Object

Representation ID: 8781

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: Tia Fieldhouse

Proposals are about raising revenue than making a sustainable plan for Ilkley.
It is wrong to develop green belt real justification.
Development will have moderate or major impact on the green belt.
Loss of habitat for birds and wildlife
Other housing developments in Burley in Wharfedale, and also the one by North Yorkshire Council will add to the already heavily congested roads.
Problem with single lane bridge with weight restrictions,
Impact on the current infrastructure- roads, parking schools, river pollution, doctors, supermarkets, independant shops
Ilkley and the adjacent towns and villages will slowly merge

Object

Representation ID: 8794

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Beverley Short

Green Belt Land - supposed to be protected, separation between Ilkley and Burley, removal of all the lush fields and wildlife
Brownfield sites and derelict buildings should be used.
TPO’s- not allowed to be cut down and house many birds.
Deer, flocks of curlews. red kites don't spoil their natural habitat.
Flooding – MASSIVE problems, with river and surface flooding.
Infrastructure -
road is not fit for purpose especially under the railway bridge
Traffic will be increased and become even more dangerous.
Higher risk of accidents and congestion in and out of Ilkley.
Sewage system is dysfunctional, raw effluent being pumped into the River Wharfe. Otters live in river
Schools - over subscribed.
Doctors - over subscribed
Supermarkets - nowhere to expand, need more parking and space for additional food storage

Object

Representation ID: 8796

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: Iain Maden

Conservative Party promised to Protect the Green Belt.
Underutilised brownfield sites should be prioritised for new housing.
Plots of brownfield sites in the City and surrounding areas remain undeveloped
It is against the wishes of residents.
Potential infill between the four sites, turning the land between Burley-in-Wharfedale and Ilkley into one large sprawl.
ILH/1 and ILH/3 often flood.
The A65 can be closed by flooding.
Land Stability - a survey by The British Geological Survey raised concerns regarding possible land stability.
Character - very large and damaging changes or remove entirely the small number of fields between the Ilkley and Burley.
The sites have a moderate/major impact on the green belt.
Environment - proposals go totally against the defined local plan put in place to protect the natural environment.
Loss of habitat for birds and wildlife
Impact on SSSI
Impact on TPOs and protected woodland
Sewage system unable to deal with the capacity, the area regularly overflows the storm surges capacity.
School Capacity issues
Increased congestion, dangerous roads.

Comment

Representation ID: 8823

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: T A Vaughan

Developers have no regard for the community, the pressure development puts on local services nor the environmental impact on the surrounding area. They care about selling houses.

Ilkley and Ben Rhydding are assets to Bradford.
Town centre development has been limited to smaller sites, resulting in extremely high density.
Waiting lists for school places.
No availability at local dentists
Large demand for doctors.
Traffic is considerable.
Poor access under the railway bridge, worsened by traffic light system.
Infrastructure improvements wouldn't be sufficient to support scale of development.
School places, are extremely limited.
Doctors surgery's under enormous pressure.
What conditions will Council impose on developers to provide support for these essential services.

Not a question of NIMBYism but concern over a breakdown of key infrastructure to support new development.

Developers will not care about the health and wellbeing of its residents, or safety of the residents and their children. Children going to school miles away, has implications, safety, social wellbeing, accessibility to friendship groups, creates additional traffic.

Object

Representation ID: 8903

Received: 21/04/2021

Respondent: Peter Balmforth

•Disappointed that these green belt sites are included given the plan indicates a major potential impact on green belt.
•Wrong type of housing is continually built – those with a large number of bedrooms as these are more profitable for developers.
•Plan should focus on addressing needs of people who can’t afford to get on the housing ladder.
•The green belt and views make this area great. Development of these sites will have a huge impact.
•Question the need for this many houses and building on green belt. Why can Brownfield sites not be used?
•I propose that brownfield sites are not used because they are less profitable and less desired. Council is putting money before environment.
•Housing should not be built on green belt.

