Object

Representation ID: 17137

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: S.M.B Wilson

Two of the plans proposed are totally unsuitable on this scale in Ilkley and should not be developed in this density. These are IL1/H Ben Rhydding Drive, Wheatley Grove and IL3/J Coutances Way.

These two with a total of 285 dwellings are totally out of character with Ilkley town because there is no where in Ilkley that has a development of more than approximately 50 houses maximum and these large developments simply would not be appropriate here, would not fit in with the surroundings and would spoil the entire area.

As stated in your proposal, Ilkley is a small country town of great attraction and would be totally spoiled if this number of dwellings was built on these sites .

There is also the added number of cars to be considered. As it is the town is often gridlocked - as you stated, parking is already a major problem.

Object

Representation ID: 17141

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: W & M Shaw

Number of people: 2

Previously undeveloped - presumably because of its steepness. Very difficult access from Wheatley Grove. Leave undeveloped.

Object

Representation ID: 17195

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Victoria & Simon Coppack

Number of people: 2

We object for the following reasons:

1. Green belt

2. This site falls within Ilkley moors SSSI buffer zone where development should be specifically avoided to enable this important area to be protected for future generations to enjoy.

3. The field is a regular recreational area for local residents which has been of critical importance during the pandemic and beyond to reduce physical and mental health issues

4. Flood risk - . I have first hand experience of the water rushing through the field and gardens of the adjacent properties which will only be made worse by both the development combined with the effects of climate change.

5.The only publicly accessible secondary school in the local area is already at capacity with no further possibility for expansion. Addingham and Burley are also seeing development which will further add strain to this issue and see a reduction in catchment area as has already been seen.

Object

Representation ID: 17242

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Sally de la Poer

Firstly there will be a huge loss of an amazing natural habitat. This is a wonderful piece of woodland and meadow. The wildlife in this field is very important too.
It is a very important place to us as a family for walks and play. It would be in believably sad to loose this.

The infrastructure of Ben rhydding will really struggle with this development. We live on Wheatley grove and the road system is not fit for purpose for this at all.

There are strains already on the health system and school.

The list could go on and on but this is a fundamentally bad place to make such a huge development and I hope that this is considered really carefully

Object

Representation ID: 17287

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: S & S Robson & Perry

Number of people: 2

•Green belt beneficial to everyone. They absorb carbon, provide space for water, wildlife corridors and habitats.
•No justification of building on Green Belt when there are numerous brownfield sites across the district.
•Building on these greenfields will concrete over children’s future health and wellbeing and is not consistent with the Council’s Sustainable Development Priorities.
•Development will remove the natural soakaways that these sites currently provide and lead to an increase of flooding in the valley.
•Sites provide valuable habitat for significant amounts of wildlife and hunting ground for recently reintroduced red kites. Numerous mature oak would be lost.
•Not logical to build 300 homes in a small community.
•Current infrastructure not fit or capable of accommodating addition cars, school children, or sewage. Sewerage system is unable to deal with current capacity with pollution issues in the river below Ilkley.
•First-hand experience of the inadequacy of school places particularly at primary level. The Grammar school also has capacity issues.
•Proposed development will increase traffic pressure. Particularly on Wheatley Road Train Bridge.
•Difficult to exit from Moorfield Road and Cheltenham Avenue.
•New traffic lights have removed frequent stand-offs but increased speeding.
•Turning right from train station is extremely dangerous.

Object

Representation ID: 17328

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Niall Cahill

•Proposed developments are on green belt further contributing to the urbanisation of lower Wharfedale.
•Area is recognised as a scenic and sensitive natural landscape. Increasing development will take away this natural landscape and habitats for wildlife. Development will reduce the small wildlife corridors between the villages.
•Concern about the reduced amount of green belt between Burley-in-Wharfedale and Ben Rhydding. This would impact on the character of the area and increase urbanisation.
•Concerns about the safety of future residents from the risks of flooding. Sun Lane and Coutances Way sites are prone to flooding.
•Concerns of impact on local infrastructure, particularly secondary school places. Additional proposed developments will increase demand on places, the impacts of which haven’t been addressed.
•Road safety and congestion concerns at the Sun Lane and Coutances Way sites. These are already congested roads and additional traffic will make this worse.

