Object

Representation ID: 11494

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Jennifer Connor

The site on Coutances Way, Ilkley identified by Bradford Council for housing, represents instead, a major opportunity to re-site llkley Grammar School from the Cowpasture Road site and to provide a purpose built and sustainable school which would meet the current and future educational needs in relation to the provision of secondary education of this part of the Wharfe Valley.

Object

Representation ID: 11506

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Darren Walker

Objection to IL3/H

1) Destruction of green belt land - there are other options available, e.g. brownfield sites. Given the impact on Covid on businesses and working from home, there may be the option to convert commercial buildings in Bradford into housing instead of using green belt land.

2) The roads are already very busy - more cars bring more danger in high risk areas for accidents for example the junction of Wheatley Road and Valley Drive in Ben Rhydding.

3) Already lack of seating capacity on trains.

4) Schools - it isn’t clear where the additional places will come from especially as Ilkley Grammer is over capacity.

5) Parking in Ilkley is already a problem.

6) Sewage works aren’t adequate to meet the extra demand from these houses.

7) Flood risk.

8) Impact on wildlife which need somewhere to live.

Object

Representation ID: 11509

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Dr Timothy Connor

IL3/H - Coutances Way

This land should remain as designated Greenbelt and not be reclassified as suitable for housing on the ground that:

1. The area is liable to flooding.
2. Such removal of greenbelt status would damage the character of Ilkley and render future planning applications with respect land between Ilkley and Burley more likely of success.
3. The site has drainage issues.
4. There is no impact assessment with respect to the educational needs of local children

Object

Representation ID: 11520

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Charlie McIntosh

•Ilkley and certain residential areas are impacted by flooding regularly. Modern housing developments reduce the capacity of ground/plant life to store water. They speed up the time water takes to reach the river causing flash flooding.
•Town centre parking is a major issue. Additional houses and cars will add to this. Unclear as to the status of the park and ride scheme as this was to be located at IL1/H.
•Recent parking changes have moved the problem to side streets not designed for volume parking and causing safety hazards.
•Additional houses/cars and parking issues will lead to significant dangers. Many of these roads have schools and a high population of vulnerable and elderly people who are more at risk.
•Council need to demonstrate proof that brownfield sites have been utilised.
•There needs to be investment in infrastructure in Ilkley to make it a safer place.

Object

Representation ID: 11541

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Lara Tizard

•Object to proposed building sites on Green Belt.
•Brown belt land in other areas of Bradford should be used.
•No reason to build on Green Belt.
•Conservation area - New buildings will damage character of the town.
•Not allowed square dormer windows due to conservation restrictions. But building houses on the next road is fine – contradicts the definition of conservation.
•Site by the Old Bridge floods regularly. Cars written-off two years ago when parked there.
•New housing will increase flood risk.
•Park already horrendous and more houses mean more cars.
•Not the capacity of infrastructure to allow this.

Object

Representation ID: 11572

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: John Doherty

Object to the construction 155 dwellings as the impact of the other proposed 130 dwellings (at IL1/H Ben Rhydding, Wheatley Grove) has not been referenced.
The impact of a total of 285 dwellings in Ben Rhydding in terms of traffic, health and education provisions has not been factored in.

Object

Representation ID: 11593

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: David Howarth

1. Houses should not be built on land that is designated as green belt. This designation is done for a reason to protect the local environment and provide quiet enjoyment to the residents and wildlife.

2. A number of these properties are likely to be on flood planes. As Ilkley had suffered flooding recently and the water cascading from the moor needs to be carefully managed. This will only get worse as the climate continues to change.

3. There is no plan for additional infrastructure in terms of schools roads and healthcare for the new residents. This should be an integral part of any plan.

Object

Representation ID: 11608

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Laura Ramsden

•Object to the proposal to make significant changes to Ilkley with the potential building of over 300 homes in Ilkley.
•I work in west Leeds and the commute takes 60-75 minutes each way.
•I strongly feel that more houses on the road will result in even more traffic congestion particularly at commuter times but also throughout the day.
•Only two main routes through Ilkley which will struggle to cope with the potential demands of 300 homes & perhaps in excess of another 500-600 cars on the road.
•Ilkley is becoming a town like any other. Main reason people love living here is the appreciation of a quiet rural town.
•The building of 300 houses goes against why people choose to live here.
•The local schools are already oversubscribed.
•The traffic is already an issue.

Object

Representation ID: 11621

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs S Sowden

•Those in the Wharfe Valley area are given little say in the plans.
•To build around 500 new homes without extra infrastructure to support them is foolhardy. But you’ve done it in Menston and Burley so why not Ilkley too.
•Schools haven’t got the extra places, roads are busy enough particularly in the summer with visitor traffic, parking is already a farce in the town, surgeries are overfull now; where is the sense except for the council to take more income from the changes. And not reinvest it taking account of residents opinions and priorities.
•We seriously need to redraw the boundaries to reflect the profile of the area.

