Object

Representation ID: 10356

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Andrew Loy

I am gravely concerned about the development of these green belt sites. The Local Plan itself acknowledges the adverse impact on the natural environment, potential for flooding, and problem of urban sprawl. These plans should be withdrawn, given that there are still many brownfield sites in the district.

I am particularly opposed to the Coutances Way (IL3/H) plan, which would be highly detrimental to the view of Ilkley when approached from the east. When combined with the westwards expansion of Burley-in-Wharfedale (BU1/H Sun Lane site), it would severely reduce the space between the towns and threaten to erode the boundary between the two.

Object

Representation ID: 10373

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Richard Thomas

Building on Green Belt Land - stop urban sprawl, to preserve character of existing settlements and to encourage development within existing built up areas.
Not demonstrated the only viable way of satisfying the current housing need in the entire district is to build on greenbelt land.
Detrimental impact to character of Ilkley
Lack of Infrastructure with no further plans to develop - parking, doctors, schools dentists and sewage
Road safety - increase of traffic, impact on Whetely Lane train bridge and Valley Drive junction, risk for accidents, danger to pedestrians and lack of parking.
Additional development already in place - The proposals ignore the additional building which is already continuously ongoing in Ilkley.
Use brownfield sites first and ensure proposals in Ilkley are in keeping with the average impact on Green Belt land which applies to all developments in the district (20% of developments, not 97% on Green Belt).

Object

Representation ID: 10392

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Ken Cooke

In my view, the proposed development at this location is far too big.
It would spoil the rural aspect and panorama of the Moor from the road (Coutances Way).
It is also an undue grab of greenbelt land.

I would favour a small development adjacent to Wheatley Lane, on the west.
In my view, a maximum of 40 dwellings could be permitted.

Object

Representation ID: 10473

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Judith Law

Increased traffic in Ben Rhydding.
Impact on conservation area causing major changes.
Impact on schools in Wharfedale.
Affordable housing doesn't exist in Wharfedale.
Keighley/Bradford have dilapidated houses, and “Brownfield sites” should be used before Green Belt.
Office space becoming available could be converted.
Lack of parking at Ben Rhydding station.
If Wheatley Grove site is developed, that extra parking is mandatory.
Ilkley is a commuter town for Bradford/Leeds, many residents drive to the station.
Parking on pavements to use the train station will get worse with more commuters/new residents.
Obviously, there will be employment opportunities from the building work, but this will only be temporary. What do the council mean by “new employment opportunities”?
I do appreciate that housing has to be found within the area and am sad to think the field nearby on Countances Way could be lost, but I feel very strongly that the Wheatley Grove site is absolutely the wrong place for this a new housing estate.

Comment

Representation ID: 10486

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Phillippa Higgins

I note with dismay the disappearance of more green spaces plus woodland in the proposed development for Wheatley Grove. Are there plans to compensate for these?
Another large area of green is about to disappear at IL3/H which alters the nature of our town as well as being environmentally unsound. Further, are arrangements for accommodating the Scouts part of the plan?
Most importantly, are there plans in place to expand schools, already over prescribed, not to mention doctors surgeries etc?
Finally, if these developments are to go ahead, what proportion are to be affordable or are we in the business of making developers rich?

Object

Representation ID: 10506

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Bernice Corbett

This objection is not because I feel that dwellings should not be built but it is the amount of dwellings I object to. Our town is already full to capacity with amenities at full stretch and parking a nightmare. I feel that these proposed dwellings will un -balance the town and that we would loose our identity and the charm.....surely the reason visitors come here in the first place Please re consider not the sites but the amount of houses.

Comment

Representation ID: 10520

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Geoffrey Bowen

The four site allocations for dwellings in Ilkley are sensible and acceptable provided development conforms to the requirements of the Ilkley Sustainability Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 10547

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs P J Hudson

My concerns about the increased levels of traffic which will inevitably follow the proposed residential developments. The traffic lights have improved the situation at the railway bridge for pedestrians, but the narrow road under the bridge is a bottle neck where traffic regularly backs up at busy times of the day. Increased numbers of vehicles will cause long queues backing up in both directions – down to the junction with Leeds Road and up to the shops in Ben Rhydding.
A similar issue is the access to the Wheatley Grove site, because the junction between Wheatley Grove and Wheatley Lane is already potentially dangerous and Wheatley Grove itself is not suitable for increased traffic levels.

I feel the lockdown has prevented open discussion in public meetings, more time is needed to evaluate all the implications. It is wrong to assume that all residents affected will have internet access, many (especially older) voices will not be heard.

Comment

Representation ID: 10568

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Chris Jelley

Ilkley experiences severe traffic congestion, within the town and on the A65.
The A65 blocks all the way back to the Burley bypass and beyond, and coming into Ilkley from the west can also be very slow indeed.
Proposed developments could add upwards of 500 more cars into our queues at rush hours as well as causing more pressure on scarce parking spaces, particularly for commuters.

