Object

Representation ID: 11031

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Kathy Noble

- destruction of green areas and harm the environment
- increase traffic traffic on local road network
- increased air pollution and impact onhealth.
- infrastructure impact on sewage and Bathing Water status
- infrastructure impact on local schools
- infrastructure impact more for health services

Object

Representation ID: 11259

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Anne Eady

Wharfedale provides a green corridor through an urbanised landscape. Once developed in Addingham, Ilkley and Burley in Wharfedale, it will be changed forever. Wildlife must not be displaced.

Not necessary to build on Green Belt. Brownfield register shows Bradford has plenty sites, with other underutilised sites being considered before Green Belt. Urban/rural distinction should be maintained.

Eastern approach to Ilkley will be ruined by development of IL3/H. There are no exceptional circumstances for Green Belt boundary changes. Traffic pressure is a major issue – 300 homes will make it worse.

Use available office space for residential and look to locate housing closer to work places. Makes sense to reinvigorate cities and larger towns with housing and green spaces rather than countryside.

Plan should focus on quality of life for existing residents and workers rather than growth. Promises of environmental protection, mitigation schemes and better quality housing need to be kept.

Object

Representation ID: 11348

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Anne Procter

Green Belt land (IL1/H, IL2/H and IL3/H) should not be considered for development. It is in contravention of Government aims and objections, as well as the NPPF. Do not believe the Council has provided sufficient justification which provides “exceptional circumstances” for why these green belt sites should be considered or detailed what the “very special circumstances” are for releasing these sites from Green Belt protection.

Council should demonstrate that it has examined fully all other reasonable options for meeting its identified need for development. Do not believe that housing requirements for each settlement have been explored sufficiently. No evidence provided stipulating Ilkley/Ben Rhydding’s housing need warrants releasing greenfield land for up to 314 houses. No justification demonstrating that all other possible options have been considered.

IL4/H – undeveloped greenfield land in the Conservation Area, closed to a Scheduled Monument. Housing would have a significant negative effect on the Conservation Area.

Object

Representation ID: 11391

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: John Jagger

•Green Belt site. Intrinsic feature to landscape. Footpath used by residents/walkers. Site used by children to play. Historical significance forming the route to Ben Rhydding Hydro.
•Increase in local traffic (200+ cars) leading to gridlock at A65 junction and narrow road past the Hermit Inn.
•Ilkley trains already overcrowded at peak times. Ben Rhydding car park already full. Additional parked vehicles on residential roads will be hazardous.
•Local doctors and pharmacy overwhelmed.
•Site slopes severely and saturated with water from the golf course. Pre-construction work required leading to heavy traffic at Wheatley Grove increasing risk of accidents.
•Ben Rhydding is composed of hairdressers, a delicatessen. No ATM/supermarket/post office. Residents will need to travel to Ilkley and beyond to access services/schools increasing carbon emissions and accidents.
•Property in Ilkley is expensive and government/councils intention is to provide affordable housing.
•Employment in Ilkley is limited to low paid jobs. Houses should be built where there are a greater range of employment opportunities with higher pay levels, thereby reducing travel and carbon emissions.
•Brownfield sites in other parts of the district should be considered.

Object

Representation ID: 11394

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Andrew Munro

- increase the traffic flow
- increasing the demand on local services.
- loss of green spaces which contribute so much to the attraction of more rural areas like Wharfedale.
- negative impact on the approach to Ilkley along Coutance Way
- the main aim of these proposals are raising revenue via land sales and Council tax.
- proposals should be abandoned or abandoned or substantially reduced

Object

Representation ID: 11465

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Christopher Solomon

1. The infrastructure of Ilkley is already struggling to cope with existing demands upon it and these proposed developments would have a severely damaging effect on educational provision, especially impacting Ilkley Grammar School which is already too big, and on issues concerning cars, parking and traffic flow. The absence of a bypass is a significant factor that has to be taken into account with regard to the latter.

2. Expansion into green belt.

3. Access and exit to estates. In regard of IL1 Wheatley Grove is a totally inadequate road to cope with the volume of traffic that would result from again such a big development. The junction with Wheatley Lane is constricted with poor sight lines and its dangerous nature would be hugely magnified.

Object

Representation ID: 11500

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Becki Munnoch

The wildlife, the flooding, the increase in traffic are all huge main reasons that contribute to my objection for the build of 130 homes on this site. We should be protecting our wildlife not destroying their homes.

