Object

Representation ID: 19797

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Joyce Storer

I wish to register my objection to the proposed building of 130 dwellings on Ben Rhydding Drive and also 155 on Countances Way.

I do not agree with building on these Brownfield sites. This number of houses will add to pressure on available parking in Ilkley

And also on the local schools.

Comment

Representation ID: 19885

Received: 01/04/2021

Respondent: Natural England

The site lies in proximity to the South Pennine Moors (Phase 2) SPA and has potential to lead to the loss of functionally linked land for SPA birds.

We welcome the approach taken in the draft plan, SPD and assessments to loss of functionally linked land.

The council has a copy of a model to identify the suitability of sites for SPA golden plover and recommend that allocations are screened against this dataset taking the following approach:

• Maximum Training Sensitivity plus Specificity (MTSS) layer: full survey for Golden Plover likely to be required. The WY Ecology Service SPA Bird Survey Methodology should be followed.

• Minimum Training Presence (MTP) layer or 10 Percentile Training Presence (10PTP) layer: scoping survey to determine if a full Golden Plover full survey required. A desk based survey may be sufficient for sites within the MTP whereas a walkover survey may be required for sites within the 10PTP;

• Not within an area of predicted presence: No survey required for Golden Plover.

Where loss of functionally linked land cannot be ruled out at this stage we recommend that allocation requirement text in the plan sets out survey and mitigation requirements clearly.

Comment

Representation ID: 19907

Received: 01/04/2021

Respondent: Natural England

We note that the following allocations are on land which may be best and most versatile agricultural land. The plan should safeguard the long term capability of such land (NPPF para 170).

In order to inform the sustainability appraisal and ensure an accurate assessment of the impact of the plan on soil resources we recommend that allocations over 5ha, or at least those over 20ha, have ALC surveys undertaken in order to determine the ALC grade and help inform master planning and soil handling going forward.

Object

Representation ID: 20008

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Louise Atherton

My main concerns are it is enormous development on green belt . The area on coutances way is flooded most of the year and is a recognised flood plain.

There are also no additional schools , health centres in the plan. Incidentally much of the background information is inaccurate and poorly researched.
Without infrastructure supoort this means that it would over burden the local area and cause traffic chaos particularly around the junction on Weatley Road where there are traffic lights near the Bridge but also on the A65.

It would essential create a joined town between Burley and Ilkley with the developments of Sun Lane but without any of the infrastructure needed to support this development.

In Ilkley we have only just got to the point where we have a clean river - the overburdening of the treatment works and sewerage system will give untold environmental damage.

Object

Representation ID: 20011

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Archie Miller

Loss of green belt land is incompatible with the Council's Climate Emergency declaration.

Many of the proposed builds are four and five bedroom houses with price tags in no way affordable for the people who are in need of housing in the district, bearing in mind Ilkley has some of the highest house prices in West Yorkshire.

Infrastructure and service are strained.

Access and highways safety concerns. With the only access road being Wheatley Grove as Ben Rhydding Drive is a private road. Wheatley Grove is in no way fit for an additional 130 homes worth of vehicles. Most of these homes will be populated by families with two or more cars, Wheatley Grove is so steep that even gritters in winter have issue with it.

Object

Representation ID: 20019

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Claire Barker

130 IL1/H houses on Wheatley Grove, Ben Rhydding on green belt land with only
(ha 7.18) with many rights of way through the field which Must be saved, Only one entry and one exit from the estate, whereas the Drive Ben Rhydding which is a private road could offer an exit and an entry onto a lower section of the estate it would have to be adopted by the highways authority. If it didn't happen then perhaps fewer houses could be built.

Object

Representation ID: 20023

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Andrew & Sue Lambert & Varley

Number of people: 2

IL1/H & IL3/H are being built on green belt land, exiting no doubt onto already busy roads. Ilkley has only one main road and when the A59 from Skipton to Harrogate is closed, all the traffic then creates a huge jam on Ilkley’s one route through it. Two of these sites will add to this.

Comment

Representation ID: 20057

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Felicity Tomblin

•What planning has gone into road infrastructure? The town gets incredibly congested. How many cars will be accommodated at the new properties? What provision has been made to access these estates. (IL/H, IL3/H). These sites are located on busy roads which get congested with traffic trying to access the A65 of town.

Object

Representation ID: 20072

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Valerie Simpson

The basis of my objections are;

1. Building on Green Belt or non-Brown Belt land should not be allowed. This land should be kept undisturbed for ecological reasons.

