Object

Representation ID: 6131

Received: 02/03/2021

Respondent: Sue Head

•Flooding risks – Coutances Way and land off Skipton Road – causing serve disruption. Building plus climate change will cause greater impact to residents/services.
•Character of current area between Ilkley/Burley will change and cause a lack of distinction.
•Increase in traffic on A65, a major traffic route which is heavily congested. Further development will cause more traffic, congestion and pollution in Ilkley.
•Environmental concerns:
Wheatley Grove within the protected Ilkley moor site. It should specifically be avoided.
Coutances Way is an area significant for curlew nesting and feeding.
Coutances Way and Wheatley Grove provide significant wildlife habitat with protection orders to protect them.
Ben Rhydding and Ilkley sewage sites already stretched/unable to deal with current capacity, regularly overflowing.
•Secondary school serves whole area and at capacity. School cannot accommodate current proposed developments in Addingham/Burley.
•The proposals fail to take account of the developments that have taken place and are planned.

Object

Representation ID: 6135

Received: 02/03/2021

Respondent: Lindsey Spencer

I wish to object to the proposed house building on green belt land in Ilkley for the following reasons:
1. There are brown field sites in Bradford which could be used instead.
2. The areas provide refuge for wildlife including curlews which will be gone forever if built on.
3. Ilkley and Ben Rhydding sewage works cannot cope with current amounts of waste and most days of the year allow waste to overflow into the river.
4. The only secondary school is oversubscribed and has no capacity to expand.
5. The area is one of natural beauty which will be eroded by building hundreds of houses on green belt land.
6. Green belt was designated as such for a reason which should be respected.

Object

Representation ID: 6139

Received: 02/03/2021

Respondent: Richard Archer

•Using Green Belt should be a last resort.
•The Wheatley Grove site is a green site near the moorland providing a lung for Ben Rhydding. Development would change the atmosphere of The Drive and its architecturally interesting villas.
•Ben Rhydding has expanded significantly. When combined with Ilkley does not have adequate schools, parks, playing fields or medical facilities. Additional development would put pressure on already oversubscribed schools. There are no plans to move the Grammar School to provide for the required extra places and one of the sites was previously earmarked for its relocation.
•Traffic issues on the single track road under the railway line.
•These sites should not be developed. If developed they should not be high density. Developers should fund an expanded Ben Rhydding primary school or build a new school. New development should have adequate playing space, plant significant trees and maintain green area for nature.

Object

Representation ID: 6142

Received: 02/03/2021

Respondent: Oliver Lewis

•How can the council justify building on Green Belt when there are numerous brownfield sites within the District?
•Development at these sites will expand the existing boundary reducing the distance between Addingham and Burley. Will the entire Wharfe valley eventually be joined up?
•There are no plans put forward to increase/expand GP services, schools or local amenities. Existing services already in high demand.
•Has the additional amount of traffic from each new property been factored into the plan?
•Has any regard been paid to the scenic setting of the town?
• Homes at IL2/H and IL3/H will spoil the landscape when entering Ilkley.
•Also the effect on local wildlife and trees in these locations.
•How can the council make these plans (building on green belt, adding to stresses in local services/infrastructure) without having regard to their own policy on maintaining the uniqueness of the town, enforcing strict planning laws and TPOs.

Object

Representation ID: 6152

Received: 06/03/2021

Respondent: Richard Wiley

It is not necessary to build in beautiful Ilkley as there are many brownfield sites in the Bradford area which would be suitable. The whole character of the area will be spoilt. The roads would become an eyesore.
The proposals would be a disaster for Ben Rhydding creating an eyesore and destroying valuable and beautiful green fields. The developments would most like lead to a huge devaluing of local property and greatly increase traffic and air pollution. The road infrastructure around the railway bridge on Wheatley Lane is inadequate and there would be intolerable congestion especially at “rush hour”.

Object

Representation ID: 6156

Received: 06/03/2021

Respondent: Katie Simons

Secondary school is full- development would impact on standard and delivery of education to local children
Flooding and strain on sewerage systems
Green belt site- impact on wildlife and natural habitat, moderate risk of impact is not acceptable level
Impact of development on local character and local services (GP) and schools

Object

Representation ID: 6167

Received: 07/04/2021

Respondent: Jessica Murray

Firstly I am opposed to developing on green belt. There are plenty of brown land sites that are not being used throughout the district of Bradford. Furthermore due to the pandemic there will be plenty of office blocks which will be unable to be used in the future purely because the workforce will be working from home more often. Please think about how these can be converted into holes before destroying land.

