IL3/H - Coutances Way

Object

Representation ID: 48

Received: 10/02/2021

Respondent: Service 2 (HVAC) Limited

We need a new school on coutanves way, not 150 houses

Object

Representation ID: 51

Received: 10/02/2021

Respondent: Mrs Louise Hepworth-Wood

•Green belt will be destroyed
•Building on flood plain
•infrastructure to support families not viable (schools full / doctors / shops)
•traffic congestion and unsafe for pedestrians at junction with valley drive

Object

Representation ID: 58

Received: 10/02/2021

Respondent: Elaine Sadler

Object to the proposals of building houses and the proposed car park on Wheatley Lane.
Loss of greenbelt which is the gateway to the Dales. Brownfield areas where houses can be built.
Loss of wildlife and ecology
Flooding.
Traffic.

Object

Representation ID: 59

Received: 10/02/2021

Respondent: Mr Andy Grayston

IL3H is greenbelt and development on this land would impact upon and potentially devalue the properties that are in close proximity. The field has drainage issues and a culvert runs beneath the cellars of the properties on Wheatley Lane. A development exacerbates the risk of flooding.
A increase in traffic and residents would overload an already strained infrastructure.
The inclusion of a car park could be a magnet for anti social behaviour.
Greenbelt was protected for a reason.

Object

Representation ID: 72

Received: 10/02/2021

Respondent: Andy Stuart

Green Belt,
Ilkley Infrastructure,
Drainage - Drainage and flood risk, has not been properly assessed.
Traffic - The increase in traffic over an already very difficult and crowded junction, needs to be very carefully examined.

Object

Representation ID: 102

Received: 12/02/2021

Respondent: Ben Rhydding Sports Club

Agent: Mr Robin Snook

Ben Rhydding Sports Club comprises 900 playing members across Bowls, Croquet, Cricket, Football, Hockey and Tennis. At a committee meeting held on 11/02/2021 it was agreed that I would lodge an objection to IL3/H on behalf of the members on the following three grounds:
1) Loss of openness
2) No access plan - “Further highways assessment is required given the scale of the site”
3) Future flood events is our biggest concern. We would require written assurances that any surface water, flood risk, and drainage issues were mitigated against in respect of protecting our playing surfaces and clubhouse.

Object

Representation ID: 104

Received: 12/02/2021

Respondent: Mrs Lucy Fox

IL3/HIL1/H

Greenbelt is needed to prevent urban sprawl, protect the landscape, our environment, and supports wellbeing. Fields capture carbon and support natural flood management, while agricultural supports food production. We must avoid unnecessarily losing our countryside.
Wheatley Lane - speeding and congestion which will worsen - drainage issues which are worsening. The rear and front of Wheatley Lane are a torrent of water in wet weather and can flood the gardens to the front.

Object

Representation ID: 105

Received: 12/02/2021

Respondent: Mrs Carolyn Emerson

Loss of farmland. Council farms give people an opportunity to get into farming .
Loss of views
Flooding risk
Too intense. 155 homes will put pressure on local schools ,medical services etc

Object

Representation ID: 119

Received: 13/02/2021

Respondent: Ben Rhydding Bowls Club

Intrusion on greenbelt land. Excess traffic. Increase of flooding problems for Ben Rhydding Sports Club.

Object

Representation ID: 125

Received: 13/02/2021

Respondent: Mr Thomas Lowe

Negative impacts on the environment, the green belt, the character of the local area and the flood plain.

