Object

Representation ID: 12099

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Ian Linnegan

As a keen environmentalist, I have objections to all the proposed planning in Ilkley green belt area including IL1/H, IL2/H, IL3/H, and IL4/H

As an environmentalist, I am objecting to the proposed new developments in the Ilkley area.

All the remaining greenbelt areas are precious, first to everyone who lives in Ilkley and second, to visitors visiting on day trips and short breaks.

Our infrastructure is unable to cope with more people living here, especially with the congested A65 and parking issues.

I hope you will take these issues seriously when making a final decision.

Object

Representation ID: 12128

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Marie Anson

Strong opposition to new houses, as they are completely out of character for the area.


IL3/H Coutances Way.

This is completely out of character for the area and would generate huge amounts of traffic on an already busy road and increased danger with traffic turning.

A problem associated with these developments is the lack of amenities and particularly schools, at the moment our existing families from the surrounding areas can’t always find places for their children in our schools.

I sincerely hope that you will take into account the great concerns voiced by the locals.

Object

Representation ID: 12200

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Sara Scott

Large numbers of brownfield sites available in the Bradford district which would be suitable for building on.

Green belt not meant to be built on.

No justification to use this land when other land is available.

Are the Brownfield sites being left to waste?

Drainage, rain water travels from Ilkley moor to the River Wharfe, the sites are boggy/marshy as there are reeds and other water loving plants growing. If homes are built, where will the water go? There are significant flooding issues which will be made worse by loss of green field sites. Flooding problems will be pushed downstream.

Infrastructure: schools, doctors, dentists, shops, sewage works and emergency services cannot support extra homes/people. Schools at capacity.

Impact on traffic on Wheatley Lane near the railway bridge and Valley Drive, roads are already congested.

Loss of Ilkley’s identity/character defined by green spaces,

Reduced separation between Ilkley/Burley

Object

Representation ID: 12276

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Joy and Bill Godfrey

Number of people: 2

We object to the re-classification of Green Belt Land to the south of Coutances Way.

This land has been open space for 'time out of mind'.

The increase in density will strain an already overloaded infrastructure, e.g. another 600 school places, another 600 cars, the effluent from a further almost 300 homes. (The sewage system at present cannot cope at times of maximum usage).

The local road system would have to be re-designed to cope with the extra traffic, as the one inadequate road bridge under the railway already has had to have traffic lights installed.


We object strongly to this attempt to rape the local Green Belt.

Object

Representation ID: 12288

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Trevor & Patricia Scarrow

First three sites are Green Belt. Designations made to protect the environment and benefit the local population as well as visitors. Development sets precedent for the future. Area is one of the most beautiful in the country - all means necessary should be employed to preserve it.

314 dwellings mean at least 600 new vehicles. Roads through Ilkley are too busy and extra vehicles will make life intolerable. No use citing public transport as mitigation - people own and use their cars.

Conflicting reports about the cleanliness of the River Wharfe. If sewage works cannot handle current volumes, it will worsen with new households, causing public health issues.

Fourth site appears to be over-developed for 9 dwellings. Development should be respectful of current architecture and ambience of the immediate area. Should be affordable housing, with controls to limit sale price.

Council should resist attempts by developers to change planning constraints/agreements.

Object

Representation ID: 12321

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Andy Flaxman

I would like to comment on the recent local plan consultation for Ilkley.

I feel the lack of local schooling availability particular at secondary level is a major issue and object to IL3/H & IL1/H.

Also regarding this, the IL3/H 155 dwellings area was a suggested area to rebuild/move the IGS secondary school to. The green belt is getting eroded and feel that ilkley is being spoilt with the amount of traffic and visitors. These sites, particularly IL1/H are home to wildlife which will be disturbed in this area.

Object

Representation ID: 12335

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Carol Lynne Wright

Flood risk

Traffic and access - the access route onto Wheatley Lane would further increase the already dangerous situation at the junction for the traffic emerging from Valley Drive into Wheatley Lane.