Secondly I’m opposed due to the ‘already at capacity’ infrastructure in ilkley. Schools are at their limit which means more homes with 2+ kids means 600 potential children adding into the primary and secondary school system. The catchment area for IGS is already narrower than it was when I attended in the 90’s. I lived at the top of Addingham and my parents house is now out of IGS catchment and further houses basically will continue to devalue these houses and more.

Object

Representation ID: 6172

Received: 11/03/2021

Respondent: Ruth Rhea

Green Belt
• Protection is provided by the Government’s National Policy Framework.
• The clear prerequisite to building on greenbelt is to use all brownfield sites prior to green belt.
• There are many sites in Bradford and there is also likely to be further availability through the conversion of now empty commercial units in Bradford and Ilkley. These should be fully investigated first before building on green belt.
• Once this green belt land has gone, there is no way to retrieve this back which in the spirit of the environmental crisis we are facing, is not justified.
• The Council’s “Site Specific Green Belt Assessment” of IL/009 (aka IL1/H) where the site is acknowledged to have a MAJOR negative impact on the GB policy (‘ to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment’ should in itself mean this site should not be developed.
• Given one Major and two Moderate scores have been allocated, this site should not be developed.
Sustainability
• The Sustainability Appraisal/Strategic Environmental Assessment itself concludes “A major adverse effect is predicted on the land and buildings SA Objective due to the loss of greenfield land.” This should mean this site is immediately ruled out as the site is deemed unsustainable.
• A second Major adverse effect is acknowledged on biodiversity and geodiversity (see Section 6). No major positive effects are noted.
• The reports need to review again the historical and cultural elements of the site which seemed to have been ignored in the various reports.
• The employment section suggests that ‘Residents at the site would have excellent access to the diverse range of employment opportunities in the centre of Ilkley”. This of course has been dramatically changed by Covid but also the majority of residents are employed in Leeds or elsewhere, not in Ilkley.
• Travel to school generates a huge amount of traffic and this would have a significant impact on sustainability.
• There is already huge pressure on school capacity, particularly for secondary schools in the area. With the approval for the neighbouring Burley Sun Lane site (500 houses) from Central and local government and potentially the additional development at Coustances Way, the schools such as Menston St Mary’s and Ilkley Grammar will be under huge capacity constraints. Significantly more families will have to travel further to schools generating more traffic and impacting the wellbeing of families through the need to commute longer distances to schools or being placed in schools away from their friends – this can’t be underestimated in terms of stress this can place on children.
• The local primary school is Ben Rhydding, which is a one-form intake will likely be put under additional strains as well as other pre-school childcare options.
Flooding
• Ben Rhydding Drive which is on the lower slope of the proposed site already has flooding issues during heavy rainfall with significant run off from the moors, golf course and surrounding fields.
• My own property further downhill from the proposed site has already had to be reinforced from flooding with additional drains and raised kerbs to mitigate this, at my own expense.
• The drains all along the road struggle with this rainwater as it is and if this land were to be developed then further flooding issues along the road would be worsened for more homes.
Road and pedestrian safety
• The junction of Bolling Road and Wheatley Grove, and the road section under the railway tunnel is busy and there are already problems with speeding and very dangerous crossings for pedestrians. These have already been raised with the council through various consultations. Personally I have huge difficulty crossing sections of the road with a pram where in certain directions and due to parked cars, you have no visibility of cars going at high speed through the tunnel and up onto Bolling Road.
• An additional say 300+ vehicles plus delivery and service vehicles will have a significant impact on this road section , having to negotiate under a single file railway bridge , potentially then clashing with traffic from the further developed proposed at Coutances Way/part and ride sites.
• Delivery vehicles across the country and in this area have increased significantly during lockdown with online delivery and there would be a huge amount of traffic hitting this junction and to the entry of the site.
• The shortest route from the railway station/Bolling Road for pedestrians is through Ben Rhydding Drive where the road also acts as a footpath. Only a short section of footpath is available at the beginning of the drive before pedestrians walk on the road. Residents walk along this road but it is also very popular with walkers, dog walkers and cyclists due to the rural setting.
• Residents of the new development are highly likely to use Ben Rhydding Drive as a footpath and this will increase danger for pedestrians and drivers along this route, particularly in the winter months/evenings. There are also a number of wheelchair users already using this road with no footpaths available.
Scenic/ recreational value
• As mentioned, the area is used by a lot of week and weekend walkers, runners and cyclists and a housing development would significantly detract from the attractiveness of the area for recreational activity and countryside views.
• This has increased hugely during lockdown.
• The view from the field itself provides panaromic views across the Wharfedale valley.
Flora and fauna
• The entire site falls within the Habitat Regulation Assessment 2.5km zone both for Nidderdale AONB and Ilkley Moor where land is protected from development.
• The site borders a priority wildlife habitat which would be seriously impacted by pets from the proposed development.
• The copse and a number of other ancient trees are protected by TPOs, blue bell woods, a huge number of wildflower species and curlews use the field as a feeding area in Spring, all of this acting to demonstrate the need to fully comply with the legislation as above.

