Object

Representation ID: 13504

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Ian & Jackie Bonar

Our objections to these proposals relate to the impact on the local area of Ben Rhydding. The numbers of dwellings being proposed can only have a detrimental effect on the community.

Road infrastructure feeding into the A65 is inadequate at present without adding the number of traffic movements this proposal will bring Construction traffic for the Wheatley Grove development would not be able to pass under the railway bridge in Wheatley Lane and therefore would have to go through Ilkley town and along Bolling Road - both of which are totally inadequate for large traffic movements. This would also lead to an increase in traffic pollution.

Other concerns are related to school places, medical facilities & play areas - all of which will need to be addressed in any plan.

Object

Representation ID: 13507

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Sue McClay

Detrimental impact on our community.

Community identity lost: Ilkley has always been Bradford’s ‘jewel in its crown’ due to its
unique setting in the Wharfe valley.

Ilkley should retain its character but the building of
a further 314 homes will see the town being extended towards Burley and Addingham.

Detrimental to Ilkley’s uniqueness and attractiveness to tourism.

Insufficient infrastructure for the current population in terms of school places, ongoing parking concerns,
Another 1000 or so people needing these local services.

Congested Roads

Increased carbon emissions.

Increase pressures on rail services.

Station car parks inadequate.


Protect green belt sites; however,

Destruction of land with trees with a preservation order on them should not be allowed.

There are thousands of empty homes in the Bradford area and brown site land available.

Alternative sites should be found for development.

Object

Representation ID: 13713

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Robert Taylor

Number of people: 2

Object to both the location and size of this proposal. As to the location, we feel very strongly that it is important to preserve the open countryside view on the left hand side of Coutances Way as one approaches Ilkley from Burley-in-Wharfedale.
This view of green fields with the moor rising above them is essentially the first view of open countryside which travellers from urban conurbations such as Leeds and Bradford have to raise their spirits as they approach Ilkley and justifies the town's claim to be the Gateway to the Yorkshire Dales.
Any encroachment on this vista should be resisted at all costs.
155 dwellings would be a massive and offensive blight on an attractive Green Belt site. They would generate a huge amount of extra traffic and place an excessive strain on Ilkley's resources
It would also be a breach of the Green Belt principles

Object

Representation ID: 13848

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Philip Tigg

Almost all of these buildings will be on greenbelt, loss of "scenic and sensitive natural landscape".
Alternative brownfield sites available.
The character/surroundings of Ilkley would be affected.
Reduction in the gap between Ilkley and Burley.
Impact from flooding made worse by additional building works.
Schools and childcare are at breaking point. School places are difficult to get.

Increase in road traffic to a road network which is not designed to cope with it leading to bigger queues, especially at the bottom of Wheatley Lane. The train network is crowded by the time it gets to Guiseley. Increased passenger numbers at Ilkley and Ben Rhydding will make it more difficult for people further down the train line to board. If the road network is busier, then buses will be delayed more too.

Approximately 30 new properties per year have been developed for the last few years; another 314 properties is a significant increase.

The idyllic nature will be compromised, benefits of living in such a beautiful area will be eroded.

Comment

Representation ID: 13870

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Robert Nelmes

I would like to make the following points.

Because of the frequently congested roads in Ben Rhydding particularly around the single file railway bridge I believe that the increase in traffic caused by 285 new properties would result in this are becoming completely gridlocked. The planned exit for the potential 130 properties off Wheatley Grove onto Wheatley Lane would make the already difficult junctions almost impossible. At certain times there can be busy traffic going to and from Ben Rhydding Golf Club and The Wheatley Hotel.

In respect to all the developments planned for Ilkley the current full schools and busy medical centre would not be able to function adequately without further expansion.

Object

Representation ID: 13907

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Elaine & Terry Hennessey

Object to sites IL1/H to IL4/H.

The negative and damaging developments they would inflict on quality of life is acknowledged - no alternatives offered. Many brownfield sites in Bradford - proposals are weighted towards Green Belt. Other issues support views that proposals are flawed:

• Schools (primary & secondary) fully subscribed – how would additional children be accommodated?

• Traffic is heavy in terms of through traffic and parking – increase in housing will make this worse.

• Increased traffic means Wheatley Road, Bolling Road and surrounding roads would become “rat runs”.

• GP services under pressure – would increase if proposal is implemented

• Rail services under pressure

• 3 out of 4 sites are vulnerable to flooding

• Sewage capacity is insufficient – issue with discharge into the River Wharfe and environmental damage

• Green Belt is intrinsic part of Ilkley’s environment – to change designations when there are alternatives (brownfield land/unoccupied buildings) is wrong. Should not be allowed to happen.

