Object

Representation ID: 12836

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Shiona Dawson

1. Use of Green Belt land
Will reduce amount of Green Belt. NPPF requires evidence of exceptional circumstances for its use. No exceptional circumstances - there are alternatives (brownfield sites) that have not been adequately explored.

2. Increase in traffic
Will increase traffic volume and volume of emissions (when the authority is committed to their reduction). Authority must demonstrate brownfield sites, resulting in lower traffic and emissions, are not available.

3. Climate/Environmental impact
Area plays important role in managing flood risk. Development will raise a cost from flooding for future generations. Developing brownfield sites mean costs can be minimised.

4. Destruction of scenic environment
Will compromise the area’s value for tourists, impacting on revenues for local people and the authority.

5. Road safety
Will increase traffic and risks to pedestrians/cyclists. Ben Rhydding station area is already very risky. Limited space for safety improvement measures. Increased parking provision has not occurred.

Object

Representation ID: 12896

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Annie Galloway

- it is green belt, and the need has not been demonstrated sufficient to warrant green belt use,
- it is a site for curlews,
- there are many other empty unused houses within the Bradford district,
- the school infrastructure will not be improved,
- the traffic management getting into both sites will be dangerous and
- the Coutances Way site is regularly flooded.

Comment

Representation ID: 12899

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Marilyn Heron

•Due to increased traffic in the lower half of Wheatley Lane, the road under the railway bridge on Wheatley Lane needs to be widened to allow two-way traffic at all times.
•Due to increased traffic in the lower half of Wheatley Lane, a small roundabout will be needed where Valley Drive meets Wheatley Lane especially any entrance to IL3/H is to be provided here. Visibility of traffic on Wheatley Lane when you turn out of Valley Drive at this point needs to be improved in any case.
•If there is an entrance to IL1/H on Wheatley Grove, then Wheatley Grove will need to be widened where it meets Wheatley Lane.
•If there is an entrance to IL1/H on Ben Rhydding Drive, then Ben Rhydding Drive will need to be adopted and improved/widened.
•There may well be the need for a small roundabout where Wheatley Lane meets Bolling Road and Ben Rhydding Drive.
•Existing Victorian sewers under Wheatley Lane have difficulty coping with the present levels of housing, separate sewers will need to be dug for the new developments.
•A post office in Ben Rhydding will need to be reinstated.

Object

Representation ID: 12904

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Antony Gilroy

IL1/H and IL3/H are not acceptable for the following reasons.

1. The land is within Green Belt.
2. The developments are too big and fail to show how these would be practical within the confines of existing services as follows
A) Ilkley Schools are already at bursting point despite extensions at All Saints and the Grammar School.
B) Sewage system is already over capacity.
C) Medical Surgeries are already fully stretched.
D) Traffic flows and car parking are already excessive
E) Entry and exit to these sights will create even more traffic problems.
Finally surely the country needs social housing desperately and this needs to be in areas of deprivation not in Ilkley.

Object

Representation ID: 12906

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mr. & Mrs. Nigel & Helen Jacques

Environmental
Ilkley character defined by open spaces/relationship with countryside. Acts as green corridor and significant wildlife habitat.

Highways Access
No access from Ben Rhydding Drive. Will have to be off Wheatley Grove – not a safe access point. Against highways good practice.

Road Safety
Narrow pinch point (Wheatley Lane) cannot deal with significant increase in traffic. Will generate risk of more accidents. No highway analysis.

Density
One third undevelopable (trees; slope). Density will need to reflect surrounding area - will not deliver 130 homes.

Green Belt
Major impact on openness. No details on compensatory improvements. No early engagement with community. Exceptional circumstances not established.

Protected Habitat
Less than 350m from Ilkley Moor SSSI – will be harmed by development. Field species rich. No ecological surveys.

Flooding
Flood risk of 2 & 3 - difficult to commercially develop. Impact upon the wider floodplain significant. Sewage works regularly overflows and cannot accommodate new homes. Should be investigated.

Object

Representation ID: 12910

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Margaret Scott

I would prefer not to see homes built here.

