Object

Representation ID: 7437

Received: 08/03/2021

Respondent: Neil Thurston

Ilkley already has a significant issue with the Victorian sewerage system become regularly overwhelmed and overtop raw sewage into the River Wharfe – development of this scale will only exacerbate this problem causing even more ecological damage and potential human health effects to river users and local residents.

As an environmental consultant I work on many projects for a number of Local Authorities and Industry clients and I know that there are a great many Brownfield sites that can, and should, be prioritised for redevelopment instead of Green Belt land. In January 2019 you declared a climate emergency and developed a Sustainable Development Action Plan – development on Green Belt is in direct contrast to this: the number of homes being proposed for Green Belt cannot be justified.

Object

Representation ID: 7871

Received: 10/03/2021

Respondent: Nicky Solloway

I object to the housing plan for IL3H on Coutances Way. This would ruin the approach to Ben Rhydding and it is not sensible to build on a flood plain.

I also believe Ilkley’s schools, medical centre and post office would not be able to cope with 314 new homes. If plans for even half of these homes is passed, the council will need to consider building another secondary school.

I am not opposed to building new homes and I do realise there is a housing crisis, but what about the brownfield sites that could be developed?

We need to do all we can to protect green-belt and stop the loss of biodiversity, habitat and nature. Green-belt development does not fit in with the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals which the Government signed up to.

Please re-consider and do all you can to protect our nature, rather than destroy it.

Object

Representation ID: 7909

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Clare Sherington

I do not think that the local infrastructure can support the increased level of dwellings. Specially, I do not think local roads can cope with the additional vehicles and that public transport facilities, especially trains, can cope with the significant extra level of commuters.
I also believe the environmental impact will be significant and that there are better suited sites elsewhere in Bradford, such as brownfield sites that may also provide a better mix of more affordable housing options to cater for all the various housing needs.

Support

Representation ID: 7966

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Rachel Huxham

Supportive of the release of greenbelt areas IL1/H, IL2/H, IL3/H for sustainable housing development noting proximity to services & existing housing, and not within flood zone.

Object

Representation ID: 8072

Received: 08/03/2021

Respondent: William James

1. The proposed site is 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 on top of the currently proposed sites.
2. The proposed two larger sites would also increase the busy traffic on the local roads. The roads are already constrained by the train line (for example the single lane tunnel under the train line on Wheatley Lane has a dangerously narrow pavement and cars racing to beat the new traffic lights either side of the tunnel).
3. Brownfield sites should be developed ahead of removing green belt

Object

Representation ID: 8100

Received: 10/03/2021

Respondent: Barbara Davy

•Proposal for 150 houses on the site north of the railway would considerable blight the view to the Moor and Cow and Calf Rocks – diminishing Ilkley’s claim to fame.
•Sites are Green Belt and prone to flooding and poor drainage.
•Development likely to amplify traffic problems and exacerbate capacity issues of Ilkley Grammar School.
•In recent years redevelopment of large gardens and the old Middle School site have been done gradually and sustainably within the existing boundaries. These proposals will see an increase in 285 houses changing the shape and nature of the village.
•The increase in traffic in the dangerous area of railway bridge which narrows to one lane. Access to the station is already difficult. Both these sites would increase pedestrians and traffic here.
•Infrastructure including schools will not be able to cope. Proposals are impractical and insensitive.

Object

Representation ID: 8118

Received: 05/03/2021

Respondent: Dr R G Rawling

•Green belt should only be used if there are no brownfield sites available within the district.
•Using Green Belt will destroy its potential to remain as a natural habitat.
•Building 285 houses cannot be justified.
•Houses should be built for occupants who would be employed locally, not have to commute, not increasing congestion and pollution.
•Insufficient employment locally for 285 families.
•Additional burdens would be placed on infrastructure, schools, health services.
•Part of IL3/H has been suggested as a car park for Ben Rhydding station.
•Houses would not be affordable and even the cheapest properties will escalate on resale.
•Site should be used for tree planting which would be more sustainable and benefit the community.