Object

Representation ID: 13992

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Elizabeth Gribbin

-It is imperative that green belt land is protected and brownfield sites are chosen wherever possible.
-Lack of justification of using green belt sites when there are a number of alternative brownfield sites in the district.
-The proposed four sites pose a significant threat to Ilkley's natural landscape and it is imperative that it is protected.
-Three of the sites have significant existing threats from flooding. Development on areas with a high flood risk should be avoided at all costs.
-Detrimental impact on infrastructure and public services. There is already congestion on the A65 through Ilkley and additional homes will significantly exacerbate this problem.
-Unclear how CBMDC propose to deal with the fact that Ilkley Grammar School is currently at full capacity and cannot expand to provide places to additional children. - -Ilkley does not have the infrastructure or resources to expand in the way proposed by Bradford Council.

Object

Representation ID: 14030

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Julie Devonald

- no clear plan regarding traffic - this will increase traffic on an already busy road that goes to one Lane under the railway bridge. This will have negative impact on current residents and be dangerous for kids walking to nearby schools

- no plan for how the new housing will be supported within the community - all primary and the secondary schools are full. Doctors and dentists are full. Increasing the population of Ilkley / Ben Rhydding with this (and the other development near the golf club) cannot be made with also increasing public services such as schools and access to NHS services etc

- There are provisional plans for car parking for the station. This will further increase congestion problems and overcrowding at the station and trains

Object

Representation ID: 14078

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Deborah Davitt

-Impact on Green belt & Character
-ALL brownfield options should be assessed first
-Following the pandemic and the resulting significant shifts in how people live and work there will be an excess of office space in centres which could be used for redevelopment for housing.
-Combined proposals for Wharfedale will create continuous corridor of housing development along a substantial stretch of lower Wharfedale.
-Important for physical and mental well-being.
-Plan proposals go against mission to protect the environment.
- The fields around Coutances Way are important feeding grounds for "vulnerable" Curlew. These areas should be protected and not disturbed by development work.
-Impact on local infrastructure.
-Sewerage –Ben Rhydding/Ilkley sewage treatment works are unable to deal with existing capacity / regularly overflow.
- Access to secondary school -Ilkley Grammar is at capacity/unable to expand.

Object

Representation ID: 14082

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Jonathan & Catherine Crowther

Number of people: 2

Building 130 homes on green belt land on Wheatley Grove would entirely change the character of this rural area. An additional 500 people accessing the site from Wheatley Grove (that’s 250 cars at a prudent estimate).

Access from Wheatley Grove onto Wheatley Lane is a blind pull-out, an additional 250 cars on that road would cause road safety/environmental issues.

Loss of habitat for wildlife and mature woodland - we can hear curlews, a seriously endangered bird.

Impact of flooding, the proposed sites currently absorb excess rainfall, delaying water run-off onto adjacent areas.

Infrastructure would be unable to cope with the additional population. Parking for the railway station is already intolerable, and has increased since parking charges were introduced. This has pushed commuters to park free of charge on Wheatley Lane and Wheatley Grove. An increase in residents would worsen the on-street parking.

Gritting – Wheatley Grove is a steep road and in winter is often dangerously icy and rarely gritted.

Ilkley Grammar School is outstanding and is over-subscribed. Additional developments will add significantly to demand for non-existing places.

Object

Representation ID: 14116

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Michael Vevers

Number of people: 2

Proposals fail to meet the criteria for sustainable development
Ignore the five of the purposes of the greenbelt
Ribbon development along A65
Detrimental effect on the local environment and loss of character
Impact on the flood risk from surface water runoff
Impact on the viability of the Town
Impact on the A65 and increased traffic congestion in the town.
Concern about cumulative impact of local developments, e.g Burley PP for 500 homes
Impact on local amenities: schools oversubscribed, health care, employment opportunities

Object

Representation ID: 14317

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Michael Duffield

Loss of natural sink for rain water will create flooding issues.

Greenbelt Developments will alter the character/landscape.

Proposals will destroy character by reducing seperation of Ilkley and Burley, especially with recent approval of the sites in Sun Lane, creating urban sprawl in a scenic landscape, removal of natural boundaries between towns and villages.

Loss of habitats for wildlife. Barn Owls nest and forage. Their nest cannot be destroyed/disturbed. Other wildlife would be displaced. Conflict with the draft plans objective 1.2.9 protecting environmental resources and leaving biodiversity in a better state than previously.

