Consultation Question 121

Object

Representation ID: 23

Received: 09/02/2021

Respondent: Mr Simon Mydlowski

The two sites in Ben Rhydding don't work from an infrastructure and geographical point of view. Take Wheatley Grove, the topography of the site is akin to a ski slope.

Object

Representation ID: 32

Received: 09/02/2021

Respondent: Mrs Alexis Riley

Wheatley Grove and Constance Way in particular are both beautiful areas which deserve preservation. The traffic which would increase on Wheatley Lane and Valley Drive wouldn’t be sustainable even with intervention.

The green belt sites in this area are now supporting nesting red kites. Flooding in lower areas is also an issue. The sewage is already a concern for the river wharfe and the rise in houses would be a serious concern for water health.

Object

Representation ID: 52

Received: 10/02/2021

Respondent: Miss Lorna Nash

After living in ilkley my whole life and enjoying these green spaces I’m deeply saddened they are trying to be taken away from us! The roads, schools can’t cope with more people and traffic. The parking problem in ilkley is so bad. Our small town can’t take all the traffic as it is without adding to it with 300 extra homes. Green belt is green belt for a reason!

Object

Representation ID: 55

Received: 10/02/2021

Respondent: Mrs Shelley Jordan

Ilkley which cannot absorb 300 new families.
Poor infrastructure to support the increase in numbers of young children requiring nursery places and schools are already oversubscribed.
The water treatment plant struggles to deal with the current volume of people living here and the site in Ben Rhydding will be pushed right up against it preventing an upgrade of the site.
The value of green spaces has been highlighted during 2020 and seeing them as building sites is damaging to the communities both physical and mental health.

Object

Representation ID: 258

Received: 17/02/2021

Respondent: Mr Adrian Wheway

This proposed developments are too large. The size of the proposed developments will sacrifice a significant amount of green belt.
Some of the land on which housing will be developed is in a flood risk zone 1 area.
Secondary school provision in Ilkley is already stretched - with little capacity to cope with more residents.

The A65 often has traffic queuing throughout Ilkley - building more houses around the A65 will worsen the problem.

Object

Representation ID: 348

Received: 21/02/2021

Respondent: Mrs Lucy Roach

I object to building on the greenbelt. It's not necessary when there is so much brownfield land available in the district. The proposed sites will lead to a strain on traffic management & on public transport, plus on Ilkley & Ben Rhydding's provision eg education, GP services etc. The Coutances Way site is also prone to flooding.

Object

Representation ID: 413

Received: 24/02/2021

Respondent: Mr C Elliff

The three proposed greenbelt sites in Ilkley, and the one in a conservation area, should not be developed, or there is no point in having such statutory designations, whilst there are still massive under-utilised brownfield sites in Bradford district sustainably closer to education/work sites. The two sites particularly in Ben Rhydding are currently very exposed to springs and flooding which the climate emergency will only exaccerbate and impact surrounding properties not currently affected - adding more tarmac will not help. Ben Rhydding surface drainage and underground drainage is already inadequate, and sewage works are discharging surplus effluent every 3 days.

Object

Representation ID: 454

Received: 25/02/2021

Respondent: Mr Alan Moody

By your own professional assessment the proposals for development in Ben Rhydding and Coutances Way have a moderate or greater adverse impact on Green Belt provision. It’s hard to see how you choose to pursue that strategy when there are many other brown field or less sensitive areas which could be developed elsewhere in the district.
Every council has a social and economic duty now to avoid doing anything to harm the natural environment. Please look elsewhere. This makes no sense when there are other areas that could benefit much more from the investment.

Object

Representation ID: 457

Received: 25/02/2021

Respondent: Mr Neil Collins

Bradford has a plentiful supply of brownfield sites that have not been developed.
In her judgement dated 8/6/2020 in Aireborough Neighbourhood Development Forum vs Leeds City Council, Mrs Justice Lieven found that it was wrong to leave Green Belt sites in a development plan solely because the Council wished to reduce the numbers around the district proportionately. Green belt should be removed from the plan and brownfield sites built on first.
This judgement is surely just as relevant to Bradford.
Our Prime Minister's "Build Build Build" announcement on 30/6/2020 said brownfield building would be made easier to protect Green Belt. This should be borne in mind and our Green Belt not built on.

