Comment

Representation ID: 24046

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Melissa Pickering

Whilst not opposed to the development of the proposed sites, I would like to have my concerns recorded regarding supporting infrastructure. In particular, given current existing pressures in Ilkley, I feel that all new housing sites should have adequate parking for the number of occupants included in their plans. Furthermore, there will be additional pressure on school places and local transport (esp. road congestion, road width, commuter trains) that all require increased capacity.

Object

Representation ID: 24145

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: John & Alex Cockshott

Number of people: 2

We wish to object to the inclusion of the three sites IL1/H IL2/H and IL3/H as preferred site allocations.

We do so because these are green field areas fundamental to the character of Ilkley and its identity.

Object

Representation ID: 24225

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Debbie Shuttleworth

•Amount of traffic will increase too much for the infrastructure. Roads in a poor condition. Parking makes journeys very difficult. There is a bottle neck in and out of Ilkley.
•Road safety will be an issue as traffic increases.
•Infrastructure for the houses built is not put place. It is all about getting more money out of the system with no thought for local residents.
•In Australia roads/facilities have to be put in place in before the houses can be built.
•Promises made but not kept and builders taking the money - Highroyds was promised a medical centre/other amenities. The houses went ahead but no amenities were provided.
•Allowing building on greenfield sites sets a precedence which will be used as an argument to build more.
•A town is a town, a village a village not a sprawling mass of suburbia and the loss of something special you can never get back. People want communities not to be lost in a jungle of houses, cars, tramac, concrete.
•We need green space. Lockdown has taught us how important these spaces are. Even if we don't have access to them it is an open space not a sea of bricks.

Object

Representation ID: 24235

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Anne Dunhill

•Object to the proposed 155 dwelling to be built on what has been used as green fields .
•The approach to the Ilkley town is iconic and a gateway to the Dales!!
•Once our green areas are built on there is no going back!
•We know that Bradford Council own the Land and Lawson Farm, green fields. It also in years to come possibly be joined up with the village of Burley In Wharfedale.
•Ben Rhydding Scout Hut has also been linked with the proposal.
•Railway embankment has had drainage problems in the past from drain off.
•The amount of increased traffic on not only the A65 and the junction coming up Wheatley Lane could cause immeasurable problems. The turning onto Valley Drive has and does have many accidents due to speeding traffic cutting the corner and traffic and cyclists!
•Ilkley's infrastructure Schools, Doctors, Dentists would have excessive pressures.
•Save our Green approach to beautiful Ilkley so we can pass it on to future custodians.

Object

Representation ID: 24486

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Isabel Ashman

•The majority of the land for these proposals appears to be on Green Belt and given the amount of Brown Belt that is available I can see no defence for building in those locations.
•Ilkley is known for its natural setting and to devastate one whole end of town seems wreckless and almost deliberately inflammatory.
•Additionally, these developments will almost destroy the distinct space and separateness of character between the village of Burley in Wharfedale and Ben Rhydding / Ilkley. The impact on the feel of the two separate towns will be devastated, not to mention the impact on the wildlife.
•There are other strong reasons to question the whole thinking behind this. Where is the infrastructure for education and health going to come from? Our primary and secondary schools are all oversubscribed with the current town populous.

Object

Representation ID: 24536

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Nicola Wharmby

In particular, I am concerned with the development off Wheatley Grove. To get out of Ilkley at that end of town, the only way to cross the railway line is the single carriageway road at Ben Rhydding. This is already a bottleneck and there is no way to increase it's capacity, either by widening it or building another crossing.

In addition, I object to building on green belt land; once this principal is breached what's the point of having such protection? There is plenty of non-green belt land in Bradford MDC which the council should be prioritising.

Object

Representation ID: 24617

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: C Ewan McCaig

Regarding the Coutances Way proposal (IL3/H), the proposed access to the development on Wheatley Lane would increase traffic onto an already difficult stretch of road around the junction with Valley Drive and by the railway bridge. The proposal would also have a detrimental impact on the character of the town when approached from Burley. It is a creeping erosion of the Green Belt and the impression given is that it is the council's eventual aim to merge Ilkley with Burley as it appeared to have been at the time of the LDF Proposals in 2012.

Comment

Representation ID: 24678

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Georgina Marks

Do not fully object to new houses on this site, however the amount seems excessive.
What of the following will be included in this project before it can be agreed.
What will be the access?
How will so much additional traffic be catered for, new roads?
What additional school places will be made available, new school?
Ben Rhydding drive has a history of heavy flooding, which then washes down and effects many roads. With more housing and no land to soak away a heavy rainfall , what provisions have been made to cope with this ?
More cars will need more parking when visiting Ilkley or Ben Rhydding, what extra provision is being made for parking?
If the infrastructure is properly in place that might be acceptable , however I doubt this will be the case , so it would be better to phase this project in slowly so the amenities can be in place. I think this should be done over a minimum of ten years.