Object

Representation ID: 6177

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Peter Mate

In relation to the four proposed sites in Ilkley/BR, I submit the following points:
3) and 4). Wheatley Grove (130 units) and Coutances Way (155 units) are both huge proposed developments, and unacceptable for a wide range of reasons. A total of 285 new family homes will undoubtedly have a deeply negative impact upon the Ilkley Community. They would add to the existing strain on local services, in particular in relation to schooling places, medical services, and increased traffic and transport pressures. The two proposed sites are significant and disproportionate, and will damage our community. Both these proposals are unacceptable, and I write formally to raise my objections.

Object

Representation ID: 6284

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Lightowler Associates

IL1/H Ben Rhydding Drive releasing a large greenfield site for high density development of housing in an area with low density high quality properties will detract from ambience and amenity of the area.

The above whilst not contiguous with is very close to IL3/H Coutances Way, another large greenfield site for high density development of housing.

Both these developments will put increased pressure on current amenities, communication and traffic flow; the latter includes a narrow single track railway bridge.

The advisability of releasing two greenfield sites for high density housing development in the same area of the town should be reassessed. The proposed two developments will add 285 households, representing 90.8% of the proposed housing developments in Ilkley. This will put enormous pressure on that part of the town and alter the whole ambience of the area.

Object

Representation ID: 6348

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Nicole Dillon

•Object to these sites as they are green belt land.
•Green belt is there to protect wildlife and provide green space for people.
•Building on these sites will decimate the habitats of hundreds of species of plants, insects, birds and animals.
•People come to the are to enjoy the countryside location. Building on these sites will damage tourism which is valuable to Ilkley, the surrounding areas and local businesses.
•More housing will increase traffic on busy roads. It will lead to further parking problems with no mention of designated areas for parking.
•Ilkley Grammar School is already over-subscribed as are many local primary schools, medical practices, dental practices etc. More housing will add more pressure to these public services.

Object

Representation ID: 6430

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Simon Baxter

Please note this is my objection to further houses being built in Ilkley and Ben Rhydding.

My concerns relate specifically to IL1/H and IL3/H.

Object

Representation ID: 6575

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Richard Pickett

•The protection of Green Belt land is enshrined in planning documents.
•Green Belt land should only be used as a last resort in "exceptional circumstances".
•No evidence provided for the proposed development sites in Ilkley. There is no legal standing to take this action. It defies logic that you cannot find suitable brownfield sites to allow 300 plus houses to be built in the next 17years.
•No provision for the addition traffic;
•Demand for GP services would increase;
•Ilkley Grammar is over-subscribed;
•Additional school support and other essential services would be stretched.
•Ilkley centre and A65 are already a traffic bottlenecks, current air quality is poor in summer and this proposal would make the situation worse.
•The number of brownfield sites in Bradford, must be substantial, given the historic "Mill/industrial sites" now standing derelict/un-used.
•The Council should re-consider these proposals and leave the Greenfield sites alone.

Object

Representation ID: 6586

Received: 11/03/2021

Respondent: Ian Henderson

The areas proposed for housing off Wheatley Lane and between Wheatley Grove and Ben Rhydding Drive propose to destroy what The Green Belt is supposed to be there to protect. It would be part of a progression to join Ilkley to Burley and via Menston/Guiseley/Yeadon/Rawdon/Horsforth/Kirkstall to the centre of Leeds. The two areas I refer to are beautiful and relatively unspoilt, with the upper area between Wheatley Grove and Ben Rhydding Drive still preserving in the landscape the old coach road from Ben Rhydding up almost to the site of the former Hydro. This area also absorbs a great deal of moisture draining down off The Moor, thereby serving as a sort of elevated/sloping 'flood plain'. If it is built on, more water will descend to the river valley below, where we have seen significant flooding in recent time. Ian Henderson, Ben Rhydding.