2. The infrastructure of Ilkley cannot sustain such a large increase in dwellings.Services such as schools , transport in/out of the area particularly the road network, parking , GPs & other support services are already under pressure and could be strained to breaking point

3. Increase risk of flooding

Object

Representation ID: 20086

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Paul Holmes

Ben Rhydding Drive, Wheatley Grove site. This is a beautiful greenfield site in the Greenbelt and really must not be developed.
It would represent a major loss of habitat of trees and hedgerows, including Copy Wood, but also a loss of habitat for wildlife.
The field is often used to graze horses and sheep.
It is one of the few remaining green spaces in the already overdeveloped village of Ben Rhydding.

During the building and development phase there will be large volumes of traffic and heavy trucks driving through this tranquil area of Ben Rhydding for 6-11 years, and after development, there will be a permanent increase in traffic and pressure on local services and amenities.
Such development should be limited to brownfield sites or commercial premises. Development of a greenfield site on the greenbelt, together with 130 houses and hundreds of extra cars, will prevent Bradford from complying with its own commitment to a zero-carbon future.

If Wheatley Grove is developed it will be another nail in the coffin of the greenbelt and the permanent loss of a beautiful green space on the edge of the moors

Object

Representation ID: 20091

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Rachel Lawton

Dear sirs, please accept this as my complete opposition to all for proposed sites on Ben Rhydding Drive/Wheatley Grove, Skipton Road, Coutances Way and Stockeld Way.

Ilkley and the surrounding villages are in danger of being merged into one great big bank of housing. This will destroy all remaining green belt land and all habitats for every type of nature. No infrastructure - schools, transport, parking excetra has been considered and the reason that we choose to live in these beautiful places is because they are beautiful. Bradford Council has many other options to build affordable housing and they should look at those options before destroying green belt land and the villages and towns we are proud to call home. Enough building on green belt. It is time to look at truly affordable housing options.

Object

Representation ID: 20154

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Andrew Pearse

Building on the green belt will dramatically change the landscape driving into Ilkley from Burley In Wharfedale with the view of the moor impacted by the proposed 285 houses.

The sewage system is unable to cope with current demand. Building 314 houses in Ilkley and Ben Rhydding will only increase demand on the sewage network and more raw sewage will be discharged.

The A65 between Ben Rhydding and Burley In Wharfedale has to close multiple times a year due to flooding. The proposals will only increase the risk of flooding.

Increased traffic and resultant air and noise pollution.

Pre COVID, rush hour trains into Leeds especially were overcrowded.

There appears to be no provision in the plans to provide additional dental or GP services to Ilkley or Ben Rhydding. Ilkley Grammar School is already oversubscribed on a cramped site.

There must be options to build on sites that are not green belt and utilise existing brownfield sites.

Object

Representation ID: 20176

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Kathryn Leake

•The sites are on green belt land with no natural boundary to stop them expanding further in the future. This would put even more green belt land at risk. In view of the extremely damaging impact climate change is likely to have/already having on our environment, I would expect my council to be making every effort to protect green spaces, not build on them.
•Sites IL1/H and IL3/H would increase the already busy traffic on the local roads. Valley Drive and Bolling Road already have a high volume of traffic as they are used as cut-throughs to and from the town centre. The volume of traffic would increase exponentially if these new houses were built, making these residential roads even more unsafe for local residents/pedestrians/school children.
•The roads around Ben Rhydding are already constrained by the train line (e.g. the single lane under the train line on Wheatley Lane has a dangerously narrow pavement and cars racing to beat the new traffic lights), meaning an increase in traffic would be highly damaging, with no way of increasing road capacity.
•Brownfield sites should be considered ahead of removing green belt, and building on it would irreversibly damage scenic/natural landscape.

Object

Representation ID: 20180

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Penelope Turner

IL1/H is in the Green Belt and consequently is protected from any building;

The infrastructure is simply not in place to support the colossal building programme indicated e.g. schools, GP's, dentists;

Where are the proposed families going to work, how will they be transported? The trains running into both Leeds and Bradford on the Wharfedale Line are already oversubscribed;

There will be an increased risk of flooding in an area of the river already prone to flood during inclement weather. What mitigating measures will be in place to prevent this? Equally how will sewage systems be controlled in the area?

How are all the building materials going to be transported to the possible sites? The roads are much too congested to support their transportation.

Object

Representation ID: 20328

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: James Whittington

Concern about the pressure on schools and infrastructure within Ilkley. For example Ilkley Grammar School which has poor facilities, crumbling buildings etc

IL1/H - this is less obvious visually to most of the residents but access has to be an issue.

There are other alternative areas or sites which could be investigated.

