Object

Representation ID: 21488

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs C A Sunderland

IL3/H Proposed 155 dwellings
Too high density and traffic problems already high.

Object

Representation ID: 21490

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: John 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: 21494

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Julie Irwin

Its inappropriate to build on the green belt - it protects the gateway to Ilkley and prevents urban sprawl. Ilkley and Burley will join together. There are brownfield sites to use in Bradford instead.

Ilkley is a tourist town.

A better idea would be a nature reserve.

The area floods regularly - utilities are strained, sewers overflow causing the river to become contaminated.

Ilkley does not have the infrastructure to cope with the proposed development - doctors, dentists, schools and parking facilities are already stretched.

Extra people living in and around Ilkley would not be able to use the train for commuting as the car parks at both Ilkley and Ben Rhydding stations are tiny. Traffic - A65 long tailbacks are common.

The government has issued unrealistic figure of extra houses - no proof that there is a further housing need in Ilkley, most young people who want to live here can’t afford to as house prices are so high.

Object

Representation ID: 21584

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Rachel Doherty

These are beautiful green belt sites that characterise Ilkley/BenRhydding.

The land sustains much natural flaura and fauna.
There are plenty of brown field sites in Bradford district that can take more housing.

There is the old hospital site the other side of the river - because it lies in Harrogate District seems to be ignored as a development opportunity.

Very high risk of flooding to surrounding areas if this density of housing is put on to these sites.

Ben Rhydding sports clubs which take the run off from these sites has already flooded a number of times - this risk would inevitably worsen with the associated development putting the existence of this club under threat.

It would just be a question of when it floods again - the club would potentially have to close taking with it an area for sport used by so much of the Ilkley/Ben Rhydding community.

Object

Representation ID: 21589

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Neil Harris

- when combined with (IL1/H) development will cause the main problems wit as described in my general comments. - impact on local infrastructure, highways, flood risk
- impact on local residents will be very significant in a negative way.
-The one positive here is that access should be much easier than IL1/H.

Object

Representation ID: 21592

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Gareth Heaton

the infrastructure of Ilkley is Ill equipped to deal with these extra homes- schools, parking, through traffic

Object

Representation ID: 21609

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Sue Towler

1. Impact on local highway network- A65 is heavily congested . Wheatley LANE is a B road and unable to accommodate such an increase in traffic flow. Ben Rhydding Drive/Wheatley Grove are minor roads and will be unable to cope with further traffic.
2. The schools are full to capacity. The grammar school has no further ground space on which to expand
3. Ilkley facilities will be unable to cope
4. Ilkley and the river already has a major issue with sewage due to the old sewage systems. The addition of 285 dwellings will only exacerbate with major problems at the Ben Rhydding plant

Object

Representation ID: 21639

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Pamela Pearce

1) Bradford has recognised the climate emergency, and this would worsen the situation;

2) Biodiversity would be adversely affected.

3) Both sites are prone to flooding and this would be aggravated by the loss of permeable surfaces.

4) Highways access and safety issues - the traffic on Wheatley Lane is often at standstill because it is so congested. Wheatley Lane / railway bridge has been improved lately by the traffic lights, nevertheless the space available for pedestrians is limited, it is very difficult to walk safely under the bridge. Turning right out of Valley Drive is always difficult because of obstructed sight lines.

5) School places are limited. Ilkley Grammar School is overcrowded and constrained;

6) the outdated sewerage system

7) The green belt land was established as an amenity for all;

8) Ben Rhydding has a discrete identity which will be overwhelmed by the proposed size of expansion;

Object

Representation ID: 21784

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Catherine Crannigan

As a resident in Ben Rhydding and also someone who works in the area, my main issue with the proposed plans is the amount of traffic 300 more houses would bring to the area. Cars travel up Wheatley Lane very fast and often race to get through the traffic lights under the bridge. I dread to think how much traffic these houses would bring, all battling to get to work in rush hour.

We recently requested planning permission to alter the entrance from our property which was refused due to the potential of it increasing traffic coming out onto Wheatley Lane near to the bridge. We have 1 car, I fail to see how 150 houses , bringing at least 1 car each could not do significantly more damage and therefore how this is even suggestible.

Object

Representation ID: 21853

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Toni Minou

This is possibly the worst of the four proposals.
The impact of building of 155 "dwellings" on this site will destroy the present green approach to Ilkley from the East and accelerate the joining of Ilkley to Burley (if the Sun Lane development goes ahead). Ben Rhydding will simply become yet another commuter suburb and lose its current rural identity. It is notable that the development will also be within easy reach (and smell) of the sewage works to the East. Developers might wish to capitalise on that but it might not appeal to potential residents.