Object

Representation ID: 17339

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Frances Davies

•Object to plans which would allow nearly 300 new houses to be built on the Green Belt.
•The schools in the town are oversubscribed and already under increased pressure and the proposed number of houses would only exacerbate the problem.
•The environment would also be damaged, not only with the loss of green open spaces but in recent years the sewerage system has not been able to contend with the current number of properties resulting in the pollution of the river.
•Before even contemplating more houses in Ilkley/Ben Rhydding, Bradford Council need to looking at investing in the infrastructure of the town, schools, roads, commuter parking at both stations and medical provision and not see Ilkley as a useful and easy source of revenue.

Object

Representation ID: 17456

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Dr and Professor Gwenda & Michael Pilling CBE

Number of people: 2

The site lies at the entrance to Ilkley from the east. It will have an adverse effect on the appearance of the town.

They will add considerably to the pressure on already stretched facilities: schools, health, sewage

The site is visually important as it forms part of a continuous green section that links to Ilkley Moor via the Golf Club.

It is environmentally sensitive because of its closeness to the South Pennines SSSI and the trees, including the central copse.

Important natural habitats would be affected and effective mitigation difficult.

If development were permitted, substantial restrictions would be necessary.

The comments from the Council officers in the recent consultation process, indicated that such restrictions can be difficult with a privately owned site.

Access to the site will be very difficult and circuitous, because it has to be via Wheatley Grove. Access to public transport is poor.

Object

Representation ID: 17467

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Tom Birch

•Changes represent an unjustified encroachment on greenbelt, impairing enjoyment of surrounding area. It represents a material deviation from the NPPF which the plan claims to adhere to.
•Building houses on the greenbelt between Ilkley and Burley is not an emphasis on the redevelopment of brownfield sites or a measure/sensitive approach to greenbelt release. The plan contradicts itself against stated intensions in paragraphs 1.1.3 and 1.2.9.
•The Plan’s spatial vision does not include any protection of the greenbelt and is not in line with the NPPF. Its absence leads to the belief that the council have not considered the greenbelt seriously and that the plan is not in line with the government’s policies it claims to be. Although Policy SP5 mentions greenbelt it need needs to be in the spatial vision.
•Unsure there is legal basis to continue with the plan given the above points. You have not done due-diligence by incorporating local opinion before creating such an insensitive proposal.
•Development of brownfield sites in Bradford should be the focus of the plan, aimed at regenerating a deprived area.
•Development should be focused where it is needed rather than being distribute across the district.

Object

Representation ID: 17490

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Lorraine Dowson

With regard to the local strategy for Ilkley:

I wish to object to plans for two housing sites in Ben Rhydding.

In summary my concerns relate to:

1. Plans to build on Green Belt land

This will have an impact on wildlife, amenity value, aesthetics. Ilkley’s economy is dependent on visitors to the town and it is essential to retain an appearance and ambience which will continue to attract visitors.

2. Pressure on services

The addition of 300+ homes will add to existing pressures on sewerage, road access, education etc

Object

Representation ID: 17559

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Adam White

The site lies within the Green Belt - a vital defense against urban sprawl. Bradford has enough brownfield land which is not on the Green Belt to satisfy its housing needs.

The Plan has divided the District up into sections with a housing quota allocated to each section, roughly according to the size of the local population and the amount of open space available. The inevitable result is that in a place like Ilkley, where there is very little land that is not on the Green Belt, the Belt has to be built on.

The total housing proposed - 314 units will assuming three people per house, means a 942 increase in the town's population. No provision has been made in the plan for more facilities in the way of shops, employment sites or education facilities.

Object

Representation ID: 17985

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Sarah Dunhill

Green Belt: Council have not given any significant justification as to why they have proposed Green Belt land, especially given the number of brownfield sites available in Bradford district. In the overall Bradford plan, this figure is only 20%, showing a hugely disproportionate value against Ilkley.

Flooding: Three sites have significant existing flooding risks. Development would further exacerbate issues on the surrounding areas.

School Capacity: Ilkley Grammar is the only publicly accessible secondary school in the area and already operating at capacity. It is unable to expand any further and has already had to limit the catchment area in order to manage numbers.

Road Safety: Two main sites in Ben Rhydding will directly and significantly increase traffic through the Wheatley Road train bridge and junction with Valley Drive. These are two areas of congestion and already at high risk of accidents. No traffic assessment has been carried out on these areas.

Object

Representation ID: 18016

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Toni Seddon

Would like to strongly object to proposed building of 314 new houses in Ilkley. Particularly concerned about the two larger plots (285 houses) which will need access onto Wheatley Lane.

