Object

Representation ID: 7386

Received: 07/03/2021

Respondent: Nancy Moss

Land is vital to retain a good habitat for wildlife, and trees need to be protected and nurtured for universal benefit.
We are worried about potential flooding and drainage, and alarmed at the prospect of increased traffic with the attendant congestion and pollution. We already find crossing Wheatley Road and Bolling Road hazardous! and we have noticed the traffic pollution on these roads.

Comment

Representation ID: 7423

Received: 07/03/2021

Respondent: Maureen Johnson

Development of the site could affect the stability of the railway embankment below it which is fragile and has experienced problems in the past

Object

Representation ID: 7436

Received: 08/03/2021

Respondent: Neil Thurston

Ilkley already has a significant issue with the Victorian sewerage system become regularly overwhelmed and overtop raw sewage into the River Wharfe – development of this scale will only exacerbate this problem causing even more ecological damage and potential human health effects to river users and local residents.
As an environmental consultant I work on many projects for a number of Local Authorities and Industry clients and I know that there are a great many Brownfield sites that can, and should, be prioritised for redevelopment instead of Green Belt land. In January 2019 you declared a climate emergency and developed a Sustainable Development Action Plan – development on Green Belt is in direct contrast to this: the number of homes being proposed for Green Belt cannot be justified.

Object

Representation ID: 7472

Received: 08/03/2021

Respondent: David Allen

Why build on green belt land when there is so much brown field land available elsewhere in the Bradford district? Such as around Dockfield Road where land has been disused for over 30 years. A little building is planned now, but only on a fraction of the land available. Am I being cynical that brown field land requires cleaning up and/or access problems solving and consequently it is easier for developers to build on greenfield sites and make higher profits?
Lack of joined up thinking - department stores and shops closing down in city centres - shopping habits of the public are very unlikely to change in the foreseeable future, Council should encourage disused department stores to be rebuilt as housing, encouraging a cafe style city living culture and a growth of local, smaller shops closer to hand. This is environmentally sound and will encourage living close to major transport links, remove unsightly brown field sites, boarded up shops AND preserving the Greenbelt.

Object

Representation ID: 7555

Received: 10/03/2021

Respondent: Simon Boon

Many areas of land in Bradford district which are NOT part of the green belt. Plan proposes using valuable, protected green belt land. This makes no sense, harms the natural environment, is to the detriment of the whole area.
The field provides a natural soak for water running off Ilkley moor. Ben Rhydding Drive already floods when it rains heavily. This will be severely exacerbated if the field were to be paved.
All schools in/around Ilkley already over-subscribed -are unable to accept additional students.
The loss of natural environment, harm to the local eco-systems would be irreparable and wholly unnecessary.
Sewage/other services -already severe issues in Ilkley. Additional houses would overwhelm an already struggling system.
Additional households and associated vehicles would put a huge/unsustainable burden on already busy roads.
Trains to/from Leeds -already full at rush hour. Those living in Guiseley are unable to get seats. This will only get worse with this proposal.

Object

Representation ID: 7858

Received: 10/03/2021

Respondent: Mr David Pepper

Number of people: 2

Objection to building application.
General objections.
1. Flood zone - site well known for flooding and not suitable for building.
2. Infrastructure - not there to support all proposed sites in Ben Rhydding.
3. Site access and traffic levels. - inaccessibility of site and area not able to absorb increased traffic activity.

Ecological issues.
This particular site is developing into a wildlife haven. Wildlife using the site include Deer Pheasants Ptarmigan Barn owls Red kite and kestrels also visit to feed off the small mammals such as fieldmice (endangered), voles, etc.
Any construction interference with this delicate balance would be unforgivable.

In passing, the proposed site off Wheatley Lane / Coutance Way is in flood zone also and again increase traffic levels would cause long term problems.
In addition extra parking for the station would be required for both sites.