Object

Representation ID: 22053

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Kristy Walton

-Objection to Green belt sites - no justification. Ref NPPF s.133.
-Existing boundary of Ben Rhydding/Ilkley – the row of Victorian terraces on the A65 – remains the border and that urban sprawl is not promoted.
-Retain individual settings of settlements.
-Historic areas must be preserved.
-Openness and permanence must be protected not eroded!
-Disproportionate proposals on GB land (97% Ilkley/Ben Rhydding compared with 20% in LP)
-Sensitive areas landscape, SSSIs, SAC, SPA and buffer zone, nature reserve
-TPOs.
-Use of site by people for exercise, valuable for mental health.
-Scale and appropriateness deemed excessive
-Estimated 30 houses built per/yr. If these are included then the area has also already provided many additional houses.
-Flood risk levels of 2 and 3 leading to significant risk of flooding.
-Both sites act as water reservoirs in times of flooding. The number of flooding occurrences is increasing in regularity even with these areas of land holding water.
-secondary school provision limited / IGS oversubscribed. No significant increase in capacity at the school has been proposed.
-Drainage / sewerage system is already struggling and has water breaking through the pavements and road surfaces,
-Ben Rhydding is not of adequate size to cope with the additional number of car journeys that will be generated.
-Wheatley Grove junction is dangerous with poor visibility.
-Wheatley Lane and Valley Drive junction has poor visibility.
Coutances way Is a significant area for Curlew and there is a nature reserve on the A65 would be negatively be impacted by the risk of flooding and disturbance from the building work and increased traffic.
-Concern about safety
-No cycling provision

Object

Representation ID: 22385

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Michael Piercy

Have read the various documents setting out the proposals for a substantial number of houses to be built in Ben Rhydding/Ilkley.

Two sites (IL1/H & IL3/H) indicate a large number of properties to be built on greenfield sites. The size of each would have a significant negative impact on the village. Already problems associated with traffic and parking at peak times with access from the A65 via Wheatley Lane negotiating a single track section under the railway bridge.

Access to IL1/H would leave to increase in traffic volumes passing under the railway bridge and along Wheatley Lane.

Access to IL3/H could be more easily managed as it is north of the railway; it would still cause considerable added congested on Wheatley Lane.

No reference to added strain that large increase in dwellings would have on traffic flow nor on the provision of school places and medical facilities.

Object

Representation ID: 22463

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Diane Hopton

Government policy is that building on green belt should only be carried out in exceptional circumstances - which is not the case in this situation and also goes against the governments aims and objectives on green belt to prevent urban sprawl.

The entrance to Ilkley will be ruined which is a huge tourist boost to the area seeing the site of the moor and cow and calf rocks.

Infrastructure will not be able to cope. Peak time traffic is already a problem. Extra traffic, particularly around Ben Rhydding station.

Dentists and all schools in Ilkley are over subscribed the schools have no room for expansion.

Object

Representation ID: 22768

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Jane Cockcroft

•The Local Plan want to pass plans for several hundred houses in Ben Rhydding and Ilkley – together with the overturned appeal at Burley for 500 homes, and a new garden centre which will generate traffic.
•There are plenty of brownfield sites that should be used before greenfield.
•Following COVID there will be lots of scope for developing old industrial areas.
•Many mills have been empty for years. Lister Mills is only just being developed.
•No infrastructure (doctors, schools) to support these additional houses.
•Difficult to get a doctor’s appointment even before COVID.
•Ilkley Grammar is full.
•Flooding in Ilkley is a problem with the field opposite Manor Park having standing water for the past year.
•The worst thing is traffic congestion, especially on the A65 in summer.
•In Burley in March 2020 on a warmish weekend the traffic was horrendous. In the summer with the new garden centre and almost 1000 more houses the congestion will horrendous with people travelling out of Leeds/Bradford to Ilkley and the Dales.

Object

Representation ID: 23456

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Danielle Moor

I am objecting to the proposed plans for the development of houses on green belt land.