Object

Representation ID: 239

Received: 09/02/2021

Respondent: Sandra Duff

Green Belt land should not be built on. We need to safeguard the countryside, to be appreciated by future generations, not destroy it! Surely there are Brownfield sites more suitable?...............
If this Green Belt area was lost, there’s a strong possibility of Ben Rhydding merging with Burley-in-Wharfedale, both areas losing their separate identities, wildlife habitats would be lost, air pollution would increase due to the extra number of cars on the road; the volume of traffic is going to increase regardless, due to the new Garden Centre opening in the near vicinity so we definitely do not want even more traffic., and most importantly, ........the land is on a flood plain and there is not the infrastructure to maintain such a housing development

Object

Representation ID: 304

Received: 19/02/2021

Respondent: Mr Richard Fox

Greenbelt is needed to prevent urban sprawl, protect the landscape, our environment, and supports wellbeing. Fields capture carbon and support natural flood management, while agricultural supports food production. We must avoid unnecessarily losing our countryside.
Wheatley Lane is subject to frequent speeding and congestion which will worsen with increasing traffic from both sites and the carpark. Wheatley lane already has drainage issues which are worsening. The rear and front of Wheatley Lane are a torrent of water in wet weather and can flood the gardens to the front.

Object

Representation ID: 391

Received: 22/02/2021

Respondent: Mr Robert Bains

We should avoid creeping destruction of the green land of on the edges of each of the settlements in Wharfedale. The inevitable conclusion of this activity is that each village will merge into the next. The area is highly valued principally for its green appearance.
In addition there are proposals for new housing in Burley, Otley, Bramhope and several projects in Adel already. I don't think the road infrastructure can cope with all these extra people along one of the main commutes into Leeds.

Object

Representation ID: 404

Received: 23/02/2021

Respondent: Mr James Butterfield

IL3/H Coutance Way
The proposed development will blur the present sharp distinction between town and countryside and is likely to lead to further development to the east, to the greater detriment of the green belt, thus marring the present attractive setting of the town.

Object

Representation ID: 417

Received: 24/02/2021

Respondent: Mr C Elliff

Access from Wheatley Lane (opposite Valley Drive) is already dangerous. Flooding of these fields onto A65 and across to BR sports field is now a major issue (at least once a winter) and includes water from the moor and the Wheatley Grove site, and may impact on stability of railway embankment. Burley has 500 houses planned for Sun Lane, within touching distance of this site - a bigger gap needed. BR Hockey club already gets substantial run-off from these fields (causing expensive damage and flooding).

Cognisance should be given to the significant number of Ilkley windfall sites in housing targets.

Object

Representation ID: 532

Received: 26/02/2021

Respondent: Mr Michael Eyres

Proposed development will cause additional traffic problems on wheatley lane already congested with pinch point under railway bridge.
Site abuts areas of established flood plain which currently floods on a regular basis
Development encroaches on green corridor between Ilkley & Burley in Wharfedale

Object

Representation ID: 544

Received: 26/02/2021

Respondent: Mr Paul Birch

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

Object

Representation ID: 550

Received: 26/02/2021

Respondent: Mr Neil Scarlett

Greenbelt land should NOT be used for housing.
Contribution to increased flood risk. The site currently provides natural storage and mitigates against flood risk. parts of the site are in the flood plain.
Habitat loss.
Loss of amenity - vista and public footpaths will be lost
Traffic increase will increase congestion.
Impact on schools and other civic resources which are already under pressure.

Object

Representation ID: 574

Received: 28/02/2021

Respondent: Mr Richard Giles

I am a member of Ben Rhydding Sports Club and Chairman of Ilkley Town Football Club. We utilise the fields at Ben Rhydding Sports Club and Ilkley Grammar School that are opposite the proposed development. There are 650 playing members of the Football Club of all ages. The site is busy with cars and people during peak times.

1. Increased flood risk. The site is on a flood plain and there has been recent floods that have caused damage of several £000s. We are concerned the flood risks will increase. To mitigate the impact we would require the plans to include additional flood protection for the facilities at Sports Club and IGS playing fields.
2. Increased traffic. This stretch of A65 is already busy. The proposed development will increase this again. To mitigate this we would require a new traffic management system that included access to the Sports Club.

.

