IL3/H - Coutances Way

Object

Representation ID: 1156

Received: 10/03/2021

Respondent: Mr J Paul Milnes

The local infrastructure is already overloaded.
Additional traffic in this area when the road is already massively overcrowded will be hazardous.
This also has to be considered in the context of the new garden centre which creates traffic chaos in its own right.
Even more risk to emergency services delays such as urgent cardiac transfer to Leeds.
Creation of urban sprawl and a huge negative for tourism.
Green space is a lifeline for many and at times of mental health crisis and must be preserved for the enjoyment of both locals and visitors.

Object

Representation ID: 1173

Received: 18/02/2021

Respondent: Christopher & Laura Cross

Number of people: 2

Loss of green belt- contrary to national guidance
Depriving community of natural amenity
Loss of habitat and impact on rare species (curlew)
Increased flooding
Unviable access - single track under railway bridge
Lack of local infrastructure- school places, drainage, transport
Constraints would prohibit delivery of affordable homes
Proposal does not take account of number of dwellings which have already been built in the area

Object

Representation ID: 1180

Received: 19/02/2021

Respondent: Mr Anthony Elston

Loss of green belt- breach of 4 of the 5 purposes
No evidence that brownfield sites have been prioritised in the Plan- missed opportunity for other areas with derelict sites
Flooding
No provision for additional school places

Object

Representation ID: 1211

Received: 22/02/2021

Respondent: Ms Lorna Bird

Ilkley is a conservation area
Loss of greenbelt- potential for merging of Ben Rhydding and Burley
Brownfield sites in Bradford should be utilised
Climate impact- increase of flooding
Increase of traffic and pollution and congestion on local roads
Impact on local wildlife - particularly curlews
Pressure on services- sewerage, schools
Access via narrow roads and single lane under railway bridge

Object

Representation ID: 1266

Received: 23/02/2021

Respondent: Mr Stephen Jordan

Sewerage storage tanks cannot cope and regularly are discharged into the river
More houses will exacerbate flooding
Loss of green belt - impact on view on approach to Ilkley from the east. Important gateway into the town
Empty properties and brownfield sites in Bradford
Pressure on schools, increase of cars
No need
Development will be unaffordable to first time buyers

Object

Representation ID: 1279

Received: 26/02/2021

Respondent: Katharine Graham

Green belt should not be built on- merging with Burley
Other brownfield sites available
Ilkley is a sensitive landscape
Flood risk - fields are always wet. Further building will create more problems. Climate emergency more flooding in the future
Proposal is incompatible with zero carbon future- more people will bring in more commuters
Inadequate infrastructure- education, access, sewage systems and transport
Impact on countryside- Ilkley moor, wildlife, trees
Impact of infill development has not been counted

Object

Representation ID: 1290

Received: 27/02/2021

Respondent: Mrs Janine Bromley

I would like to object to building on the above site for various reasons –

As this site is a GREEN BELT site it provides natural areas for a number of animals, trees, birds and of course us the residents of ILKLEY. Whilst walking in these areas I have seen so many of birds which are in decline like the Curlew I understand the nest and feed in these areas. Deer are also a common site along with many other birds animals and plants.

I have lived in Ilkley all my live and seen for myself countless time this area flooding and it happens more often nowadays due to global warming.

The sewage sites in Ilkley and Ben Rhydding are not capable now so how are they going to deal with an extra 130 homes?

Traffic must be another point another 130+ from this site going onto the A65 is already so busy causing traffic jams, monings, evenings and all weekend. More and more pollution.

I am very concerned about the environment we should be trying to us sites that have already been used not new sites that can never be replaced. I’m sure the are factory sites unused buildings that can be redeveloped in the Bradford area.

Thank you for your attention to this very important issue.

Object

Representation ID: 1302

Received: 11/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Steve Amos

This green belt land should not be spoilt by expanding Ilkley out towards Burley.
I recognise that Bradford Council is required to plan for additional housing, but I have not seen any analysis that suggests that ALL brownfield sites have been built on and that there is no alternative.

Object

Representation ID: 1307

Received: 11/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Michael Rayner

This is the worst proposal of the four. Apart from my objection to development of precious green belt land there is no mention of any provision for a number of problems. 155 houses each with two cars. Possibly 500 children and adults. Can health, schools and town parking take that extra number? There is no mention of access onto the overcapacity A65. These houses will be developer boxes without any individuality.. The site regularly waterlogs. If this is the "tourist town" Bradford wants us to be why spoil the incoming tourists view of the world famous Cow and Calf rocks. In association with the development of Sun Lane this makes Coutances Way a ribbon development. Bradford Council were against that? How many "affordable" homes will there be and what is classed as "affordable?" There is a reason people want to live here which does not include this type of development.