Object

Representation ID: 23472

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Sue & Tim Staton

Number of people: 2

•Sites proposed on Green Belt without justification.
•Significant brownfield sites available within Bradford.
•Green Belt aims to prevent urban sprawl, keep land permanently open and encourage recycling of derelict land.
•In Bradford there is a need to focus on brownfield land and regeneration.
•The approach does not adhere to Green Belt principles of merging of neighbouring towns.
•These sites have no defined edges and will blur the contrast between urban and rural facets.
•No proposals for any social housing at these sites.
•Proposals would significantly change the character of the town and surrounding areas.
•Increased traffic through the Wheatley Road rail bridge/junction with Valley Drive. These are areas of congestion/high risk of accidents. Significant impact on local air quality.
•Ilkley Grammar is at capacity. No ability to expand further. No additional secondary school capacity proposed.
•Demand for GPs will be extreme. No plans to create additional medical centre.
•Pressure on utilities capacity, particularly sewage sites and broadband.
•Proposals go against the local plan to protect the environment. Wheatley Grove site is only 350m from the Ilkley Moor SSSI. Countances Way is a significant area for Curlew feeding. Also provide wildlife habitat and corridors, plus area of TPOs.
•Both sites are significant rainwater sinks which delay the flow of water. Existing flood risk and development would further exacerbate issues on surrounding areas.

Object

Representation ID: 23509

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Robin & Sheila Wright

Number of people: 2

-Rhydding does not have the capacity to accommodate 285 more houses. This is a hugely disproportionate amount.
-Impact on conservation area and its surroundings.
-Impact on local road. Additional traffic on narrow roads.
-Site has underground streams taking runoff from rainfall and as such pose a flood risk. Network Rail engineers continue to shore up the embankment on the North side of the railway because of subsidence abutting the site. Council has had to repair water runoff flooding B road Wheatley Lane.
-Development would cause subsidence with water backing up and overflowing existing drainage.
-There has been no traffic assessment of the implications of 155+ extra vehicles exiting onto this road. -Site cuts across part of the Greenway, a proposed environmental asset to the valley.
-Impact on essential services in Ilkley and Ben Rhydding, in particular Schools, Health Services, Fire Services and Community Policing.
-One Secondary School with no room to expand.
-Primary schools are full.

Object

Representation ID: 23639

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Jordan Ince

•Ilkley Grammar is already at capacity and is unable to expand further. The combined impact on secondary school capacity of approved/proposed housing in Wharfedale has not been considered.
•Trains to Leeds/Bradford are over-crowded at peak times. The combined impact of additional housing in Wharfedale on passenger numbers has not been considered.
•Both sites will increase traffic through the railway bridge, the junction at Valley Drive and junction with Wheatley Grove which is narrow with poor visibility. These areas are already congested with traffic and at high risk of accidents.
•The Wheatley Grove site is only 350m from the Ilkley Moor SSSI. Development should be avoided in this area.
•Both sites provide significant wildlife habitat with curlews and lapwings present. Both sites have mature tree with TPOs.
•Both sites provide rainwater sinks to delay water flow and alleviate flooding. These areas are often wet with intermittent springs.
•Sewage infrastructure are unable to cope with the level of wastewater from existing houses.
•Both sites are green belt. New homes should be built on brownfield sites that are available in Bradford.
•Development would reduce the separation between Ilkley and Burley.

Object

Representation ID: 23666

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Dina & Joe Saleh & Hendrie

Number of people: 2

•We moved to Ilkley from a more urban area. The searches prior to purchase did not reveal the proposed plans. We are devastated about the impact the development will have.
•Additional houses will create significant traffic, noise and air pollution. The road is dangerous to cross. Concerned about the volume of traffic and school children on foot. An increase in traffic will exacerbate the problem. Noise and air pollution will impact physical and mental health of residents.
•There are alternatives to developing greenfield sites. It undermines the purpose of protecting greenfield sites.
•Existing houses will be overlooked by the new housing. The view of the field/farm will be removed undermining our purpose from choosing to live here. We cannot see how the development is in the best interests of the local community.
•Existing residents utilise on-road parking due to the nature of the terraced housing. Concerns that the developments will create even greater parking issues. This needs to be addressed for existing residents.
•Existing amenities particularly schools already strained. What action will be taken to address this?
•There is an abundance of wildlife in this rural area. Concerned about its displacement and wider impact on the ecosystem.