Object

Representation ID: 11628

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Stephen and Kath Broscombe

Number of people: 2

I would like to object to the development of the proposed sites that are on green belt.

The sites of particular concern are those on Coutance Way (155 homes) and Wheatley Grove (130 homes).

There must be Brownfield sites available in the Bradford district for development rather than using our diminishing greenbelt. It is essential for everyone's well being that we
keep our countryside and don't allow urban sprawl to take over. Ilkley is a beautiful town that contributes significantly to Bradford both financially and by providing countryside for everyone to enjoy.

The town does not have the infrastructure to accommodate 300+more households. Ilkley secondary school is bursting at the seams and could do with a new building and the primary schools are also full. Services such as GP practices are extremely busy.

The development will be very damaging to the environment and may increase the risks of flooding.

Object

Representation ID: 11639

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Beth Smithson

As a local resident I strongly object to the proposed housing sites IL1/Wheatley Grove and IL3/H Coutances Way.

These are Green Belt sites and must be protected! What is the point of sensible planning policy if it is to be disregarded?!

The Ilkley area is such an important and valuable asset to the people of West Yorkshire and the environment. Development of these sites would have a negative and irreversible effect for future generations.

Object

Representation ID: 11652

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Gareth Oakley

•Building on green spaces will detract from Ilkley’s natural beauty, position and attractiveness to locals and the wider public.
•Use of Green Belt land. Happening across the country too quickly as it is cheaper for developers to quickly build houses. Once gone it will be gone forever. 97% of new homes will be in green belt land.
•Brownfield sites around the district should be redeveloped as they would have a positive impact on local communities.
•Sites will be on or around floodplains. Buildings prevent the effectivity of floodplains which will further exacerbate existing annual flood risk problems.
•The new houses may also be affected by floods.
•Ilkley suffers from traffic problems and additional houses will add more pressure to the road network.
•Additional pressure and demand to schools and services regarding care for children. School are already quite full with big classes. Adding to those will reduce children’s educational experience.

Object

Representation ID: 11691

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: William Fisher

Strongly object to two of the developments – 155 dwellings on Wheatley Lane and 130 dwellings on Ben Rhydding Drive.

Main reasons for objecting to the Wheatley Lane site area:

1. Green Belt – create a threat to the separation of Burley in Wharfedale & Ilkley. Could lead to ribbon development on the A65;

2. Will ruin the entrance to Ilkley and remove one of the reasons why it attracts so many visitors;

3. Implications for traffic is horrendous. Inadequate access/egress to the site safely;

4. Would create dangerous exit/entry from the south side of the estate at the point close to the Valley Drive entrance to Wheatley Lane;

5. One-way system already in place through bridge and the amount of traffic that queues up will be hazard;

6. Would be an increase of pollution into the atmosphere which is already at risk from the heavy traffic on the A65.

Object

Representation ID: 11704

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Ciaran Cavanagh

These plans will be detrimental to the unique setting of Ben Rhydding and Ilkley and their attractiveness to tourism.

Brownfield sites and the 4000 empty homes in Bradford should be used instead to meet housing targets.

Infrastructure will not support further housing - schools such as IGS are struggling, the A65 is over used. Rush hour trains are full, station parking is inadequate.

Flooding problems will worsen.

Destroying green belt land with trees on it protected by TPO should not be allowed.

Comment

Representation ID: 11742

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs A. Gray

Seems reasonable as there is little impingement on existing residents and facilities.

2 concerns - 155 dwellings? 1. Heavy egress and ingress on to Wheatley Lane. Will it cope? 2. Any entrances on to A65 would be chaotic. The new Garden Centre is already showing danger signs of drivers risking a crash when trying to join the busy A65. On the whole it seems a good plan if traffic management is not an issue.
Long term - danger of ribbon development from Burley in Wharfedale to Ilkley spoiling the small town/village ethos.

Object

Representation ID: 11775

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Robin Waxman

•Plan has been developed in lockdown and in total secrecy. No consultation has been undertaken. Only aware of the consultation days before its end from a leaflet from the Town Council.
•Housing proposed on greenfield sites surrounding Ilkley. Building on these sites will substantially reduce the scenic quality of the town. Along with the Addingham proposals will turn the area into a corridor of housing destroying the local scenic character.
•Two large sites are out of character with the town. The density of housing does not currently exist in the area.

Object

Representation ID: 11799

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Ian Mark Thorp

I would like to raise my concerns over the two Ben Rhydding proposed developments IL1/H and IL/3H.

The two developments would put an unwelcome strain on the infrastructure of the local community.

