proximity to South Pennine Moors SPA and provides a corridor and habitat for wildlife - like deer, bats, birds of prey and a significant number of owls.
• Health and recreational value of site
• Impact on nature conservation and biodiversity (SPA)
• Ancient trees are protected TPOs.
• curlews use the field as a feeding area in Spring.
• Climate change resilience / Accessible Services / Capacity of infrastructure – drainage
• Impact on traffic
• Noise and disturbance / Smells and fumes
• Local Services and Facilities overstretched
• Negative impact on Visual amenity
• Impact on Cultural heritage – listed buildings and conservation area
• Density requirement will not be met

Object

Representation ID: 29264

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Nicole Dillon

Oppose proposed development around Burley in Wharfedale, Ben Rhydding, Ilkley & Addingham.

1. More needs to be invested in infrastructure to support increased population

• Ilkley Grammar School (the only secondary) is already full as are the primary schools

• Roads are busy and parking is a big problem – without proper provision roads will become blocked due to on-street parking. More traffic will see traffic jams increase, which is a safety issue as well as an environmental problem.

• Doctors/Dentists are busy. Development will lead to more patients, longer waiting times etc.

• Problem with sewage in the River Wharfe. Sewage sites overflow regularly. Development will make this worse.

2. Green Belt development should be a last resort. Will impact on wildlife. Available brownfield sites should be developed first.

3. Development will significantly/permanently change the area’s character. Coutances Way site will see Burley almost merging with Ben Rhydding/Ilkley.

Other considerations include flood risk.

Object

Representation ID: 29335

Received: 13/03/2021

Respondent: Helen Robertson

Firstly, the field is very often waterlogged. After relatively little rainfall today it is like a mud slide and very unsteady under foot. It seems unsafe to comprehend houses being built on such sloping sodden land.

Secondly I have concerns as to the local schools accommodating that number of additional children. The Grammar school is bursting at the seams with no room to expand.

Thirdly, I worry about the small roads in the surrounding area. The railway bridge inBen Rhydding very easily gets backed up. Several accidents have happened as people try to pull out at the corner junction and with a heavier flow of traffic I think it could mean more serious incidents waiting to happen.

Finally, I fear that the affect on the wildlife that inhabit the field will be catastrophic. We regularly see owls particularly in the evening and deer.

Object

Representation ID: 29384

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Jane Wearing

•No justification given for building on green belt land when there are brownfield sites available in the district. Fundamental aim of Green Belt is to prevent urban sprawl and the essential characteristics are openness and permanence. Green belt can help urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict land.
•Development should be focused on urban and brownfield land for regeneration and to stimulate investment in the site allocations and wider area to provide infrastructure improvements.
•Proposed approach is a wasted opportunity to focus development within the settlement boundary. Ignores the need to regulate the size and shape of urban areas which are currently bounded by Green Belt.
•Approach does not adhere to the basic principle of Green Belt as the sites risk the potential of neighbouring towns eventually coalescing. If developed they will blur the contrast between urban and rural facets of Ilkley.
•No suggestion that there will be any social housing in these two developments.
•Proposals would significant change the character of the town and surrounding areas.
•Developments will significant increase traffic through the Wheatley Road railway bridge and junction with Valley Drive. No plans to widen the bridge and single land traffic will remain. These two areas already have a high risk of accidents.
•No traffic assessment has been carried out. Increases of traffic will have a significant impact on air quality.
•Ilkley Grammar is already at capacity, is unable to expand further and has already limited its catchment area. No additional secondary school capacity has been proposed.
•Demand for GP services will be extreme. No plans to create additional medical centres.
•Developments will put serve pressure on utilities. Sewage sites are already over capacity and regularly overflow their storm surge capacity.
•Broadband is exceeding capacity. At a time when record numbers of people are working from home. Additional homes will create significant issues for access to reliable broadband.
•Ilkley’s character is defined by its natural setting amongst the countryside, and these proposals go completely against the defined local plan to protect the local environment.
•Ilkley Moor is an SSSI, and the Wheatley Grove site is only 350m from the moor and falls within the buffer zone for this. Development should specifically be avoided in these areas.
•Both Wheatley Grove and Coutances Way provide wildlife corridors and significant habitat for wildlife. They have mature trees and a number of Tree Protection Orders / Woodland protection, due to the nature of the land.
•Significant existing flood risk. Development would exacerbate these issues.
•Sites are sinks for rain water delaying the flow through Ben Rhydding/Ilkley. These areas are regularly sodden and have springs.