Object

Representation ID: 8945

Received: 21/04/2021

Respondent: James and Andrew Shaw & Mitchell

Number of people: 4

The plan does not indicate how the site is to be accessed.
Ben Rhydding Drive - a private road.
Impact from increased traffic will affect safety, most of the Drive is without pavements and suitable street lighting.
The is in a lane in a rural setting.
It's not an adopted road, and not made up to adoption standard. The cost of its upkeep is paid for by the residents. It will not stand up to any increased volume of traffic without significant financial investment.
Listed stone pillars restrict the access at the bottom of Ben Rhydding Drive where it leads onto Wheatley Lane permitting alternating one way traffic.
Density of development will generate significant volume of additional vehicular traffic and the existing infrastructure will struggle to cope.
Where Wheatley Lane joins the B6382 and as it enters the traffic light controlled stretch beneath Rhydding Railway Station additional traffic will be a problem.
An additional 130 families will impact on community services - schools, nurseries and health facilities, already oversubscribed.
Roe Deer use the site - loss of green belt will effect wildlife.
Priority for development of Brownfield sites.

Object

Representation ID: 8955

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Chris Johns

•Ilkley doesn’t need more housing. Local infrastructure cannot cope with additional dwellings and vehicles.
•Proposals will add significant additional traffic to Wheatley Lane which current backs up at busy times of the day.
•Proposals will alter the drainage of the area and add flooding pressures. Area already suffers from flooding due to proximity to the flood plain.
•Green Belt and greenfield sites should not be built on. There are numerous brownfield sites in Aire and Wharfe valleys which could be repurposed.
•Proposals will have a significant impact on the vista to Ilkley Moor, Cow and Calf Rocks and Burley from A65.
•No need for additional properties, areas proposed are inappropriate and will damage local environment and natural scenery.

Comment

Representation ID: 8989

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: James Wood

This is a slow march to Ilkley becoming part of Burley, and is subject to significant water run off. To put housing here would be irresponsibly and the number of houses would put overwhelming strain on the existing Yorkshire Water effluent plant and cause flooding.
People are working hard to improve the water and environmental condition of our town. Adding 285 houses on this patch would be negligent at best
Where will you plan to put 285 additional children? That would be significant increase in the demand on Ilkley Grammar

Object

Representation ID: 8990

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Martin Smith

•No proposed vehicular access via Ben Rhydding Drive but no information about pedestrian access.
•The Drive is unadopted, narrow, steep with an uneven camber, poor sight lines, no pavements or pedestrian refuges. Problem with speeding traffic. Dangerous for pedestrians. No pedestrian access should be available for this site.
•Green Belt site highly valued by residents as they access the moor. Site can be seen from opposite side of the valley as an open green belt between Ben Rhydding and large residential properties with large gardens built around 1900.
•Concentration of housing is totally out of character with surrounding area.
•Vehicular access is poor and often dangerous.
•Now a single lane for traffic due to vehicles parked on both sides.
•Wheatley Lane/Grove junction is poor with limited sight lines.
•New traffic lights at railway bridge welcomed but will not cope with additional traffic from developments.

Object

Representation ID: 9000

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Adam Irwin

•Ample brownfield sites available elsewhere in the region. No need to build on Green Belt land.
•Already allowed for a substantial and grotesque development in Burley, which will close the gap between Ilkley and Burley. Your plans for Ilkley will compound this urban sprawl, something that central government is against.
•There are practical issues that you seem to be ignoring. School capacity is already under strain and will not support the additional population.
•Traffic volumes are already far too high. The recent development in Burley will compound this as it is. Further developments in Ilkley will raise traffic volumes to an unacceptable level of congestion.
•The above point will compound existing issues with parking availability
The fact that Bradford Council will happily destroy green belt land in the face of climate change (and all the challenges that presents) is baffling. The fact it does so in an area that already faces significant infrastructure challenges, amounts to negligence.

Object

Representation ID: 9045

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: Tony Short

Moderate/major impact on the green belt without justification.
Impact on birds and wildlife.
Land collects rain water and run-off from the Moors.
Ilkley cut off by flooding, only access being moor road which is unsuited to large volumes of traffic.
Mitigation measures only disperse the excess water into the River Wharfe, causing flooding downstream.
Traffic congestion
Congestion will increase as lockdown eases, additional homes, compounded by housing developments in Burley in Wharfedale and North Yorkshire.
Toll Bridge crossing the river from the A65 over to Denton Road is pinch point, how will single lane bridge with weight restrictions and proximity to a busy traffic light controlled junction cope with the increase in traffic?
Impact of recently opened Garden Centre on traffic.
Impact on infrastructure.
Sewerage system (dysfunctional with raw effluent being pumped into River)
Schools oversubscribed.
Parking problems.
Impact on countryside.
Future years - further pressures to develop GB land

Object

Representation ID: 9064

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Sandy Thackray

Regarding the proposed development in Ilkley and Ben Rhydding I am strongly apposed to the development numbers IL1/H and IL3H Firstly they are both in green belt and it is your responsibility as our representative to protect them.
If the developers were aloud to go ahead ,it would put a great strain on an already struggling infrastructure Our schools are overstretched and gp’s surgeries are full to capacity.
Building on Coutance Way would surely add to the flooding problems by taking natural Drainage away

Object

Representation ID: 9069

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Wesley Davidson

These sites are only a hundred meters down down stream from a section of the wharfedale river which regularly floods, blocking the A59. Building on these green belt sites will hasten the passage of water down the valley to the river and will likely worsen the flooding.

