Comment

Representation ID: 10062

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Phil Bishop

Wish to respond to the consultation, specifically for sites IL1/H, IL2/H, IL3/H and IL4/H.

I understand the pressures on housing and the need in the UK for additional housing, particularly affordable housing.

I would support increases of this scale in dwellings and consequently in population BUT ONLY PROVIDED:

1) equivalent increases were put in place for necessary infrastructure within Ilkley including School Places, Parking in the town centre, Green/ Sustainable Transport links etc.

2) There is regular flooding within Ilkley in several places. All proposed development must not reduce at all the land available for minimising the impact and likelihood of flooding. IL3/H is a particular concern in this regard.

3) The mix of dwellings is weighted significantly towards properties affordable by those on normal incomes, with priority given to those young people brought up in Ilkley who would otherwise not be able to afford a home within the town.

Object

Representation ID: 10070

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Stephen Harris

I wish to object as the development would require adequate transport links under the railway bridge at Ben Rhydding or through Ilkley town to deal with the influx of cars at a time when car congestion through this town in already an issue especially in spring and summer traffic.

Object

Representation ID: 10076

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Gwen Harris

i wish to object to proposed housing development IL1H because of the road constraints caused by the railway bridge at Benrhydding station and ilkley town cenrte as a through traffic flow as it is already congested.

Object

Representation ID: 10131

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Chris Cragon

Number of people: 2

Object to sites IL1/H & IL3/H.

IL1/H is an important area of Green Belt land and used for grazing. It supports wildlife (deer, owls, bats). It has a steep downward gradient and is subject to heavy rainfall with drainage issues.

Visible from Ilkley Moor and Cow & Calf rocks famous beauty spot. Green Belt argument is strongest on this site – development would destroy green open space and views.

For both sites traffic saturation is a significant issue. Local roads and in particular the main access/egress to the A65 involve additional strain of the single track Ben Rhydding railway bridge on Wheatley Lane. Drainage is dreadful and would be overloaded.

Significant concerns over local high schooling capacity and its scope for growth.

Over-riding concern is loss of Green Belt and impact on semi-rural nature of town. Significant house building has already taken place and should be recognised and Green Belt maintained.

Object

Representation ID: 10143

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Ken Whittington

Object against proposals for residential development of sites IL1/H, IL3/H & IL4/H.

IL1/H & IL3/H infringe the green belt and this is totally unnecessary as there is a need to develop brownfield sites prior to these. The number of houses being proposed will cause serious issues for the infrastructure of Ilkley (schools, health provision and traffic). The town suffers from traffic congestion and this will only add to the problem. Schools are already full.

It is important to keep green belt and concentrate on using up any brownfield sites that are available.

Development should be in keeping with the locality and schemes of this size are totally unsuitable.

Stockheld Road - any development adds to an already built up area where further houses are not needed. There are problems in this locality with parking and flooding at certain times. Another 9 houses will only add to this .

Object

Representation ID: 10189

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Tristram Cooke

Objection - IL1/H.
The site is green belt, development would spoil a lovely area, valued as a community asset and spoil the quiet character of the local village when seen from afar, especially, the loss of the small copse of trees.
Loss of a sledging site in winter, and contains a pleasant footpath out of Ben Rhydding, towards the moor or Burley.
The site may contain within it a important Roman road, and important local historical evidence might be lost permanently.
Loss of vital community space.
Increase in traffic/congestion on the quiet and narrow road of Wheatley Grove - during and after construction.

More sensible would be IL4/H, close to A65 without necessitating heavy construction traffic going through the Ilkley, risking damaging the railway bridge at Ben Rhydding. This site is in a built-up area, the visual and traffic impact would be lessened, its close to shops and transport links.

Object

Representation ID: 10195

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: JANET SHARPE

BEN RHYDDING DRIVE, WHEATLEY GROVE I have given considerable thought to this and am strongly against the land to be developed :
1) GREEN BELT
2) INFRASTRUCTURE. - l would be pleased to know are extra schools going to be built - llkley Grammar is already extremely full to bursting point
3) Are you planning on a making another Health Centre -
As it is at the moment l don’t see how room could be made for what could be over 300 people or even far less.
4) Considerable increase in traffic the roads through Ilkley are at times quite chaotic, and the shopkeepers must loose trade through people not being able to park as it is.

COUTANCES WAY - The above applies again.

I would ask you to re-consider these very important points. Ilkley is a lovely town why ruin it.

Comment

Representation ID: 10239

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Catherine Meredith

I am writing to express my concern about the following
• 130 dwellings proposed – Ben Rhydding Drive,
The site is greenbelt
I think it is important to avoid urban sprawl linking previously separate communities together.
Given the impact of Covid on working patterns, I anticipate a large number of former office sites will become available for conversion to residential negating the need for development on the very limited greenfield areas.