Object

Representation ID: 7870

Received: 10/03/2021

Respondent: Nicky Solloway

This is a beautiful field, which is a cherished piece of nature in the local community. It is greenfield and Green Belt and adjoins deciduous woodland priority habitat and TPO trees.
During the lockdown it has been a haven for people to walk through and it is crucial for community well-being. I also believe it is an important habitat for birds and small mammals. Barn owls have been spotted very nearby, as well as deer.
I am not opposed to building new homes and I do realise there is a housing crisis, but what about the brownfield sites that could be developed?

We need to protect green-belt and stop the loss of biodiversity, habitat and nature. Green-belt development does not fit in with the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals which the Government signed up to.

Please re-consider and do all you can to protect our nature, rather than destroy it.

Support

Representation ID: 7964

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Rachel Huxham

Supportive of the release of greenbelt areas IL1/H, IL2/H, IL3/H for sustainable housing development noting proximity to services & existing housing, and not within flood zone.

Object

Representation ID: 8070

Received: 08/03/2021

Respondent: William James

1. The proposed site is on green belt land with no natural boundary to stop them expanding further in the future. This would put even more green belt land at risk on top of the currently proposed sites.
2. The proposed two larger sites would also increase the busy traffic on the local roads. The roads are already constrained by the train line (for example the single lane tunnel under the train line on Wheatley Lane has a dangerously narrow pavement and cars racing to beat the new traffic lights either side of the tunnel).
3) Brownfield sites should be developed ahead of removing green belt

Object

Representation ID: 8098

Received: 12/03/2021

Respondent: J K Trotter

1. This site has, been given the status of Green Belt, currently protected by the Government’s National Policy Framework.
2. there are currently available many brown field sites, already supported by existing facilities and services, which can both meet and exceed the housing requirement
3. Today, there is even a stronger public emphasis and desire to protect the local environment in every way possible and to safeguard the countryside from further encroachment. This proposal shows no respect for the declared national and regional objectives of sustainability and a neutral carbon footprint.

4. the building of 130 houses will severely overburden the existing fragile infrastructure of the Ben Rhydding area. Schooling, transport and, in particular, the current drainage and sewerage systems will all be severely and adversely affected.
5. this site has an exceptional outdoor recreational value for the Ben Rhydding area. The centre of the site has an ancient copse which is protected by TPOs.
6. This site also has a major historical and cultural significance. It also falls within the Habitat Regulation Assessment 2.5km zone for both Nidderdale AONB and Ilkley Moor whereby that land is protected from any development.
7. The character of a single massive development such as that being proposed could not blend in harmoniously and visually (especially from across the valley)

Object

Representation ID: 8099

Received: 10/03/2021

Respondent: Barbara Davy

•The southern site off Wheatley Grove would further add to the traffic difficulties – access is up a steep hill. Site is also Green Belt which should be maintained.
•In recent years redevelopment of large gardens and the old Middle School site have been done gradually and sustainably within the existing boundaries. These proposals will see an increase in 285 houses changing the shape and nature of the village.
•The increase in traffic in the dangerous area of railway bridge which narrows to one lane. Access to the station is already difficult. Both these sites would increase pedestrians and traffic here.
•Infrastructure including schools will not be able to cope. Proposals are impractical and insensitive.

Object

Representation ID: 8117

Received: 05/03/2021

Respondent: Dr R G Rawling

•Green belt should only be used if there are no brownfield sites available within the district.
•Using Green Belt will destroy its potential to remain as a natural habitat.
•Building 285 houses cannot be justified.
•Houses should be built for occupants who would be employed locally, not have to commute, not increasing congestion and pollution.
•Insufficient employment locally for 285 families.
•Additional burdens would be placed on infrastructure, schools, health services.
•Houses would not be affordable and even the cheapest properties will escalate on resale.
•Site should be used for tree planting which would be more sustainable and benefit the community.