My second concern is that these areas act as a buffer between the current urban developements in Ben Rhydding and both Ilkley Moor, allowing a corridor for the passage of wildlife, and is also a significant area for curlew feeding.

My third concern is that Ilkely Grammar School is already operating at capacity, and has no ability to expand.

The proposed sites are almost entirely green belt land. Surely there are other, non - greenbelt areas which can be developed.

Object

Representation ID: 9080

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Philip Dennis

I would like to lodge my objection to the proposal for house building on land between Ben Rhydding Drive and Wheatley Grove. This is a greenfield site in green belt land. This is not a sustainable development as it would permanently destroy a significant area of green belt, converting it into a residential area. The area is a habitat for a variety of wildlife and biodiversity, which will not just move elsewhere it will die due to the loss of its habitat. I urge Bradford Council to seek brownfield sites for development and not to encroach on green belt which once gone is lost forever.

Object

Representation ID: 9081

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Ann Dennis

I would like to lodge my objection to the proposal for house building on land between Ben Rhydding Drive and Wheatley Grove. This is a greenfield site in green belt land. This is not a sustainable development as it would permanently destroy a significant area of green belt, converting it into a residential area. The area is a habitat for a variety of wildlife and biodiversity, which will not just move elsewhere it will die due to the loss of its habitat. I urge Bradford Council to seek brownfield sites for development and not to encroach on green belt which once gone is lost forever.

Object

Representation ID: 9083

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: Jens Schneider

IL1/H (130 proposed dwellings at Ben Rhydding Drive)
My reasons for objection are as follows :

(i) Traffic burden. The increased traffic from IL1 H from both residents and deliveries will overwhelm the capacity of Wheatley Lane, particularly at the single lane bridge at Ben Rhydding station. Similarly the traffic from both developments will produce an unacceptable amount of additional traffic onto the B6382 where it joins the A65. There are already now frequent long tailbacks at these traffic lights.

(ii) In addition an additional 285 homes from both projects will exacerbate the shortage of school places that already exists in Ilkley.

Object

Representation ID: 9202

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: Marion Garrod

Plans have been rushed, discriminate the elderly who may not have computer access.
Sites are more about raising revenue than sustainability. Use brownfield sites and derelict buildings in other towns.
Moderate/major impact on the green belt without justification.
Impact on birds and wildlife habitats
Sites keep us independent.
Land collects rain water and run-off from the Moors.
Ilkley cut off by flooding, only access being moor road which is unsuited to large volumes of traffic.
Mitigation measures only disperse the excess water into the River Wharfe, causing flooding downstream.
Traffic congestion
Safety concerns navigating the pavement under the railway bridge
Congestion will increase as lockdown eases and with additional homes
Sewerage system (dysfunctional with raw effluent being pumped into River)
Schools oversubscribed.
Parking problems.
Supermarkets are small, not enough parking won't be able to cope with extra demand for food
Doctors Surgery couldn't cope with extra patients
Ilkley’s unique character

Object

Representation ID: 9233

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Martin Archer

•Primary schools already oversubscribed.
•Grammar site not fit for purpose. School should be relocated to Coutances Way.
•The proposed density of the sites is high and does not reflect the character of the surrounding area.
•Little playground provision in Ben Rhydding. Provision should be incorporated into the design.
•A65 is woefully inadequate. Already severely congested. Additional properties and visitors will cause additional traffic and seriously impact people in Ilkely causing further air quality issues.
•B6382 under the railway bridge is poorly designed and congested. Additional traffic will exacerbate the problem. This should be addressed before development goes ahead.
•Disproportionate impact on Ben Rhydding. Better to distribute houses between Ben Rhydding and west of Ilkley.
•Coutances Way is part of the floodplain. Inappropriate to build on floodplains.
•Brownfield sites in Bradford should be used first.
•Potential for merging with Burley turning Wharfedale into a swathe of housing rather than separate towns.
•Sewerage system incapable of dealing with current sewage. Sewage often pumped directly into the river.