The amenities for Ben Rhydding and Ilkley residents are already over capacity.
The Road network -specifically congestion on the A65
Train Service
School Places
Healthcare provision

The construction of additional dwellings will impact overstretched services and these services would not cope with the potential number of dwellings.

The impact of global warming on climate change. Destroying the areas of greenbelt land and replacing with significant impermeable areas will only increase the general risk of flooding.

Remove site from Local Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 10241

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: Jenny Lawson

•Loss of valuable and protected Green Belt. Detrimental effect on environment and character of the town.
•Development of well-used green spaces, also provide valuable space for wildlife and biodiversity. Also impact on adjacent protected sites.
•IL3/H floods regularly. Site is important in flood management of Wharfe Valley.
•Developments will have a negative impact on local transport infrastructure. Regular traffic congestion and parking issues will be made worse by additional cars from developments. Extra strain on train services in rush hour. Inadequate bus links for IL1/H.
•Negative impact on already over-stretched health, education and community infrastructure. Cannot accommodate additional residents from new housing.
•Recent housing developments have already had significant impact on transport, social infrastructure, environment, air pollution, loss of green space. Proposals will cause more problems.
•Redevelopment of brownfield sites should be considered instead of building on Green Belt.

Object

Representation ID: 10246

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: Peter A Williams

•Developments will put a strain on local infrastructure and services.
•During the last 30 years the volume of traffic using Bolling Road to access Ilkley has increased markedly. No traffic calming measures have been put in place. Speeds of traffic is a danger to school children who walk along this road to school.
•Council’s objection to traffic calming is that it is a bus route, but buses often exceed the speed limit on this road.
•Development will bring at least 300 extra vehicles to this road at peak times.
•Where will the additional children go to school? How is the quality of schooling going to be affected?
•Sites are green belt which is currently enjoyed by all for outdoor leisure activities.

Object

Representation ID: 10355

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Andrew Loy

I am gravely concerned about the development of these green belt sites. The Local Plan itself acknowledges the adverse impact on the natural environment, potential for flooding, and problem of urban sprawl. These plans should be withdrawn, given that there are still many brownfield sites in the district.

I am particularly opposed to the Coutances Way (IL3/H) plan, which would be highly detrimental to the view of Ilkley when approached from the east. When combined with the westwards expansion of Burley-in-Wharfedale (BU1/H Sun Lane site), it would severely reduce the space between the towns and threaten to erode the boundary between the two.

Object

Representation ID: 10371

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Richard Thomas

Building on Green Belt Land - stop urban sprawl, to preserve character of existing settlements and to encourage development within existing built up areas.
Not demonstrated the only viable way of satisfying the current housing need in the entire district is to build on greenbelt land.
Detrimental impact to character of Ilkley
Lack of Infrastructure with no further plans to develop - parking, doctors, schools dentists and sewage
Road safety - increase of traffic, impact on Whetely Lane train bridge and Valley Drive junction, risk for accidents, danger to pedestrians and lack of parking.
Additional development already in place - The proposals ignore the additional building which is already continuously ongoing in Ilkley.
Use brownfield sites first and ensure proposals in Ilkley are in keeping with the average impact on Green Belt land which applies to all developments in the district (20% of developments, not 97% on Green Belt).

Object

Representation ID: 10474

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Judith Law

Loss of Recreation land.
Impact on wildlife.
Impact on footpath to Ilkley Moor.
Flooding problem, site collects run-off
Concern about design/materials.
A housing estate which includes affordable housing in the middle of this neighbourhood is going to be very unsightly.
Ben Rhydding Drive is an unsuitable access to the site.
Increased traffic in Ben Rhydding.
Impact on conservation area causing major changes.
Impact on schools in Wharfedale.
Affordable housing doesn't exist in Wharfedale.
Keighley/Bradford have dilapidated houses, and “Brownfield sites” should be used before Green Belt.
Office space becoming available could be converted.
Lack of parking at Ben Rhydding station.
If Wheatley Grove site is developed, that extra parking is mandatory.
Ilkley is a commuter town for Bradford/Leeds, many residents drive to the station.
Parking on pavements to use the train station will get worse.
Employment opportunities from the building work will be temporary, What other “new employment opportunities”?
Wheatley Grove site is wrong place for new housing.

Comment

Representation ID: 10476

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Phillippa Higgins

I note with dismay the disappearance of more green spaces plus woodland in the proposed development for Wheatley Grove. Are there plans to compensate for these?
Another large area of green is about to disappear at IL3/H which alters the nature of our town as well as being environmentally unsound. Further, are arrangements for accommodating the Scouts part of the plan?
Most importantly, are there plans in place to expand schools, already over prescribed, not to mention doctors surgeries etc?
If these developments are to go ahead, what proportion are to be affordable or are we in the business of making developers rich?