If the planning was to go ahead it would be a disaster for such a beautiful green space loved by wildlife and walkers. This decision will effect the mental well being of so many at a time where life is very precious. We need to hold on to this green space not let it be destroyed.

Object

Representation ID: 11503

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Darren Walker

Objection to IL1/H

1) Destruction of green belt land - there are other options available, e.g. brownfield sites. Given the impact on Covid on businesses and working from home, there may be the option to convert commercial buildings in Bradford into housing instead of using green belt land.

2) The roads are already very busy - more cars bring more danger in high risk areas for accidents for example the junction of Wheatley Road and Valley Drive in Ben Rhydding.

3) Already lack of seating capacity on trains.

4) Schools - it isn’t clear where the additional places will come from especially as Ilkley Grammer is over capacity.

5) Parking in Ilkley is already a problem.

6) Sewage works aren’t adequate to meet the extra demand from these houses.

7) Flood risk.

8) Impact on wildlife which need somewhere to live.

Object

Representation ID: 11508

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Dr Timothy Connor

IL1/H - Ben Rhydding Drive, Wheatley Grove:

The greenbelt status of the site be maintained:

1. The proposed site will be costly to develop.
2. Significant land drainage issues are associated with this development site.
3. It is a wildlife corridor and provides habitat for wildlife.
4. It has an informal recreational use for local people.
5. It will adversely affect sensitive heritage assets.

Object

Representation ID: 11519

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Charlie McIntosh

•Ilkley and certain residential areas are impacted by flooding regularly. Modern housing developments reduce the capacity of ground/plant life to store water. They speed up the time water takes to reach the river causing flash flooding.
•Town centre parking is a major issue. Additional houses and cars will add to this. Unclear as to the status of the park and ride scheme as this was to be located at IL1/H.
•Recent parking changes have moved the problem to side streets not designed for volume parking and causing safety hazards.
•Additional houses/cars and parking issues will lead to significant dangers. Many of these roads have schools and a high population of vulnerable and elderly people who are more at risk.
•Council need to demonstrate proof that brownfield sites have been utilised.
•There needs to be investment in infrastructure in Ilkley to make it a safer place.

Object

Representation ID: 11539

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Lara Tizard

•Object to proposed building sites on Green Belt.
•Brown belt land in other areas of Bradford should be used.
•No reason to build on Green Belt.
•Conservation area - New buildings will damage character of the town.
•Not allowed square dormer windows due to conservation restrictions. But building houses on the next road is fine – contradicts the definition of conservation.
•Site by the Old Bridge floods regularly. Cars written-off two years ago when parked there.
•New housing will increase flood risk.
•Park already horrendous and more houses mean more cars.
•Not the capacity of infrastructure to allow this.

Object

Representation ID: 11546

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Janine Holmes

Its greenbelt.
Too much congestion.

Object

Representation ID: 11554

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Peta Constable

The proposed green space is constantly flooded after heavy rains making it entirely unsuitable for construction. Home owners might find it hard to secure insurance.

The open green space is also full of wildlife and with much of our native wildlife declining or threatened building here adds to this decline.

Object

Representation ID: 11569

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: John Doherty

Object to the construction 130 dwellings as the impact of the other proposed 155 dwellings (at IL3/H - Coutances Way) has not been referenced.
The impact of a total of 285 dwellings in Ben Rhydding in terms of traffic, health and education provisions has not been factored in.

Object

Representation ID: 11591

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: David Howarth

1. Houses should not be built on land that is designated as green belt. This designation is done for a reason to protect the local environment and provide quiet enjoyment to the residents and wildlife.

2. A number of these properties are likely to be on flood planes. As Ilkley had suffered flooding recently and the water cascading from the moor needs to be carefully managed. This will only get worse as the climate continues to change.

3. There is no plan for additional infrastructure in terms of schools roads and healthcare for the new residents. This should be an integral part of any plan.

Object

Representation ID: 11606

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Laura Ramsden

•Object to the proposal to make significant changes to Ilkley with the potential building of over 300 homes in Ilkley.
•I work in west Leeds and the commute takes 60-75 minutes each way.
•I strongly feel that more houses on the road will result in even more traffic congestion particularly at commuter times but also throughout the day.
•Only two main routes through Ilkley which will struggle to cope with the potential demands of 300 homes & perhaps in excess of another 500-600 cars on the road.
•Ilkley is becoming a town like any other. Main reason people love living here is the appreciation of a quiet rural town.
•The building of 300 houses goes against why people choose to live here.
•The local schools are already oversubscribed.
•The traffic is already an issue.