There have been many new houses built in Menston and in Burley, which have already contributed to the problems of traffic queues on the A65 and the IL1/H and IL3/H planned housing developments on the west side of Ilkley would condemn us all to gridlock.

Building houses without providing road schemes, parking and other amenities is not building communities just frustration for both existing residents and future ones. At the very least, a new bridge by the Ben Rhydding Railway Station would be needed

Object

Representation ID: 10616

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Antony Hannam

Number of people: 2

IL3/H 155 Dwellings
Again this is a site I am familiar with.
a. This is another valuable green belt site. A housing estate would ruin the approach into Ilkey from the east.
b. Part of this site should have been developed years ago as a car park for Ben Rhydding train station and even a park and ride for Ilkley.
c. Few local facilities within walking distance and so affecting traffic flow.
d. Even more traffic on locally very busy roads.

Object

Representation ID: 10644

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Mark and Rebecca Mon-Williams

Number of people: 2

Greenbelt should remain protected.
Building will impact on the openness of Ilkley and is essentially "urban sprawl".
Insufficient infrastructure:
Ilkley Grammar School at maximum capacity, not on a safe site, cannot accommodate additional number of pupils.
GP surgeries/dental practices are stretched.
Roads cannot deal with increased number of cars, the bridge at Ben Rhydding station would be under pressure and create traffic jams.
Safety, roads not appropriate to accommodate the additional numbers, increased risk of accidents.
Development will make the town less attractive, as a tourist destination and will not help business. One of the reasons why people visit Ilkley is because it is a reasonably attractive town with some open spaces. Change to the character of Ilkley.
The pandemic has impacted people's physical/mental health. Developing these sites will have further detrimental effect.
We should encourage people to enjoy open green spaces.
Once developed, greenbelt/open space it is impossible, to claim them back.

Object

Representation ID: 10701

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Sir Stephen Brown

THE NUMBER OF DWELLINGS PROPOSED FOR BOTH 1L1H (WHEATLEY GROVE) AND 1L3H ( COUTANCES WAY) IS EXCESSIVE. INGRESS AND EGRESS TO BOTH THESE SITES WILL INVOLVE LARGE NUMBERS OF VEHICLES PASSING DAILY UNDER THE RAILWAY LINE ADJACENT TO BEN RHYDDING RAILWAY STATION THROUGH A SINGLE LANE TRAFFIC LIGHT CONTROLLED UNDERPASS, WHICH ALREADY STRUGGLES TO COPE WITH CURRENT TRAFFIC AT PEAK TIMES OF THE DAY. NEITHER OF THESE SITES ARE VIABLE FOR ANYTHING MORE THAN A COUPLE OF DOZEN DWELLINGS UNLESS THE UNDERPASS UNDER THE RAILWAY LINE IS WIDENED TO A TWO LANE ROAD. THE CONSTRUCTION OF 285 DWELLINGS IN SUCH CLOSE PROXIMITY TO EACH OTHER ON THE OUTSKIRTS OF ILKELY WILL PUT HUGE ADDITIONAL PRESSURE ON VEHICULAR ACCESS TO THE EDUCATION, HEALTH AND OTHER FACILITIES IN THE TOWN CENTRE. WITHOUT SIGNIFICANT UPGRADE OF LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE ILKLEY WILL BE SWAMPED.

Object

Representation ID: 10703

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs T Small

Green belt sites.
Why allocate as green belt and allow development.
Bradford council, make money when they sell land.
Many areas of Bradford need to be regenerated....and affordable housing is needed there.
Greedy developers come to Wharfedale to cash in on a wealthy and desirable area...this in turn drives up prices meaning local people are priced out.
FLOODING These houses are on a flood plain and the roads etc regularly flood there.
School places...particularly secondary education are limited.
People visit the wharfe valley because of its greenery....its why they visit us and not central Bradford.
You are destroying the very source of the areas income and wealth.
Menston - destroyed by building work for houses on Bingley Road and Derry Hill. Sun Lane monstrosity too....Bradford council need to be realistic and perhaps give us all back to Leeds Council where we will be treated with more respect and care.

Object

Representation ID: 10724

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Miranda Armitage

Objection to IL1/H and 1L3/H:
Infrastructure in Ben Rhydding not sufficient to cope with increase in housing, particularly local schools and health service. Road network around railway bridge and A65 junction already very congested and potentially dangerous. Existing problem with flooding of road network and amenities will be exacerbated. Increase in air pollution. Loss of open greenbelt and its environmental benefits (eg CO2 absorption). Developments not in line with Bradford Council policy of zero carbon future.