Object

Representation ID: 8126

Received: 10/03/2021

Respondent: Joan Matthews

•Green Belt land is important for environment/well-being.
•Importance of green corridors for local wildlife.
•Brownfield sites available in wider Bradford should be used rather than green belt. Brownfield redevelopment can be of huge benefit to community. Green belt development is of no benefit to the local area.
•500 houses approved in Burley-in-Wharfedale will lead to encroachment into the countryside. The proposed developments will encroach further reducing the green belt/separation between Ilkley/Burley-in-Wharfedale.
•Additional homes lead to additional residents/cars. Concern for children walking to school from increased traffic.
•Ilkley Grammar already over-subscribed. School cannot expand on existing site. Some pupils from Ilkley will be unable to gain a place.
•Coutances Way/Manor Park Bends often underwater. Increased run-off from developments would increase flood risk/further exacerbate flooding.
•Existing sewage sites regularly overflowing their storm surge capacity and unable to cope with existing demand.

Object

Representation ID: 8130

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Ilkley Town Council

Ilkley has declared a climate change emergency and as such should be reducing the need for travelling to town the centre, work, school, leisure facilities etc. The building proposed at IL1/H is unsuitable for building. Firstly, there is no infrastructure linking this development to the local centre. A car would be required for access by many people, children will not be able to walk or cycle to school and people with reduced mobility will certainly need to travel into Ilkley or Ben Rhydding by car. The increased of car use in this area goes against our aim of carbon reduction and to reduce air pollution caused by car travel. New housing developments are said to generate 5 - 7 additional vehicle movements per day and given that 150 dwellings are planned for this area, it is a lot of increased traffic. Further problems arise access to Wheatley lane which is congested.

Object

Representation ID: 8178

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: CPRE West Yorkshire

We’ve not been able to visit the site ourselves, but concerns have been brought to our attention by local groups in Ilkley. In addition to the strategic level, we have identified the following sites which we believe to have an impact on the local area:
▪ IL1/H
▪ IL2/H
▪ IL3/H

As stated in our objection comments on policy SP5, proposed development within the Green Belt across the district shows a net density averaging around 26 dpha, well below the HO2 minimum of 35 dpha. These sites identified in Ilkley are lower still, with gross densities of 18.11, 16.95 and 20.92.

We also note that IL4/H, while not in the Green Belt, is also the subject of significant local concerns especially about flood risk.
We would suggest that the development needs of Ilkley need to be re-examined from the perspective of producing more compact development at significantly increased density, thereby improving walkability, having much-reduced landtake and allowing for real enhancements to green infrastructure and flood management.

Object

Representation ID: 8186

Received: 16/04/2021

Respondent: Victoria Thomas

1. Building on Green Belt Land
•The approval of 500 houses in Burley-in-Wharfedale and these proposals will significantly reduce the separation between the towns.
•Green Belt is there to protect character, stop towns merging and sprawl.
•Building on Green Belt land is against the regulations when there are adequate brownfield sites in Bradford district.
2. Detrimental impact to Character
•Proposals would significantly change the character of this historic town and surrounding areas.
3. Lack of Infrastructure currently and with no further plans to develop
•Infrastructure is at capacity and issues with a lack of parking, doctors, schools, dentists and sewerage systems unable to cope.
•Sites are proposed on flood risks areas.
4. Road Safety
•Wheatley Road (train bridge) and Valley Drive junctions are high risk for accidents and not suitable for pedestrians.
5. Additional Development already in place.
•Proposals ignore additional building of around 30 houses per year in Ilkely.

Object

Representation ID: 8189

Received: 11/03/2021

Respondent: Mael Matthews

•Green Belt land is important for environment/well-being.
•Importance of green corridors for local wildlife.
•Brownfield sites available in wider Bradford should be used rather than green belt. Brownfield redevelopment can be of huge benefit to community. Green belt development is of no benefit to the local area.
•500 houses approved in Burley-in-Wharfedale will lead to encroachment into the countryside. The proposed developments will encroach further reducing the green belt/separation between Ilkley/Burley-in-Wharfedale.
•Additional homes lead to additional residents/cars. Concern for children walking to school from increased traffic.
•Ilkley Grammar already over-subscribed. School cannot expand on existing site. Some pupils from Ilkley will be unable to gain a place.
•Coutances Way/Manor Park Bends often underwater. Increased run-off from developments would increase flood risk/further exacerbate flooding.
•Existing sewage sites regularly overflowing their storm surge capacity and unable to cope with existing demand.
•Thorough environment impact study not undertaken.