Object

Representation ID: 29421

Received: 29/03/2021

Respondent: Historic England

See attachment for full representation.
Gibb Farmhouse and the adjacent barn 230 metres to the south of this site are Grade II Listed Buildings. The development of this area could harm elements which contribute to the significance of these designated heritage assets.
Before allocating this site for development:
(1) An assessment needs to be undertaken of the contribution which this site makes to those elements which contribute towards the significance of the Listed Buildings in its vicinity, and what impact the loss of this undeveloped site and its subsequent development might have upon their significance.
(2) If it is considered that the development of this site would harm elements which contribute to the significance of the Listed Buildings, then the measures by which that harm might be removed or reduced need to be effectively tied into the Plan.
(3) If, at the end of the process, it is concluded that the development would still be likely to harm elements which contribute to the significance of these Listed Buildings, then this site should not be allocated unless there are clear public benefits that outweigh the harm (as is
required by NPPF, Paragraph 195 or 196).

Object

Representation ID: 29509

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jean Jones

I cannot believe the enormous number of houses that are proposed. This will totally change the character from a lovely tourist town, to one sea of houses.
Ben Rhydding Drive - 130 dwellings. Do you realise this is the last green belt land used by everybody to exercise and dog walk and for children to play games. These fields are all that are left as an area of outstanding natural beauty, full of trees, wild flowers, horses? and other small animals and birds. Also there is a Roman Road there which must not be destroyed.
There are many sites BROWN in Bradford which could be used for housing without developing the countryside in the Ilkley area.
The schools, doctors, dentists etc cannot now cope with the increased numbers of people that have moved into Ilkley over the past few years , so what will happen in the future?
These plans are not thought through.

Comment

Representation ID: 29511

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Robert B Marshall

I think that it would be unwise to have two large groups of houses leading in to Wheatley Lane the B6382, down to the A65.
It has proved impossible in the past to build a by-pass around Ilkley. As it is the A65 is overwhelmed at many parts of the day. The junction with the A65 and the A 65 itself could not cope with a large increase in traffic.

Object

Representation ID: 29532

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Elizabeth & Tim Walton

Number of people: 2

1) GREEN BELT
Proposals through Keighley and area district which is against Government and Bradford Council Green Belt and Zero Carbon Future policies resulting in sprawl, loss of identity, damage to wildlife, loss of natural views loss of green habitat and wildlife, pollution.

Object

Representation ID: 29551

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: P A Smith

- The houses built in this area of 130 dwellings will have a great impact on the area due to more cars coming into Ilkley to shop as we are short of parking in town.

What Ilkley needs is less cars not more. The permit areas for workers is already having an impact for people living outside the permit area as traffic is moving out of Ilkley to side roads and causing distress to households when they cannot park outside their own houses.
Bradford never tries to help Ilkley, all it wants is the money from the rates and gives us nothing in return. The amenities cannot cope in the area for any more houses.

Object

Representation ID: 29672

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Alison Morpeth

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.

Object

Representation ID: 29685

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Tracy Russell

•Road junctions are already precarious. The development would see an increase in traffic joining at the junctions between Wheatley Lane/Bolling Road and Wheatley Lane/Valley Drive. Increased traffic will add to the bottleneck at the traffic lights at the railway bridge where there is also traffic entering and exiting Ben Rhydding train station and the Boy Scout Hut.
•Joining Wheatley Lane from Valley Drive by turning right is already dangerous.
•Wheatley Grove is dangerous in the winter and gritters are unable to get up. The path at the bottom of Wheatley Grove is not wide enough for prams/wheelchairs and parents therefore walk on the road.
•These fields are used by curlews/oyster catchers/geese and other wildlife. During the pandemic they have been frequented by residents for exercise and mental health benefits.
•There are major springs here. Drainage is a major concern. This area floods frequently. Additional housing will only add to the problem. Several residents have already had their basements flooded.
•Fields along Coutances Way flood considerable (see photo). The fields leading to the valley floor soak up the flood water and help to prevent run-off. Additional housing at IL1H/IL3/H will increase run-off resulting in increased flooding, more frequent closures of the A65 and the increased likelihood of the instability of the rail tracks.
•The station in Ben Rhydding near the two largest developments cannot currently accommodate a large increase in vehicles and passengers. The number of carriages on the trains would have to be increased to accommodate the additional capacity.

Object

Representation ID: 29778

Received: 25/03/2021

Respondent: Ilkley Town Council

The Ilkley Local Area Strategy document contains inaccuracies which misrepresent the site - example, regarding the Sustainability Assessment for site IL1/H Wheatley Grove where the Site Pro Forma says ‘There are unlikely to be any significant effects, either positive or negative, on any SA Objective arising as a result of development at this site’ yet the first line of the summary of the SA assessment for the same site (IL/009) is ‘A major adverse effect is predicted on the land and buildings SA objective due to the loss of greenfield land’.