Object

Representation ID: 8128

Received: 10/03/2021

Respondent: Joan Matthews

•Green Belt land is important for environment/well-being.
•IL3/H is a wildlife habitat. Site contributes to the area’s character – defined by Ilkley’s setting in the countryside.
•Importance of green corridors for local wildlife.
•Brownfield sites available in wider Bradford should be used rather than green belt. Brownfield redevelopment can be of huge benefit to community. Green belt development is of no benefit to the local area.
•500 houses approved in Burley-in-Wharfedale will lead to encroachment into the countryside. The proposed developments will encroach further reducing the green belt/separation between Ilkley/Burley-in-Wharfedale.
•Additional homes lead to additional residents/cars. Concern for children walking to school from increased traffic.
•IL3/H also proposed for park and ride -further eroding green belt and increase traffic on local roads. Wheatley Road/Valley Drive junction congested and at risk of accidents.
•Ilkley Grammar already over-subscribed. School cannot expand on existing site. Some pupils from Ilkley will be unable to gain a place.
•Coutances Way/Manor Park Bends often underwater. Increased run-off from developments would increase flood risk/further exacerbate flooding.
•Existing sewage sites regularly overflowing their storm surge capacity and unable to cope with existing demand.

Object

Representation ID: 8180

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: CPRE West Yorkshire

We’ve not been able to visit the site ourselves, but concerns have been brought to our attention by local groups in Ilkley. In addition to the strategic level, we have identified the following sites which we believe to have an impact on the local area:
▪ IL1/H
▪ IL2/H
▪ IL3/H
As stated in our objection comments on policy SP5, proposed development within the Green Belt across the district shows a net density averaging around 26 dpha, well below the HO2 minimum of 35 dpha. These sites identified in Ilkley are lower still, with gross densities of 18.11, 16.95 and 20.92.
We also note that IL4/H, while not in the Green Belt, is also the subject of significant local concerns especially about flood risk.
We would suggest that the development needs of Ilkley need to be re-examined from the perspective of producing more compact development at significantly increased density, thereby improving walkability, having much-reduced landtake and allowing for real enhancements to green infrastructure and flood management.

Object

Representation ID: 8188

Received: 16/04/2021

Respondent: Victoria Thomas

1. Building on Green Belt Land
•The approval of 500 houses in Burley-in-Wharfedale and these proposals will significantly reduce the separation between the towns.
•Green Belt is there to protect character, stop towns merging and sprawl.
•Building on Green Belt land is against the regulations when there are adequate brownfield sites in Bradford district.
2. Detrimental impact to Character
•Proposals would significantly change the character of this historic town and surrounding areas.
3. Lack of Infrastructure currently and with no further plans to develop
•Infrastructure is at capacity and issues with a lack of parking, doctors, schools, dentists and sewerage systems unable to cope.
•Sites are proposed on flood risks areas.
4. Road Safety
•Wheatley Road (train bridge) and Valley Drive junctions are high risk for accidents and not suitable for pedestrians.
5. Additional Development already in place.
•Proposals ignore additional building of around 30 houses per year in Ilkely.

Object

Representation ID: 8191

Received: 11/03/2021

Respondent: Mael Matthews

•Green Belt land is important for environment/well-being.
•IL3/H is a wildlife habitat. Site contributes to the area’s character – defined by Ilkley’s setting in the countryside.
•Importance of green corridors for local wildlife.
•Brownfield sites available in wider Bradford should be used rather than green belt. Brownfield redevelopment can be of huge benefit to community. Green belt development is of no benefit to the local area.
•500 houses approved in Burley-in-Wharfedale will lead to encroachment into the countryside. The proposed developments will encroach further reducing the green belt/separation between Ilkley/Burley-in-Wharfedale.
•Additional homes lead to additional residents/cars. Concern for children walking to school from increased traffic.
•IL3/H also proposed for park and ride -further eroding green belt and increase traffic on local roads. Wheatley Road/Valley Drive junction congested and at risk of accidents.
•Ilkley Grammar already over-subscribed. School cannot expand on existing site. Some pupils from Ilkley will be unable to gain a place.
•Coutances Way/Manor Park Bends often underwater. Increased run-off from developments would increase flood risk/further exacerbate flooding.
•Existing sewage sites regularly overflowing their storm surge capacity and unable to cope with existing demand.
•Thorough environment impact study not undertaken.

Comment

Representation ID: 8196

Received: 11/03/2021

Respondent: Martin Smith

•No mention of transport solutions, car parking, trains, train parking.
•IL3/H was planned as station parking now designated for housing.
•Development will destroy the vista of Ilkley and be on green belt.
•Issues with the Hopper service route and access problems due to parked cars.
•Increased noise and nuisance due to extension of the airport.