Current primary schools would not cope. Existing road system is overwhelmed. State of the roads is getting worse. Increasing traffic volume would have a devastating effect. Natural wildlife would be ravaged.

Ilkley will eventually merge with Burley. It is already a bottleneck. Developments of this size would add to the traffic problem.

Developments will affect house values. Ilkley should not be used as a cash cow. Would the council use the money taken from the sale of green belt land and the CIL and pump the money back in to Ilkley and Ben Rhydding? No.

Ilkley and the surrounding area is of historical interest. Modern development of such size are an eye sore and should be rejected.

Comment

Representation ID: 11805

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Mr David Anderson

no real issues other than the proposed number of houses. 140 seems more reasonable and would make it a nicer place to live.

Object

Representation ID: 11811

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Jasvinder Oldham

I would like it to be noted that I object to the proposed building of houses in Ilkley.

Object

Representation ID: 11841

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Dan Sedlak

Planning objection to sites IL1/H, IL2/H, IL3/H, and IL4/H especially (IL3/H) and (IL1/H) sites:

Use of Green Belt land - no justification. The council has recognised this will have a moderate or major impact. There are plenty of brownfield sites available.

Schools - Ilkley Grammar is at capacity - no space to expand further.

Environment - Ilkley Moor is a SSSI and the Wheatley Grove site is within the buffer zone. The moor is a priority wildlife habitat. There are a number of TPO's.

Safety - would lead to a significant increase in traffic, e.g. Bolling Road/ Wheatley Lane junction, the single file railway bridge, the junction with Valley Drive - all are already congested and at high risk of accidents. Yet no traffic assessment has been done. Also increase risks to pedestrians.

Flooding - three of the sites have significant flood risks already.

Would significantly change the countryside character of the town.

Given the development in Burley, it will mean Ben Rhydding and Burley almost link up.

Object

Representation ID: 11908

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Cara Barrett

Object to proposed developments in Ilkley – IL1/H, IL2H & IL3/H. All are Green Belt.

Council has shown no understanding of Green Belt policy, is making no attempt to preserve valuable countryside, is promoting linear development along the A65 and pays no regard to the preservation of Ilkley’s character.

No evidence produced showing exceptional circumstances for altering Green Belt boundaries and justifying its use. Also no evidence showing as much use as possible of suitable brownfield sites. There are a number of brownfield sites in the District that should be redeveloped before encroachment into the Green Belt. Would benefit the brownfield site location and Ilkley, which would be preserved. Proceeding would have the opposite effect.

Sites are regularly flooded and hold water
Infrastructure (roads and parking) insufficient to support additional houses

Ilkley Grammar School unable to offer places to children in its catchment – additional houses would exacerbate the problem.

Comment

Representation ID: 11933

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Susan Brunning

- concerned about the size of proposals
- inadequate infrastructure
- highway safety- junction into Valley Drive and under railway bridge
- plans are considered too big

Object

Representation ID: 11937

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Susan and Jeremy Ince

Number of people: 2

Object to building homes.

Effect on public footpath across Wheatley Grove.

Impact/loss of, Green Belt Land

New homes should be built on brownfield sites, available in Bradford District.
Reduction in separation between Ilkley and Burley.

Environmental, site within 350m of Ilkley Moor, SSSI. Development should be avoided in buffer zone areas to the moor. Sites provide habitat for wildlife and important feeding areas for curlews. Other birds, whose numbers are in decline, including lapwings and barn owls use the sites.
Sites are significant sinks of rainwater, helping to alleviate flooding. There are intermittent springs.
Ben Rhydding and Ilkley unable to cope with the level of sewage/waste from current houses and regularly overflow.

Proposed homes would change the character of town, impacting on the approach to Ilkley from Burley.

Schools operating at capacity.

Trains over-crowded at peak times.
Increase of traffic affecting railway bridge/busy junctions Increase in congestion and parking issues creating high risk of accidents.

Object

Representation ID: 11978

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Andrew Barrett

Object to proposed developments in Ilkley (IL1/H & IL3/H).

Proposals show no regard for the fact that these sites are in the Green Belt, and should not be used for development other than in exceptional circumstances.
What are these exceptional circumstances? No justification from Council for its use. Why is the Council not redeveloping the District’s numerous brownfield sites instead?

No consideration for the fact that sites host significant levels of wildlife, include a number of TPO protected trees and are home to protected woodland.

The Coutances Way site, in particular, is prone to flooding - development would move the problem and create flooding issues on surrounding land.

Ilkley is a small town of large character - proposed developments would ruin this character. Would urge Bradford Council to reconsider its proposals and provide benefit to brownfield sites by redeveloping them, rather than ruin Ilkley and Green Belt land around it.