Lack of sufficient infrastructure to support even the current needs of the population in Ben Rhydding and Ilkley - lkley Grammar School is at full capacity. The current Primary Schools also struggle to accommodate the growing numbers of children in Ben Rhydding; Ben Rhydding Railway Station is inadequate to fulfill even the current requirement e.g the hopelessly insufficient parking; - The Medical Centre is currently working at full capacity capacity to care adequately for any more growing numbers; The traffic and parking in Ben Rhydding village is already a problem with congestion and a lack of parking; public Sporting Facilities and the diminution of community spaces are insufficient even for the current population of Ilkley and Ben Rhydding.

Object

Representation ID: 12346

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Nicholas Pearce

The local infrastructure, particularly Ilkley Grammar School and local roads will be totally overwhelmed by the proposals.

The combined effects of these proposals plus the newly opened Moss and Moor garden centre on already congested roads.

The road floods and when closed for this or other reasons vehicles divert over Moor Road.

The inequity of the proposals - over 90% of the proposed dwellings for the Ilkley administrative area are in the village/small town of Ben Rhydding. See attached Table - compared with just 1% for the Ilkley community. The few facilities we have in Ben Rhydding will be totally overwhelmed.

IGS is the only state secondary serving Ilkley, Ben Rhydding, Addingham and Burley in Wharfedale. IGS is already full and is on a constrained and fully developed site.

The traffic on Wheatley Lane is already congested during rush hour, and the junction with Valley Drive a particular danger spot.

Object

Representation ID: 12349

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Lauren Barron

I wish to object to the proposals for building on 4 sites in Ilkley and Ben Rhydding:

This will have a negative impact on our community - impact on these historic spa towns; increasing the population destroying the landscape and increasing overall carbon emissions due to more cars on the road.

Potential merging with Burley in Wharfedale.

There are 4000 empty homes in Bradford -you should be looking elsewhere to develop / meet housing targets.

Local infrastructure will not support further housing -schools, traffic, inadequate parking at rail station. Rush hour trains are overcrowded.

Flood risk and loss of drainage capacity. Stocked Road site floods.

Inappropriate access - Wheatley Grove. Wheatley lane railway bridge is already a bottleneck.

Loss of green belt land and trees.

Loss of a local recreation resource.

Object

Representation ID: 12451

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Steve Spoerry

Serious impact on green belt.

Impact on SSSI.

Loss of nesting site (Curlews)

Site not in a sustainable location.

Impact on Ilkley’s green belt from 4 proposed sites.

Some trees are protected by TPO's and regarded as an amenity. You now propose to permit their destruction.

Creation of urban sprawl, Ben Rhydding towards Burley. No account taken of other close development proposals.

Flood risk, site is affected by water draining from the moor, the proposal increases the risk of flood damage

Impact on school places/catchment areas.

Road Safety and Congestion development will make roads much busier. Create safety issues where road passes underneath the railway.

Failure to Encourage Economic Development in Bradford and Keighley will encourage a commuter population orientated towards Leeds not Bradford.

Proposals are driven by a passive acceptance of where developers can most easily make profits.

Brownfield should be developed.

Proposal could lead large derelict areas within towns juxtaposed with a loss of countryside to suburban sprawl.

Object

Representation ID: 12462

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Annie Layfield

Having received a leaflet through my door, I would like to object to two of the proposed local plans. Firstly the 130 dwellings proposed on Wheatley Grove, Ben Rhydding Drive, and secondly the 155 dwellings proposed for Coutances Way.

Object

Representation ID: 12465

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Angela Rowbottom

I am very much against the proposed plans for houses in Ilkley, especially IL3/Coutances Way

The surrounding roads will not be able to cope with increased traffic and on Coutance Way it will be extremely dangerous with fast moving vehicles.

Until parking has been greatly improved Ilkley itself cannot cope with any more cars, in fact cannot cope with the existing ones and until school places are greatly increased the schools cannot cope with any further pupils.