Cannot emphasise how busy this road is, with single file under the railway bridge. Is used as a “rat run” to avoid the A65 in central Ilkley. Valley Drive is also busy. Difficult to turn onto Wheatley Lane at the point where IL3/H might need access.

Ilkley has been flooded many times by the river. No plans to address this situation. Sewage works already unable to deal with needed capacity and often overflow.

Ilkley Grammar School is at capacity and unable to expand. Haven’t heard of any proposed new schools. Where will children go to school?

Building proposed on Green Belt land – what will be the environmental impact, and what effect will building so many houses have on the town’s character?

Comment

Representation ID: 18068

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Graham Taylor

I am not against all development in these areas but do have serious concerns that the proposals as they stand represent an increasing on encroachment on greenfield land and over-development within the context of the existing townscape.

IL1/H – Ben Ryhdding Drive, Wheatley Grove
Density - proposed 18 dwellings per hectare seems ok for a suburban area bordering on some greenfield land and is lower than the national average.
Location- this seems ok as an infill of a small area partly between existing residential areas.

Object

Representation ID: 18075

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Kathleen 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: 18128

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Karen Gardner

No rationale for the use of Green Belt land, given the large number of available brownfield sites in the district. Distances between settlements will be eroded.

Will impact on town’s unique character particularly its entrance as well as traffic and parking – making this worse, impacting on quality of life.

Flooding is a recurring issue along the Wharfe Valley. Development will increase run-off, leading to more flooding. All sites classed as having a flood risk of 2/3.

Will have numerous environmental impacts – on wildlife (including curlew feeding), proximity to the Moor (a SSSI), loss of open space, numerous TPO designated trees on site – reducing the developable area.

Sewage systems at capacity.

Schools are at capacity especially Ilkley Grammar School. No sensible alternatives available and few options for expansion. Ben Rhydding primary is unlikely to be able absorb increased demand for places. Also no scope for expansion. No solution in the Plan. Need to consider the wider catchment as well.

Area is already congested whilst increased traffic will impact on road safety. Parking is also an issue, whilst development elsewhere will add to traffic in the area.

Plan does not consider ongoing infill development (c. 30 homes p.a.)

Congestion on A65 corridor is a problem - has got worse with increased housing building along it with no improvements. Rail network is at capacity. Proposed development will make congestion worse. Cannot consider proposed Ilkley development in isolation.

No evidence that disadvantages above will be compensated by any improvement in housing affordability

Object

Representation ID: 18217

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Lynda & Andrew Raddings

Number of people: 2

•Ben Rhydding Drive is unadopted and not maintained by the council. Increasing its use is not sensible.
•The site is Green Belt and is supposed to be protected by the NPPF with Brownfield sites being use before green belt. There are many Brownfield sites in Bradford.
•The site is adjacent to an urban common, SSSI, SPA.
•Heather moorland is a rare habitat supporting a range of wildlife.
•Site Specific Green Belt Assessment indicates that development would have a major impact on purpose 3.
•The SA concludes there will be a major adverse effect on land/buildings due to the loss of greenfield land.
•Schools will be negatively affected. Schools generate more journeys than anything else.
•Provision of new employment is questioned – most new residents would have to travel to most forms of work.
•Major adverse effect on biodiversity/geodiversity. Within the 2.5km HRA zone, borders priority habitat, contains a copse and ancient trees, bird species.
•Area has been used by walkers in lockdown. Plan has not allowed for Brexit or the pandemic to be taken into account in terms of need for housing and working from home arrangements.
•Contradiction of proposals with the Ilkley Neighbourhood Plan’s principles.
•Increase in dwellings will see an increase in vehicles exacerbating the existing problems of pedestrian access in this area. Issues with the single file railway bridge and access along the Drive.

Object

Representation ID: 18254

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Hannah Walton

I would like to add my objections to the current proposed home building strategy in Ilkley.

I am very concerned that local infrastructure is not sufficient to deal with the proposed additional number of people. Ilkley Grammar school has already expanded recently and I understand that it is now operating at capacity and how will the additional need for health services be met?

There will be a significant increase in heavy traffic along the A65 and along Wheatley Road train bridge and junction with Valley Road - already subject to congestion.

97% of the proposed homes will be built on green belt land. Whilst I accept there is a need for more affordable housing, the destruction of green belt land should come when there are no other options available. What is the justification for choosing green belt land over other available areas?