Object

Representation ID: 6683

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Dudley Feather

I feel that the proposals IL1/H and IL3/H are too high density.

Object

Representation ID: 6701

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Jacqueline Watson

I very strongly object to the proposals to build houses on green belt land in Ilkley and Ben Rhydding.
This refers to plans IL1H, IL2H, IL3H and IL4H.

If more houses are needed other sites must be found.

Object

Representation ID: 6702

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Adam Scott

I write in relation to the following applications:
Site IL1/H Wheatley Grove
Site IL2/H Skipton Road East
Site IL3/H Coutances Way
Site IL4 Stockdale Road
and in particular that concerning the field on Ben Rhdding Drive We have only just moved from Bingley; we moved indeed to escape development of the fields below our house there by the canal and are surprised to encounter again the urban sprawl that threatens what little is left of our Yorkshire countryside.
I enjoy walking now that I am retired and the traffic in this area already threatens the safety of my dog and I; we see a number of other residents similarly threatened as they walk for instance to local schools (which I understand to be full to bursting already) and I see too the pressure on local medical services.

Object

Representation ID: 6739

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Stuart & Joan Quarmby

Number of people: 2

We object to this unnecessary loss of valuable green belt land. It is important that Ilkley retains it’s identity through it’s clearly defined boundaries and that these boundaries are not lost by urban sprawl.

Whilst we sympathise with the Council’s obligation to identify land for housing, using this part of the country’s green belt is not the answer. One only has to travel by train from Ilkley into Bradford to see acres upon acres of surplus brownfield land ripe for re development as housing. The Council should use this in it’s entirety before even thinking about developing our green belt.

Further, there appears to be an error in the online description of IL2/H, at the top of the description it says 20 indicative dwellings but later on states 30 estimated. Which is it?

Object

Representation ID: 6753

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Dr Oliver Sykes

•Need to maintain greenbelt and no properties should be built on greenbelt.
•Any building should be on brownbelt or redevelopment opportunities.
•There are significant issues re pressure on the towns infrastructure. Particularly with respect to schools. An additional proposed increase is not appropriate for the level of infrastructure the town has.
•Also concerned re the effect on traffic.
•Also an significant environmental issue. We need greenbelt area to help absorb water and planting more trees in this area would delay water release and reduce the risk of flooding. The town already has a significant issue with flooding as seen over recent years. Adding housing and its associated loss of surface area for drainage and slow release increases flood risk in the area.

Object

Representation ID: 6815

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Dr Roger Cook

I object to ALL developments on green belt land in Ilkley. I particularly object to the site in Ben Rhydding wher the EU designated of importance that ground nesting birds should not be disturbed.

Object

Representation ID: 6851

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Jon Tighe

I would like to log an objection to then current local plan out for consultation. Specifically areas IL1/H, IL2/H, IL3/H, and IL4/H.

I do not believe green belt land should be used for development and there is no clear explanation how local services will meet increased demand.

Object

Representation ID: 6884

Received: 07/03/2021

Respondent: Annet Nottingham

These plans involve development on green belt areas. These fields between Ilkley and Burley in Wharfedale are important to the natural beauty and are a natural demarcation between the two towns. A strong enough case has not been made for the use of the green belt area, as there are numerous brown field areas available in the Bradford district that would not have the same negative effect on the beauty of Wharfedale.
The impact on the roads and general infrastructure will be significant and contribute to the congestion and parking problems.
It will put further pressure on schools, doctors' surgeries and other amenities. I am particularly concerned about the impact it will have on local secondary schools.
Quite regularly there is signifcant flooding in these fields. The development would also have a significant negative impact on the natural environment and Ilkley Moor as an SSSI.

Object

Representation ID: 6895

Received: 07/03/2021

Respondent: Jenny Wholley

Any incursion on to Green belt land should not be allowed - there is no justifiable reason for development on this site.
The size is disproportionate for the size of the town
The site is covered in water courses which would make any development problematic and result in pushing water to other areas to course further problems.
The site is a wildlife haven including trees with TPO’s and in the buffer zone of the moors .
The site will increase in traffic, which will exacerbate the problems around the Ben Rhydding Station and bridge. In normal conditions the queues in to Ilkley are a nightmare without adding further cars. I foresee more road accidents!
Ilkley schools cannot take any more students nor does the Grammar school have any more land to extend further.
Leisure facilities (Bradford Council owned) are not fit for purpose.
The infrastructure is not able to cope as the best of times, sewage noticeably being a problem.
This is a money making gambit by Bradford council to try and milk the Ilkley area as much as possible by taking as much council tax as possible and giving virtually nothing back.