Until both the parking problems and issues in existing schools has been addressed Ilkley cannot cope with any further houses

Object

Representation ID: 12526

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Jeff Davitt

Main reasons for objection are:

Environment - facing climate and biodiversity crisis, therefore we must protect the environment:

Wheatley Grove and Coutances Way are valuable wildlife corridors with mature trees/hedgerows;

Wheatley Grove is 350m from Ilkley Moor SSSI;

Coutances Way is important feeding ground for Curlew

Infrastructure – will put considerable strain on existing infrastructure:

Sewage works unable to deal with existing capacity and regularly overflows

Ilkley Grammar School is at capacity and unable to expand.

Green Belt & Character – Green Belt provides the town’s character

97% of housing on Green Belt land - Bradford District has brownfield that could be used.

All brownfield options should be assessed before development on virgin land. Should take account of potential of empty retail/office space that could be refurbished.

Will create a continuous corridor of development in Wharfedale.

Green Belt land is valuable as green space for residents and beneficial for wellbeing.

Object

Representation ID: 12545

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Helen Atkin

Green Belt
97% of homes in Green Belt land. No justification given for proposing Green Belt land. Have brownfield sites in have been considered?

Character
Will result in no fields between Burley and Ilkley.

Flooding
Will increase the damage caused by flooding in the area.

Environment
Law and local plan says environment is to be protected. Ilkley is a model of environmental protection. Should be no building near Ilkley Moor.

Wheatley Grove is 350m from Ilkley Moor SSSI;

Coutances Way is important feeding ground for Curlew – have reports on impact on plants and animals been prepared?

Wheatley Grove and Coutances Way are valuable wildlife corridors with mature trees/hedgerows

Sewage works unable to deal with existing capacity and regularly overflows. Are there proposals to improve this?

School capacity
Ilkley Grammar School is the only secondary school and is full.

Road safety
Have traffic assessments been carried out?

Object

Representation ID: 12661

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Leonie J Pratt

I object to proposed development of land in the green belt.

Inadequate infrastructure to support the additional housing stock.

The rail and road links to Bradford and Leeds are already inadequate. Commuter trains are often overcrowded and to commute by car to both these neighbouring cities takes an unproportionate amount of time.

Our secondary school is also already over-subscribed, and has a huge intake of 300 students per year group.

Eroding of Green belt


I am aware planning permission has been granted for the addition of 500 homes to neighbouring Burley in Wharfedale. In my opinion this is an appalling decision and really lacks joined up thinking by Bradford Council.
Either of these developments would erode the green belt that separates both settlements, making an eyesore in the Wharfedale valley and extending the huge conurbation so that along the A65 we all just blend into Leeds.

Object

Representation ID: 12811

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Will & Kerry Stoker

Green belt!! No, no, no to either!!

Object

Representation ID: 12819

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Bob .

IL3H Coutances Way. This is over the top, ruining more green belt land and detrimental to the appeal of the area for tourism.

Object

Representation ID: 12823

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Richard Leach

History of significant expansion / erosion of natural open spaces/character/views of the area.
Significant numbers of houses built / ‘windfall’ sites (Ilkley)
Urban creep against principle of Green Belt.
Lead to increase in traffic/car journeys/noise and air pollution
Lack of access onto The Drive. A single access point is completely inadequate for the number of homes present/proposed.
Impact on Local Scout / Cub pack activities
Concerns surrounding flooding impact.
Trees - TPO - houses will not preserve the natural beauty of the site.
Issues to overcome around levelling due to topography, drainage, access to utilities and the additional flow of sewage and potential flooding to drains.
Will impact cyclists safety on Wheatley Lane and Ben Rhydding Road.
There is insufficient local parking and local facilities

Object

Representation ID: 12839

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Shiona Dawson

1. Use of Green Belt land
Will reduce amount of Green Belt. NPPF requires evidence of exceptional circumstances for its use. No exceptional circumstances - there are alternatives (brownfield sites) that have not been adequately explored.