Object

Representation ID: 18259

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: David Garner

The indicative number of dwellings described in the DLP for this site is highly optimistic when the following site constraints are reviewed:- site topography, tree protection, access issues from Wheatley Grove.

Other issues - flooding, loss of green space, local infrastructure pressures.

The LDP states that the 'scale of the development will help to deliver new market and affordable homes and continue to support and sustain local services and facilities'. The economics of the development of this site would result in no affordable homes and indeed it is questionable as to whether it would be economically sustainable to build marketable houses at all.

Object

Representation ID: 18269

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr David Hughes

The plans to destroy this valuable and much-loved local open space is an unacceptable violation of the green belt. This large field is well used by local people for exercise and access public footpaths. It would lead to the destruction of Cobby Wood, which is an important wildlife habitat. The building of 130 homes with supporting infrastructure and light pollution would devastate this beautiful area.

Object

Representation ID: 18288

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Tim Ashelford

Will significantly erode the Ilkley green belt, leading to a corridor of development between Ilkley and Burley. This is especially important given the recent approval of a 500 houses to be built at Sun Lane Burley.

Given the number of brownfield sites available in the Bradford district, building on the green belt can not be justified.

The proposals would significantly change the character of Ilkley and the surrounding areas.

Impact on Ilkley’s character is defined by it’s natural setting amongst the countryside.

Ilkley Moor is part of the South Pennine Moors SSSI
Both sites are in the SSSI Risk buffer zone for the SSSI.

Coutances Way is a nationally significant area for curlew.

Ilkley Grammar is already operating at capacity. It is unable to expand any further.

Road Safety – The two main sites in Ben Rhydding will directly and significantly increase traffic through the Wheatley Road train bridge and the junction with valley drive. These are two areas of congestion are already at high risk of accidents.

Object

Representation ID: 18338

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Elaine Thornton

•Rail and road infrastructure are already inadequate. Commuter train are overcrowded and commuting by car takes a disproportionate amount of time – with congestion on the A65.
•There is a need for a bypass but the funding keeping being withdrawn. One of the housing sites sits within the proposed bypass routes and would put a stop to those plans.
•Schools are already oversubscribed.
•Developments at Ben Rhydding and Burley-in-Wharfedale will erode the green belt which separates them, with the Wharfedale valley becoming one massive conurbation – changing the nature and character of the area.
•The Green Belt should be preserved for future generations to enhance Ilkley and the Wharfe valley.

Object

Representation ID: 18484

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Nick Thompson

The building of new homes within the greenbelt area should not be allowed to go ahead.

Ilkley has a sensitive natural landscape - the surrounding areas within and bordering the greenbelt have become even more important to the wildlife seeking sanctuary.

Adding so many new houses, taking up the greenbelt area, would significantly detract from the character and 'feel' of the town, decreasing its attractiveness and popularity with visitors.

Concerns about the increase in traffic on the many narrow roads and know full well that the school capacity both in primary and secondary schools in the area is already extremely limited.

Having over 300 new homes will bring approximately 1200 new people living in the town; over 600 additional cars and 600 additional pupils to the schools; all putting additional strain on the environment, infrastructure and increasing traffic.

Increasing building in these areas risks further flooding problems with water catchment.

Object

Representation ID: 18493

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Andy Stuart

•Report states that there is a major impact of the Green Belt. In the climate emergency the Green Belt should be protected not developed. Proposals go against government/council policy.
•No evidence that flood risk has been properly analysed. Water flows off the moor and down Wheatley Lane flooding front gardens. Proposals will increase flood risk of the properties lower down Wheatley Lane.
•Regular flooding occurs on/around Coutances Way. The A65 has been closed due to flooding. Trees should be planted to provide ground stability and absorb carbon/water.
•No mention of the risk to the stability of the railway line.
•Proposals go against the local plan to protect Ilkley’s environment.
•Wheatley Grove site falls within the buffer zone for the moor (SSSI). Development should be avoided.
•Sites will have a major impact on an already busy road network, adversely affecting the safety of existing and proposed residents and air quality.
•Use of the site for park and ride is not required. The pandemic has change the way people work and reduced rail journeys.
•Ilkley Grammar is at capacity and unable to expand further, already limiting the catchment area to manage numbers.
•No additional secondary school capacity proposed.
•Sewage sites at capacity and regularly overflow their storm-surge capacity, polluting the Wharfe.