Object

Representation ID: 6950

Received: 19/02/2021

Respondent: Mr Christopher Armstrong

1) The site is part of the Greenbelt and has a Woodland Protection Order . In addition many of the trees in the field are subject to Tree Preservation Orders.
2) Current drainage infrastructure cannot cope.130 houses on this site will increase run off and cause more flooding.
3) With 130 houses and say an average of 1.5 cars and 3 people per house this means an extra 195 cars. The junction of Wheatley Grove and Wheatley Lane - pavements are narrow and often people pushing wheelchairs and prams have to walk on the road. In addition at peak times traffic backs up from the A65 under the railway bridge and into Ben Rhydding village.
4) Schools in Ilkley are already full and it can be difficult getting GP appointments.
5) Wheatley Grove is a steep hill and when it snows it is often not gritted as the snow plough cannot get up it.

Object

Representation ID: 7044

Received: 02/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Sam Hadfield

Land is especially beautiful and used commonly by the local people during snowfall as a sledging runway. It is also an area commonly used by the nearby housing estates as a convenient green space to exercise and relax. The destruction of this space should not be taken lightly. This area would likely see premium housing costs due to its location near the Cow and Calf, and as such would fail to deliver low-cost housing. I object thoroughly to this usage of the space. Much better would be to build upon its current use and turn it into a community garden, heightening its already considerable value as a space for local residents to relax in.

Object

Representation ID: 7211

Received: 05/03/2021

Respondent: Kevin Dixon

Development would create a number of negative impacts:
Trains are over overcrowded- travel to work place often involves private car travel
Road congestion on A65- further cars will exacerbate problem
Access from Wheatley Lane - traffic already backs up on this stretch of road. Wheatley Grove is narrow and semi blind due to gradient. It is also steep and hazardous in winter
Negative visual and environmental impacts for visitors
Overloaded sewerage system which discharges into River
Development will exacerbate flooding south of Coutances Way
Site is an area of open space/amenity for residents and habitat for wildlife
Ilkleys infrastructure is stretched - schools, medical services, parking (in town)
Derelict sites available in Bradford which could be used

Object

Representation ID: 7217

Received: 11/03/2021

Respondent: Rebecca Lee

The areas are in flood risk zones which if built on make the flooding problems in Ilkley worse.
The areas are places where numerous different species of wildlife are homed.
A big issue would be with the already maxed out high school places available to current residents of Ilkley, burley and Addingham - there wouldn't be enough places to accommodate all the additional children.

Object

Representation ID: 7221

Received: 10/03/2021

Respondent: Alan Strachan

Why are you planning to build houses on Green Belt in this area ?

The Government’s policy on protection for the Green Belt is set out in chapter 13 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in 2012, which clearly states the importance of Green Belt land and emphasises that when protecting the Green Belt, local authorities should maximise the use of suitable brownfield sites before considering changes to Green Belt boundaries. -I have attached a copy of the Government National Planning Policy Framework for your reference

The Brownfield Sites available in Bradford Council is huge and according to your website it states:

“The purpose of the register is to promote sites with unimplemented planning permission for residential development and to identify further opportunities where land is suitable for new homes in the District, to encourage re use of the land/buildings, stimulate regeneration and drive up housing delivery.”

There are NO Brownfield Sites in Ilkley

Object

Representation ID: 7226

Received: 11/03/2021

Respondent: Drusilla Wiggins

I am very concerned about the plan for more housing in ben rhydding.

My question is about the infra structure of our area to accommodate more families.

Traffic?? Schools?? Medical facilities??

These are important questions that need to be answered realistically.

We moved into ben rhydding 41 yrs ago and it was a lovely town with a lot less traffic, only 1 set of traffic lights and green fields. It is now becoming an extension along with Burley to Otley.
The traffic which will be going thro the benrhydding station bridge is already considerable.
Have you considered ALSO the traffic situation at the traffic lights and the" toll bridge" road.
That is already a dangerous "road rage" position

Please please reconsider

Object

Representation ID: 7318

Received: 07/03/2021

Respondent: Carole Riley

Local Schools/doctors surgeries/dentists - Further houses will place further pressure on schools unless there is a plan to provide a new school in preparation
Loss of green space, recreation area, wildlife habitat