Object

Representation ID: 9468

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: Barny Hopton

I would like to object to the following planning proposals:
IL1/H
IL3/H
These will cause more congestion at rush hour on a stretch of the B6382 that is already dangerous for pedestrians and drivers alike.
There are inadequate secondary school places in Ilkley for the current catchment already.
This is green belt which is a big part of why Ilkley is a nice town to live in.

Object

Representation ID: 9520

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Sarah Canelle

Impossible for developers to leave green belt land in a better state than beforehand.

Very heavy traffic, queues, congestion When this route Traffic diverts into Burley and the Moor Road in busy times, increasing pollution, changing feel of village and will lead to more accidents.

What infrastructure is being put in place?

Use disused mill buildings around Bradford for housing.

Protect Green Belt to maintain individual conurbations and stop urban sprawl.

EDUCATION Schools at capacity.

Proposals will change the character of the valley from villages within a green landscape to another suburb.

People who live here do so because of the fields and the good education facilities - Neither of these will exist in a few years time with potentially another 1600 cars on an already busy road and 1600 children trying to get into schools.

Object

Representation ID: 9530

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Liz Wild

•Proposals would remove small number of fields designated as green belt between Burley-in-Wharfedale and Ilkley.
•Proposals would mean the area loses its ‘small town’ character and merge into a commuter belt.
•Developments would damage the local environment. Area forms a green corridor from the moor, to the river, Blubberhouses, Gravel Pits Nature Reserve and sewage plant, which supports insects and food source for local birds.
•Infrastructure not able to support additional development. Secondary school at capacity, difficult to access GP, congestion in A65, Bolling Road and A65 busy and dangerous.
•Developments would increase risk of flooding to the area. These sites act as a natural sink for run-off from the moor. Concreting over them will increase sensitivity and frequency of flooding, which will get worse with Climate Change.

Object

Representation ID: 9625

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Tim Hills

•Will adequate infrastructure, both physical/service, be improved to deal with increase in population?
•GP services already under pressure. Only one dentist offering NHS treatment.
•Traffic/parking already at absurd levels. Town confined to narrow valley bisected by one major route.
•Adding extra vehicles will cause further problems.
•Education capacity in Ilkley is inadequate with some children travelling to Menston.
•Traffic will increase due to development. Only other route out of these sites is via the Wheatley Lane continuation of Bolling Road towards Valley Road or the traffic lights at the A65/Bolling Road junction.
• Bolling Road is a residential street. It suffers from speeding problems, congestion and parking problems. Traffic collisions occur at the intersection with Manley Road.
•Will drainage be able to cope with runoff from IL1/H and IL3/H?
•Both currently absorb and slow runoff from the moor, protecting the A65 lower down. Concreting the valley sides during a period of global warming is plain stupid.

Object

Representation ID: 9641

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Helen Etchell

The reason for my objection to the 305 new dwellings proposed is simple. Ilkley does not have the infrastructure (schools,medical centres, hospital, sewage works etc) in place to support so many new houses. There would not be enough primary schools to provide for so many new residents and Ilkley Grammar School is already struggling to accomodate the needs of the town, a problem which has been going on for many years now. Ironic that the Coutances way site was proposed as a site for an extended Grammar School site but rejected.

All sites are also on green belt land which should instantly deem them inappropriate sites for development. Green belt is by definition a buffer between towns and a space for wildlife to remain undisturbed , something that in the present climate is surely more important than ever.

Object

Representation ID: 9645

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Matthew Henderson

1. Site is part of the Green Belt.
2. Is a very beautiful field containing mature trees.
3. Site is poorly drained. Is a sink for rainwater. Development of the site will contribute to flooding downstream such as in Otley, Tadcaster and York.
4. A well used public footpath crosses the field. Development will reduce amenity value for current/future residents.
5. Parts of the site are steeply sloped and will require significant 'terracing', which adds to the environmental damage.
6. Access roads are unsuitable for the additional traffic. The single-file railway bridge on Wheatley Lane, the part of Wheatley Lane past the Wheatley Pub where many cars are parked and the junction between Wheatley Lane and Wheatley Grove (where visibility is poor). Has a traffic assessment for this site been done?
7. Local schools are at capacity.
8. Most of the houses will be over a mile from Ilkley town centre, which will necessitate car use for most local journeys to use the town centre amenities.