Impact of light pollution from street lighting.

Impact from increased congestion, noise pollution, traffic noise and fuel emissions.

Disturb/disrupt local wildlife, reduce environmental diversity.

Additional volume of people/households will impact on provision of services. [Reference street lamps being out of action for over 3 months, bins not being provided and emptied].

Schools are over-subscribed.

The proposals contradict the key strategy of taking a measured and sympathetic approach to green belt development.

Scale of proposals will alter the fabric of the local communities/neighbourhoods.

Object

Representation ID: 14377

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Thomas Dawson

Object to proposed developments (IL1/H & IL3/H) which together would add 185 houses to Ben Rhydding.

Objection is based on lack of infrastructure and congestion. Coutances Way and Ben Rhydding Road are not fit for current volume of traffic, let alone additional cars which would come with the additional houses.

Shops are overburdened. Have been developments over the last 40 years and it is hit or miss whether they contribute positively or negatively to town life. Large development, as proposed on these sites, come with an even less favourable prospect.

Council has disregard for Ilkley and does not look out for residents. Leave Ilkley alone in terms of significant development for a good few years and allow it function successfully with what it has. Does not need more houses. If required for Bradford and Leeds, they should be built in an area which does need them and can support them.

Object

Representation ID: 14929

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Jonathan Leach

Disagree with the principle of building on green belt land, especially when there are a number of brownfield sites available in Bradford.
Protecting green belt land is important as Ilkley is situated in scenic landscape attracting both tourists and businesses.
Views of Ilkley from the A65 across the fields up to the Cow and Calf rocks will be significantly affected by the proposed developments.
Reduction in separation between Burley and Ilkley to such an extent that it will virtually be a single urban area.
Previously proposed developments were turned down. The council have a responsibility as guardians for future generations - once the countryside is lost to housing, it is gone forever.
School at capacity.
Traffic/road safety issues from additional traffic on the very busy Wheatley Lane, including the single lane under the train bridge and the dangerous junction with Valley Drive, and the single point of access for the Wheatley Grove site. Developments would make these roads less safe.

Object

Representation ID: 14939

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Susan Stevens

1. Development is on Green Belt land. Are many brownfield sites in Bradford district, all of which should be fully used before Green Belt.

2. Will detract from Ilkley's character. Views will be diminished.

3. Will be an expansion eastward. May lead to further ribbon development towards Burley, with eventual merger.

4. Fields often under water. Although proposal is for drier end, it is still in a flood risk area. Homes may be risk of flooding. Land will no longer act as a sink for rainwater, increasing risk of flooding on the main road.

5. Curlews use wetlands as their feeding ground. It is a nationally important site. Populations have declined and they are on European red list. Unlikely to come if the houses are built.

6. Area is important wildlife habitat and part of wildlife corridor from the river to the Moor.

Do not think houses should be built on site.

Object

Representation ID: 14941

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Jeff Green

• They are both on existing green-belt land. A reasonable alternative to these sites would be to make better use of brownfield sites with the district.
• The resulting loss of green belt would have a significant negative effect on wildlife, the natural habitats and biodiversity of the area.
• Building on a greenfield site will lead to an increase in impermeable surfaces, increasing run-off into the River Wharfe and creating additional flood risk.
• The distance of the sites from the town centre are such that they will result in an increase in car use around Ilkley which will have a negative impact on air quality and the climate and exacerbate existing traffic congestion and parking problems in the town centre.

Object

Representation ID: 15310

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Richard Fox

Object to proposals to build on Green Belt in Ben Rhydding & Ilkley.

Land at Coutances Way & Wheatley Grove was given to the community to be preserved as green space and not for building. Both are wildlife corridors to the Moor and home to rare species. Would change the character of one of the main approaches to Ilkley by destroying its natural setting.

Number of houses in Ben Rhydding is disproportionate compare to rest of Ilkley. Will impact on infrastructure, roads, schools and medical practices. Grammar School is over-subscribed and the situation will be worsened.

Will increase the risk of flooding, further exacerbating the risks already existing on the River Wharfe.

Understand that growing population of Bradford requires new homes, not out-lying districts e.g. Wharfedale, where the type of housing built is generally not the type that is affordable by those who are most in need.

Object

Representation ID: 15322

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Karen Jones

I have lived in Ilkley and Burley In Wharfedale for over 30 years and seen the impact extra housing will create on all the services/schools/Dr's surgeries and more importantly traffic, which is affected when the A65 floods especially. These proposed areas of houses are on flood plains and green belt land, in an area of outstanding beauty.