Object

Representation ID: 10758

Received: 13/03/2021

Respondent: Rachel Carter

Greenbelt - Development is directly opposed to the principles of using brownfield sites first.
The development of the site will increase vehicle use and increase of accidents at junctions
Ilkley Grammar school is already beyond capacity
Flooding - Site floods regularly
Character - Development at Countances Way will significantly change the character of the town due to the loss of fields between Ilkley and Burley. In place of separate towns, the proposed developments here (and at Skipton Road) will elongate the town creating a housing corridor rather than a distinct town which is the appeal it currently has

Object

Representation ID: 10827

Received: 13/03/2021

Respondent: Fernando Solano

1-There isn't the capacity to accommodate such a high number of new arrivals in terms of school places (oversuscribed as it is) health care facilities and road access.
2-This will mean a net loss of valuable green belt around the town.
3-I would like to object in the strongest possible terms the tendency to ONLY make available suitable building plots of land to corporate interests (big developer companies) who create monotone housing developments devoid of any character or architectural interest. I would like the council to pay more attention to the environmental qualities of the proposed housing projects (energy efficiency, carbon impact and air quality)

Object

Representation ID: 10929

Received: 04/05/2021

Respondent: Gary and Mary Williams

Number of people: 2

Site is on green belt land and we object to loosing green belt to housing. The site is excessive in size and will put extreme pressure on already over crowded schools in the town and on medical services

Object

Representation ID: 10932

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Mr. & Mrs. - Sunderland

We have various concerns to our local community and it’s infrastructure.

With the local community already being pushed with the new development of 500 homes in Burley in Wharfedale, which is only 2 miles away.

How will are services cope from schools, doctors, waste Utilities which is already stretched to its maximum capacity. I have to question the drainage of the land and the off run from the higher grounds which pool in the valley bottom, as we all know after heavy rainfall we are in a flood zone!

I worry about the amount of traffic and pollution on a road which is already very busy and most houses have 2 cars so it will increase dramatically!

I am increasingly worried about how the school intake will be affected.

Object

Representation ID: 10941

Received: 13/03/2021

Respondent: Janet Pawson

Impact on Ilkley and Ben Rhydding will be detrimental, because:
a) Potential increase in vehicle congestion and environmental problems, such as access to and from these developments and parking issues.
b) These developments may have a detrimental impact on Ilkley's attraction for tourists, such as walks on Ilkley Moor and the surrounding countryside.
c) The green belt land should be left alone.
I feel that it is important that the council will give serious thought about the above-mentioned issues.

Object

Representation ID: 10975

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Heather Duke

I am writing to state my concerns about the proposed plans for additional housing at:

- Ben Rhydding Drive
- Skipton Road east
- Coutances Way
- Stockfield Road.

These additional dwellings will put strain on the existing infrastructure including roads, schools and health care.
We should be looking to build housing stock on brown field sites and to improve existing housing and neighbourhoods.

Object

Representation ID: 10981

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Sue Hadfield

IL3/H for the same reasons for IL1/H but also as a few years ago the site was intended to be for a new Ilkley Grammar School (IGS). IGS new school would have been built if the government had not changed. Hoping not to be too political here but it was a poor decision. Building houses here would prevent that plan being implemented in the future. IGS is in desperate need of this as the existing site is too small and piecemeal. Siting the school here would also make for easier access to the playing fields and therefore easier for the children to access open space. Surely a better outcome than new houses.

IL1/H and IL3/H also are high density and will sharply increase the population of a town not designed for this. They will put a heavy toll on a town with increases in traffic and limited school spaces.

Object

Representation ID: 11033

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Kathy Noble

- destruction of green areas and harm the environment
- increase traffic traffic on local road network
- increased air pollution and impact on health.
- infrastructure impact on sewage and Bathing Water status
- infrastructure impact on local schools
- infrastructure impact more for health services
-site has been proposed for a new school, a car park for the train station and now houses. I can’t be used for all three and the first two are needed if the last is to happen.

Comment

Representation ID: 11217

Received: 11/03/2021

Respondent: Sir Rodney Brooke

Bradford has an abundant supply of available building sites, many polluted.

Brownfield sites should be developed.

Shouldn't allow development of commuter houses in the Wharfe Valley green belt because it is cheaper option.

Preserve the green belt.

NPPF favours the use of brownfield sites.

Development of green belt shouldn't be allowed when sites are available elsewhere.

The types of houses most attractive to developers, which would be constructed if planning consent were available, are not those for which there are greatest need.

Development would provide over-spill housing for Leeds commuters.

Infrastructure - schools and sewerage, is already under great strain.

It is important Coutances Way is used for Park and Ride carpark, as its the only suitable site.

Destruction of green belt, development would form continuous conurbation, ruining the most popular approach to the Dales National Park.