Object

Representation ID: 1387

Received: 13/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Geoff Davidson

Coutances Way Site IL3/H
This objection is based on the following:
• Principally the unjustified and unwarranted loss of Green Belt, thereby removing the protection to the environment and locality that Green Belt status provides. In this location it also provides the foreground to a unique, attractive and valued gateway view of Ilkley Moor and Cow and Calf Rocks.
• Increased pressure on local roads, parking and pedestrian facilities. Specifically on existing constraints at the railway underbridge, and Denton Road river bridge.
• Implementation of a much denser housing development which is inconsistent with the existing residential area
• Loss of habitat for large numbers of visiting and resident birds and wildlife

Object

Representation ID: 1407

Received: 13/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Reg Haigh

TRAFFIC CONGESTION PLUS NO THOUGHT OF INFRASTRUCTURE AT ALL.

Object

Representation ID: 1412

Received: 13/03/2021

Respondent: Suzanne Holdsworth

High density of new housing in one area - excessive.
Very negative impact on the visual landscape, impacting on the view of Ilkley as visitors enter from the east.
Very limited retail and service facilities within a near distance of the site, which will encourage considerably more road traffic into the centre of town, which already suffers from considerable congestion.
(NB - the Plan map and text describe Ilkley as having two post offices; this is incorrect as the post office in Ben Rhydding no longer exists.)

Object

Representation ID: 1434

Received: 13/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Robert Hartley

I object to the building of 155 dwellings on this site. It is a very obvious and grievous encroachment into the Green Belt. This land is in daily use for animal husbandry.
The only practicable vehicular access point is onto Wheatley Lane which is the same short stretch of road that already has a major junction (Valley Drive) and a Traffic Light controlled single lane section. This development will impact greatly upon traffic levels in the already busy Valley Drive, Bolling Road and Ilkley Centre.
Another major concern is infrastructure, and especially sewage. The River Wharfe is routinely inundated with raw effluent owing to the inability of Yorkshire Water to manage Ilkley's current sewage outflow. This will only increase the problem.
Finally, I am surprised at this proposal as I was under the impression that part of this are was going to used as additional parking for Ben Rhydding Station.

Comment

Representation ID: 1440

Received: 13/03/2021

Respondent: Dr Geoffrey Cloke

To create 300 extra houses in Ilkley, without improving local transport and local facilities is a mistake. Ilkley already has insufficient parking to support commuters and the roads through the town are already overcrowded. 300 extra houses will be 300 extra cars.

Object

Representation ID: 1454

Received: 13/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Geoffrey Dickinson

The relative historic eastern border of Ben Rhydding housing is Wheatley Lane (leading into Ben Rhydding Drive) with its green pastures beyond.
It would be a obscene blot on the landscape to build the proposed 155 dwellings on this particular site.
In practical terms the area is subject to heavy flooding, and any access to Wheatley Lane will cause severe traffic disruption. Not only in any construction but permanently on that busy road with bus routes and restricted entry under railway bridge. Also any diverted traffic would only move the problems on to Valley Drive!
Please reconsider this particular site even though I appreciate you do have certain new housing targets to try to meet.
It does appear as though Ben Rhydding is being targeted to provide a far greater proportion in this regard.

Object

Representation ID: 1457

Received: 13/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Diane Jones

Adverse visual impact on Green belt and entrance to town. Why destroy this beautiful area?
Great concern about proposed huge increase in traffic on an already very busy area. The main road (A65) already has long queues often and the road up to the bridge in BenRhydding by the station could not cope with such an increase in traffic.
Flooding problems increased and overload on an already struggling sewerage system. There are already problems with the sewage plant in Ilkley emptying its overload of sewage into the river. How could it cope with such an increase?
No increase in secondary school provision. Existing school bursting at the seams! Is this another case of ticking a box for more houses and not increasing the necessary amenities to go with it!

Object

Representation ID: 1460

Received: 13/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Paul Smith

This is on greenbelt land.

Object

Representation ID: 1470

Received: 13/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Jamie Swinstead

This proposal seeks to destroy green belt, place additional burden on already congested roads, place additional strain on already struggling school and medical services and will devalue the charm, beauty and history of what is one of the Dales most treasured sites.

Object

Representation ID: 1510

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Christina Craven

One of the reasons we chose to live in Ben Rhydding are the stunning views driving along the A65 to Ilkley. 300 new houses built here will completely ruin this approach to Ilkley. Removing these fields between Ilkley and Burley will change the special character of our town.
Furthermore these fields are regularly sodden and are outlets for natural springs. For much of the year the fields look like a reservoir/ nature reserve.
Ilkley has already been cut off in the past due to flooding. The A65 was not passable earlier this year due to flood water. Building a further 155 dwellings will only exacerbate flooding.
Traffic flow and congestion at the railway bridge, Ben Rhydding is already busy and difficult to negotiate. In the 21 years we have lived here we have seen many bumps and scrapes.
I am very concerned about losing the character of Ben Rhydding.

