Object

Representation ID: 16345

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Nicola Threlfall

Object to proposed developments IL1/H & IL3/H.

Land is open land and represents a boundary of the urban area. It is Green Belt and deserves protection. Consideration needs to be given to preserving the natural landscape. It is Green Belt for a reason, evident from the views to/from the Moors. Have a duty to protect the natural landscape.

Infrastructure is not able to cope with additional demands. Ilkley Grammar School is full - do not see how it could cope with additional children. Permission should not be given for development where this can be clearly foreseen to overwhelm capacity. A financial contribution/similar is insufficient - additional housing would present a long term problem with secondary school capacity.

Environmental considerations mean development should not go ahead. Ilkley/River Wharfe has been subject to serious floods in recent years. Will not be helped by reducing green space and concreting over the land.

Object

Representation ID: 16417

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Dr M J Seymour

IL3/H Coutances Way
The Coutances Way site is a wet meadow. It is already earmarked for a Park-and-Ride carpark.
Any change to the Coutances Way site such as a housing development is likely to exacerbate flooding. Some of the houses on the Wheatley Lane terraces still flood.

Object

Representation ID: 16528

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Russell Tew

Development would cause detrimental impact to the local environment.

The area is an important wildlife sanctuary with a huge number of wildflower species and curlews using the fields as a feeding area.

Loss of attractive panoramic views.

Loss of open space.

Increased risk of flooding, these sites are already prone to flooding from water flowing off the Moor .

Increase to carbon footprint.

Site is poorly served by Public Transport.

Increased car journeys, pollution, road traffic accidents.

The proposed developments cannot be balanced against our environmental responsibilities.

Brownfield sites should be repurposed.

Green belt land protected to safeguard the countryside from encroachment.

More brownfield sites becoming available in the future because of changes to work perspectives.

Object

Representation ID: 16545

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Charlotte Truluck

If the outer areas and approach to the town are to be developed further it will detract from the natural beauty of the town. On approach the big open space and expanse of the moor side can be appreciated whereas if the surrounding areas become more built up it will detract from its appeal to tourists and its residents alike.

Traffic congestion. The A65 has lengthy queues and residents in the proposed developments no doubt feeding into this it will cause a greater volume of traffic. Increased possibility of road accidents.
It is a challenge turning right out of the garden centre and possibly an accident waiting to happen and these new developments might cause similar problems and dangers. The tailback into Ilkley causes drivers to use rat runs.

Increased Parking pressures.

On an environmental level, the traffic that will accompany the dwellings and its environmental impact do not sit well with me.

Object

Representation ID: 16577

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Chris Scott

No demonstration of exceptional circumstances to build on greenbelt land.

Brownfield sites which there are multiple locations within the council area should be exhausted prior to turning to greenbelt area for building, including Brownfield sites less than 0.25ha.


Over building will lead to further degradation to local infrastructure/quality of life.

No acknowledgement that circa 30 houses a year are built in the Ilkley in recent years. This mitigates the need to build so many houses.

Impact on footpaths.

Impact on local roads including the A65 causing speeding and accidents.

Rail travel – The Wharfedale Line is already at full capacity.

There is no traffic impact assessment survey included in the draft plan.

Schools at full capacity.

Doctors’ surgeries are already busy.

Only one Post Office available.

Plan should support Building net zero carbon houses at scale

Priority should be Regeneration of inner- city Bradford

Object

Representation ID: 16600

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Denise Kirk

Local plan preferred site allocation - My first concern is how these proposals will impact on schools particularly on the 11 - 18-year age group. There is already overcrowding at Ilkley Grammar school resulting in the most recent additional building. Although this gives extra teaching rooms it reduces the area that pupils can use outside of lessons which I think is equally important.

There were plans for a new school to be built on the Coutances Way site. Unfortunately, these plans were withdrawn due to a change in finance shortages within Bradford council. I feel now that plan should be reinstated as the site appears larger and could accommodate the larger intake of pupils from both Ilkley and Burley-in-Wharfedale.

Overall I am against the proposals as they will put a further strain on drainage, sewage and transport.

Object

Representation ID: 16614

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Patrick W Johnson

This proposal should have been part and parcel of proposals for Ben Rhydding.

Although not contiguous the sites will 'empty' onto a road system which already struggles with the amount of traffic.

At the level of saturation intended houses on both sites are likely to attract young families.

Objections about lack of services apply here.

The favourable route to most services (GPs, Town Hall, Railway Station, schools, etc) will be along Bowling Road involving passing through the single vehicle railway bridge.