Object

Representation ID: 8200

Received: 11/03/2021

Respondent: Catherine Griffett

•Development at Coutances Way will remove the vista of Ilkley Moor and Cow and Calf rocks from the approach into the town.
•Landscape is what make Wharfedale and Ilkley special. Building on Green Belt compromises this.
•Environmental net gain is unsupportable in this instance. It must improve and enhance existing green belt. The plan does the opposite.
•Entry point to Coutances Way not identified. Significant traffic issues and congestion at Wheatley Lane, Valley Drive and under the railway bridge. Increases in traffic would be a disaster.
•Flooding issues at Coutances Way. Solutions do not work.
•Affordable housing does not stay affordable once buyers improve the property and sell it on at a higher price.

Object

Representation ID: 8403

Received: 12/03/2021

Respondent: Maura Fisher Peake

Number of people: 2

The loss of vital greenbelt land just outside the town would be detrimental to the health of all of those who live in the area.

Also the access for traffic onto Wheatley Lane is hazardous. The dangerous junction is near the bridge which has only just been corrected by a one-way traffic light system. I cannot see how a large amount cars can safely come and go on that road. Please make a detailed site visit.

The fact that this piece of land has lots of underground springs and is a flood risk must also give the council pause for thought. I know the builders of the land that was to be the site of the large Tesco store, but is now residential care, had unforeseen expense finding solutions to the springs, let alone a flood risk.

Object

Representation ID: 8416

Received: 12/03/2021

Respondent: Andrew Irwin

Consultation has been rushed to satisfy national housing need and use of designated Green Belt land for housing which ensures towns do not merge is a disgrace.
Over time detailed consultations with local people may mean small alterations could be considered provided surrounding character is enhanced.
Loss of wildlife habitat and biodiversity, increase of urban sprawl and potential of important entrance to Ilkley
Increase in water run off flooding
Development in the town could mean 5,000 more people and 2,000 vehicles - chaos to the transport infrastructure when commuters will inevitably drive their cars to the nearest railway station. The new Ben Rhydding railway station car park would soon overflow with people from Burley and the A65 will struggle to accommodate the new traffic flows - congestions, increased carbon footprint,

Object

Representation ID: 8427

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Stephen Clough

I would like to object and state that I am against all the proposed planning proposals for extra housing in Ilkley which have been suggested in the recent Bradford District Local Plan Consultation. My objections are based on my believe that the extra housing would have a detrimental effect on local schools there is not enough places at Ilkley Grammar School already the Doctors are over full appointments are at a premium on top of which the Bradford Council appear happy to overload the area when you can't get a bus direct to Bradford itself.

Object

Representation ID: 8430

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Drusilla Wiggins

PROPOSAL OF 285 MORE HOUSES

This means valuable green space is lost space that has meant and will mean for those of us who try to walk not far from our homes for physical and mental health.
To me both sites have been so beneficial and to see them full of houses cars and people is devastating news.
Question.
Where will the children go to school? Numbers are high already
How will the traffic be managed both on Wheatley Grove and Coutances way... joining at the A65 already queuing traffic.

Can our medical centre cope with even more numbers, they are already stretched with a shortage of GP's

To have to use my car to find green spaces to exercise as an older person is not acceptable.
For me to walk up Benrhydding drive quietly, and see the sheep the green open space is priceless.

This town will be spoilt for sure!

Object

Representation ID: 8489

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Sally Dexter

I also oppose the proposed 155 dwellings at the site IL3/H on Coutance Way as I understand this to be an important feeding ground for flocks of vulnerable Curlews, a threatened species of international importance whose habitat must be protected. I also understand this site to be a flood zone and therefore unsuitable for housing.

I believe a more appropriate site for housing in Ben Rhydding - from both a wildlife protection and flood perspective - would be the field on the B6382 and Valley Drive (behind the 'Factory Shop' and petrol station on the A65) and in line with (i.e. an extension of) the housing on Stansfield Close.