Object

Representation ID: 1511

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Sally Mason

Environmental and sustainability objections
Flood risk issues have been identified. Local residents can attest to the frequency of these flood events. Climate change is an ongoing threat, building on greenbelt land that currently acts as a natural defence is inappropriate and jeopardises Bradford Council Strategic Core Policy which states its aim to avoid increasing flood risk.
New residents will be obliged to make multiple car journeys for access to work and services. These mulitple journeys will, consequently, increase congestion, traffic emissions and place strain on existing education and health care services. The development of this site is at odds with Bradford Council Core Development Plan, there are insufficient existing services and public transport opportunities locally to meet new resident needs who are then obliged to make multiple car journeys.

Object

Representation ID: 1527

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Robert Bayton

Unnecessary green belt development - brownfield sites across Bradford must be considered first.
Surface water flooding - natural ground drainage replaced by impermeable surfaces.
Limited facilities - no apparent plans to account for increased number of residents. Schools, doctors and pharmacies.
Dangerous traffic access - junction of Valley Drive and Wheatley Lane already unsafe due to poor visibility. Another access road to IL3/H would exacerbate this.

Object

Representation ID: 1532

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Mark Selby

Considered unsuitable in view of wildlife value and local drainage. Lower parts of the marked areas include spring lines and building may impact on drainage on surrounding areas. Site is highly visible from north of the valley and encroaches into limited green space between Ilkley and Burley.

As with other green-field sites, these should only be considered after brownfield sites in Bradford have been used.

Over development of the Wharfe Valley will impact on transport links which are overwhelmed already with head traffic on the A65 and crowded trains. At least part of this land would be suitable for a landscaped park and ride to Leeds / Bradford using the local station.

Object

Representation ID: 1538

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Joan Firth

Development too large when considered with IL1/H for the same reasons as given in my comments on IL1/H

Object

Representation ID: 1558

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Paul Davies

Inadequate proposal for highway access - should be directly from A65
Green Belt and environmental considerations.
Impact on existing infrastructure.
Risk of flooding

Some development could be tolerated but not to the extent proposed and not at the cost of the proposed station car park.

Object

Representation ID: 1571

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Liane Crampton

I am objecting to this as there is already far too much traffic in the area, i worry for the children playing outside, the environment as the land is green belt. Also people use valley drive and wheatley lane as a rat run to avoid the traffic on the A65. These homes are not going to be affordable and will inflate house prices even more in the area.

Object

Representation ID: 1574

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Mr David Byrne

This is encroaching on the greenbelt area and is over-development of a site of this size.
Will lead to increased traffic congestion and accidents on Wheatley Lane and Coutances Way.
Increased pressure on local amenities such as schools, doctors, dentists and parking near train station.
The loss of this greenbelt land will increase surface runoff to the river leading to increased flooding in local amenities such as Ben Rhydding Hockey and Sports Club.
The road is one way under the railway bridge and 155 houses is likely to lead to over 300 cars and increased congestion under the railway bridge.
The houses will be built right up to the Scout Hut Boundary and likely lead to disputes as the Scout Hut is used 7 days a week by local community groups including outdoor adventure activities on an evening. This is the only facility in the local area for older children/youths.

Support

Representation ID: 1593

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Chris Rye

Fulfils a need.

Object

Representation ID: 1647

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Janet Clarke

This proposal is absolutely ludicrous - these fields frequently flood following rain. Access is proposed from Wheatley Lane - 150 cars going in and out at the point of a junction with Valley Drive with reduced visibility looking up Wheatley Lane towards the railway bridge due to the bend in the road there. 150 houses is not sustainable on this site and will impose implications for additional student numbers at local schools.

Object

Representation ID: 1656

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Alison Roe

I object to the use of Green Belt which is there to protect the area and keep the town to a reasonable size; your proposal would ruin the character of the landscape, the view to the Cow and Calf Rocks as visitors approach Ilkley - undermining the very landmark which attracts so many visitors and brings business to the town. The proposal will place huge burden on the local services including trains, schools and roads. Traffic on Wheatley Lane and the junction with Coutances Way will be greatly increased yet it is already the main route for buses and delivery lorries. The trains are already over full and cannot be increased in size. The secondary school is already over stretched. Proposals here (and at Burley) will place huge demand on infrastructure. It will detract from the area and undermine the very reasons why Ilkley is currently a thriving town.

Object

Representation ID: 1657

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: Michael Butterworth

Huge increase in traffic issuing onto local roads, that were not built to accommodate.
Sprawl in direction of Burley in Wharfedale, unacceptable blot on landscape.