Object

Representation ID: 13377

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Phil Maunsell

I would like to register my opposition to the above two proposed housing development sites. My reasons are as follows:

1. Both are disproportionally big for the town.

2. The area of Ben Rhydding has narrow roads and a low railway bridge so will result in traffic issues.

3. Yorkshire Water regularly discharges raw sewerage into the River Wharfe. This is “allowed” by the Environment Agency in “exceptional circumstances” such as extreme flooding. However, because of a systemic lack of investment, the largely Victorian sewerage system is regularly unable to process the waste from the current Ilkley/Ben Rhydding population. An extra 285 homes will only exacerbate this issue.

4. A lack of investment, combined with previous sale of school buildings and land, by Bradford Educational Authority in local school provision will mean that the children living in these proposed dwellings will add extra pressure to local schools, already at full or over-full capacity.

Object

Representation ID: 13397

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Paddy Hagan

My objections to the proposals are as follows:

IL1/H - lack of supporting evidence of measures proposed to address the demands of the additional residents such as education, public transport, road usage and general infrastructure.
- Encroachment on countryside.

Object

Representation ID: 13471

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Matt & Liz Wood

Number of people: 2

Serious negative impact on standards of living.

NPPF - greenbelt to be protected, no exceptional circumstances for building.

NPPF - brownfield sites should be prioritised over greenfield/greenbelt sites, other brownfield sites are available

NPPF - prevent merging of communities.

Access will increase traffic on the roads in Ben Rhydding, especially the junction with the A65.

Access through the single lane railway bridge is already a pinch point and the only access route to the A65.

Increased traffic will compound the existing problems.

Access from Wheatley Grove development onto Wheatley Lane is already a dangerous junction.

Loss of open land used by wildlife and local residents.

Loss of integral part of the landscape causing negative impact on local community and wildlife.

Impact on use of public footpath.

Worsened impacts of flooding of the hockey pitches.

Change to the drainage and removal of fields that can absorb the run off can only make the situation worse.

Impact on local infrastructure

Impact on education and healthcare.

School at capacity.

Object

Representation ID: 13503

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Ian & Jackie Bonar

Our objections to these proposals relate to the impact on the local area of Ben Rhydding. The numbers of dwellings being proposed can only have a detrimental effect on the community.

Road infrastructure feeding into the A65 is inadequate at present without adding the number of traffic movements this proposal will bring Construction traffic for the Wheatley Grove development would not be able to pass under the railway bridge in Wheatley Lane and therefore would have to go through Ilkley town and along Bolling Road - both of which are totally inadequate for large traffic movements. This would also lead to an increase in traffic pollution.

Other concerns are related to school places, medical facilities & play areas - all of which will need to be addressed in any plan.

Object

Representation ID: 13505

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Sue McClay

Detrimental impact on our community.

Community identity lost: Ilkley has always been Bradford’s ‘jewel in its crown’ due to its
unique setting in the Wharfe valley.

Ilkley should retain its character but the building of
a further 314 homes will see the town being extended towards Burley and Addingham.

Detrimental to Ilkley’s uniqueness and attractiveness to tourism.

Insufficient infrastructure for the current population in terms of school places, ongoing parking concerns,
Another 1000 or so people needing these local services.

Congested Roads

Increased carbon emissions.

Increase pressures on rail services.

Station car parks inadequate.

Protect green belt sites; however,

Destruction of land with trees with a preservation order on them should not be allowed.

There are thousands of empty homes in the Bradford area and brown site land available.

Alternative sites should be found for development.

Object

Representation ID: 13712

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Robert Taylor

Number of people: 2

object to the size of this proposal. If there have to be any dwellings in this site, they should be limited to a small number - no more than 20.
130 dwellings on this site would generate a huge amount of additional traffic using Station Road and the junction with the A65.
130 additional families would place an excessive strain on Ilkley's resources, such as schools and medical and dental services.

Object

Representation ID: 13716

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Rebecca Reeves

• The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental aim of Green Belt is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristic of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. The local authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate on this plot of Green Belt land.
• Protection of Green Belts is provided under the Government’s National Policy Framework and on that basis alone should be discounted.
• The local community use this space to spend time with their families, including my own, watching wildlife which inhabit the field and the woodlands including bats, deer and curlews. In the UK, bats and their roosts are protected by law whether occupied or not. It is illegal to damage, destroy or disturb these species.