Object

Representation ID: 24688

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Ian Shuttleworth

I object strongly to any development on any land designated as Green Belt.

Green, open land is essential to the well being of us all and to that of all wildlife.

Our natural land and associated wildlife is already under significant threat from the actions of man. We do not need it to be damaged further.

This open land is precious and can never be regained once lost.

I can only see that permitting development on such would be the thin end of a wedge.

I think that any development should be carried out on brownfield sites.

Also extra development without extra facilities such as schools and doctors to match inevitably leads to overloading of the existing facilities.
From past experience these are rarely provided - see Guiseley as an example.

Object

Representation ID: 24690

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Ben Rhydding Sports Club

Agent: Mr Robin Snook

I would like to add a picture of newly commenced building works on Clifton Road. That makes it over 30 new houses on our road alone in the last 10 years. The point I am making is that Ilkley continues to see significant development within it’s existing boundaries, so the burning question to ask is unless Bradford Council is planning to build new affordable housing in IL1/H and IL3/H, which everyone very much doubts, why would it wish to commit environmental vandalism on everyone’s precious Green Belt.

Object

Representation ID: 24879

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Eileen & Ken Bernard

Number of people: 2

•Sites are greenbelt. Justification for development on greenbelt has not been made when there are numerous brownfield sites available throughout the district.
•Considerable risk of flooding on all sites. Over the last few years there have been more severe floods than experienced in 40 years. These are likely to increase with climate change. Development will exacerbate the flood issues.
•Developments at odds with the Council’s determination to improve the environment and encourage biodiversity. Site encroach on wildlife corridors.
•The sites contain TPO trees which should be protected.
•Infrastructure is not sufficient to cater for this large increase in houses.
•Roads cannot sustain the current level of traffic and developments will add further cars. Goes against the commitment to reduce road traffic and improve air quality.
•Serious safety concerns for all sites. At Ben Rhydding there will be an increase in traffic on Wheatley Road and under the railway bridge leading to congestion and safety issues.
•Ilkley Grammar is at capacity with no room for further expansion and therefore not be able to accommodate extra children. This has not been addressed in the proposals.

Object

Representation ID: 24883

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Ilkley Design Statement Group

Group’s comments are based on the provisions of the Ilkley Design Guide (2002)

Green Belt – should be preserved and not encroached upon by future development, and no inappropriate to buildings with in it [paras 22(a) & 22(c)]. Therefore, should be no new development within it – ruling out IL1/H, IL2/H & IL3/H

IL3/H should rejected as further development on the valley bottom should be prohibited and further building in the flood plain should not be permitted [paras 17(b) & 17(d)], as well as impact on views across the valley and need to maintain open and woodland aspect of the town [para 68(a)]

IL1/H should be rejected density similar to the surrounding area will not be achieved [para 67(a)] and is a steep, away from public transport

Schools capacity needs to be considered (para 121(d)] – understood they are over-subscribed. Families will move to the area unless children can get into local schools. All sites should be withdrawn.

Object

Representation ID: 24900

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Anna Jones

Reasons for objection are:

Site is a key gateway. Housing would aesthetically damage rural character and natural landscape at town’s entrance.

Development would destroy curlew habitat. Also home to other bird species

Area is prone to flooding. Flood risk likely to be much greater if water can’t flow through site.

Reduction in green space between settlements. Risk of becoming part of continuous corridor of suburban sprawl along A65.

Area suffers traffic congestion. Extra traffic created would significantly add to the problem, causing worse delays, noise and air pollution.

Existing waste water infrastructure cannot cope, leading to river pollution. Development will increase pressure on it, resulting in more pollution.

Grammar School at capacity with no other secondary schools in the area. Neither sustainable nor educationally desirable to bus children to schools elsewhere.

Known to be empty housing/brownfield sites in Bradford, which should be prioritised to meet housing needs rather using Green Belt.

Wharfedale Greenway plan seems sustainable and positive, but ceases to be sustainable, attractive or green if it comes as a tarmac package alongside housing.

Object

Representation ID: 24903

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Janet Petty

Green Belt purpose is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open – it maintains the rural/semi-rural appearance of the Wharfe Valley.

Green Belt to east of the town is narrow. Once Sun Lane development is built, visually Burley and Ben Rhydding will appear to almost join up.

Should be protecting this land for future generations to enjoy, especially when there are many brownfield sites in Bradford and Keighley that should be used first.

There is also the likelihood of much more office/retail space in those town centres becoming available – would make sense to re-purpose them for housing.

Countances Way site is an over-wintering site for curlews – a vulnerable species.

