Comment

Representation ID: 11932

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Susan Brunning

- concerned about the size of proposals
- inadequate infrastructure
- highway safety
- plans considered too big

Object

Representation ID: 11936

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Susan and Jeremy Ince

Number of people: 2

Object to building homes.

Effect on public footpath across Wheatley Grove.

Impact/loss of, Green Belt Land

New homes should be built on brownfield sites, available in Bradford District.
Reduction in separation between Ilkley and Burley.

Environmental, site within 350m of Ilkley Moor, SSSI. Development should be avoided in buffer zone areas to the moor. Sites provide habitat for wildlife and important feeding areas for curlews. Other birds, whose numbers are in decline, including lapwings and barn owls use the sites.
Sites are significant sinks of rainwater, helping to alleviate flooding. There are intermittent springs.
Ben Rhydding and Ilkley unable to cope with the level of sewage/waste from current houses and regularly overflow.

Proposed homes would change the character of town, impacting on the approach to Ilkley from Burley.

Schools operating at capacity.

Trains over-crowded at peak times.
Increase of traffic affecting railway bridge/busy junctions Increase in congestion and parking issues create high risk of accidents.

Object

Representation ID: 11977

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Andrew Barrett

Object to proposed developments in Ilkley (IL1/H & IL3/H).

Proposals show no regard for the fact that these sites are in the Green Belt, and should not be used for development other than in exceptional circumstances. What are these exceptional circumstances? No justification from Council for its use. Why is the Council not redeveloping the District’s numerous brownfield sites instead?

No consideration for the fact that sites host significant levels of wildlife, include a number of TPO protected trees and are home to protected woodland.

The Coutances Way site, in particular, is prone to flooding - development would move the problem and create flooding issues on surrounding land.

Ilkley is a small town of large character - proposed developments would ruin this character. Would urge Bradford Council to reconsider its proposals and provide benefit to brownfield sites by redeveloping them, rather than ruin Ilkley and Green Belt land around it.

Object

Representation ID: 11982

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Mr John Christian

Number of people: 2

Should be retained for local amenity. Public footpaths are heavily used to access the Moor, saving on car journeys.

This field is a green lung for the area and home to many species of bird life including bull-finches, nuthatches, long-tailed tits and herons.

Inadequate transport links- the roads in the area are unsuitable for a significant increase in car journeys resulting from increased housing. Wheatley Road, Bolling Road and Valley Drive already carry high traffic density and congestion. Concerns about safety around schools.

The railway bridge and the layout of the junction at Bolling Road are bottlenecks which cannot be improved.

Limited local facilities - leading to an increase in car journeys for shopping, healthcare, schools and leisure.

Infrastructure - Local schools and healthcare are already stretched to capacity

Pollution - additional journeys will adversely affect the air quality of the area thus adversely affecting the health of residents

Object

Representation ID: 11997

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Kelli Zezulka

I would like to formally register my objection to the proposed building plans in Ilkley (IL1/H, IL2/H, IL3/H and IL4/H), Burley-in-Wharfedale (BU1/H and BU2/H), and Addingham (AD1/H, AD2/H, AD3/H, AD4/H, AD5/H, AD6/H, AD7/8 and AD8/H), particularly those that are proposed on current green belt sites.

The current infrastructure of all three of these areas will not support further housing developments and the concomitant rises in population. The proposals would significantly change the character of these towns and the surrounding areas -- the Ilkley proposals and the Burley Sun Lane proposal, in particular, would devastate the local environment and wildlife.

None of this building should be allowed to go ahead, and no building should be allowed on green belt sites across the district full stop.

Object

Representation ID: 12021

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Judith Smith

Impact on green belt, on openness, flooding, drainage and sewage disposal, damage to wildlife
Loss of wildlife corridors and established trees
Encroachment on Ilkley Moor buffer zone
Create urban sprawl reaching to Burley.
Impact on Ilkley's natural setting,
Impact on climate change.
No consideration of previous developments in Ben-Rhydding.
Increase in cars.
Impact on single file traffic under the railway bridge. Difficulty turning right on to Bolling Road.
Parking fees in Ilkley rail station pushed demand to Ben Rhydding parking with increases in side streets/narrow side roads, causing difficulties.
Not enough parking in Ilkley.
New residents will use their cars to get into Ilkley.
Impact on traffic
Effects on access to A65
Increase in flooding that will be caused by housing on the opposite side of the A65 on fields and outdoor sports facilities.
Impact on Ilkley schools - at capacity with no expansion land
Supermarkets, small with inadequate parking.
Medical Centre unable to take increased numbers
Traffic impact on Bolling Road
Increased potential for accidents.
Inadequate open space/recreation

Object

Representation ID: 12042

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Adela Harrison

IL3/H (Coutances Way) and IL1/H (Wheatley Grove).