Object

Representation ID: 11987

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Mr John Christian

Number of people: 2

-Should be preserved as green belt. It is a vital and intrinsic part of Ilkley’s character and heritage.
-Impact on the landscape of the approach to Ilkley with view of the moor/Cow and Calf.
-Home to a wide variety of wildlife (buzzards).
-No public footpaths, remain protected and undeveloped.
-Inadequate transport links- the roads in the area are unsuitable for a significant increase in car journeys resulting from increased housing. Wheatley Road, Bolling Road and Valley Drive already carry high traffic density and congestion.
-Concerns about safety around schools.
- The railway bridge and the layout of the junction at Bolling Road are bottlenecks which cannot be improved.
-Limited local facilities - leading to an increase in car journeys for shopping, healthcare, schools and leisure.
-Infrastructure - Local schools and healthcare already stretched to capacity
- Concerns about pollution/air quality as a result of additional journeys and impact on health.

Object

Representation ID: 11999

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Kelli Zezulka

I would like to formally register my objection to the proposed building plans in Ilkley (IL1/H, IL2/H, IL3/H and IL4/H), Burley-in-Wharfedale (BU1/H and BU2/H), and Addingham (AD1/H, AD2/H, AD3/H, AD4/H, AD5/H, AD6/H, AD7/8 and AD8/H), particularly those that are proposed on current green belt sites.

The current infrastructure of all three of these areas will not support further housing developments and the concomitant rises in population. The proposals would significantly change the character of these towns and the surrounding areas -- the Ilkley proposals and the Burley Sun Lane proposal, in particular, would devastate the local environment and wildlife.

None of this building should be allowed to go ahead, and no building should be allowed on green belt sites across the district full stop.

Object

Representation ID: 12011

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: M.B. Beatham

We see from the the proposed plan that the area originally set aside for rebuilding Ilkley Grammar School, to properly accommodate an increasing attendance, is now proposed for increasing that attendance even more...while leaving the old site of IGS unchanged. So where would you propose building an expanded IGS when the funding finally is found. This is the ideal place for the school and should not be filled with 155 New houses and a possible 300 extra pupils to squeeze into the Grammar school.

Object

Representation ID: 12023

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Judith Smith

Impact on green belt, on openness, flooding, drainage and sewage disposal, damage to wildlife
Loss of wildlife corridors and established trees
Encroachment on Ilkley Moor buffer zone
Create urban sprawl reaching to Burley.
Impact on Ilkley's natural setting,
Impact on climate change.
No consideration of previous developments in Ben-Rhydding.
Increase in cars.
Impact on single file traffic under the railway bridge. Difficulty turning right on to Bolling Road.
Parking fees in Ilkley rail station pushed demand to Ben Rhydding parking with increases in side streets/narrow side roads, causing difficulties.
Not enough parking in Ilkley.
New residents will use their cars to get into Ilkley.
Impact on traffic
Effects on access to A65
Increase in flooding that will be caused by housing on the opposite side of the A65 on fields and outdoor sports facilities.
Impact on Ilkley schools - at capacity with no expansion land
Supermarkets, small with inadequate parking.
Medical Centre unable to take increased numbers
Traffic impact on Bolling Road
Increased potential for accidents.
Inadequate open space/recreation

Object

Representation ID: 12043

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Adela Harrison

IL3/H (Coutances Way) and IL1/H (Wheatley Grove).

• Both sites are green belt and building on them would be detrimental to the natural landscape of Ilkley, of which it is known and loved. Building on these sites (IL3/H being fields and IL1/H being within the buffer zone for Ilkley Moor) goes against defined local plans to protect our local environment. Both sites are significant wildlife corridors and habitats, with TPOs and Woodland Protection Orders in place. Allowing building on these sites would irreparably ruin these areas for wildlife and would demonstrate that Bradford Council does not care about the natural environment or protecting it.

• Both sites are significant sinks of rainwater, and building on them could potentially have a detrimental effect on surrounding areas. At a time when flood risk is increasing every year, building on sites that already have flood risks (as these sites do) is short sighted.

Object

Representation ID: 12094

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Marianna Easter

I object about the proposed development on green belt land in Ilkley.

1. We are a small town which in my opinion lacks the infrastructure to support further developments.

2.The council currently does not maintain and enhance the infrastructure that we have already such as playgrounds, public toilets and the Lido.

3. We suffer from high congestion along our main roads already and further inhabitants and parking needs would add to this misery.

4. Local state schools are at capacity already.

5. Green belt IS and should remain Green Belt.

6. The proposals are short sighted, devoid of understanding of the local environment and lack vision.

The council is serving only itself and not the residents of Ilkley.

IF this proposal came with enhanced infrastructure around the riverside, a new recycling centre, a new school, children's centre, medical facilities etc I would be more open to considering.