It is clear this site has not been accurately assessed and should be removed from the Preferred Options site allocations as it does not support the policies of the Local Plan or NPPF regarding exceptions for development on Green Belt.

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.

Comments are also made on the inaccuracies and misrepresentation of the site within the SA.

On traffic and transport criteria this site is unsuitable for development (see separate comments on access, walking and cycling).

The location and steep nature of the site and surrounds mean that residents may experience some social isolation - conflicts with policies DS5 and CO3.

SP14 - making great places - This is already a heavily used community green space of amenity and biodiversity value, and is too close to the Moor.

Object

Representation ID: 29783

Received: 25/03/2021

Respondent: Ilkley Town Council

The main concerns regarding this site are:

- 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.

- On traffic and transport criteria, this site is unsuitable for development. The main access to the A65 for this site is via the Ben Rhydding railway bridge. This is already a pinch point in the local network, which will undoubtedly be exacerbated by the development of a significant number of houses on the site. It is somewhat distant (600M) from more frequent buses along Bolling Rd.

- the site is not suitable re encouraging walking and cycling - its is steep. Schools are not within walking distance for small children.

Object

Representation ID: 29799

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Ilkley Civic Society

This is an attractive green belt site supporting the rural aspect of Ben Rhydding Drive.

The site access is to be via Wheatley Grove and not via the private road Ben Rhydding Drive. There is a difficult junction to access Wheatley Grove from Wheatley Lane. The junction of Wheatley Lane and Bolling Road is problematic and there is single line working at the railway bridge. There is no pedestrian crossing of either Wheatley Lane or Bolling Road. Below the railway bridge there is another poor junction with Valley Drive where traffic exiting Valley Drive has poor sight lines.

From Wheatley Lane, Wheatley Grove proceeds up a steep curving bank. This is too difficult for the gritting vehicle to negotiate, so during winter weather, Wheatley Grove can be perilous. Wheatley Grove is a residential road not designed for additional traffic, including many delivery vehicles.

The field is used for pasturing livestock but is also a wildlife haven, especially for owls. It has substantial recreational value. The very top section is within the HRA 400m zone for Ilkley Moor.

There may be a Roman road crossing the field – the route has not been defined.

The field has drainage problems. After heavy rain, water cascades off the golf course at the top of the site, through the field onto Ben Rhydding Drive and overwhelms the storm drain system.

If there is to be pedestrian access to Ben Rhydding Drive from the site, it should be noted that there are no pavements. There is a 20mph limit on Ben Rhydding Drive, but experience shows that many drivers do not observe it.

Object

Representation ID: 29985

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Ilkley Town Council

The land is close to Ilkley moor and is rich biodiversity. This could not be offset by planting elsewhere, once a wildlife corridor is interfered with the wildlife goes in the area. The site is located within the 2.5km buffer zone of the SPA/SAC and SSSI impact zone.

This area is so far away from the town and built on a steep gradient there is no pedestrian access to Ben Rhydding other than walking down Ben Rhydding drive on which there are no pavements. It is inevitable therefore that car usage will increase which goes against the climate emergency declaration.

If traffic from the development uses Wheatley Grove, there is a difficult junction when accessing Wheatley lane. There are also problems with the junction with Bolling Road and the railway bridge which is one way traffic. This site certainly not enable children to walk to school or cycle which Ilkley is planning to promote.

Object

Representation ID: 30065

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr J.H. Cove

Concern over sites AD3/H, AD4/H, IL1/H, IL3/H & BU1/H resulting in virtual ribbon development between Guiseley and Addingham. Creeping urbanisation is a major threat to the environment and damage those qualities that attract visitors and prosperity.

Maintaining open spaces and wildlife is fundamental to environmentally sound and sustainable development. Plan deviates from this.

Plan offers destruction of the Wharfedale environment with no clear benefit.

Comment

Representation ID: 30122

Received: 13/03/2021

Respondent: Christine Trotter

1. The site is in Green Belt and is protected by the Government’s National Policy Framework.
2. I understand that the housing needs of the Bradford region can be satisfied by using the existing Brownfield Sites without transgressing onto Green Belt land.
3. There is strong environmental evidence and support for safeguarding the local countryside from any major development.
4. This massive housing development will inevitably place a severe strain on the existing fragile infrastructure of the area.
5. The site is currently used by many people for outdoor recreational and exercise purposes.
6. The site is also recognised as having historical and cultural significance for the Ben Rhydding area.

Object

Representation ID: 30190

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: CHILD C

Please don't build on IL1/H because sheep and horses graze in that field.
Its a perfect place for curlews to nest.
It is perfect for having fun and rolling hooler hoops but best of all you can throw frisbees.
A lot of people start there walks there.

Object

Representation ID: 30191

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: CHILD D

Please do not build on these fields as its a great place to nest (sic)