• Both sites are green belt and building on them would be detrimental to the natural landscape of Ilkley, of which it is known and loved. Building on these sites (IL3/H being fields and IL1/H being within the buffer zone for Ilkley Moor) goes against defined local plans to protect our local environment. Both sites are significant wildlife corridors and habitats, with TPOs and Woodland Protection Orders in place. Allowing building on these sites would irreparably ruin these areas for wildlife and would demonstrate that Bradford Council does not care about the natural environment or protecting it.

• Both sites are significant sinks of rainwater, and building on them could potentially have a detrimental effect on surrounding areas. At a time when flood risk is increasing every year, building on sites that already have flood risks (as these sites do) is short sighted.

Object

Representation ID: 12063

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Peter Bobak

Concerns regarding 130 homes between Ben Rhydding Drive/Wheatley Grove are:

1. Green Belt. Intrinsic to the local landscape, serving as footpaths and a safe environment for children to play. Development would result in ecological consequences.

2. Would lead to an increase in traffic, making area more susceptible to accidents and deteriorating air quality.

3. Trains already overcrowded. Station car park full all day. Not enough space to accommodate more people.

4. GP impossible to access and pharmacy overcrowded.

5. Site on a severe slope, saturated with water running off the golf course. Development would significantly increase run-off/flooding

6. Ben Rhydding has no facilities. Would have to travel to Ilkley.

7. Would impact on peace and quiet of retirement village.

8. Property is expensive. Government and council intend to provide affordable homes. Development makes no socio-economic sense.

Should investigate the use of brownfield site. Sustainability should be key in decision making.

Object

Representation ID: 12091

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Marianna Easter

I object about the proposed development on green belt land in Ilkley.

1. We are a small town which in my opinion lacks the infrastructure to support further developments.

2.The council currently does not maintain and enhance the infrastructure that we have already such as playgrounds, public toilets and the Lido.

3. We suffer from high congestion along our main roads already and further inhabitants and parking needs would add to this misery.

4. Local state schools are at capacity already.

5. Green belt IS and should remain Green Belt.

6. The proposals are short sighted, devoid of understanding of the local environment and lack vision.

The council is serving only itself and not the residents of Ilkley.

IF this proposal came with enhanced infrastructure around the riverside, a new recycling centre, a new school, children's centre, medical facilities etc I would be more open to considering.

Object

Representation ID: 12097

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Ian Linnegan

As a keen environmentalist, I have objections to all the proposed planning in Ilkley green belt area including IL1/H, IL2/H, IL3/H, and IL4/H

As an environmentalist, I am objecting to the proposed new developments in the Ilkley area.

All the remaining greenbelt areas are precious, first to everyone who lives in Ilkley and second, to visitors visiting on day trips and short breaks.

Our infrastructure is unable to cope with more people living here, especially with the congested A65 and parking issues.

I hope you will take these issues seriously when making a final decision.

Object

Representation ID: 12127

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Marie Anson

Strong opposition to new houses, as they are completely out of character for the area.

IL1/H would have an extremely bad effect on all those living on these roads, particularly Wheatley Grove if that were become a one way road and parking outside the houses prohibited, effectively preventing visitors to these premises who were unable to park on the house drives. The proposed site is extremely valuable to the natural habitat being a breeding ground for, amongst other endangered pieces, curlew.

The huge increase in traffic generated by such a project and with such a narrow road for access is totally unacceptable and would cause huge disruption for a very long period.

The lack of amenities, particularly schools, at the moment our existing families from the surrounding areas can’t always find places for their children in our schools.

I hope you will take into account the concerns voiced by locals.

Object

Representation ID: 12150

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Neill Moore

Additional homes needed, need to be affordable. Legislation misuses the word affordable, requiring some homes to be sold at discount. In Ilkley, homes will achieve a high price, however with the discount they will still be beyond the reach of those in housing need. Building in Ilkley will not solve the problem.