The recent parking meters and charges are already impacting on local people using the town and staff/commuters parking on side roads.

I would like to object to this proposal.

Object

Representation ID: 15475

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Andrew Simpson

Proposed Additional dwellings in Ilkley. (IL1/H, IL2/H,IL3/H & IL4/H)

I am writing to object to the four proposed new dwelling applications listed above for Ilkley.

The basis of my objections are;

1) Building on Green Belt or non-Brown Belt land.

2) The infrastructure of Ilkley cannot manage today without increasing the number of dwellings. Infrastructure meaning services like schooling, transport in/out of the area particularly the road network, GP’s & other support services.

3) The absolute size of the application in terms of dwelling numbers.

Object

Representation ID: 15614

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Angela Rawling

I would like to express my dismay to the planned developments , IL1/H, IL3/H and IL2/H.

I am strongly opposed to any sort of development on green belt land. I regard it as very similar to the Brazilians destroying the Amazon trees.

Future generations will not thank you if there is consent to build.

I sincerely hope that common sense will prevail and the trees will be left to nature.

Object

Representation ID: 15667

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Neil Kirkbride

•Development of sites will negatively impact local nature, wildlife, bird feeding zones and landscape.
•Development will increase the risk of flooding. These areas are already catchment areas for run-off. Additional homes will increase the volume of sewage. Increasing the pollution levels when the River Wharfe is to be an accredited Bathing Site makes no sense.
•Significant use of Green Belt land when brownfield sites are available.
•Ilkley Grammar is at capacity with no room or budget for expansion. School catchment is already limited. If additional children have to travel outside of the area this will increase traffic.
•A65 is already congested. Additional homes will increase this congestion, making travel to/from Ilkley slow with consequences for locals and visitor planning to visit the town.
•The Valley Road and Railway Bridge junctions are busy already, it does not seem sensible to add additional traffic in this area.

Object

Representation ID: 15669

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Melanie Kirkbride

•Location/size of proposals will change the unique local character. Building on greenfield sites goes against the local plan.
•Green belt provide vital habitat/environment for wildlife, migrating birds and mature trees. Once developed this land will be permanently destroyed.
•Green belt makes a significant contribution to neutralising carbon emissions and traffic pollution from the busy A65, improving air quality.
•Site are flooded regularly. Rain water collects in the fields.
•Sewage capacity already struggling. Additional homes will make this untenable. River Wharfe is seeking to achieve clean bathing water status– this will be put at risk by these developments.
•A65 already congested and the additional traffic generated will change the character of the area.
•Capacity issues for the area’s high schools – where will the additional capacity come from?
•Marketing new homes will ensure high demand/great profits. But once developed there is no possibility of restoring the unique character of the area. It will be destroyed by pursuing large development proposals.

Object

Representation ID: 15675

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Joe Wareing

•Lack of consideration to impact on infrastructure. Road network is already extremely busy. These huge developments would add to that.
•A65 is already busy with queuing traffic. Whealtey Road is a complete bottle neck, under the train bridge and junction with Valley Drive are dangerous.
•Train network is average at best.
•These areas are reaching capacity and cannot take extra vehicles.
•Land is Green Belt. Development would become an eyesore and destroy the feel of entering Ilkley.
•Land is home to wildlife and has flooding issues.
•Why are developers being allowed to profit from building homes in unsuitable locations without regard for impact on the community.
•Developers should be held accountable for impact on road network, flooding risk, school capacity, and make substantial contributions to resolve these issues.
•Ilkley Grammar at capacity. Another school should be planned and built concurrently if the houses go ahead.
•IL3/H could be used for a new secondary school.
•Students shouldn’t be expected to travel to Keighley to access school.
•Houses should be built on derelict/brownfield sites.
•Consider creating another car parking level at Tesco to ease current parking issues.

Object

Representation ID: 15679

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Owen Wells

•IL3/H should be developed at 50dph and leave the other areas undeveloped. This site is within 400m of public transport, 800m of Ben Rhydding Station and easy walking distance of shops, primary and secondary schools.
•It is within 2.5km of Ilkley Moor and will required a HRA.
•If IL3/H is developed the following conditions should apply:
1. It should be developed at, at least 50 dwellings per ha.
2. There should be a mix of housing types and tenures (including social housing).
3. Included in the design should be green play areas, trees (and if possible allotments) etc.
3. To be in conformity with Bradford’s zero carbon policy, the dwellings must be built to the highest insulation standards with electric car charging points etc. The danger of flooding must be mitigated by the use of permeable surfaces wherever possible, rain water collection from houses, etc.
4. The site should be screened from the A65 by the planting of a shelter belt of substantial native trees (oak, ash etc.)
5. The wetland area below the site should be converted into a wetland nature reserve. This would complement the Ben Rhydding Nature Reserve on the opposite side of the A65.