Object

Representation ID: 11250

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Rachel Rawnsley

I object to the proposed developments IL1/H and IL3/H in the Bradford District Local Plan consultation.

I object to them on the following grounds:

1. Loss of green space amenity – as the pandemic has shown, green spaces are very important and these plans in particular involve building on space which adds to the local district, preventing the village of Ben Rhydding feeling built up and hemmed in. Building on these spaces will spoil the character of the village for good.

2. Too much strain on local services. The number of proposed dwellings will put unbearable strain on local services, including primary and secondary schools, and local healthcare services.

3. They will create too much traffic. The addition of 285 houses, with 2 cars each (minimum) will add a further 5-600 cars on the roads around Ben Rhydding, adding hugely to the congestion and pollution of the areas

Object

Representation ID: 11260

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Anne Eady

Wharfedale provides a green corridor through an urbanised landscape. Once developed in Addingham, Ilkley and Burley in Wharfedale, it will be changed forever. Wildlife must not be displaced.

Not necessary to build on Green Belt. Brownfield register shows Bradford has plenty sites, with other underutilised sites being considered before Green Belt. Urban/rural distinction should be maintained.

Eastern approach to Ilkley will be ruined by development of IL3/H. There are no exceptional circumstances for Green Belt boundary changes. Traffic pressure is a major issue – 300 homes will make it worse.

Use available office space for residential and look to locate housing closer to work places. Makes sense to reinvigorate cities and larger towns with housing and green spaces rather than countryside.

Plan should focus on quality of life for existing residents and workers rather than growth. Promises of environmental protection, mitigation schemes and better quality housing need to be kept.

Object

Representation ID: 11284

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Brian Russell

Object to building 364 dwellings at Coutances Way. This land is totally wrong for building houses as it is subject to severe flooding and heavy rain. On many occasions the land opposite is flooded for months.

This land is part of a Flood Plain. Therefore, any property will be unable to get insurance due to this. They will be liable to be uninsured or too expensive. Building this amount of houses in this area is not in keeping with and is totally impractical.

The local road network cannot accommodate increased traffic from new dwellings at present. The roads are in a terrible state due existing traffic levels. It will also need to borne in mind that most households will need two cars, which will affect traffic levels. Any children would need schooling; however, the local schools are now full.

Object

Representation ID: 11350

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Anne Procter

Green Belt land (IL1/H, IL2/H and IL3/H) should not be considered for development. It is in contravention of Government aims and objections, as well as the NPPF. Do not believe the Council has provided sufficient justification which provides “exceptional circumstances” for why these green belt sites should be considered or detailed what the “very special circumstances” are for releasing these sites from Green Belt protection.

Council should demonstrate that it has examined fully all other reasonable options for meeting its identified need for development. Do not believe that housing requirements for each settlement have been explored sufficiently. No evidence provided stipulating Ilkley/Ben Rhydding’s housing need warrants releasing greenfield land for up to 314 houses. No justification demonstrating that all other possible options have been considered.

IL4/H – undeveloped greenfield land in the Conservation Area, closed to a Scheduled Monument. Housing would have a significant negative effect on the Conservation Area.

Object

Representation ID: 11395

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Andrew Munro

- increase surface water flood risk into the bottom fields causing them to flood
- increase the traffic flow
- increasing the demand on local services.
- loss of green spaces which contribute so much to the attraction of more rural areas like Wharfedale.
- negative impact on the approach to Ilkley along Coutance Way
- the main aim of these proposals are raising revenue via land sales and Council tax.
- proposals should be abandoned or abandoned or substantially reduced

Object

Representation ID: 11412

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Mr & Mrs David Lloyd Wallbank

Number of people: 2

This site appears to significantly reduce the gap to Burley in Wharfedale and protrudes into the valley. Whilst abutting the railway line it still extends out into the countryside. It encourages further expansion of adjacent sites all of which reduce the purpose of the Green Belt and conflicts with the principle of ‘checking the unrestricted sprawl of built up areas’

Object

Representation ID: 11466

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Christopher Solomon

1. The infrastructure of Ilkley is already struggling to cope with existing demands upon it and these proposed developments would have a severely damaging effect on educational provision, especially impacting Ilkley Grammar School which is already too big, and on issues concerning cars, parking and traffic flow. The absence of a bypass is a significant factor that has to be taken into account with regard to the latter.

2. Expansion into green belt. If IL3H is allowed to go ahead the unique character of the approach to Ilkley with its iconic view of the Cow and Calf would be lost and precedent would be set for further development towards Burley leading to a merging of the two communities and a suburban sprawl totally out of keeping with the area.

3. Access and exit to estates. In case of IL3 traffic build-up either side of the railway bridge is already a problem and the junction of Wheatley Lane and Valley Drive is already hazardous. Both problems would be significantly and dangerously increased by the traffic engendered by such a large development.