Object

Representation ID: 20333

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Rachel Whitham

1) Loss of green belt when there are so many brownfield sites in Bradford which have never been considered. Within the overall figure within Bradford this is only 20% which is a significant disproportionate difference compared to Ilkley. The ratings for these sites is moderate or major impact.

2) Impact on the historic character and landscape setting of the town.

3) Loss of green fields will increase flood risk;

4) Impact on Ilkley Moor SSSI

5) Impact on wildlife e.g. Curlews. These sites are important wildlife corridors.

6) Lack of capacity at Ilkley Grammar School;

7) All the sites will increase traffic within Ilkley - one area of direct concern is the Wheatley Road train bridge and the junction to Valley Drive.

Object

Representation ID: 20366

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: John Forster

The proposals would adversely affect the character of Ilkley and its attractiveness to residents.

The proposals are contrary to national policy on green belts and contrary to 'Gallagher Homes Limited v Solihull MBC (2014/2015)', "it is not arguable that the mere process of preparing a new local plan could itself be regarded as an exceptional circumstance justifying an alteration to a Green Belt boundary". There are plenty of viable sites within the wider Bradford area that are perfectly suitable to be developed but are not as desirable for developers because it will cost them more to ensure the site is free from any contamination.

If any houses are needed to be built, they should be limited in number and of exceptional design (not a Barat homes or Georgian recreation).

Local infrastructure - school places, parking, congested roads - are already issues which will be exacerbated.

-

Object

Representation ID: 20370

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Alison Craggs

Number of people: 2

1) Inappropriate development in the green belt, which would significantly harm its openness;

2) Detrimental effect on the already high flood risk in the area. Site IL1/H has a number of springs under the surface of the land which divert excess run off from Ilkley Moor which is an SSSI to the river Wharfe. Development would limit the natural route of the water, exacerbating flooding along Coutances Way and Ben Rhydding Drive. The water treatment works is at capacity.

3) Road safety would be severely compromised; On Wheatley Grove the pavement is as narrow as 72 cm in places; The road is also narrow at the junction with Wheatley Lane and it is impossible for two cars to pass in places.

4) The wildlife habitat provided by IL1/H and IL3/H would be destroyed;

5) Development will expand the boundaries of Burley, Addingham and Ilkley - this does not maintain the unique character of each settlement- rather merging the areas into one.

6) Local infrastructure will not support the proposed level of development - Ilkley Grammar School is over subscribed with no opportunity for expansion.

Object

Representation ID: 20381

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Peter & Hazel Jamieson

Number of people: 2

- We thought that green belt was protected;

- Increased traffic - Coutances Way, Wheatley Lane; already lack of recognition of local 20mph speed limit;

- no mention of immense housing developments on the searches when we bought or home;

- new shopping facilities will have to follow to cope with the increased size of the population.

Object

Representation ID: 20383

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Chris Brown

I would like to voice by objection against this proposal on the following grounds:

- 97% being built on Greenbelt land.
- flooding risk.
- schools are already at capacity.
- environment impact due to more people, more houses and more cars.
- road safety being compromised.
- quality of life for existing residents.

These dwellings should not go ahead as further building in Ilkley cannot be supported by the existing infrastructure.

Object

Representation ID: 20387

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Natalie Brown

I understand the need for more housing but these plans have many problems. The key one being the proposal for 97% of the current land being green belt. Building houses on this land would negatively impact on the local environment - namely flooding, car pollution and emmisions, habitat destruction and so on.

Additional to these concerns is the strong negative impact this would have on the local education provision. We have primary age children who will hopefully be attending Ilkley grammar school in the future.

Regarding cars in a small town, I believe there would be a disproportionate number of vehicles which would make it unsafe for a family town. The location of the two big applications would result in more cars driving to and from the centre of Ilkley.

From an educational, environmental and safety point of view, I strongly hope this is not approved.

Object

Representation ID: 20393

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs S Keenan

• Loss of habitat (grassland, meadows, hedgerows, trees and watercourses); loss of agricultural land, and natural views; loss of opportunities for schools / community engagement with countryside;
• Priority should be given to reusing brownfield land.
• Detrimental impact on residential amenity
• Lack of infrastructure – transport links, busy roads, schools, medical services, increased traffic congestion, increased drainage
• Ground stability, drainage and flood risk
• Increased air pollution and risk to highway safety for cyclists & pedestrians
• Impact on tourism;
• Presence of viable alternatives – such as brownfield sites or commercial premises see CPRE response to the consultations.
• Loss of open green space detrimental to resident’s mental health and well being
• Loss of a beautiful piece of Yorkshire countryside (Wheatley Grove development)
• The proposed development site off Wheatley Grove has a public footpath through the field.
• Proposals conflict a number of strategies - Safeguarding Our Soils / 25 Year Environment Plan / Biodiversity 2020 / Planning for the Future White paper

Object

Representation ID: 20697

Received: 11/03/2021

Respondent: Alan Fearnley

Dear Sir ,I wish to object most strongly against the above planning proposal .

