IL3/H - Coutances Way

Object

Representation ID: 1661

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Robert Armstrong

Yet more destruction of greenfield land by unimaginative development afraid to address the mess of Bradford's industrial heritage and reclaim brownfield sites across the district. This area teems with wildlife - deer are common - and should be left untouched.

Object

Representation ID: 1675

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Ian Waterland

This site is the original site for a relocated Ilkley Grammar School and remains the only Council owned location in Ilkley that can accommodate a suitable size School to serve the needs of Ilkley and the surrounding towns.
There is no mention of how the schools will be improved or increased in capacity to accommodate potential a large influx of school age children.
Furthermore the proposed access to the site will create potential traffic problems as it will be opposite Valley Drive and therefore necessitate 4 way traffic lights with the introduction of a potential 310 cars. This will compound the problems at the railway underpass which had only just had traffic lights installed to make it safer.
This is a poor location for new housing

Object

Representation ID: 1676

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: Mr David Scally

Given that Ben Rhydding has one butchers shop, one cafe and one pub, any residents of this proposed development would be likely to drive frequently to Ilkley. So you,re proposing to put an extra 155 cars on the roads of a town with a recognised parking problem. Which is madness.
Additionally any dwellings to the north end of this development will inevitably flood, as anybody round here could tell you. Those fields are flooded several times a year.

Object

Representation ID: 1686

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: Mr John Prowse

Ilkley has few large green spaces remaining and the fields on the outskirts of the town provide a much needed rural boundary that preserves the towns identity. 155 dwellings in this area would change the landscape of Ben Rhydding dramatically, putting additional pressure on local services and fundamentally altering the way that the town operates.

Object

Representation ID: 1698

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Jonathan Procter

Building on Green Belt land is in contravention to the Government’s aims and objectives.
The NPPF demands that there should be “exceptional circumstances” before Green Belt boundaries can be changed and states that inappropriate development is harmful to the Green Belt and should be approved only in “very special circumstances”. These circumstances do not apply here. BDMC has not shown that Ilkley's housing needs warrant releasing greenbelt land in accordance with the NPPF requirements , nor that it has considered appropriate alternatives . Ilkley is a cash cow for BDMC and is yet again being milked for the benefit of other districts . It is an tourist spot because of its green belt surroundings , and BDMC's proposals will damage this and promote a dangerous precedent

Object

Representation ID: 1706

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Mr John Pinnington

Prime gateway site which would be an ideal location for a new Grammar school, freeing up that town centre and more sustainable site for residential development itself. Release this land and you start the ‘creep’ towards Burley

Object

Representation ID: 1726

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Tim Kingsman

Again object on three grounds:
Environmental- this is green belt land, in uninterrupted green space close to AONB and within protected zone of SPA. The surrounding fields already suffer considerable flooding which this development may well exacerbate.
Insufficient traffic infrastructure- the impact of 250 plus vehicles from 155 dwellings will be significant on Wheatley Lane. Although this proposal is entitled Coutances Way it is being misconstrued as it has no access to it, with access to Wheatley Lane and thus further traffic issues at the junction with Coutances Way where significant queuing already occurs. This would also exacerbate the issues caused by proposal IL1/H.
Insufficient School and work opportunities: there are already insufficient school places within Ilkley at primary and secondary level and those moving here would not work in Ilkley but would in all likelihood travel to Leeds to work.

Object

Representation ID: 1727

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Leslie Saunders

This site should not be removed from the green belt and used for housing.

It should be used for a relocated enlarged ilkley grammar school that would be able to accommodate all the future educational demands and special educational needs for the wider area over the plan period in a modern, safe and highly sustainable environment with immediate access to its school playing fields.

This was fully accepted by the council as an appropriate "exceptional use" in the green belt when proposed under the PFI iniative.

Such a development would enable the reuse of the existing school site for housing development in a far more appropriate and sustainable location where a more affordable and urban housing mix can be provided with better access to facilities infrastructure and employment with reduced need to travel by car.

Object

Representation ID: 1742

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Jessica Guilding

The proposed development of this site is the most concerning of them all. You have stated building on this site would have a MAJOR impact on Green Belt a MAJOR impact on openness and that this site could be at risk of flooding. Alongside this this site is within the setting of a Grade II listed building and requires further assessment for accessibility. Despite suggesting this site would have the biggest impact in a number of different areas you have proposed the largest development with 155 houses. The enhancement of surrounding green belt is unlikely to be able to compensate for the loss of such an important space. Again if this development was approved despite the major concerns listed it sets a worrying precedence for the ability to build on future areas which play an important role in preserving wildlife, culture and the wellbeing of residents.