Object

Representation ID: 11619

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs S Sowden

•Those in the Wharfe Valley area are given little say in the plans.
•To build around 500 new homes without extra infrastructure to support them is foolhardy. But you’ve done it in Menston and Burley so why not Ilkley too.
•Schools haven’t got the extra places, roads are busy enough particularly in the summer with visitor traffic, parking is already a farce in the town, surgeries are overfull now; where is the sense except for the council to take more income from the changes. And not reinvest it taking account of residents opinions and priorities.
•We seriously need to redraw the boundaries to reflect the profile of the area.

Object

Representation ID: 11626

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Stephen and Kath Broscombe

Number of people: 2

I would like to object to the development of the proposed sites that are on green belt.

The sites of particular concern are those on Coutance Way (155 homes) and Wheatley Grove (130 homes).

There must be Brownfield sites available in the Bradford district for development rather than using our diminishing greenbelt. It is essential for everyone's well being that we
keep our countryside and don't allow urban sprawl to take over. Ilkley is a beautiful town that contributes significantly to Bradford both financially and by providing countryside for everyone to enjoy.

The town does not have the infrastructure to accommodate 300+more households. Ilkley secondary school is bursting at the seams and could do with a new building and the primary schools are also full. Services such as GP practices are extremely busy.

The development will be very damaging to the environment and may increase the risks of flooding.

Object

Representation ID: 11638

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Beth Smithson

As a local resident I strongly object to the proposed housing sites IL1/Wheatley Grove and IL3/H Coutances Way.

These are Green Belt sites and must be protected! What is the point of sensible planning policy if it is to be disregarded?!

The Ilkley area is such an important and valuable asset to the people of West Yorkshire and the environment. Development of these sites would have a negative and irreversible effect for future generations.

Object

Representation ID: 11650

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Gareth Oakley

•Building on green spaces will detract from Ilkley’s natural beauty, position and attractiveness to locals and the wider public.
•Use of Green Belt land. Happening across the country too quickly as it is cheaper for developers to quickly build houses. Once gone it will be gone forever. 97% of new homes will be in green belt land.
•Brownfield sites around the district should be redeveloped as they would have a positive impact on local communities.
•Sites will be on or around floodplains. Buildings prevent the effectivity of floodplains which will further exacerbate existing annual flood risk problems.
•The new houses may also be affected by floods.
•Ilkley suffers from traffic problems and additional houses will add more pressure to the road network.
•Additional pressure and demand to schools and services regarding care for children. School are already quite full with big classes. Adding to those will reduce children’s educational experience.

Object

Representation ID: 11692

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: William Fisher

Strongly object to two of the developments – 155 dwellings on Wheatley Lane and 130 dwellings on Ben Rhydding Drive.

Object

Representation ID: 11702

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Ciaran Cavanagh

These plans will be detrimental to the unique setting of Ben Rhydding and Ilkley and their attractiveness to tourism.

Brownfield sites and the 4000 empty homes in Bradford should be used instead to meet housing targets.

Infrastructure will not support further housing - schools such as IGS are struggling, the A65 is over used. Rush hour trains are full, station parking is inadequate.

Flooding problems will worsen.

Specifically re IL1/H:

Destroying green belt land with trees on it protected by TPO should not be allowed.

The land is valued for recreation.

The Old packhorse bridge is a site of historic importance and should not be destroyed by building.

The site has 4 natural springs and causes flooding to houses on Ben Rhydding Drive already - this would worsen with buildings.

Access limited to Wheatley Grove and not suitable for increased traffic. The bottom entrance to Wheatley Grove is a bad junction. The Wheatley Lane railway bridge causes a bottleneck to traffic and in rush hour.

Comment

Representation ID: 11743

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs A. Gray

Main concern is increased traffic using the narrow road (Ben Rhydding Drive) I am a walker and there is no safe path along this road. I am already forced to jump on to private drives or garden strips with the existing light traffic. Dangerous for children too.

I also enjoy the open golf course and Coppywood open area for walking and would be sad to see yet more green countryside space go.