Object

Representation ID: 18549

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: William & Noemy Ellis Martin

Number of people: 2

Environment impact: These are green-belt sites - development would severely detract from the environment around Ilkley.

IL1/H - coupled with the proposed site for houses on the West side of Burley this would lead to approaching a contiguous development with very few fields left separating Burley / Manor Park Bends / Ilkley.

Building plans should make use of post-industrial sites in the first instance.

The character of Ilkley is that of a small town in the countryside - it is one of the jewels of West Yorkshire, enjoyed not just by its residents but by lots of tourists

Pressure on sewage works

Pressure on secondary schools and medical practices: Ilkley Grammar School is already bursting at the seams.

IL1/H and IL3/H will lead to increased numbers of cars on the road - they're not within walking distance of the town centre.

Pressure on the junction at the end of valley drive will increase - this is a dangerous junction already.

Object

Representation ID: 18550

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: William & Noemy Ellis Martin

Number of people: 2

Environment impact: These are green-belt sites - development would severely detract from the environment around Ilkley.

IL1/H - coupled with the proposed site for houses on the West side of Burley this would lead to approaching a contiguous development with very few fields left separating Burley / Manor Park Bends / Ilkley.

Building plans should make use of post-industrial sites in the first instance.

The character of Ilkley is that of a small town in the countryside - it is one of the jewels of West Yorkshire, enjoyed not just by its residents but by lots of tourists

Pressure on sewage works

Pressure on secondary schools and medical practices: Ilkley Grammar School is already bursting at the seams.

IL1/H and IL3/H will lead to increased numbers of cars on the road - they're not within walking distance of the town centre.

Pressure on the junction at the end of valley drive will increase - this is a dangerous junction already.

Object

Representation ID: 18707

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Rachel Ashelford

97% of the proposed housing allocation within Ilkley is in the green belt - disproportionate as district wide the figure is 20%. The Council has not demonstrated the exceptional circumstances required.

There are brownfield sites within the Bradford district which could be developed.

The proposals would significantly change the character of Ben Rhydding.

Increased surface run off and the risk of flooding - no account taken of climate change which is likely to increase these risks.

S Pennine Moors SPS - Fields within IL3/H are regularly used as a foraging area by Curlew, a red list, IUCN Near Threatened species. Development of this site will both directly remove this habitat and increase disturbance.

No additional school capacity is proposed to accommodate the cumulative developments in Ilkley, Addingham, Burley and the old hospital site (North Yorkshire).

Increase traffic through the Wheatley Lane railway bridge and at the junction with Valley Drive.

Object

Representation ID: 18709

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Mr John Saltmarshe

Inadequate infrastructure
- Ilkley grammar school is already oversubscribed
- the local sewage treatment plant is already unable to cope in conditions of heavy rain,
- several of the roads are already at capacity.

There are alternative brownfield sites available in Bradford which should be prioritsed over Green Belt in the Wharfe Valley.

Object

Representation ID: 18741

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Helen Friedrichsen

•This is a valued green space with many ancient trees which will need protecting. It is a valuable resource for dog walkers and people wanting to see greenery between area of development. Land is used as a corridor between Ilkley Moor and Middleton woods for deer and other protected species.
•The houses will be unaffordable for families.
•Already pressure on schools, GPs and amenities (parking/train capacity).
•Council will not secure developer contributions for local services as developers evade these.
•Development should be in areas that need regenerating – Ilkley is not one of these.
•Developers are looking for a quick return and do not add anything to the local area but detract from it.
•The more green belt that is built on the more this will undermine the returns to the Council from businesses/tourists from people who want to come to this historic town.

Object

Representation ID: 18762

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Josephine Wallace

Both areas are within the Green belt and would result in the loss of beautiful outside space that is within a few hundred metres of an area of outstanding natural beauty.

Lack of sufficient infrastructure in the area, specifically schools. The local Primary school in Ben Rhydding is single class entry and does not have the space for any expansion. Ilkley Grammar School is already at its capacity and has already expanded to its maximum.

My major concern however is with the road access to these two proposed sites, especially IL3/H, the junction on Coutances way is often extremely busy with regular ques at the traffic lights to leave Ben Rhydding, the addition of over 300 cars in the local area would make the situation worse. The Toll bridge to Denton / Askwith is unable to take any additional traffic with regular traffic jams building there at peak times and a number of accidents have occurred.