Object

Representation ID: 13846

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Philip Tigg

Almost all of these buildings will be on greenbelt, loss of "scenic and sensitive natural landscape".
Alternative brownfield sites available.
The character/surroundings of Ilkley would be affected.
Reduction in the gap between Ilkley and Burley.
Impact from flooding made worse by additional building works.
Schools and childcare are at breaking point. School places are difficult to get.

Increase in road traffic to a road network which is not designed to cope with it leading to bigger queues, especially at the bottom of Wheatley Lane. The train network is crowded by the time it gets to Guiseley. Increased passenger numbers at Ilkley and Ben Rhydding will make it more difficult for people further down the train line to board. If the road network is busier, then buses will be delayed more too.

Approximately 30 new properties per year have been developed for the last few years; another 314 properties is a significant increase.

The idyllic nature will be compromised, benefits of living in such a beautiful area will be eroded.

Comment

Representation ID: 13869

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Robert Nelmes

I would like to make the following points.

Because of the frequently congested roads in Ben Rhydding particularly around the single file railway bridge I believe that the increase in traffic caused by 285 new properties would result in this are becoming completely gridlocked. The planned exit for the potential 130 properties off Wheatley Grove onto Wheatley Lane would make the already difficult junctions almost impossible. At certain times there can be busy traffic going to and from Ben Rhydding Golf Club and The Wheatley Hotel.

In respect to all the developments planned for Ilkley the current full schools and busy medical centre would not be able to function adequately without further expansion.

Object

Representation ID: 13887

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Elaine & Terry Hennessey

Object to sites IL1/H to IL4/H.

The negative and damaging developments they would inflict on quality of life is acknowledged - no alternatives offered. Many brownfield sites in Bradford - proposals are weighted towards Green Belt. Other issues support views that proposals are flawed:

• Schools (primary & secondary) fully subscribed - how would additional children be accommodated?

• Traffic is heavy in terms of through traffic and parking - increase in housing will make this worse.

• Increased traffic means Wheatley Road, Bolling Road and surrounding roads would become “rat runs”.

- GP services under pressure - would increase if proposal is implemented

-Rail services under pressure

- 3 out of 4 sites are vulnerable to flooding

- Sewage capacity is insufficient – issue with discharge into the River Wharfe and environmental damage

- Green Belt is intrinsic part of Ilkley’s environment – to change designations when there are alternatives (brownfield land/unoccupied buildings) is wrong. Should not be allowed to happen.

Object

Representation ID: 13989

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Elizabeth Gribbin

-It is imperative that green belt land is protected and brownfield sites are chosen wherever possible.
-Lack of justification of using green belt sites when there are a number of alternative brownfield sites in the district.
-The proposed four sites pose a significant threat to Ilkley's natural landscape and it is imperative that it is protected.
-Three of the sites have significant existing threats from flooding. Development on areas with a high flood risk should be avoided at all costs.
-Detrimental impact on infrastructure and public services. There is already congestion on the A65 through Ilkley and additional homes will significantly exacerbate this problem.
-Unclear how CBMDC propose to deal with the fact that Ilkley Grammar School is currently at full capacity and cannot expand to provide places to additional children. - -Ilkley does not have the infrastructure or resources to expand in the way proposed by Bradford Council.

Object

Representation ID: 14007

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Gemma Pell

The Wheatley Grove site is only 350m from the Ilkley moor and falls within its buffer zone.
The importance of Ilkley Moor should be recognised and development should specifically be avoided in this area.

Object

Representation ID: 14029

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Julie Devonald

- no clear plan regarding traffic - this will increase traffic on an already busy road that goes to one Lane under the railway bridge. This will have negative impact on current residents and be dangerous for kids walking to nearby schools

- no plan for how the new housing will be supported within the community - all primary and the secondary schools are full. Doctors and dentists are full. Increasing the population of Ilkley / Ben Rhydding with this (and the other development near the golf club) cannot be made with also increasing public services such as schools and access to NHS services etc

- There are provisional plans for car parking for the station. This will further increase congestion problems and overcrowding at the station and trains