Object

Representation ID: 601

Received: 01/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Nick Robinson

This is a gross overdevelopment and an unnecessary use of green belt land. It threatens the linking up of an urban sprawl with Burley. The document talks of a defensible green belt. We already have one, don't build on it. The area already has surface water issues and will cause additional congestion on the A65 and Wheatley Lane. Building here could change the water table and imperil the railway line. Raw swage is regularly discharged into the Wharfe this number of houses can only make this worse. This development threatens what make Ilkley special spoiling the beautiful view as you approach the town. Developers will pressure CBMDC for land in Ilkley but that's because they can charge high prices. Focus on brown field sites and investing in Bradford City to make it a vibrant place people want to live. Don't despoil the lovely places like Ilkley.

Object

Representation ID: 645

Received: 02/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Susan Eardley

This is an important access route to the footpaths leading to Ben Rhydding nature reserve, and is also a wildlife haven, where we see lots of rabbits and have also seen deer.

No mention is made of how you will prevent further flooding of the fields to the north east (towards the A65). These fields and the road in places, particularly next to the water treatment site flood and become impassible to walkers for half of the year.

The Ben Rhydding nature reserve is a great community asset, it would be great if this development goes ahead, if pedestrian access through these fields and over the A65 could be Improved. During lockdown, this reserve was a haven for physical and mental well-being, but now that traffic is hugely increased, combines with flooding and no pedestrian crossing makes the journey there unpleasant.

Object

Representation ID: 759

Received: 05/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Deborah Robinson

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

Object

Representation ID: 833

Received: 06/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Sam Lewis

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

Object

Representation ID: 847

Received: 06/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Hazel Lewis

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

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

Object

Representation ID: 968

Received: 08/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Iain McCaskey

As a principle, I do not think we should be building on green belt agricultural land like this. Development here would remove another strip of countryside between the town and Manor Park, soon to be itself linked to Burley by development there. We need to value the green belt land we have rather than building on it.
I also have concerns about the additional burden on local infrastructure. and how services will cope with the additional burden - we know already that Yorkshire Water are regularly discharging sewage into the Wharf because the exiting sewage system cannot cope.
I understand too that the site is subject to flood risk. This cannot be helped by tarmacking over it so that water cannot be absorbed by the land. I believe that building here may exacerbate flooding in the local area.

Object

Representation ID: 976

Received: 08/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Alexander McKay

My main objection is that this is a Green Belt which should not be built on. It is a fine farmland area on the main road into the beautiful country town of Ilkley. This green corridor should be preserved at all costs otherwise a nice country town will become a sprawling suburb of Leeds & Bradford. It would add to the town's existing traffic and parking problems. Schools, Medical and other Amenities are already stretched to the limit. There must be Brownfield Sites that could be used to avoid any further loss of our beautiful Yorkshire countryside.

Object

Representation ID: 990

Received: 08/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Patricia McKay

My main objection is that this is Green Belt land which should not be built on. It is a fine farmland area on the main road into the beautiful country town of Ilkley. This green corridor should be preserved at all costs otherwise the nice country town will become a sprawling suburb of Leeds and Bradford. It would add to the town's existing traffic and parking problems. Schools, Medical and other Amenities are already stretched to the limit. There MUST be Brownfield Sites that could be used to avoid any further loss of our beautiful Yorkshire countryside.

Object

Representation ID: 1106

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Moira Hogan

Infrastructure not in place, services and parking already stretched
Drainage and increased/runoff/flooding
Use of valuable greenbelt and resultant impact on environment/wildlife

Object

Representation ID: 1116

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Michael Truluck

The infrastructure in Ilkley simply isn’t able to cope with so many more dwellings:

1. Transport - coming to Ilkley from Burley on the A65 is already terrible at rush hours
2. Schools are oversubscribed especially IGS
3. Parking in town is a nightmare on the weekends
4. Ilkley is a spa town, with lots of heritage and a rural appeal
5. The approach into Ilkley will be unsightly and built-up compared to the lovely landscape today

As a result adding more dwellings is going to make Ilkley undesirable as these issues will worsen and adversely affect the quality of life for the existing residents of Ilkley.

Object

Representation ID: 1147

Received: 13/02/2021

Respondent: Mr Russell Donnelly

Urban Sprawl
BMC should pursue more suitable brownfield sites