Object

Representation ID: 10504

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Bernice Corbett

This objection is not because I feel that dwellings should not be built but it is the amount of dwellings I object to. Our town is already full to capacity with amenities at full stretch and parking a nightmare. I feel that these proposed dwellings will un -balance the town and that we would loose our identity and the charm.....surely the reason visitors come here in the first place Please re consider not the sites but the amount of houses.

Comment

Representation ID: 10518

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Geoffrey Bowen

The four site allocations for dwellings in Ilkley are sensible and acceptable provided development conforms to the requirements of the Ilkley Sustainability Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 10546

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs P J Hudson

My concerns about the increased levels of traffic which will inevitably follow the proposed residential developments. The traffic lights have improved the situation at the railway bridge for pedestrians, but the narrow road under the bridge is a bottle neck where traffic regularly backs up at busy times of the day. Increased numbers of vehicles will cause long queues backing up in both directions – down to the junction with Leeds Road and up to the shops in Ben Rhydding.
A similar issue is the access to the Wheatley Grove site, because the junction between Wheatley Grove and Wheatley Lane is already potentially dangerous and Wheatley Grove itself is not suitable for increased traffic levels.

I feel the lockdown has prevented open discussion in public meetings, more time is needed to evaluate all the implications. It is wrong to assume that all residents affected will have internet access, many (especially older) voices will not be heard.

Comment

Representation ID: 10566

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Chris Jelley

Ilkley experiences severe traffic congestion, within the town and on the A65.
The A65 blocks all the way back to the Burley bypass and beyond, and coming into Ilkley from the west can also be very slow indeed.
Proposed developments could add upwards of 500 more cars into our queues at rush hours as well as causing more pressure on scarce parking spaces, particularly for commuters.

There have been many new houses built in Menston and in Burley, which have already contributed to the problems of traffic queues on the A65 and the IL1/H and IL3/H planned housing developments on the west side of Ilkley would condemn us all to gridlock.

Building houses without providing road schemes, parking and other amenities is not building communities just frustration for both existing residents and future ones. At the very least, a new bridge by the Ben Rhydding Railway Station would be needed

Object

Representation ID: 10615

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Antony Hannam

Number of people: 2

IL1/H 130 dwellings
I walk this site regularly so am familiar with its location.
a. It is a valuable Green Belt site regularly used by walkers and the vista from Ben Rhydding Drive would be ruined.
b. It is steeply sloping, very much so at the top, bordering on 1 in 2 which in my view would make in unsuitable for an estate.
c. There are many trees scattered around in addition to the copse shown.
d. Poor access. Wheatley Grove is a narrow cul de sac dropping down to Wheatley Lane. This in itself is a narrow, busy, steeply sloping, with a bumpy surface and cluttered up with parked cars.
e. There would be a significant increase in traffic.
f. Few local facilities within walking distance and so affecting traffic flow.

Object

Representation ID: 10643

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Mark and Rebecca Mon-Williams

Number of people: 2

Greenbelt should remain protected.
Building will impact on the openness of Ilkley and is essentially "urban sprawl".
Insufficient infrastructure:
Ilkley Grammar School at maximum capacity, not on a safe site, cannot accommodate additional number of pupils.
GP surgeries/dental practices are stretched.
Roads cannot deal with increased number of cars, the bridge at Ben Rhydding station would be under pressure and create traffic jams.
Safety, roads not appropriate to accommodate the additional numbers, increased risk of accidents.
Development will make the town less attractive, as a tourist destination and will not help business. One of the reasons why people visit Ilkley is because it is a reasonably attractive town with some open spaces. Change to the character of Ilkley.
The pandemic has impacted people's physical/mental health. Developing these sites will have further detrimental effect.
We should encourage people to enjoy open green spaces.
Once developed, greenbelt/open space it is impossible, to claim them back.

Object

Representation ID: 10702

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs T Small

Green belt sites.
Why allocate as green belt and allow development.
Bradford council, make money when they sell land.
Many areas of Bradford need to be regenerated....and affordable housing is needed there.
Greedy developers come to Wharfedale to cash in on a wealthy and desirable area...this in turn drives up prices meaning local people are priced out.
FLOODING These houses are on a flood plain and the roads etc regularly flood there.
School places...particularly secondary education are limited.
People visit the wharfe valley because of its greenery....its why they visit us and not central Bradford.
You are destroying the very source of the areas income and wealth.
Menston - destroyed by building work for houses on Bingley Road and Derry Hill. Sun Lane monstrosity too....Bradford council need to be realistic and perhaps give us all back to Leeds Council where we will be treated with more respect and care.