2. Increase in traffic
Will increase traffic volume and volume of emissions (when the authority is committed to their reduction). Authority must demonstrate brownfield sites, resulting in lower traffic and emissions, are not available.

3. Climate/Environmental impact
Area plays important role in managing flood risk. Development will raise a cost from flooding for future generations. Developing brownfield sites mean costs can be minimised.

4. Destruction of scenic environment
Will compromise the area’s value for tourists, impacting on revenues for local people and the authority.

5. Road safety
Will increase traffic and risks to pedestrians/cyclists. Ben Rhydding station area is already very risky. Limited space for safety improvement measures. Increased parking provision has not occurred.

Object

Representation ID: 12897

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Annie Galloway

- it is green belt, and the need has not been demonstrated sufficient to warrant green belt use,
- it is a site for curlews,
- there are many other empty unused houses within the Bradford district,
- the school infrastructure will not be improved,
- the traffic management getting into both sites will be dangerous and
- the Coutances Way site is regularly flooded.

Comment

Representation ID: 12900

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Marilyn Heron

•Due to increased traffic in the lower half of Wheatley Lane, the road under the railway bridge on Wheatley Lane needs to be widened to allow two-way traffic at all times.
•Due to increased traffic in the lower half of Wheatley Lane, there will need to be a small roundabout where Valley Drive meets Wheatley Lane especially if there is an entrance to IL3/H at this point. Visibility of traffic on Wheatley Lane when you try to turn out of Valley Drive at this point needs to be improved in any case, irrespective of any new developments.
•Some of IL3/H needs to be used as additional car parking for Ben Rhydding station, as the extra 285 dwellings in Ben Rhydding will cause an increase in commuter traffic via this station.
•The existing Victorian sewers under Wheatley Lane have difficulty coping with the present levels of housing in Ben Rhydding, so separate new sewers will need to be dug for the two new developments.
•A post office in Ben Rhydding will need to be reinstated.

Object

Representation ID: 12905

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Antony Gilroy

IL1/H and IL3/H are not acceptable for the following reasons.

1. The land is within Green Belt.
2. The developments are too big and fail to show how these would be practical within the confines of existing services as follows
A) Ilkley Schools are already at bursting point despite extensions at All Saints and the Grammar School.
B) Sewage system is already over capacity.
C) Medical Surgeries are already fully stretched.
D) Traffic flows and car parking are already excessive
E) Entry and exit to these sights will create even more traffic problems.
Finally surely the country needs social housing desperately and this needs to be in areas of deprivation not in Ilkley.

Object

Representation ID: 12911

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Margaret Scott

I would prefer not to see homes built here as some of the land could be at risk of flooding.

Object

Representation ID: 12912

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mr. & Mrs. Nigel & Helen Jacques

Character
Recent decision - no justifiable reason to remove site from Green Belt. Provides separation between towns.

Environmental
Ilkley character defined by open spaces/relationship with countryside. Acts as green corridor and wildlife habitat. Key town gateway – no attempt to justify how harm can be mitigated.

Highway Access
Will be off Wheatley Grove at junction with Valley Drive – not a safe access point. Against good practice.

Road Safety
Restricted sight lines cannot provide adequate road safety. Pinch point (Wheatley Lane) cannot deal with increased traffic. Park & Ride will add to this. Will generate risk of accidents. No highway analysis.

Density
Should reflect surrounding area - will not deliver 150 homes. Park & Ride will need to be accommodated.

Green Belt
Major impact on openness. No details on compensatory improvements or early engagement. Exceptional circumstances not established.

Protected Habitat
Close to Ilkley Moor SSSI – will be harmed by development. Field species rich. No ecological appraisal.

Flooding
Flood risk of 2 & 3 - difficult to commercially develop. Impact upon floodplain significant. Sewage works regularly overflows and cannot accommodate growth.