Object

Representation ID: 23689

Received: 22/07/2021

Respondent: Richard Walton

-No justification for the removal of Green Belt sites
-Disproportionate use of GB land in Ilkley
-Brownfield sites available in District.
-Reduce separation, create a wharfedale corridor of development
-Impact on character
-Increase Local flood risk
-Impact on the countryside and setting
-Impact on Ilkley moor/SSSI – development should be avoided
-Impact on wildlife - Curlew bird feeding.
-Site provides a wildlife corridor and significant habitat for wildlife.
-Mature trees/Tree Protection Orders / Woodland protection
-Impact on Ben Rhydding and Ilkley sewage - already at capacity and regularly overflow their storm surge capacity into the adjacent river
-Road Safety – significant congestion and are already at high risk of accidents.
-No traffic assessment has been carried out.
-Park & ride for the Ben Rhydding train station will encourage even more cars
-Ilkley Grammar School operating at capacity. No additional secondary school capacity has been proposed.
-Numbers proposed are excessive.
-Ben Rhyddding not an adequate size to cope with the additional number of car journeys that will be generated.

Object

Representation ID: 23762

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Adrian Townson

Contradicts many of the proposals in Bradford Councils own Local Area Strategy Plan

These represent a huge increase in the size of Ben Rhydding without any suggestion how the infrastructure will cope.

The sheer size of the housing estates will dwarf the local residential area.

Significantly change the character of the town and reduce greatly the separation between B. Rhydding and Burley in W.

Loss of green belt

Local of local infrastructure - for example Ilkley Grammar School at capacity

Local Roads are overloaded. Access problems. Lack of parking.

A few yards after the rail tunnel there is junction with Valley Drive. To exit this road to towards the tunnel is dangerous as it is a “blind” exit. Yet the proposed entry to site 1L 3/H will be directly opposite..

The junction is at a point where Wheatley Road ramps up dramatically to the moor and the other side is a residential home

Will the homes be affordable - for whom?

Object

Representation ID: 23767

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs P.A. Linnegan

I would like lodge a formal objection to the proposed housing sites in Ilkley (IL1/H; IL2/H; IL3/H; IL4/H).

Green Belts are vital resources for residents and wildlife. With problems of global warming and target to reduce pollution, I see infill of every green space is a backward step.

More housing adds to the pollution problem with more CO2 from gas central heating and car emissions. There would be more congestion on A65 and further parking problems.

Ability of cope with current levels of waste water is poor with effluent pouring into the river. How will it cope with more sewerage?

Schools are already at maximum capacity. How will it cope with more children?

Lockdowns have proved that people need green spaces for their mental health.

I am sure there are many brownfield sites that could be better uses. Empty buildings could be converted, with no loss of precious green sites.

Object

Representation ID: 23780

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Cheryl Donnison

•Green Belts are there to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. The development of these two sites will have a major negative impact on purpose 3 which should be enough to rule them out for development.
•These development would also significantly reduce the separation between the towns and create a Wharfedale corridor of development.
•Existing flood risks would be exacerbated by development of these sites. They are significant sinks of rainwater delaying the flow of water. They are regularly wet and springs appear. They are in flood risk areas 2&3 meaning they are expected to have significant river/surface flooding. Climate change is likely to increase these risks.
•Proposals go against the local plan to protect the environment. Wheatley Grove site is only 350m from the Ilkley Moor SSSI. Countances Way is a significant area for Curlew feeding. Also provide wildlife habitat and corridors, plus area of TPOs.
•Sewage sites are at capacity regularly overflowing their storm surge capacity.
•Ilkley Grammar is at capacity. No ability to expand further and already limiting the catchment area.
•Increased traffic through the Wheatley Road rail bridge/junction with Valley Drive. These are areas of congestion/high risk of accidents. Walking every day is encouraged but with extra cars there is likely to be more accidents.

Object

Representation ID: 23793

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: J.H. Hawkesworth

I object to the above plan insofar as it affects sites IL1/H and IL3/H for the following reasons.

1. Ilkley is a mature settlement without the infrastructure to cope with an additional 285 dwellings

2. Site IL3/H (which is in the ownership of the council) is a gateway site to the town. Development would ruin this gateway

3. The two sites are in the greenbelt. There is no compelling reason to alter their status

4. Both sites are in the waterflow down the valley side. Development would exacerbate the flooding in the area

5. The access to both sites is appalling, with no way of improving it

6. Site IL3/H is below a railway embankment constructed in 1865. It stands in the way of waterflow down the valley side. Railway embankments “slip” with little warning and that is a hazard for this site

Object

Representation ID: 23815

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Alistair Scott

Concerned about drainage issues. Water travels through the sites from Ilkley Moor. Sites are boggy/marshy. Flooding will be made worse by losing these sites. Problems will be pushed downstream.