Object

Representation ID: 10756

Received: 13/03/2021

Respondent: Rachel Carter

Greenbelt - Development is directly opposed to the principles of using brownfield sites first.
Environment - The site is only 350m from Ilkley moor. It supports wild animals and birds, plants and wild flower species. This habitat would be seriously impacted.
Shops, doctors and pharmacies, other amenities and schools are all beyond easy reach by foot. Vehicle traffic will increase on roads that are already frequently congested at peak times.
Single lane road access under the railway bridge with queues at peak times on the A65/Wheatley Lane
Ilkley Grammar school is already beyond capacity
Flooding - site is already subject to considerable flooding. The field contains springs
Character - Development will reduce the separation of the town from the moor.
Pedestrian access – no safe pedestrian access as there is no full pavement.
Loss of recreational and historical value

Object

Representation ID: 10826

Received: 13/03/2021

Respondent: Fernando Solano

1-There isn't the capacity to accommodate such a high number of new arrivals in terms of school places (oversuscribed as it is) health care facilities and road access.
2-This will mean a net loss of valuable green belt around the town.
3-I would like to object in the strongest possible terms the tendency to ONLY make available suitable building plots of land to corporate interests (big developer companies) who create monotone housing developments devoid of any character or architectural interest. I would like the council to pay more attention to the environmental qualities of the proposed housing projects (energy efficiency, carbon impact and air quality)

Object

Representation ID: 10928

Received: 04/05/2021

Respondent: Gary and Mary Williams

Number of people: 2

Site on green belt land and we object to loosing green belt to housing, it would put extreme pressure on access along Wheatley Grove. The development is excessive in size and will put extreme pressure on already over crowded schools in the town and on medical services

Object

Representation ID: 10930

Received: 13/03/2021

Respondent: DG and LP Wild

We endorse the response from the BRD Association Commitee in full.
130 new homes on the site is bound to have an adverse affect harmonising with existing housing. The issue of road safety is paramount particularly at the junction of the private Ben Rhydding Drive and WheatleyDrive and Bolling Road.The extra usage could be 260 plus service vehicles and would create serious risk of accident both to vehicles and pedestrians. There is already serious traffic conjestion at school time and the rush hours partly caused by the single lane traffic light controlled under the railway bridge. In conclusion the number of vehicles that by necessity would mainly descend to Ben Rhydding would create a higher risk of serious accident and danger to pedestrians.

Object

Representation ID: 10931

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Mr. & Mrs. - Sunderland

We have various concerns to our local community and it’s infrastructure.

With the local community already being pushed with the new development of 500 homes in Burley in Wharfedale, which is only 2 miles away.

How will are services cope from schools, doctors, waste Utilities which is already stretched to its maximum capacity. I have to question the drainage of the land and the off run from the higher grounds which pool in the valley bottom, as we all know after heavy rainfall we are in a flood zone!

I worry about the amount of traffic and pollution on a road which is already very busy and most houses have 2 cars so it will increase dramatically!

I am increasingly worried about how the school intake will be affected.

Object

Representation ID: 10940

Received: 13/03/2021

Respondent: Janet Pawson

Impact on Ilkley and Ben Rhydding will be detrimental, because:
a) Potential increase in vehicle congestion and environmental problems, such as access to and from these developments and parking issues.
b) These developments may have a detrimental impact on Ilkley's attraction for tourists, such as walks on Ilkley Moor and the surrounding countryside.
c) The green belt land should be left alone.
I feel that it is important that the council will give serious thought about the above-mentioned issues.

Object

Representation ID: 10973

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Heather Duke

I am writing to state my concerns about the proposed plans for additional housing at:

- Ben Rhydding Drive
- Skipton Road east
- Coutances Way
- Stockfield Road.

These additional dwellings will put strain on the existing infrastructure including roads, schools and health care.
We should be looking to build housing stock on brown field sites and to improve existing housing and neighbourhoods.

Object

Representation ID: 10980

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Sue Hadfield

IL1/H is a green field site and I object in principle to these areas being used when there are so many brownfield sites available. This makes life too easy for developers and does not improve anyone's environment especially for those communities blighted by such sites.

IL1/H and IL3/H also are high density and will sharply increase the population of a town not designed for this. They will put a heavy toll on a town with increases in traffic and limited school spaces.

Object

Representation ID: 11016

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Peggy Lambert

I am very concerned that there is a proposal to build houses on green field land at Wheatley Lane.
Where will the children go to school - both primary and secondary?
How will the A65 cope with extra traffic - where is the alternative?
Why are building plans on a flood plain even being considered?
Surely, thinking of climate change, we should value not "concrete" over this green space. I do object.