Combined with IL1/H, the two proposals will commit an excessive amount of road traffic using the junction of Wheatley Lane and Bowling Road.

Even currently the manoeuvre from Bowling Road towards Ben Rhydding Drive is dangerous.and these proposals will only make matters worse.

Object

Representation ID: 16619

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: James N Wright

Objection on the following grounds:

Green Belt - It is the responsibility of Bradford Council to protect the Green Belt and build new housing by maximising the potential of brown field sites and only to consider any infringement on Green Belt in very ‘exceptional circumstances’ and only then after reasonable consultation and agreement with residents in the locality.

Flood risk. Ilkley moor is notorious for its springs and underground water courses - development will add to existing surface water drainage problems.

Traffic issues - 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;

Infrastructure - schools and medical centre full / at capacity; inadequate parking at Ben Rhydding Railway Station; A65 bottlenecks; lack of sporting facilities and open space.

Object

Representation ID: 16682

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Margaret Walton

-impact on landscape character-the proposed housing would have a major impact and significantly change the character of the town.
-The local sewage sites already regularly overflow so obviously cannot cope with more.

Comment

Representation ID: 16829

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Sarah Wilde

I am generally in favour of new housing provided it is affordable and that there is some social housing. Too often new housing tends to be large detached housing with an extremely high price tag.

IL3/H – a few years ago this space was earmarked for IGS to move to. The Grammar School is in a very tight spot in town and with an increase in population would likely expand further. Where could they go if this plot is taken up with housing? It is a good position to access public transport however.

Object

Representation ID: 16975

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs J A Whitehouse

A lovely area of green land on the approach to Ilkley with views up to the famous Cow & Calf Rocks from the A65 and down over the Wharfe Valley from the railway and Cow Pasture Road. That would all disappear if this plan goes through.

Object

Representation ID: 16994

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Lynn Sanders

See full submission:
A number of issues including:
- Green Belt
- Sustainability Appraisal/Strategic Environmental Assessment
- Flora and Fauna
- Flooding

Object

Representation ID: 17073

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Catherine Clarke

1L3/ H Countances Way -150 new houses on this small wet area together with their cars and children.Is this the density, lack of green or play space you want for " a better life ! "?

These children too will need to get to the local primary school safely (?) and cross the now overcrowded narrow road and exit from Valley Drive.

Green belt land

Object

Representation ID: 17097

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Oliver Shuttleworth

This green belt site is home to numerous wildlife species, such as birds of prey and is also the feeding ground for the curlew birds, who nest on Ilkley moor.

It also experiences the flooding, which we are faced with each year and even currently we still have large amounts of surface water which remain on parts of the land.

The Ilkley and Ben Rhydding sewage sites are already seeing an overwhelming capacity and often overflow from their storm surge system.

The amount of traffic seen each day especially in the mornings on Countances Way and Wheatley road can only be described as chaos. This road has also seen a large amount of accidents, supporting the fact that it is just not large enough for the amount of modern day traffic and by adding a vast amount of housing to the area this is only going to worsen.

Object

Representation ID: 17102

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Steven Dick

Firstly they are on green belt which once developed is lost forever - any brown field sites should be exhausted prior to green bet being considered. I am sure these have not been exhausted in the Bradford area as there are many that are easily visible such as old mill sites etc.

The 2 sites stretch out the town further away from the centre of Ilkley and will spoil the character of the village of Ben Ryhdding.

The second loses a large swathe of field land that is regularly walked and enjoyed by residents and visitors meaning that ‘escape’ to open land is pushed further away and becomes less accessible.

The extra 285 homes will increase the level of traffic in the area - the proposed houses are obviously a fair distance from Ilkley centre.

Simply expanding the town ignores the lack of expanding services e.g. the high school and the doctors.

Object

Representation ID: 17138

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: S.M.B Wilson

Two of the plans proposed are totally unsuitable on this scale in Ilkley and should not be developed in this density. These are IL1/H Ben Rhydding Drive, Wheatley Grove and IL3/J Coutances Way.

These two with a total of 285 dwellings are totally out of character with Ilkley town because there is no where in Ilkley that has a development of more than approximately 50 houses maximum and these large developments simply would not be appropriate here, would not fit in with the surroundings and would spoil the entire area.

As stated in your proposal, Ilkley is a small country town of great attraction and would be totally spoiled if this number of dwellings was built on these sites .

There is also the added number of cars to be considered. As it is the town is often gridlocked - as you stated, parking is already a major problem.