Current infrastructure cannot support 285 extra homes. Ilkley does not have the ability to support extra people at schools, doctors, dentists, shops, sewage works and emergency services. Schools are at their limit.

Impact on traffic on Wheatley Lane and Valley Drive will be huge – they are already congested at peak times. How can they cope with extra houses?

Will affect Ilkley’s identity and reduce the gap with Burley. Character will be lost.

There are a large number of brownfield sites in Bradford District which would be suitable for building on. Derelict/abandoned houses and buildings could be transformed into housing – much more environmentally conscious. No justification to use land when other more suitable land is available.

Object

Representation ID: 23841

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Lynn Haygarth

To summarise, my objections are:

- An inappropriate number of dwellings inconsistent with the number of dwellings in the local area.

- Substantial increase in traffic, congestion, carbon emissions and risks of traffic incidents.

- The loss of substantial greenbelt with mature trees and natural wildlife and visiting birds and resulting increase in carbon emissions.

- The failure of the council to consider the implications of the effects of the increased number of dwellings, adults and children on the local infrastructure.

Object

Representation ID: 23862

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Ann Marie Cousins

Proposals seem to take no head of natural beauty of Ilkley and need to protect it to safeguard the character of the town and surrounding countryside. Must surely consider brownfield development before building on greenfield sites. None of these developments are on brownfield sites. No justifiable reason for building on Green Belt when brownfield sites are available elsewhere in the District.

No consideration of flood risk of the Countances Way site. Will consign homeowners to high insurance premiums as well as problems due to surface water/flooding.

Services are already overburdened. Ilkley Grammar School is at capacity, with no other schools nearby or plans to build a new secondary school. More housing would cause children to be bussed to Keighley/Guiseley, causing additional traffic pollution. Given the climate emergency declaration, this is in direct opposition to goals set out when Council announced its intention to be a net-zero carbon region by 2038.

Object

Representation ID: 23867

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Peter Roll & Penny Coulthard

Accept there is a general shortage of affordable housing and more is required.

No consideration of fact that services are unable to meet current needs, let alone the additional 310 dwellings.

Schools over-subscribed/under-funded. Ilkley Grammar School has no room for expansion. Option would be to build an annex on one of the proposed sites.

Waste water treatment capacity not able to meet current needs.

Despite proximity to Ben Rhydding station, it is assumed that not all residents can get to work by train. Means more traffic and congestion. No details of site accesses.

IL1/H - there is high likelihood of flooding caused by run-off. Will cause flooding into existing housing.

No mention of utilities. Assume no gas will be required to avoid fossil fuel consumption. Electricity and phone/internet services not capable to meet the town’s needs – will need to be improved.

Old Hospital, Carters Lane – proposals before Harrogate BC regarding this site. Could put pressure on local infrastructure.

Object

Representation ID: 23872

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Tim Lowe

Green Belt: protection provided by NPPF. Grave concerns about building in it.

Sites have long distance views to the wider countryside and beyond, are prominent in the landscape and provide Ilkley’s rural setting. Would have significant impact on openness and reduce separation between towns.

Flooding: sites have significant existing flood risk. Development would exacerbate issues on the surrounding areas.

Environment: Ilkley’s character is defined by its setting and proposals go against defined local plan to protect the environment. Ilkley Moor is a SSSI and 350m from IL1/H within its buffer – development should be avoided. Both provide wildlife corridors/habitats as well as mature trees include several TPOs. Sewage works unable to deal with capacity required.

Schools: Ilkley Grammar School is operating at capacity and unable to expand.

Road Safety: sites will directly/significantly increase traffic through railway bridge and junction with Valley Drive – two areas of congestion and at high risk of accidents.

Object

Representation ID: 23991

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Rachel Warren

-Concern regarding use of Green Belt land.
-Green Belt is to protect an area from over development and becoming joined up.
-All four sites have flood risks of 2 and 3 meaning that they are at risk of flooding and this will not improve as climate change increases the risk.
-Environmentally important area.
-Impact on wildlife.
-Coutances Way is an area of curlew feeding. The natural habitat will be deeply and irreversibly affected.
There are plenty of brownfield sites in the Bradford District.
-Mature trees / TPOs.
-Sewage works is already at capacity.
-Impact on local character
-Impacts on schools – IGS at capacity / primary schools and inadequate nursery provision.
-Effects on roads must be considered. Current congestion, accidents and near misses.
-Lack of infrastructure to cope with so many new dwellings.
-Impacts on health care.