Object

Representation ID: 14076

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Deborah Davitt

-Impact on Green belt & Character
-ALL brownfield options should be assessed first
-Following the pandemic and the resulting significant shifts in how people live and work there will be an excess of office space in centres which could be used for redevelopment for housing.
-Combined proposals for Wharfedale will create continuous corridor of housing development along a substantial stretch of lower Wharfedale.
-Important for physical and mental well-being.
-Plan proposals go against mission to protect the environment.
- Wheatley Grove/Coutances Way sites provide valuable wildlife corridors with mature hedges and trees (TPOs),
-Impact on designated sites, SSSI. development should be avoided.
-The fields around Coutances Way are important feeding grounds for "vulnerable" Curlew which should be protected and not disturbed.
-Impact on local infrastructure.
-Sewerage –Ben Rhydding/Ilkley sewage treatment works are unable to deal with existing capacity / regularly overflow.
- Access to secondary school -Ilkley Grammar is at capacity/unable to expand.

Object

Representation ID: 14080

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Jonathan & Catherine Crowther

Number of people: 2

Building 130 homes on green belt land on Wheatley Grove would entirely change the character of this rural area. An additional 500 people accessing the site from Wheatley Grove (that’s 250 cars at a prudent estimate).

Access from Wheatley Grove onto Wheatley Lane is a blind pull-out, an additional 250 cars on that road would cause road safety/environmental issues.

Loss of habitat for wildlife and mature woodland - we can hear curlews, a seriously endangered bird.

Impact of flooding, the proposed sites currently absorb excess rainfall, delaying water run-off onto adjacent areas.

Infrastructure would be unable to cope with the additional population. Parking for the railway station is already intolerable, and has increased since parking charges were introduced. This has pushed commuters to park free of charge on Wheatley Lane and Wheatley Grove. An increase in residents would worsen the on-street parking.

Gritting – Wheatley Grove is a steep road and in winter is often dangerously icy and rarely gritted.

Ilkley Grammar School is outstanding and is over-subscribed. Additional developments will add significantly to demand for non-existing places.

Object

Representation ID: 14114

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Michael Vevers

Number of people: 2

Proposals fail to meet the criteria for sustainable development
Ignore the five of the purposes of the greenbelt
Ribbon development along A65
Detrimental effect on the local environment and loss of character
Impact on the flood risk from surface water runoff
Impact on the viability of the Town
Impact on the A65 and increased traffic congestion in the town.
Concern about cumulative impact of local developments, e.g Burley PP for 500 homes
Impact on local amenities: schools oversubscribed, health care, employment opportunities

Object

Representation ID: 14314

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Michael Duffield

Developments on Greenbelt will alter the character/landscape.

The proposals will destroy character by reducing seperation of Ilkley and Burley, especially with recent approval of the sites in Sun Lane, creating urban sprawl in a scenic landscape, removal of natural boundaries between towns and villages.

Loss of habitats for wildlife. Barn Owls nest and forage. Their nest cannot be destroyed/disturbed. Other wildlife would be displaced. Conflict with the draft plans objective 1.2.9 protecting environmental resources and leaving biodiversity in a better state than previously.

Impact of light pollution from street lighting.

Impact from increased congestion, noise pollution, traffic noise and fuel emissions.

Disturb/disrupt local wildlife, reduce environmental diversity.

Additional volume of people/households will impact on provision of services. [Reference street lamps being out of action for over 3 months, bins not being provided and emptied].

Schools are over-subscribed.

The proposals contradict the key strategy of taking a measured and sympathetic approach to green belt development.

Scale of proposals will alter the fabric of the local communities/neighbourhoods.

Object

Representation ID: 14376

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Thomas Dawson

Object to proposed developments (IL1/H & IL3/H) which together would add 185 houses to Ben Rhydding.

Objection is based on lack of infrastructure and congestion. Coutances Way and Ben Rhydding Road are not fit for current volume of traffic, let alone additional cars which would come with the additional houses.

Shops are overburdened. Have been developments over the last 40 years and it is hit or miss whether they contribute positively or negatively to town life. Large development, as proposed on these sites, come with an even less favourable prospect.

Council has disregard for Ilkley and does not look out for residents. Leave Ilkley alone in terms of significant development for a good few years and allow it function successfully with what it has. Does not need more houses. If required for Bradford and Leeds, they should be built in an area which does need them and can support them.