Comment

Representation ID: 8197

Received: 11/03/2021

Respondent: Martin Smith

•Access is difficult with station dedicated parking being inadequate
•Poor access through stone gate onto Wheatley Lane.
•Alternative access via Wheatley Grove where the road is very steep with blind visibility will be equally dangerous.

Object

Representation ID: 8374

Received: 12/03/2021

Respondent: Jean Wilson

Local infrastructure will not be able to cope with the additional residents - roads, sewerage, utilities, drainage, parking, health, emergency services
Schools are already full
Local character will be harmed
Cost to environment from 260 additional cars
Site is green belt
Development will cause flooding
Area is well-loved area for walkers and families- safety especially on Ben Rhydding Drive, where there are no pedestrian walkways

Object

Representation ID: 8404

Received: 12/03/2021

Respondent: Maura Fisher Peake

Number of people: 2

The loss of vital greenbelt land just outside the town would be detrimental to the health of all of those who live in the area.

Also the access for traffic onto Wheatley Lane is hazardous. The dangerous junction is near the bridge which has only just been corrected by a one-way traffic light system. I cannot see how a large amount cars can safely come and go on that road. Please make a detailed site visit.

The fact that this piece of land has lots of underground springs and is a flood risk must also give the council pause for thought. I know the builders of the land that was to be the site of the large Tesco store, but is now residential care, had unforeseen expense finding solutions to the springs, let alone a flood risk.

Object

Representation ID: 8415

Received: 12/03/2021

Respondent: Andrew Irwin

Consultation has been rushed to satisfy national housing need and use of designated Green Belt land for housing which ensures towns do not merge is a disgrace.
Over time detailed consultations with local people may mean small alterations could be considered provided surrounding character is enhanced.
Loss of wildlife habitat and biodiversity, increase of urban sprawl and potential of important entrance to Ilkley
Increase in water run off flooding
Development in the town could mean 5,000 more people and 2,000 vehicles - chaos to the transport infrastructure when commuters will inevitably drive their cars to the nearest railway station. The new Ben Rhydding railway station car park would soon overflow with people from Burley and the A65 will struggle to accommodate the new traffic flows - congestions, increased carbon footprint,

Object

Representation ID: 8425

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Stephen Clough

I would like to object and state that I am against all the proposed planning proposals for extra housing in Ilkley which have been suggested in the recent Bradford District Local Plan Consultation. My objections are based on my believe that the extra housing would have a detrimental effect on local schools there is not enough places at Ilkley Grammar School already the Doctors are over full appointments are at a premium on top of which the Bradford Council appear happy to overload the area when you can't get a bus direct to Bradford itself.

Object

Representation ID: 8429

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Drusilla Wiggins

PROPOSAL OF 285 MORE HOUSES

This means valuable green space is lost space that has meant and will mean for those of us who try to walk not far from our homes for physical and mental health.
To me both sites have been so beneficial and to see them full of houses cars and people is devastating news.
Question.
Where will the children go to school? Numbers are high already
How will the traffic be managed both on Wheatley Grove and Coutances way... joining at the A65 already queuing traffic.

Can our medical centre cope with even more numbers, they are already stretched with a shortage of GP's

To have to use my car to find green spaces to exercise as an older person is not acceptable.
For me to walk up Benrhydding drive quietly, and see the sheep the green open space is priceless.

This town will be spoilt for sure!

Object

Representation ID: 8433

Received: 12/03/2021

Respondent: Yvonne Craig

Site is an area of great beauty
Site floods and its development will speed up water to Coutances Way and risk land stability (railway line)
Underground springs
HRA (2.5km)- impact on wildlife area
Impact on trees and fauna and is a feeding ground for protected species
Site is green belt - the green belt assessment and SA should rule the site out as impact is major. Its development will not assist urban regeneration. Brownfield sites should be considered first
Development cannot be achieved which harmonises local character
Access and pedestrian safety - Ben Rhydding Drive has no footway
Local services are more than 2km thus increased traffic volumes
SA notes no positive effects from development
Site provides panoramic view and is attractive for walkers and families in Winter