Object

Representation ID: 11747

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Russell Oliver

Concern over the consultation process during pandemic and shortage of consultation period.

Objections to the site as follows:

1) Loss of green belt, urban sprawl.
2)Loss of greenfield land which is absorber of CO2, loss of habitats. Conflicts with Council's own policies such as zero carbon. Use brownfield sites instead.
3) Loss of open space and impact on mental health.
4) Loss of recreational resource and local footpaths.
5) Affect of 1000 extra residents when combined with Coutances Way site will change the local character. Impact on schools and roads.
6) The entrance to the site off Wheatley Grove is subject to a woodland protection order.
7) Problematic access, highway safety issues.
8) There are drainage and ground stability issues.

Object

Representation ID: 11773

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Robin Waxman

•Plan has been developed in lockdown and in total secrecy. No consultation has been undertaken. Only aware of the consultation days before its end from a leaflet from the Town Council.
•Housing proposed on greenfield sites surrounding Ilkley. Building on these sites will substantially reduce the scenic quality of the town. Along with the Addingham proposals will turn the area into a corridor of housing destroying the local scenic character.
•Two large sites are out of character with the town. The density of housing does not currently exist in the area.
•Two large sites are significant floodplains. Development would make the risk of flooding worse.
•Floods may expand to either side of the development and across the A65.

Object

Representation ID: 11798

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Ian Mark Thorp

I would like to raise my concerns over the two Ben Rhydding proposed developments IL1/H and IL/3H.

The two developments would put an unwelcome strain on the infrastructure of the local community.

Current primary schools would not cope. Existing road system is overwhelmed. State of the roads is getting worse. Increasing traffic volume would have a devastating effect. Natural wildlife would be ravaged.

Ilkley will eventually merge with Burley. It is already a bottleneck. Developments of this size would add to the traffic problem.

Developments will affect house values. Ilkley should not be used as a cash cow. Would the council use the money taken from the sale of green belt land and the CIL and pump the money back in to Ilkley and Ben Rhydding? No.

Ilkley and the surrounding area is of historical interest. Modern development of such size are an eye sore and should be rejected.

Comment

Representation ID: 11803

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Mr David Anderson

130 houses with extra 130 cars using Ben Rhydding Drive is not a good idea. 100 houses seems like a much more sensible number to me.
- mean less of the claustrophobic feeling that's created by a large number of cars parked in any development.

Object

Representation ID: 11809

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Jasvinder Oldham

I would like it to be noted that I object to the proposed building of houses in Ilkley.

Object

Representation ID: 11839

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Dan Sedlak

Planning objection to sites IL1/H, IL2/H, IL3/H, and IL4/H especially (IL3/H) and (IL1/H) sites:

Use of Green Belt land - no justification. The council has recognised this will have a moderate or major impact. There are plenty of brownfield sites available.

Schools - Ilkley Grammar is at capacity - no space to expand further.

Environment - Ilkley Moor is a SSSI and the Wheatley Grove site is within the buffer zone. The moor is a priority wildlife habitat. There are a number of TPO's.

Safety - would lead to a significant increase in traffic, e.g. Bolling Road/ Wheatley Lane junction, the single file railway bridge, the junction with Valley Drive - all are already congested and at high risk of accidents. Yet no traffic assessment has been done. Also increase risks to pedestrians.

Flooding - three of the sites have significant flood risks already.

Would significantly change the countryside character of the town.

Given the development in Burley, it will mean Ben Rhydding and Burley almost link up.

Object

Representation ID: 11906

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Cara Barrett

Object to proposed developments in Ilkley – IL1/H, IL2H & IL3/H. All are Green Belt.

Council has shown no understanding of Green Belt policy, is making no attempt to preserve valuable countryside, is promoting linear development along the A65 and pays no regard to the preservation of Ilkley’s character.

No evidence produced showing exceptional circumstances for altering Green Belt boundaries and justifying its use. Also no evidence showing as much use as possible of suitable brownfield sites. There are a number of brownfield sites in the District that should be redeveloped before encroachment into the Green Belt. Would benefit the brownfield site location and Ilkley, which would be preserved. Proceeding would have the opposite effect.

Sites are regularly flooded and hold water
Infrastructure (roads and parking) insufficient to support additional houses

Ilkley Grammar School unable to offer places to children in its catchment – additional houses would exacerbate the problem