Object

Representation ID: 1768

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Nicholas Beeson

The access proposed is insufficient, even with modifications. When the build of the new Grammar School was proposed for this site some years back, the effect on traffic movement was a critical factor in rejecting it. The current proposal is much worse in that respect. Public transport access is also insufficient for a development of this size. The bus service is minimal; adding this new population to rail passengers would effectively remove the service as a viable option for passengers from further down the line.

Object

Representation ID: 1791

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Alan Chandler

This is Green Belt land which should not be destroyed for future generations.

Object

Representation ID: 1804

Received: 13/02/2021

Respondent: Dr Nicola Coldwell

Loss of Green belt & narrowing the gap to Burley will change the feel of Ilkley.
-Increased traffic & pollution: locally and passing through the heart of Ilkley.
-Ilkley's Victoria sewage plant discharges every third day into the river (granted clean water status) development adds to the problem.
-Every opportunity to reuse brown field sites/unoccupied houses must be exhausted?
-Site is wet/ frequently underwater; flood plain;s damaging visually & to wildlife, area of great beauty.

Object

Representation ID: 1808

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Marian Callender

Flooding issues
Busy road with long queues at traffic lights already an issue
Pressure on local services such as schools, drs and parking will be made worse

Support

Representation ID: 1818

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Ian Smyth

While greenfield should always be a last resort, of the available options in Ilkley this is a good site. The assessment accurately summarises the issues with the site - with flooding being key, but this could be avoided with a small decrease in number of units. A comprehensive SUDS solution for the site will be critical. However the site has no direct amenity value to the public.

Transport connections are excellent. As are access to community, leisure and countryside assets.

I would strongly urge the incorporation of the best zero carbon technology and good public access through the site (proposed Greenway, but also links to the footpath to the nature reserve).

I live very close to the site and will be personally negatively impacted by the development. But I recognise that it has the potential to be an extremely high quality addition to the town.

Support

Representation ID: 1820

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Mike Daw

This site is big enough to support all of Ilkley's housing allocation if the density is increased to near 50 dwellings per hectare, as is permitted for sites near a transport hub. This would enable more affordable housing to be built, which is in very short supply in Ilkley. Housing should be properly sustainable: excellent insulation, carbon neutral/positive, and encompass electric heating/cooking (not gas). Minimal space should be allocated for private cars - other options should be considered such as car clubs and bike sharing. Because it is so near Ben Rhydding station, this is far more viable. As much space as possible should be allowed for green infrastructure (e.g. micro-forests) and allotments. The wetland area below the site should be converted into a nature reserve, complementing the nature reserve on the opposite side of the A65. Native trees should be planted to shield the site from the road.

Object

Representation ID: 1833

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Julia Kay

IL3/H - Coutances Way

The land is unstable. Permission was refused to build a new grammar school. Over-development of a green field site. Increased traffic going into Ilkley and onto the A65 via a narrow underpass under the railway. The Ilkley Grammar School and local primary schools are full.

With the massive development agreed for Burley-in-Wharfedale there should be no need for building on this Green Field land.

Object

Representation ID: 1885

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Suzanne Shaw

The main concern which I have is the current infrastructure and the negative impact which this would have on it. We know from personal experience that school places are at a premium so the proposed plans would require a re-think in school provision as well as other services such as GP provision

Object

Representation ID: 1939

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Peter Callender

The local infrastructure can not easily support another 300 homes.

Object

Representation ID: 1967

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Helen Miller

Objections to development in Ilkley include:
1. It is on Green Belt land;
2. The need for these houses has not been evidenced;
3. Will not be the type of housing Bradford needs;
4. Congestion and parking problems;
5. Will not be affordable housing;
6. Infrastructure lacking;
7. Loss of neighbourhood amenity and huge visual impact;
8. Access to Wheatley Grove and particularly site IL1/H is very limited.

Object

Representation ID: 2001

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Sarah Haines

This piece of green space is owned by the Council and should be preserved as open public space for the recreational enjoyment of everyone.
Additional tree planting would increase its contribution further, mitigating climate change effects and by improving drainage and flood management. This is an ideal opportunity for the Council to be pro-active in improving the environment for the people and the planet.