Comment

Representation ID: 8658

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: James Wood

This is a slow march to Ilkley becoming part of Burley, and is subject to significant water run off. To put housing here would be irresponsibly and the number of houses would put overwhelming strain on the existing Yorkshire Water effluent plant and cause flooding.
People are working hard to improve the water and environmental condition of our town. Adding 285 houses on this patch would be negligent at best
Where will you plan to put 285 additional children? That would be significant increase in the demand on Ilkley Grammar

Object

Representation ID: 8669

Received: 19/04/2021

Respondent: Andrew & Christine Harper

Number of people: 2

The approach to Ilkley on Coutances Way is particularly attractive, but severely congested at times, the newly opened Garden Centre is presenting its own problems.
Additional traffic will only add to the problems. Wheatley Lane at Railway Bridge is a bottleneck

Object

Representation ID: 8689

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Dom Haslam

•Proposed developments will negatively impact the town’s character.
•Scenic beauty between Ben Rhydding and Burley-in-Wharfedale will be reduced as well as views to the moors.
•Wildlife will be negatively impacted by the reduced space.
•Green Belt land I assumed was protected from development. Brownfield land should be developed rather than greenfield sites. Development of greenfield sites is contrary to planning policy.
•Proposed developments will exacerbate existing flood risk issues. The sites proposed currently absorb large amounts of rainfall which will ‘runoff’ if developed.
•Proposals will have a negative impact on infrastructure.
•The B6382 and A65 are congested. B6382 not designed for additional traffic and is unsafe. Concern for children crossing these roads. Health impact of increased traffic.
•No capacity in existing schools for additional children.
•Town centre becomes very overcrowded. Parking issues.

Object

Representation ID: 8758

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Jordan Fieldhouse

The plan is more about revenue raising than making a sustainable plan.
It is wrong to develop green belt sites without any real justification.
The sites in Ilkley will have moderate or major impact on the green belt.
The Coutances Way site is a haven for wildlife and birds, particularly threatened species like Curlew and destroying their habitat would be an act of vandalism,
The land acts as a holding area and soak for rainwater and run off from the Moors, and is marked as flood risk 2 & 3 .
Ilkley can already get cut off during periods of heavy flooding with the only access in and out then being on the moor road which is unsuitable for large volumes of traffic. Mitigation measures will only move the water into the River Wharfe more quickly and cause flooding pressures downstream.
New homes will put huge pressure on traffic flows
Walking under the railway bridge is extremely dangerous.
Impact on the current infrastructure.

Object

Representation ID: 8782

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: Tia Fieldhouse

Proposals are about raising revenue than making a sustainable plan for Ilkley.
It is wrong to develop green belt real justification.
Development will have moderate or major impact on the green belt.
Loss of habitat for birds and wildlife
The land adj Scout Hut on Wheatley Lane acts as a store for rain water is marked as flood risk 2 & 3.
Ilkley gets cut off during periods of heavy flooding with the only access in and out then being on the moor road which is unsuitable for large volumes of traffic. Mitigation measures for flooding will only move the water into the River Wharfe more quickly and cause flooding downstream.
Development will lead to Traffic congestion
Other housing developments in Burley in Wharfedale, and also the one by North Yorkshire Council will add to the already heavily congested roads.
Problem with single lane bridge with weight restrictions,
Impact on the current infrastructure- roads, parking schools, river pollution, doctors, supermarkets, independant shops
Ilkley and the adjacent towns and villages will slowly merge

Object

Representation ID: 8795

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Beverley Short

Green Belt Land - supposed to be protected, separation between Ilkley and Burley, removal of all the lush fields and wildlife
Brownfield sites and derelict buildings should be used.
TPO’s- not allowed to be cut down and house many birds.
Deer, flocks of curlews. red kites don't spoil their natural habitat.
Flooding – MASSIVE problems, with river and surface flooding.
Infrastructure -
road is not fit for purpose especially under the railway bridge
Traffic will be increased and become even more dangerous.
Higher risk of accidents and congestion in and out of Ilkley.
Sewage system is dysfunctional, raw effluent being pumped into the River Wharfe. Otters live in river
Schools - over subscribed.
Doctors - over subscribed
Supermarkets - nowhere to expand, need more parking and space for additional food storage

Object

Representation ID: 8798

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: Iain Maden

Conservative Party promised to Protect the Green Belt.
Underutilised brownfield sites should be prioritised for new housing.
Plots of brownfield sites in the City and surrounding areas remain undeveloped
It is against the wishes of residents.
Potential infill between the four sites, turning the land between Burley-in-Wharfedale and Ilkley into one large sprawl.
ILH/1 and ILH/3 often flood.
The A65 can be closed by flooding.
Land Stability - a survey by The British Geological Survey raised concerns regarding possible land stability.
Character - very large and damaging changes or remove entirely the small number of fields between the Ilkley and Burley.
The sites have a moderate/major impact on the green belt.
Environment - proposals go totally against the defined local plan put in place to protect the natural environment.
Loss of habitat for birds and wildlife
Impact on SSSI
Impact on TPOs and protected woodland
Sewage system unable to deal with the capacity, the area regularly overflows the storm surges capacity.
School Capacity issues
Increased congestion, dangerous roads.