Object

Representation ID: 17143

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: W & M Shaw

Number of people: 2

Green belt designated to prevent Burley in Wharfedale joining with Ben Rhydding. Bradford Council have been keen to sell it for a new grammar school, a park and ride, and now for housing. Leave undeveloped.

Object

Representation ID: 17286

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: S & S Robson & Perry

Number of people: 2

•Green belt beneficial to everyone. They absorb carbon, provide space for water, wildlife corridors and habitats.
•No justification of building on Green Belt when there are numerous brownfield sites across the district.
•Building on these greenfields will concrete over children’s future health and wellbeing and is not consistent with the Council’s Sustainable Development Priorities.
•Development will remove the natural soakaways that these sites currently provide and lead to an increase of flooding in the valley.
•Sites provide valuable habitat for significant amounts of wildlife and hunting ground for recently reintroduced red kites. Numerous mature oak would be lost.
•Not logical to build 300 homes in a small community.
•Current infrastructure not fit or capable of accommodating addition cars, school children, or sewage. Sewerage system is unable to deal with current capacity with pollution issues in the river below Ilkley.
•First-hand experience of the inadequacy of school places particularly at primary level. The Grammar school also has capacity issues.
•Proposed development will increase traffic pressure. Particularly on Wheatley Road Train Bridge.
•Difficult to exit from Moorfield Road and Cheltenham Avenue.
•New traffic lights have removed frequent stand-offs but increased speeding.
•Turning right from train station is extremely dangerous.

Object

Representation ID: 17329

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Niall Cahill

•Proposed developments are on green belt further contributing to the urbanisation of lower Wharfedale.
•Area is recognised as a scenic and sensitive natural landscape. Increasing development will take away this natural landscape and habitats for wildlife. Development will reduce the small wildlife corridors between the villages.
•Concern about the reduced amount of green belt between Burley-in-Wharfedale and Ben Rhydding. This would impact on the character of the area and increase urbanisation.
•Concerns about the safety of future residents from the risks of flooding. Sun Lane and Coutances Way sites are prone to flooding.
•Concerns of impact on local infrastructure, particularly secondary school places. Additional proposed developments will increase demand on places, the impacts of which haven’t been addressed.
•Road safety and congestion concerns at the Sun Lane and Coutances Way sites. These are already congested roads and additional traffic will make this worse.

Object

Representation ID: 17340

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Frances Davies

•Object to plans which would allow nearly 300 new houses to be built on the Green Belt.
•The schools in the town are oversubscribed and already under increased pressure and the proposed number of houses would only exacerbate the problem.
•The environment would also be damaged, not only with the loss of green open spaces but in recent years the sewerage system has not been able to contend with the current number of properties resulting in the pollution of the river.
•Before even contemplating more houses in Ilkley/Ben Rhydding, Bradford Council need to looking at investing in the infrastructure of the town, schools, roads, commuter parking at both stations and medical provision and not see Ilkley as a useful and easy source of revenue.

Object

Representation ID: 17457

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Dr and Professor Gwenda & Michael Pilling CBE

Number of people: 2

The site lies at the entrance to Ilkley from the east. It will have an adverse effect on the appearance of the town.

They will add considerably to the pressure on already stretched facilities: schools, health, sewage

Whilst this site is further from the SSSI and is more obviously agricultural, it still plays an important role as a wildlife habitat, especially for curlews, which are IUCN “near threatened” and Amber Listed.

Parts of the site lie in Flood Zones 2 and 3. Development of the Zone 1 areas would require sensitive construction, including SUDS to avoid local flood risk, which will almost certainly increase over the coming years because of climate change.

Parts of the site have been discussed as a possible Park and Ride facility to encourage greater use of trains to Leeds and Bradford. Such a development would be desirable if sensitively designed and constructed.

Object

Representation ID: 17469

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Tom Birch

•Changes represent an unjustified encroachment on greenbelt, impairing enjoyment of surrounding area. It represents a material deviation from the NPPF which the plan claims to adhere to.
•Building houses on the greenbelt between Ilkley and Burley is not an emphasis on the redevelopment of brownfield sites or a measure/sensitive approach to greenbelt release. The plan contradicts itself against stated intensions in paragraphs 1.1.3 and 1.2.9.
•The Plan’s spatial vision does not include any protection of the greenbelt and is not in line with the NPPF. Its absence leads to the belief that the council have not considered the greenbelt seriously and that the plan is not in line with the government’s policies it claims to be. Although Policy SP5 mentions greenbelt it need needs to be in the spatial vision.
•Unsure there is legal basis to continue with the plan given the above points. You have not done due-diligence by incorporating local opinion before creating such an insensitive proposal.
•Development of brownfield sites in Bradford should be the focus of the plan, aimed at regenerating a deprived area.
•Development should be focused where it is needed rather than being distribute across the district.