Object

Representation ID: 541

Received: 26/02/2021

Respondent: Mr Paul Birch

Ref IL1/H, IL2/H, IL3/H, IL4/H
Detrimental impact on areas of scenic beauty and reduction in green belt. Detrimental impact on infrastructure , which is already overburdened eg schools, medical, traffic parking, pollution. Object to solely online responses allowed!! - disenfranchising those who cannot access internet., and the deadline of March 24th is too soon to allow sufficient considered response.

Object

Representation ID: 594

Received: 01/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Nick Robinson

This represents an over development in Ben Rhydding and unnecessarily destroying large tracts of green belt.

Object

Representation ID: 767

Received: 05/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Peter Garland

Consultation Question 121: Ilkley Site Allocations

IL1/H – Ben Rhydding Drive, Wheatley Grove (130 homes)
IL3/H – Coutances Way (155 homes)

I strongly object to these two proposals.

These proposals constitute the vast bulk of the plan. Both are on Green Belt land and together pose the biggest threat to the rural environment and the character of the town. All the objections cited above in response to Question 120 apply.

Object

Representation ID: 951

Received: 08/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Patsy Bastow

Although I appreciate the need for housing I am of the opinion that the proposals will place unsupportable pressure on the local infrastrusture. Local schools already operate at capacity, as do doctors and dentists. The increased amount of traffic on Wheatley Lane will increase problems through the railway bridge in Ben Rhydding.

Object

Representation ID: 1125

Received: 10/03/2021

Respondent: Grizelda Collier

There is insufficient medical and school support. Houses built on The Drive have resulted in sewage rising in gardens. The infrastructure cannot cope with sewage problems.
It is in a green belt and should be protected for future generations.
There are plenty of brown sites that can be used in Bradford eg disused mills.
There are not the jobs available in Ilkley which would mean more commuters and create an even greater and more dangerous situation on the roads.

Object

Representation ID: 1458

Received: 13/03/2021

Respondent: Mr David Archibald

Encroachment onto Green belt land, at the boundary of Ilkley; if this application is successful, the sprawl of housing between Burley and Ben Rhydding increases and my worry is this will continue to erode the green belt. Recent developments such as Stansfield Close, Emmandjay Court etc have already added strain on local infrastructure, notable schools, GP surgeries and roads. Finally, the map shown is out of date and unrepresentative of the local area - notably Stansfield Close, a significant development is missing.

Object

Representation ID: 1472

Received: 13/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Jamie Swinstead

Please refer to my comments in consultation question 120.
You are killing our planet by eating into our greenbelt. You are eroding the charm of our town by taking away its natural, beautiful surrounds.

Our infrastructure is struggling. Growing the town with more houses for more people is not the answer.

Object

Representation ID: 1555

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Paul Davies

Housing density.
Infringement of greenbelt.
Inadequate highways and social infrastructure.

Object

Representation ID: 1649

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Deborah Nice

I strongly object to the plans to build 300 houses within the plan on the sites identified. These will be a blight on the landscape in each case and reduced the vista of the town. The existing schools and local infrastructure will be negatively affected.

Object

Representation ID: 1689

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs jo gibson

Environmental impact not fully considered, Covid impact on levels of need fo r housing and infrastrucutre needs to be taken into account

Object

Representation ID: 1694

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 alternatatives . 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: 1838

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Glenn Miller

Objections to development in Ilkley include:
1. This is Green Belt land;
2. The need for these houses has not been evidenced;
3. These developments will not result in the type of housing which Bradford needs nor where Bradford needs it;
4. This development will exacerbate existing congestion and parking problems;
5. This development will not be affordable housing;
6. There is now and will certainly be after development, a lack of infrastructure;
7. Access to particularly site IL1/H is very limited.
See attached.