Object

Representation ID: 8488

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Sally Dexter

I oppose the 130 dwellings proposed on the IL1/H Ben Rhydding Drive, Wheatley Grove site for four reasons:
1. The surrounding feeder roads are not suitable for an increased volume of vehicles, with a number of already dangerous junctions that would not support more traffic at the bottom of Ben Rhydding Drive and at Wheatley Grove as it meets Wheatley Lane;
2. The impact on (protected) insects, wildlife and fauna;
3. The impact specifically on the (protected) trees on the site;
4. The drainage and possible subsidence implications - with ground water already being problematic on and surrounding the steep site.

I believe a more appropriate site for housing in Ben Rhydding - from both a wildlife protection and flood perspective - would be the field on the B6382 and Valley Drive (behind the 'Factory Shop' and petrol station on the A65) and in line with (i.e. an extension of) the housing on Stansfield Close.

Object

Representation ID: 8598

Received: 12/03/2021

Respondent: Christine Redhead

Field is steep and boggy field.
Half of proposed houses would be too many for the field as the access from Wheatley Grove is unsuitable for such an increase in traffic.
Schools Doctors are virtually full and the roads through the valley are extremely busy and often at a standstill. Our family can’t afford to buy a house in their home town and I doubt the building of these houses on green belt will improve their chances .
Green belt should be left as green belt for all to enjoy.

Object

Representation ID: 8668

Received: 19/04/2021

Respondent: Andrew & Christine Harper

Number of people: 2

The approach to Ilkley on Coutances Way is particularly attractive, but severely congested at times, the newly opened Garden Centre is presenting its own problems.
Additional traffic will only add to the problems. Wheatley Lane at Railway Bridge is a bottleneck
Loss of an area of natural beauty
Access is narrow road - limited pavements for pedestrians, speeding traffic
The field is liable to flooding, there are examples of standing water and flood water rushing on to the Drive, not to mention the springs behind properties in Woodroyd Gardens
The field is an asset to the community with it's copse of trees, some with TPO's, bluebells and so many other wild flower species, a friendly environment for curlews and other ground nesting birds.
During the past year the number of people using the field for exercise for their physical and mental wellbeing
has been staggering,

Object

Representation ID: 8670

Received: 12/03/2021

Respondent: Ann Gillon

The site is green belt areas. Housing on the site would be a catastrophe to Ben Rhydding and Ilkley.
Flooding areas
No infrastructure for any more inhabitants re schooling, GP services, parking.
Bradford Council have no consideration for the inhabitants of Ilkley and surrounding areas.
Money is the main objective.

Object

Representation ID: 8688

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Dom Haslam

•Proposed developments will negatively impact the town’s character.
•Scenic beauty between Ben Rhydding and Burley-in-Wharfedale will be reduced as well as views to the moors.
•Wildlife will be negatively impacted by the reduced space.
•Green Belt land I assumed was protected from development. Brownfield land should be developed rather than greenfield sites. Development of greenfield sites is contrary to planning policy.
•Proposed developments will exacerbate existing flood risk issues. The sites proposed currently absorb large amounts of rainfall which will ‘runoff’ if developed.
•Proposals will have a negative impact on infrastructure.
•The B6382 and A65 are congested. B6382 not designed for additional traffic and is unsafe. Concern for children crossing these roads. Health impact of increased traffic.
•No capacity in existing schools for additional children.
•Town centre becomes very overcrowded. Parking issues.

Object

Representation ID: 8756

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Jordan Fieldhouse

The plan is more about revenue raising than making a sustainable plan.
It is wrong to develop green belt sites without any real justification.
The sites in Ilkley will have moderate or major impact on the green belt.
Ilkley can already get cut off during periods of heavy flooding with the only access in and out then being on the moor road which is unsuitable for large volumes of traffic. Mitigation measures will only move the water into the River Wharfe more quickly and cause flooding pressures downstream.
New homes will put huge pressure on traffic flows
Walking under the railway bridge is extremely dangerous.
Impact on the current infrastructure.