Affordable homes need to be built where prices are low and close to jobs. No shortage of brownfield sites in Bradford. If development continues in expensive areas, houses won’t be built where they are needed. Planning should counterbalance profit motive with social and environment requirements. Build where it is needed.

Ben Rhydding Drive/Wheatley Grove site is inappropriate:

• It is Green Belt.

• Against logic applied on development of nearby properties.

• Will exacerbate traffic issue at railway bridge and traffic lights.

• Water coming off the Moors will require expensive and disruptive engineering to manage.

Object

Representation ID: 12199

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Sara Scott

Large numbers of brownfield sites available in the Bradford district which would be suitable for building on.

Green belt not meant to be built on.

No justification to use this land when other land is available.

Are the Brownfield sites being left to waste?

Drainage, rain water travels from Ilkley moor to the River Wharfe, the sites are boggy/marshy as there are reeds and other water loving plants growing. If homes are built, where will the water go? There are significant flooding issues which will be made worse by loss of green field sites. Flooding problems will be pushed downstream.

Infrastructure: schools, doctors, dentists, shops, sewage works and emergency services cannot support extra homes/people. Schools at capacity.

Impact on traffic on Wheatley Lane near the railway bridge and Valley Drive, roads are already congested.

Loss of Ilkley’s identity/character defined by green spaces,

Reduced separation between Ilkley/Burley

Comment

Representation ID: 12265

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Gillian Varley

Question necessity of green belt use.

WYCA funding available for brownfield development should be used to:
Preserve green belt;
minimise travel and its impact on the environment;
provide affordable homes where need exists;
proviside regeneration.
minimise pressures on green belt sites.

Changes and the implications for homes, businesses, and infrastructure due to the pandemic are not recognised. Consideration should be given to new ways of working/shopping/leisure, the availability of unwanted office/shop space for housing conversions close to town centres potentially provides a green solution for the future.
There's a myth that provision housing on green belt at the extremities of the town will help to provide jobs, minimise travel and reduce carbon emissions.

Increased traffic to shops/ services
Increased commuting to Leeds/Bradford.

Tree Preservation Orders Site need clarity of trees covered, especially those outside the copse. The mature oaks needs TPO protection, an appropriate radius at the trunk base should also be kept free of development. This must further limit the suitability of this site.

Object

Representation ID: 12275

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Joy and Bill Godfrey

Number of people: 2

We object to the re-classification of Green Belt Land to the east of Wheteley Lane.

This land has been open space for 'time out of mind'.

The increase in density will strain an already overloaded infrastructure, e.g. another 600 school places, another 600 cars, the effluent from a further almost 300 homes. (The sewage system at present cannot cope at times of maximum usage).

The local road system would have to be re-designed to cope with the extra traffic, as the one inadequate road bridge under the railway already has had to have traffic lights installed.

We object strongly to this attempt to rape the local Green Belt.

Object

Representation ID: 12277

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Trevor & Patricia Scarrow

First three sites are Green Belt. Designations made to protect the environment and benefit the local population as well as visitors. Development sets precedent for the future. Area is one of the most beautiful in the country - all means necessary should be employed to preserve it.

314 dwellings mean at least 600 new vehicles. Roads through Ilkley are too busy and extra vehicles will make life intolerable. No use citing public transport as mitigation - people own and use their cars.

Conflicting reports about the cleanliness of the River Wharfe. If sewage works cannot handle current volumes, it will worsen with new households, causing public health issues.

Fourth site appears to be over-developed for 9 dwellings. Development should be respectful of current architecture and ambience of the immediate area. Should be affordable housing, with controls to limit sale price.

Council should resist attempts by developers to change planning constraints/agreements.

Object

Representation ID: 12319

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Andy Flaxman

I would like to comment on the recent local plan consultation for Ilkley.

I feel the lack of local schooling availability particular at secondary level is a major issue and object to IL3/H & IL1/H.

The green belt is getting eroded and feel that Ilkley is being spoilt with the amount of traffic and visitors. These sites, particularly IL1/H are home to wildlife which will be disturbed in this area.

Object

Representation ID: 12334

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Carol Lynne Wright

Flood risk

Traffic and access - the access route onto Wheatley Lane would further increase the already dangerous situation at the junction for the traffic emerging from Valley Drive into Wheatley Lane.