Object

Representation ID: 9754

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillors (The Independents)

Ilkley/Ben Rhydding, has reached its optimum capacity-except for small and discrete windfall opportunities.
I object to development due to the extent, size and prominence of the intruding into the Green Belt. Result in the narrowing of the “lung” between Burley and the settlement. Urban Sprawl, ribbon development. Need to retain green space between settlements the strong line at Ben Rhydding must not be breached.
No case has been made to intrude into the green belt.
The one access to the site is manifestly inadequate and is a major constraint telling against the site. The gradient of Wheatley Grove makes it almost impassable at time in winter.
Adverse effect, because of the loss of spellbinding landscape at the gateway entrance to the town approached from the east, and any reduction in visitors would seriously damage the tourist economy of the town.
No evidence of housing need.

Object

Representation ID: 9951

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Alison Roberts

Development is very contentious.
The land used for recreational purposes for 20 years. Impact on local wildlife and a loss of a much loved local amenity.
Ben Rhydding Drive is particularly unsuitable for any further traffic. If site access is via Wheatley Grove increased traffic will impact on houses and creating a ‘rat run’.
The prospect of construction traffic is a major concern let alone the long term impact of such a development.
IL1/H is so far from local amenities,cars will be used - shopping/ school runs/ commuting bringing environmental impacts. Location unsuitable for starter or affordable housing. - not all those on lower incomes can afford a car.
Increase in traffic.
Wheatley Lane is restricted underneath railway bridge and the junction with Valley Drive is hazardous.

Provide landlords with financial incentives to consider converting empty commercial and retail units into accommodation.

Object

Representation ID: 9966

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: Caroline Donnelly

•Sites are Green Belt, also border an AONB, and SSSI and will have a detrimental impact.
•Land is a flood risk to sites and surrounding area.
•Major road network (A65) insufficient to support additional traffic. It is a single carriageway road, could suffer from flooding as a result of runoff from these sites. Closure of the road due to flooding impacts on Ilkley’s economy.
•Local road network, which is already extremely busy, will have to take increased traffic. Pinch points at A65 & Wheatley Lane, Valley Drive & Wheatley Lane, and the single carriageway under the railway bridge.
•Development on a Green Belt site in Burley will reduce the area between Ilkley and Burley. Development to the east of Ilkley will reduce this space further.
•Development at Burley will also increase pressure on the Grammar School and cause increased traffic on the A65.
•Brownfield sites should be designated for housing before concreting over green land.

Object

Representation ID: 10005

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Prof R Hainsworth

Opposition to the proposal to build 130 houses on the “Giggleswick” field.

My main concern is the proposed incursion on to the Green Belt land. This and the other green land forms a natural boundary to Ilkley and limits the extent of the urban sprawl. I strongly believe that preservation of Green Belt land is of fundamental importance and the all other areas should first be used for any building. The land is extensively enjoyed not only by local residents but by large numbers of visitors, families, ramblers, horse riders etc. who come to the area. The proposed extensive building will not only destroy the amenity value of the area but will also result in near continuous development almost to Burley.

Object

Representation ID: 10009

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Alistar Hunter

Decisions should be made by residents of Ilkley before planning consent. It's against local democracy and the localism agenda for this decision to be made by Bradford Council.
The council wants more housing to increase its funding to invest in other geographic areas.
Erosion of green belt and the ecological agenda
Inconsistent with the Paris Agreement and the 2050 Net Zero targets.
Impact on Birds.
Insufficient infrastructure to support additional housing
Yorkshire Water Ilkley water treatment facilities discharging sewerage into river.
Schools are at capacity.
The healthcare/medical practices are at capacity.
Case for additional housing is unsupported.
The pandemic has freed up huge volumes of office space that can and will be converted to affordable residential property.
Consultation is driven by the legislative framework, no rationale to support the proposed development.
Development is in the financial interests of Bradford City Council, the developers and the land owners.

Object

Representation ID: 10047

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Valerie Banks

I am looking at the planning proposals for Ben Rhydding especially .
It seems there are 285 dwellings planned -which means potentially over 1000 people plus their vehicles. This will make a disproportionate impact on what is essentially a village once called Wheatley then Ben Rhydding. This will impact on all the infrastructure in particular the schools, medical services and traffic.
There is no indication as to where the traffic is to exit from the two largest estates namely IL1/H and IL 3 but it looks like both will exit on to Wheatley Lane which is very narrow and includes a railway bridge.
Whichever way one views it the proposals are totally unacceptable as they stand and I hope they will be reconsidered please.