Object

Representation ID: 15699

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Susan Duce

Consultation – not fair and unjustifiable during the pandemic.

Traffic – has anyone considered the impact of the roads in these two areas? There are difficulties getting from the Wheatley Arms to Bolling Road, whilst exit from Wheatley Grove is dangerous. Exiting Wheatley Gardens is horrendous. The railway bridge is also a problem. Adding extra traffic (including from Coutances Way site) means there is a massive problem. The bridge will also cause problems for site traffic.

Schools/Doctors/NHS – where will children go to school? Grammar School and primary schools are over-subscribed. Health centre is full. No local hospital.

Green Fields –green spaces needed for outdoor activities and wildlife. Wheatley Grove site was well used during the pandemic and do not want lose footpaths. School children use the fields for nature lessons and sledging.

Plans need abolishing/put on hold until a public meeting can be held safely so local people can have their say.

Object

Representation ID: 15795

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr J H Moorhouse

This is a green belt site, with iconic views to and from the Cow And Calf Rocks.
There is no necessity to build on this superb green space.
The necessary infrastructure would put unnecessary demands on the existing major and minor roads. Increased pressures on the roads and railway bridge within Ben Rhydding.
Additionally, the primary and secondary schools would be subject to extra strain.
It is only a few years ago that Bradford Council were considering building a new comprehensive school upon the same site.
This is a short sighted approach to the housing situation, when so many brown field sites are available for development.
There is considerable recent building, within Ilkley for example the large scale flats development on Mayfireld Road, Ilkley and the many examples of additional houses being built within the cartilage of single dwellings.

Object

Representation ID: 15819

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Kate Brown

GREEN BELT
Protection by NPPF.
Brownfield sites should be used before green belt.
There is an abundance of brownfield sites.
Developers will pressurise for early access to the sites.
No ‘compensation’ for loss of Green Belt.
Discourage the reuse of such land in other areas.
Sustainability Appraisal score suggests that the site should not be developed.
Facilities/Infrastructure are beyond walking distance from the site.
The site falls within the Habitat Regulation Assessment 2.5km zone both for Nidderdale AONB and Ilkley Moor where land is protected from development.
Impact on wildlife habitat, impacted by pets from proposed development.
Impact on TPOs/Trees/Copse
HISTORICAL AND RECREATIONAL VALUE will be lost.
Panoramic views will be lost.
Loss of area for recreation
The site regularly floods.
Flooding will risk stability and slippage issues along the railway lines.
Would be impossible to successfully harmonising with the character of the surrounding settlements along Ben Rhydding Drive and Wheatley Grove.
Impact of increased traffic
Effect on pedestrian access to rail and bus services.
Prospect of fulfilling sustainable/carbon neutral principles will be forestalled.

Object

Representation ID: 16042

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Anna Ashelford

Object to the proposals to develop the sites:

1. Loss of Greenbelt and impact on landscape and merging with neighboring towns. There are alternative brownfield sites available in the District.

2. Increased flood risk and surface run off, impact of climate change will increase impact.

3. Impact on environment in particular proximity to SSSI Ilkley Moor and loss of trees with TPOs. Sewerage treatment site is already unable to deal with capacity required. Additional development could worsen overflow during storms.

4. Infrastructure- Ilkley Grammar is already running at capacity- where can additional pupils be accommodated.

5. impact on highways through increased traffic and highway safety at junction between Ben Rhydding and Valley Drive. has an assessment of road safety been carried out?

Object

Representation ID: 16127

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Faye Thomson

Green Belt- there are alternative brownfield sites available.

Impact on greenery and beauty

impact on capacity of local schools

impact on pedestrian safety.

Object

Representation ID: 16206

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Peter and Denise Briggs Briggs

Number of people: 2

I protest strongly at the proposed developments especially so at area IL3/H which is at the gateway to Ilkley town. The number of houses seen as necessary is akin to a complete village tacked onto our town with the associated infrastructure associated with it such as lightning, roads, school places, and as it is Ilkley with an average of 2 cars per household over 300 cars from this one development alone giving more pollution and taking up valuable green space with concrete-not good at all.