Lack of sufficient infrastructure to support even the current needs of the population in Ben Rhydding and Ilkley - lkley Grammar School is at full capacity. The current Primary Schools also struggle to accommodate the growing numbers of children in Ben Rhydding; Ben Rhydding Railway Station is inadequate to fulfill even the current requirement e.g the hopelessly insufficient parking; - The Medical Centre is currently working at full capacity capacity to care adequately for any more growing numbers; The traffic and parking in Ben Rhydding village is already a problem with congestion and a lack of parking; public Sporting Facilities and the diminution of community spaces are insufficient even for the current population of Ilkley and Ben Rhydding.

Object

Representation ID: 12345

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Nicholas Pearce

The local infrastructure, particularly Ilkley Grammar School and local roads will be totally overwhelmed by the proposals.

The combined effects of these proposals plus the newly opened Moss and Moor garden centre on already congested roads.

The road floods and when closed for this or other reasons vehicles divert over Moor Road.

The inequity of the proposals - over 90% of the proposed dwellings for the Ilkley administrative area are in the village/small town of Ben Rhydding. See attached Table - compared with just 1% for the Ilkley community. The few facilities we have in Ben Rhydding will be totally overwhelmed.

IGS is the only state secondary serving Ilkley, Ben Rhydding, Addingham and Burley in Wharfedale. IGS is already full and is on a constrained and fully developed site.

The traffic on Wheatley Lane is already congested during rush hour, and the junction with Valley Drive a particular danger spot.

Object

Representation ID: 12347

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Lauren Barron

I wish to object to the proposals for building on 4 sites in Ilkley and Ben Rhydding:

This will have a negative impact on our community - impact on these historic spa towns; increasing the population destroying the landscape and increasing overall carbon emissions due to more cars on the road.

Potential merging with Burley in Wharfedale.

There are 4000 empty homes in Bradford -you should be looking elsewhere to develop / meet housing targets.

Local infrastructure will not support further housing -schools, traffic, inadequate parking at rail station. Rush hour trains are overcrowded.

Flood risk and loss of drainage capacity. Stocked Road site floods.

Inappropriate access - Wheatley Grove. Wheatley lane railway bridge is already a bottleneck.

Loss of green belt land and trees.

Loss of a local recreation resource.

Object

Representation ID: 12450

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Steve Spoerry

Impact on green belt will be serious, not moderate.

Impact on SSSI.

Site not in a sustainable location.

Impact on Ilkley’s green belt from 4 proposed sites.

Loss of footpath, used by many. Some trees are protected as a Woodland Preservation Order, regarded as an amenity. You now propose to permit their destruction.

Creation of urban sprawl, Ben Rhydding towards Burley. No account taken of other close development proposals.

Flood risk, site is affected by water draining from the moor, the proposal increases the risk of flood damage

Impact on school places/catchment areas.

Road Safety and Congestion development will make roads much busier. Create safety issues where road passes underneath the railway.

Failure to Encourage Economic Development in Bradford and Keighley will encourage
a commuter population orientated towards Leeds not Bradford.

Proposals are driven by a passive acceptance of where developers can most easily make profits.

Brownfield should be developed.

Proposal could lead large derelict areas within towns juxtaposed with a loss of countryside to suburban sprawl.

Object

Representation ID: 12461

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Annie Layfield

Dear Sirs,

Having received a leaflet through my door, I would like to object to two of the proposed local plans. Firstly the 130 dwellings proposed on Wheatley Grove, Ben Rhydding Drive, and secondly the 155 dwellings proposed for Coutances Way.

Object

Representation ID: 12464

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Angela Rowbottom

I am very much against the proposed plans for houses in Ilkley, especially IL1/H Ben Rhydding Drive,
The surrounding roads will not be able to cope with increased traffic and on Coutance Way it will be extremely dangerous with fast moving vehicles.

Until parking has been greatly improved Ilkley itself cannot cope with any more cars, in fact cannot cope with the existing ones and until school places are greatly increased the schools cannot cope with any further pupils.

Until both the parking problems and issues in existing schools has been addressed Ilkley cannot cope with any further houses

Object

Representation ID: 12524

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Jeff Davitt

Main reasons for objection are:

Environment - facing climate and biodiversity crisis, therefore we must protect the environment:

Wheatley Grove and Coutances Way are valuable wildlife corridors with mature trees/hedgerows;

Wheatley Grove is 350m from Ilkley Moor SSSI;

Coutances Way is important feeding ground for Curlew

Infrastructure – will put considerable strain on existing infrastructure:

Sewage works unable to deal with existing capacity and regularly overflows.