Object

Representation ID: 14702

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Nigel Duce

Read with total incredulity the proposed plans for development particularly in the Wheatley Grove area, Ben Rhydding.

Can only assume those behind this and the proposals for other areas have only a scant idea of the road layouts, extra medical services and school places which would be needed to service such an enormous plan. Wheatley Lane is unsuitable, even at the moment, for any decent traffic flow and the junction with Wheatley Grove is potentially dangerous even now, and certainly would be if usage were increased.

Preparations for building work would result in untold misery and great inconvenience for current residents, with lorries and all other forms of machinery involved. Wildlife would be severely affected.

Common sense must be brought to bear on planners and development plans drastically reduced.

Plans must be put in abeyance until proper public consultation/meeting can be held.

Register my objection in the strongest possible way.

Object

Representation ID: 14925

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Susan Stevens

1. Development is on Green Belt land. There are many brownfield sites in Bradford district, all of which should be fully used before encroaching on the green belt.

2. Flood risk. The houses themselves may be at risk of flooding, and the land they are built on will no longer act as a sink for rainwater, increasing the risk of flooding in the surrounding area

3. Wildlife. Area is an important habitat for our increasingly threatened wildlife and is part of an important wildlife corridor leading to the moor.

4. Area is an important open space within the town, well used for walking and recreation.

5. Within the buffer zone surrounding the SSSI of Ilkley Moor. Building in a buffer zone is supposed to be avoided.

If Green belt land has to be used, it may be that denser housing at the lower end of this field would be acceptable.

Object

Representation ID: 14928

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Jonathan Leach

Disagree with the principle of building on green belt land, especially when there are a number of brownfield sites available in Bradford.
Protecting green belt land is important as Ilkley is situated in scenic landscape attracting both tourists and businesses.
Views of Ilkley from the A65 across the fields up to the Cow and Calf rocks will be significantly affected by the proposed developments.
Reduction in separation between Burley and Ilkley to such an extent that it will virtually be a single urban area.
The Wheatley Grove site is close to the moor, having trees with TPOs and providing a valuable wildlife corridor.
Previously proposed developments were turned down. The council have a responsibility as guardians for future generations - once the countryside is lost to housing, it is gone forever.
School already at capacity.
Traffic and road safety issues from additional traffic on the very busy Wheatley Lane, including the single lane under the train bridge and the dangerous junction with Valley Drive, and the single point of access for the Wheatley Grove site. Developments would make these roads less safe.

Object

Representation ID: 14940

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Jeff Green

• They are both on existing green-belt land. A reasonable alternative to these sites would be to make better use of brownfield sites with the district.
• The resulting loss of green belt would have a significant negative effect on wildlife, the natural habitats and biodiversity of the area.
• Building on a greenfield site will lead to an increase in impermeable surfaces, increasing run-off into the River Wharfe and creating additional flood risk.
• The distance of the sites from the town centre are such that they will result in an increase in car use around Ilkley which will have a negative impact on air quality and the climate and exacerbate existing traffic congestion and parking problems in the town centre.

Object

Representation ID: 15309

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Richard Fox

Object to proposals to build on Green Belt in Ben Rhydding & Ilkley.

Land at Coutances Way & Wheatley Grove was given to the community to be preserved as green space and not for building. Both are wildlife corridors to the Moor and home to rare species. Would change the character of one of the main approaches to Ilkley by destroying its natural setting.

Number of houses in Ben Rhydding is disproportionate compare to rest of Ilkley. Will impact on infrastructure, roads, schools and medical practices. Grammar School is over-subscribed and the situation will be worsened.

Will increase the risk of flooding, further exacerbating the risks already existing on the River Wharfe.

Understand that growing population of Bradford requires new homes, not out-lying districts e.g. Wharfedale, where the type of housing built is generally not the type that is affordable by those who are most in need.

Object

Representation ID: 15320

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Karen Jones

RE: Objection to planning IL1/H

I have lived in Ilkley and Burley In Wharfedale for over 30 years and seen the impact extra housing will create on all the services/schools/Dr's surgeries and more importantly traffic, which is affected when the A65 floods especially. These proposed areas of houses are on flood plains and green belt land, in an area of outstanding beauty.

The recent parking meters and charges are already impacting on local people using the town and staff/commuters parking on side roads.

I would like to object to this proposal.