Object

Representation ID: 1947

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Paul Niblett

Please see alternative sites attached.

Local Plan Team - refers to SHLAA site IL/005 - site is already within the list of commitments.

Object

Representation ID: 1965

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: 2136

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Louise Atherton

The information is inaccurate on both health care and sport facilities and has been poorly put together . My main objections are there is no infrastructure to support this development the local schools are mainly fully subscribes and the local health centre full- there has been alot of care home development in this area and no additional funding to support the healthcare needs that come with it , much of it is on a flood plain ie Coutances way is always flooded. Green belt should be preserved . The traffic on the A65 is shocking and will get worse through this development. It will with the developments in Burley join Burley and Ilkley into a town the size of Keighley which would need s similar set of resources.

Object

Representation ID: 2217

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Simon Camby

Ilkley is a place of attraction to both people that live in Ilkley and visitors. Part of that attractions is the sense of history alongside space and beauty. The proposed developments appear to seek to fill green spaces around the town. This serves only to close in the feel of the area and further congest already busy and dangerous roads which are overserved at the current time.

Object

Representation ID: 2662

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Neil Matthews

Scale of proposed developments will damage the character of the town and its 'tourist draw'. Important in this is the increase in the physical size of the town, the impact on the surrounding (beautiful) landscape and access to this by those within the town, access both by walking and by sight
Permanently destroys green spaces with corresponding damage to the environment

Object

Representation ID: 2706

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Tahira Ali

This town cannot support additional housing as does not have core infrastructure such as school, parking and main road being link road causing frequent traffic jam.
Also green belt site needs to be protected and should be designated for the housing for environmental reasons.
ILKLEY grammer school expansion plans have already been shelved and primary schools are full capacity too.

Object

Representation ID: 2797

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Jack Hanson

Not only is there no demand for more housing in Ilkley/Ben Rhydding, it is appalling that green belt sites are being proposed for development. Ilkley is a thriving town whose unique character comes in large part from its greenness and small size. Not only are these sites important to residents for the town's beloved image, they provide vital habitat and corridors for wildlife and help to manage the flood risk. Greenfield sites should only be developed as a last resort when there is an overwhelming demand, this is simply not the case. If the Bradford area needs more homes, there are plenty of brownfield sites in Bradford city and the surrounding area that are far better suited for this purpose. Do not destroy Ilkley's precious green spaces, and exacerbate the existing problems with the town's infrastructure and public services. There is no logical, practical, or moral support for this plan.

Object

Representation ID: 2864

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Agnieszka Stachura

I am objecting to the allocation of development of dwellings in all sites of Ilkley, because of the lack of capacity to respond to the needs of new inhabitants to services like schooling, police, transportation, parking, and health care.
The proposal will significantly change the unique character of town and its surrounding, making it less attractive and hindering its development as a touristic and ecological centre of the district, potentially lowering its value in the social and economic terms.

Proposed dwellings do not have any practical justification in the light of worsening climate collapse. The process will destroy natural unique, protected areas, bring further ecological imbalance and potentially increase the flooding to the sites and surrounding areas.
All four sites have high flood risks, either on the land or on the boundary, expected to have significant river and surface flooding. Climate collapse is only likely to increase these risks.

Object

Representation ID: 2983

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Elizabeth Williams

In the cases of IL1, IL2 and IL3, green belt land is being encroached upon. There is no indication of radical design aspirations that would in any way come close to off setting the loss of habitat for wildlife and carbon sequestration afforded by the flora. There is no indication of any consideration of the current views on climate crisis, biodiversity crisis and need for radical, regenerative approach required to respond appropriately in the case of urban masterplanning/design. These are not degraded areas that would benefit from built environment enhancement. These are valuable natural resources, under threat from ever encroaching development. Development on these sites alters the overall character of Ilkley negatively, including the proposed development on IL4.