Firstly ,the land is Green Belt and therefore whilst many brown field sites exist in the Bradford area which could be developed ,it would be entirely contrary to government policy to allow such an unnecessary destruction of green belt land .

Secondly ,the drains in Ben Rhydding Drive are already very often swamped and overloaded during periods of heavy rain .A situation which would become several times worse if a green field was replaced with roads and driveways .

Object

Representation ID: 20766

Received: 11/03/2021

Respondent: Peter, Shelley & Catherine Lain

Number of people: 3

The majority of the houses are planned to be on green belt land, causing destruction of wildlife and green space in sensitive areas close to the moor and river.

Flood Risk – water management is already a challenge in Ilkley and Wharfedale, with vast accumulations of water associated with both the moor and River Wharfe already impacting the proposed locations, particularly IL1/H and IL3/H. New homes will be subject to this risk, with implications for neighbouring properties.

Increased demands on local infrastructure and amenities - demand for school places at IGS, and increased pressure on medical and dental facilities.

Transport and traffic implications – increasing population in locations outlying the town centre is highly likely to accelerate car use and movement, increasing pollution and danger.

Risk of creating a continuous urban sprawl along the Wharfe valley, undermining the very character and quality of life that inhabitants and visitors value most.

Object

Representation ID: 20996

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Jon Round

1. Green Belt. There are many brownfield sites in the Bradford area that would be better suited to new developments and less destructive of precious green belt. Together with the proposals in Addingham and Burley there would be serious erosion of the separation between the three towns.
2. There is significant flood risk and any development would increase run off and flood risk in surrounding areas, particularly Coutances Way.
3. Impact on the environment / trees / wildlife - Wheatley Grove falls within the buffer zone for the Ilkley Moor SSSI. Coutances Way is an important area for curlews. Both form part of a wildlife corridor.
4. Impact on s Sewage works capacity.
5. Ilkley Grammar School is already at full capacity and unable to expand. A bussing solution is not fair or viable in the long term.
6. Impact on road safety due to additional traffic on Wheatley Lane.

Support

Representation ID: 21013

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Janet Wilkinson

I support the development of Coutances Way (nothing special about the field).

Comment

Representation ID: 21059

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Paul Heierman-Rix

1. Has the proposed design fully considered zero carbon footprint by design

Object

Representation ID: 21060

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Andy Greenall

I recognise the need for housing and have no argument with the two smaller proposed locations in Ilkley, but that large developments such as those discussed below are incompatible with retaining the open, village-like nature of the town (and of retaining any semblance of proper green belt).

IL1/H - the SA section itself appears not to have picked up that around 10% of the site is currently covered by protected trees, which would be destroyed as part of any development (this is mentioned in passing under Constraints and Opportunities; Development Considerations talks about increasing tree cover while building 130 houses on the site, which is highly misleading).

I am surprised that the impact on Green Belt has been categorised as Moderate - what is the rationale behind this.

The conclusion (“this is a sustainably located green belt site”) is at best meaningless and at worst a prejudiced contradiction in terms.

Comment

Representation ID: 21063

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Paul Heierman-Rix

1. Has the proposed design fully considered zero carbon footprint by design?

Object

Representation ID: 21064

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Peter Ferguson

-No significant justification for use of green belt land, especially given the number of brownfield sites available in the Bradford district.
-97% of homes in green belt as opposed to 20% elsewhere - hugely disproportionate value against Ilkley.
-The three sites are rated as either having moderate or major impact on the green belt.
-These developments, plus those proposed in Addingham and Burley, would significantly reduce the separation between the towns.
-Impact on the character of the town and surrounds.
-Flooding – Sites have significant existing flooding risks, and development of this land would further exacerbate issues on the surrounding areas.
-Impact on Environment – proposals go against the defined local plan to protect the local environment.
-Impact on SSSI,
-Site provides wildlife corridors and significant habitat for wildlife.
-Impact on mature trees & TPOs
-Impact on Ben Rhydding and Ilkley sewage sites are already unable to deal with the capacity required, and regularly overflow their storm surge capacity.
-Secondary School at capacity. No additional secondary school capacity has been proposed for any local areas.
-Road Safety and increase in traffic.
-No traffic assessment has been carried out on these areas.