Object

Representation ID: 17491

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Lorraine Dowson

With regard to the local strategy for Ilkley:

I wish to object to plans for two housing sites in Ben Rhydding.

In summary my concerns relate to:

1. Plans to build on Green Belt land

This will have an impact on wildlife, amenity value, aesthetics. Ilkley’s economy is dependent on visitors to the town and it is essential to retain an appearance and ambience which will continue to attract visitors.

2. Pressure on services

The addition of 300+ homes will add to existing pressures on sewerage, road access, education etc

Object

Representation ID: 17561

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Adam White

The site lies within the Green Belt - a vital defense against urban sprawl. Bradford has enough brownfield land which is not on the Green Belt to satisfy its housing needs.

The Plan has divided the District up into sections with a housing quota allocated to each section, roughly according to the size of the local population and the amount of open space available. The inevitable result is that in a place like Ilkley, where there is very little land that is not on the Green Belt, the Belt has to be built on.

Coutances Way - that land and the space adjacent to it is the only suitable site in the town for a new Ilkley Grammar School which is the only secondary school in Ilkley and its current site is grossly overcrowded.

The total housing proposed - 314 units will assuming three people per house, means a 942 increase in the town's population. No provision has been made in the plan for more facilities in the way of shops, employment sites or education facilities.

Object

Representation ID: 17772

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Andrew Devonald

My objections are as follows

- 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 carparking for the station. This will further increase congestion problems and overcrowding at the station and trains

Object

Representation ID: 17987

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Sarah Dunhill

Green Belt: Council have not given any significant justification as to why they have proposed Green Belt land, especially given the number of brownfield sites available in Bradford district. In the overall Bradford plan, this figure is only 20%, showing a hugely disproportionate value against Ilkley.

Flooding: Three sites have significant existing flooding risks. Development would further exacerbate issues on the surrounding areas.

School Capacity: Ilkley Grammar is the only publicly accessible secondary school in the area and already operating at capacity. It is unable to expand any further and has already had to limit the catchment area in order to manage numbers.

Road Safety: Two main sites in Ben Rhydding will directly and significantly increase traffic through the Wheatley Road train bridge and junction with Valley Drive. These are two areas of congestion and already at high risk of accidents. No traffic assessment has been carried out on these areas.

Object

Representation ID: 18019

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Toni Seddon

Would like to strongly object to proposed building of 314 new houses in Ilkley. Particularly concerned about the two larger plots (285 houses) which will need access onto Wheatley Lane.

Cannot emphasise how busy this road is, with single file under the railway bridge. Is used as a “rat run” to avoid the A65 in central Ilkley. Valley Drive is also busy. Difficult to turn onto Wheatley Lane at the point where IL3/H might need access.

Ilkley has been flooded many times by the river. No plans to address this situation. Sewage works already unable to deal with needed capacity and often overflow.

Ilkley Grammar School is at capacity and unable to expand. Haven’t heard of any proposed new schools. Where will children go to school?

Building proposed on Green Belt land – what will be the environmental impact, and what effect will building so many houses have on the town’s character?

Object

Representation ID: 18033

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs LC Pearson

I object on the grounds that:
1. This is green belt land and an area of outstanding beauty.
2. It provides a green boundary around the edge of ilkley and prevents it merging into neighbouring towns.
3. I do not feel Bradford have addressed the infrastructure needs for this additional number of houses. It is not only school places but doctors facilities and better parking that is required. The latest parking restrictions recently implemented in ilkley together with costs for parking mean it is harder to park in the town centre and support our local high street.

Comment

Representation ID: 18071

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Graham Taylor

I am not against all development in these areas but do have serious concerns that the proposals as they stand represent an increasing on encroachment on greenfield land and over-development within the context of the existing townscape.
IL3/H – Countances Way
Density – proposed 21 dwellings per hectare is only a bit higher than IL1/H and IL2/H but has a much higher impact because it would be a direct development on greenfield land rather than just a partial encroachment.
Location – the negative impact of development on this greenfield land would be immediate and irreversible so the proposal should be reconsidered in its current form. If any development were allowed it should be limited to about a quarter of the area alongside the road on the west side of the site, to form a continuous ribbon of dwellings with that already existing to the north of the site. However, as in IL2/H, this should not act as a Trojan Horse for further development in the remaining greenfield area to the east.

Object

Representation ID: 18076

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Kathleen 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.