Object

Representation ID: 13113

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Liz Franks

I object with reference to NPPF objectives with regard to the preservation of Green Belt land.

Comment

Representation ID: 13114

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Zoe Platt

I would like to raise my concerns about the impact this may have on the Scout Hut and the recreational activities they provide.

- How will the number of dwellings affect the traffic in the area, and as such, the safety of the attendees (children)? Could some land be afforded for residential and visitor parking to accommodate this?

- I can see that the land of the Scout Hut is not being removed, but the dwellings are to back directly on to it. Has consideration been given to the freedom and privacy of the children undertaking the activities? (I.e. could the boundary be reduced to allow more un-used area around their back field?)

I do not have reservations against the building of properties on this land; I just want to ensure that the safety and longevity of the Scout Hut and what they provide will not be negatively impacted.

Object

Representation ID: 13378

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Phil Maunsell

I would like to register my opposition to the above two proposed housing development sites. My reasons are as follows:

1. Both are disproportionally big for the town.

2. The area of Ben Rhydding has narrow roads and a low railway bridge so will result in traffic issues.

3. Yorkshire Water regularly discharges raw sewerage into the River Wharfe. This is “allowed” by the Environment Agency in “exceptional circumstances” such as extreme flooding. However, because of a systemic lack of investment, the largely Victorian sewerage system is regularly unable to process the waste from the current Ilkley/Ben Rhydding population. An extra 285 homes will only exacerbate this issue.

4. A lack of investment, combined with previous sale of school buildings and land, by Bradford Educational Authority in local school provision will mean that the children living in these proposed dwellings will add extra pressure to local schools, already at full or over-full capacity.

Object

Representation ID: 13399

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Paddy Hagan

My objections to the proposals are as follows:

Lack of supporting evidence of measures proposed to address the demands of the additional residents such as education, public transport, roas usage and general infrastructure.

Encroachment on countryside.

IL3/H - This will be the first thing visitors to this Victorian town will see - in contrast to now where apart from sports fields you first encounter actual victorian buildings and fields with horses. You decide - which appeals? It will also inexorably link Burley and Ilkley - why would either town want this?

Object

Representation ID: 13472

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Matt & Liz Wood

Number of people: 2

Serious negative impact on standards of living.

NPPF - greenbelt to be protected, no exceptional circumstances for building.

NPPF - brownfield sites should be prioritised over greenfield/greenbelt sites, other brownfield sites are available

NPPF - prevent merging of communities.

Access will increase traffic on the roads in Ben Rhydding, especially the junction with the A65.

Access through the single lane railway bridge is already a pinch point and the only access route to the A65.

Increased traffic will compound the existing problems.

Access from Wheatley Grove development onto Wheatley Lane is already a dangerous junction.

Loss of open land used by wildlife and local residents.

Loss of integral part of the landscape causing negative impact on local community and wildlife.

Impact on use of public footpath.

Worsened impacts of flooding of the hockey pitches.

Change to the drainage and removal of fields that can absorb the run off can only make the situation worse.

Impact on local infrastructure

Impact on education and healthcare.

School at capacity.

Object

Representation ID: 13491

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Pauline Stubbs

I would like to lodge my objections against proposals to build on the green belt site at Coutances Way.

Site has a historic flooding problem.

In Autumn 2020 the A65 had to be closed due to serious flooding, rush hour traffic was redirected to the Moor roads which were never designed to accommodate such heavy volumes of traffic.

This area floods regularly during periods of heavy rain and snow as it collects the ‘run off’ from the Moors. This situation would be exacerbated as houses, access roads and the required infrastructure are developed on this site.
Flood risks to individual properties.

The extra burden such a development would pose to local services is a concern. Local schools, operating at capacity, looking at an increased intake from an extra 314 homes over the 4 sites proposed, and 500 homes in Burley.

Affect on health centres.

Negative impact upon commuters. The rail Service barely meets local needs for those working in Leeds/Bradford.

Potential increase in cars.