Object

Representation ID: 8824

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: T A Vaughan

Developers have no regard for the community, the pressure development puts on local services nor the environmental impact on the surrounding area. They care about selling houses.

Ilkley and Ben Rhydding are assets to Bradford.
Town centre development has been limited to smaller sites, resulting in extremely high density.
Waiting lists for school places.
No availability at local dentists
Large demand for doctors.
Traffic is considerable.
Poor access under the railway bridge, worsened by traffic light system.
Infrastructure improvements wouldn't be sufficient to support scale of development.
School places, are extremely limited.
Doctors surgery's under enormous pressure.
What conditions will Council impose on developers to provide support for these essential services.

Not a question of NIMBYism but concern over a breakdown of key infrastructure to support new development.

Developers will not care about the health and wellbeing of its residents, or safety of the residents and their children. Children going to school miles away, has implications, safety, social wellbeing, accessibility to friendship groups, creates additional traffic.

Object

Representation ID: 8904

Received: 21/04/2021

Respondent: Peter Balmforth

•Disappointed that these green belt sites are included given the plan indicates a major potential impact on green belt.
•Wrong type of housing is continually built – those with a large number of bedrooms as these are more profitable for developers.
•Plan should focus on addressing needs of people who can’t afford to get on the housing ladder.
•The green belt and views make this area great. Development of these sites will have a huge impact.
•Question the need for this many houses and building on green belt. Why can Brownfield sites not be used?
•I propose that brownfield sites are not used because they are less profitable and less desired. Council is putting money before environment.
•Housing should not be built on green belt.

Object

Representation ID: 8957

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Chris Johns

•Ilkley doesn’t need more housing. Local infrastructure cannot cope with additional dwellings and vehicles.
•Proposals will add significant additional traffic to Wheatley Lane which current backs up at busy times of the day.
•Proposals will alter the drainage of the area and add flooding pressures. Area already suffers from flooding due to proximity to the flood plain.
•IL3/H will encroach on sewerage treatment works and will cause odour issues to properties in summer/warm weather.
•Green Belt and greenfield sites should not be built on. There are numerous brownfield sites in Aire and Wharfe valleys which could be repurposed.
•Proposals will have a significant impact on the vista to Ilkley Moor, Cow and Calf Rocks and Burley from A65.
•No need for additional properties, areas proposed are inappropriate and will damage local environment and natural scenery.

Comment

Representation ID: 8979

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Ilkley Town Council

Whilst there are negative issues surrounding Coutances Way IL3/H, it fulfils the requirements of SP7, Sustainable Transport. If sensitively handled it could form a suitable site for development. However, housing densities must be increased at this site, so that it can contain a range of housing suitable for different demographics. Particular care must be taken to ensure that complementary measures are taken on matters such as landscape and habitat protection. Above all, it is absolutely essential that this site is not handed over to a traditional developer to build a large number of executive-style houses at low densities.

As this land is owned by BMDC, the opportunity should be taken to show that the council can develop land in an appropriate and sensitive manner in a conspicuous location close to one of the district’s principal towns.

Object

Representation ID: 9002

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Adam Irwin

•Ample brownfield sites available elsewhere in the region. No need to build on Green Belt land.
•Already allowed for a substantial and grotesque development in Burley, which will close the gap between Ilkley and Burley. Your plans for Ilkley will compound this urban sprawl, something that central government is against.
•There are practical issues that you seem to be ignoring. School capacity is already under strain and will not support the additional population.
•Traffic volumes are already far too high. The recent development in Burley will compound this as it is. Further developments in Ilkley will raise traffic volumes to an unacceptable level of congestion.
•The above point will compound existing issues with parking availability
The fact that Bradford Council will happily destroy green belt land in the face of climate change (and all the challenges that presents) is baffling. The fact it does so in an area that already faces significant infrastructure challenges, amounts to negligence.