Object

Representation ID: 2013

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Thomas Kay

This area, year-round, is wet, with regular standing-water and flooding. Much of it is flood plane, and any properties built here would at an early stage become uninsurable.
The suggested development of 155 dwellings would give rise to an increase in vehicles and inhabitants that the local roads, schools and general infrastructure cannot support.
Development here would be an unacceptable and indefensible diminution of vital green belt land.

Object

Representation ID: 2041

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Ben Rhydding Sports Club

This development would result in significant sprawl into greenbelt land, loss of openness and spoilt view particularly as coming into Ilkley which is supposed to be a gateway to the Dales, not a housing estate. The Sports Club entertains 1,000s of visitors annually from all over the UK and is known as a picturesque sporting venue with a view of the Cow & Calf and up the Wharfe Valley - all of which would be lost with this proposed development. The Sports Club also suffers regularly from serious flooding from both the river and the road - a hillside development would create significant additional flood risk and any development would need to provide additional effective flood protection for the sports club.

Object

Representation ID: 2047

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Mr ian smith

The Bradford Council must understand their duty of care to this generation and the next. Whilst I understand the legality of building on greenfield sites this is morally indefensible and unless curtailed, years from now Ilkley @Burley will become one and just a glorified suburb of Bradford. The Town cannot accommodate an additional 300+ school places and 300+ cars on our roads. I strongly object to the Wheatley Grove & Coutances Way developments.

The Skipton Road East and Stockfield Rd developments do appear more feasible although the former will cause additional congestion on an already busy road. My thinking is this development should be reduced from the existing proposal of 20 dwellings.

Object

Representation ID: 2064

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Mr David Ward

the river wharfe at Ilkley and Ben Rhydding are subject to regular flooding, several streams from the moors and fields feed into the river here, building on this land will add to the risks of flooding during storms, the area covered by roofs, roads and driveways will run straight into the sewage system and river rather than being taken up by the earth. Extra traffic filtering into Bolling Road and Wheatley road will add to the already congested area where they meet due to the railway bridge. The area is Green Belt and should be left that way. It was created for very good reasons and is being slowly chipped away by housing developments.

Support

Representation ID: 2072

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Suzie Bullock

While I weakly support the plan and site, it would be good to see improved infrastructure and services, including increased provision for school places, doctor's surgeries, parking, drainage, sewage etc. It would also be good to see imagination and nuanced planning. For example, could the site be designed to avoid mass identikit houses? Could plots be available to self-builders? Could plots be sold with a range of designs so people could choose a plot and have their house custom built? Could a survey be carried out to see what sort of housing people want, rather than squashing houses onto a site? Usually, due to space constraints, new builds are townhouses, which are bedroom heavy and sparse on reception rooms. This doesn't suit everybody. Similarly older people might like bungalows; flats could be designed with balconies/terraces so owners still have residential outside space. Will green, leafy space be protected?

Object

Representation ID: 2098

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Gareth SAmuel

This land is green belt and floods. Unacceptable place to build houses, will add hundreds if cars to the roads and will cause an already set of roads to become overloaded. Will change the nature of the town for good shouldn't be allowed.

Object

Representation ID: 2103

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Peter Barron

Traffic volumes from this site will cause congestion and delays at the A65 junction even after any modifications. Building houses on this site will encourage further development along the A65 over time. Existing infrastructure services, particularly school places, are insufficient to cope with the demand generated from all these proposed developments
There were provisional plans for the site to used for a new larger Ilkley Grammar School providing much needed additional senior school places for the surrounding district. That would release the existing school land for new houses better situated for the town amenities. Also contemplated on IL3/H was the provision of a park and ride service thereby helping to alleviate the towns severe parking problems.
Overall a much more elegant solution.

Object

Representation ID: 2105

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Andrea Worrall

I would like to object on the grounds of size. I feel that the number of properties described will have a detrimental impact on schools and local amenities.

Object

Representation ID: 2106

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Andrea Worrall

It is the scale of the development that I object to. This number of houses will impact on school places, local amenities etc.

Object

Representation ID: 2112

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Gwyneth Moss

Ilkley is an affluent town, developers will want to build 4/5 bed detached houses with a high price tag. People who live in these houses will not walk into town or get the bus or train. They will have 2 or 3 cars per house and they will drive. The three roads from Ben Rydding into Ilkley town centre are not wide enough to take the volume of traffic. Parking along these roads is necessary because people live on these roads. Significant increase in the volume of traffic is dangerous and will lead to accidents. There is also not sufficient parking in the town centre.