Ilkley Grammar School is at capacity and unable to expand.

Green Belt & Character – Green Belt provides the town’s character

97% of housing on Green Belt land - Bradford District has brownfield that could be used.

All brownfield options should be assessed before development on virgin land. Should take account of potential of empty retail/office space that could be refurbished.

Will create a continuous corridor of development in Wharfedale.

Green Belt land is valuable as green space for residents and beneficial for wellbeing.

Object

Representation ID: 12542

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Helen Atkin

Reasons for objections:

Green Belt
97% of homes in Green Belt land. No justification given for proposing Green Belt land. Have brownfield sites in have been considered?

Character
Will result in no fields between Burley and Ilkley.

Flooding
Will increase the damage caused by flooding in the area.

Environment
Law and local plan says environment is to be protected. Ilkley is a model of environmental protection. Should be no building near Ilkley Moor.

Wheatley Grove is 350m from Ilkley Moor SSSI;

Coutances Way is important feeding ground for Curlew – have reports on impact on plants and animals been prepared?

Wheatley Grove and Coutances Way are valuable wildlife corridors with mature trees/hedgerows

Sewage works unable to deal with existing capacity and regularly overflows. Are there proposals to improve this?

School capacity
Ilkley Grammar School is the only secondary school and is full.

Road safety
Have traffic assessments been carried out?

Object

Representation ID: 12660

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Leonie J Pratt

I object to proposed development of land in the green belt.

Inadequate infrastructure to support the additional housing stock.

The rail and road links to Bradford and Leeds are already inadequate. Commuter trains are often overcrowded and to commute by car to both these neighbouring cities takes an unproportionate amount of time.

Our secondary school is also already over-subscribed, and has a huge intake of 300 students per year group.

Eroding of Green belt


I am aware planning permission has been granted for the addition of 500 homes to neighbouring Burley in Wharfedale. In my opinion this is an appalling decision and really lacks joined up thinking by Bradford Council.
Either of these developments would erode the green belt that separates both settlements, making an eyesore in the Wharfedale valley and extending the huge conurbation so that along the A65 we all just blend into Leeds.

Object

Representation ID: 12810

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Will & Kerry Stoker

Green belt!! No, no, no to either!!

Object

Representation ID: 12817

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Bob .

IL1/H Ben Rhydding Wheatley Grove. This is over the top, ruining more green belt land and detrimental to the appeal of the area for tourism.

Object

Representation ID: 12822

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Richard Leach

History of significant expansion / erosion of natural open spaces/character/views of the area.
Significant numbers of houses built / ‘windfall’ sites (Ilkley)
Urban creep against principle of Green Belt.
Lead to increase in traffic/car journeys/noise and air pollution
Lack of access onto The Drive. A single access point is completely inadequate for the number of homes present/proposed.
Impact on Local Scout / Cub pack activities
Concerns surrounding flooding impact.
Trees - TPO - houses will not preserve the natural beauty of the site.
Issues to overcome around levelling due to topography, drainage, access to utilities and the additional flow of sewage and potential flooding to drains.
Will impact cyclists safety on Wheatley Lane and Ben Rhydding Road.
There is insufficient local parking and local facilities

Object

Representation ID: 12833

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Gwyneth Wilcock

Proposals to build on 97% Green belt in Ilkley.
Green Belt should be protected.
Impact on scenic/sensitive natural landscape. Impact on wild life, deer (photo 1), bats, barn owls, tawny owls and little owls.
Loss of agricultural land (grazing sheep, horses) growing crops (photo 2).
Impact on SSSI only 350m away, development must avoid the buffer zone.
Land is used by many for running, walking dogs along footpaths, horse riding, helped people’s mental health, children's play, picnic area and for sledging (Photo).
Field is safe to use with minimum traffic.
Soil/earth is a non-renewable resource that Bradford Council should protect.
Reuse land/buildings.
Flooding Issues - caused by rain, photos 4 5 & 6. The field significantly delays the flow of water into the river and local housing.

Sewage problem, regularly overflow the storm surge capacity.

School at capacity

A proposal for 12 dwellings was refused due to limited access and dangerous junction out of Wheatley Grove. This road hasn’t changed!

No justification for the current housing numbers of 1,703 over the 2020/2038 period.

Problems of snow/ice.