Local infrastructure is already stretched to the limit – Ilkley Grammar School is only secondary school covering a huge area. GPs, dentists, sewerage and traffic will all be affected in a detrimental way – no mention of how these problems will be addressed.

Object

Representation ID: 25259

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Georgina Shuttleworth

Ilkley and Ben Rhydding are joined. Wheatley Grange Farm is now the only working farm in Ben Rhydding/Ilkley and should be the first site to be withdrawn from the planning proposals.
Given the vast amount of brownfield site available in the Bradford District, the Bradford Plan includes an extremely low percentage being allocated for development of new homes. A highly disproportionate amount to Green Belt.
Change the character of the town and surrounding area.
Wharfedale is going to become a corridor of development instead of a corridor of villages with open farmland.
No significant justification as to why there is development of Green Belt Land.
Alternative sites are available.
Flooding/Drainage/Sewerage Issues.
Impact o Wildlife and birds
Traffic/congestion issues.

Object

Representation ID: 25261

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Sue Towler

1. Impact on local highway network- A65 is already congested. Wheatley Lane is 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. Infrastructure- The schools are at capacity. The grammar school has no further ground space on which to expand
3. Ilkley facilities will be unable to cope
4. impact on sewage systems currently operating.

Object

Representation ID: 25274

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: John Thomson

Objection to the proposed encroachment of Green Belt and open farm land

Object

Representation ID: 25302

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Roya Helme

1. Why such a high percentage on green belt? Effecting character of area.

2. Flooding. We have experienced increased flooding living in ilkley last years, removing surface field draining and why build onto flood areas ?

3.School and infrastructure already stretched. Cars and parking a significant problem.

Object

Representation ID: 25307

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: James Garry

Developing Green Belt land unacceptable, and counter to Bradford Councils responsibilities, aims and objectives.
Harming the character of the area.
Lack of local employment opportunities, Ilkley has no major employers, proposed additional population will commute, adding strain to already bottlenecked infrastructure and harming the air quality and noise levels. This places additional mental health stress on local residents.
Local schools are oversubscribed. Provision of a primary school will not alleviate these problems.
Damage to wildlife, including Amber listed Curlew. There are also a large number of mature trees, hedgerows and related eco systems that would be damaged by the construction of the development.
Flood Risk, A portion of the site is at risk of flooding, development will contribute to faster water run-off and adverse downstream effects. These fields act as a sponge to attenuate heavy rainfall.
Effect on the moors and fragile eco system.
Light pollution/other general pollution.
Unsuitable infrastructure.
Additional substantial amount of traffic, noise, pollution and disruption. Ilkley town itself is a bottleneck so transport west will be effected.
Destruction of the very aspects which give these towns an identity.

Object

Representation ID: 25318

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Deborah Craig

IL3/H is Green Belt land and often gets flooded. Additional run-off from housing would exacerbate the problem

Traffic through Ben Rhydding would be increased dramatically. Worry about road safety particularly with increase traffic under the bridge by the Scout Hut. It is already a dangerous part of road, despite the traffic lights.

Traffic often backs up from Leeds Roads past Valley Drive. Extra housing coming out of the Valley Drive junction will cause chaos at peak times.

Danger of the boundary between Burley and Ilkley becoming eroded detracting from the character of the town visually.

There are brownfield sites that can be developed before greenfield sites are lost for good. Ilkley will struggle to cope with the extra demands these dwellings will bring both in the increased people and traffic.

Object

Representation ID: 25341

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Steve Jex

My objections to this development are as follows This is designated green belt and will significantly alter Ben Rhydding and seems disproportionate when there are alternative Brown field sites available The proposed site already has a significant flood risk and further building will obviously worsen this situation The large number of dwellings proposed will put further strain on local services in particular Ilkley Grammar school and the local health service provision. In addition such a large development would generate serious road safe issues due to increased traffic. I also understand that the Ben Rhydding and Ilkley sewage sites already regularly overflow their storm surge capacity and such large numbers of additional housing would obviously worsen this situation.

Object

Representation ID: 25421

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jill Jex

Loss of green belt, without justification.
Change the nature and character of this part or Ben Rhydding.
There are large numbers of brownfield sites in the district.
Proposals against the local plan to protect the natural environment.
Ilkley is known for it’s countryside setting and the moor, an SSSI.
Effect on habitat for wildlife and number of mature trees.
The sewage sites struggle to cope with the existing capacity and increasing this will cause further overflow.
Increase the number of school places required.
Massive increase in the traffic entering and leaving Ben Rhydding via Wheatley Lane and the railway bridge. This will cause increased traffic queuing near the entrance to to the station, near the Valley Drive junction and on to the A65. All of this will be an accident waiting to happen.
The land adjacent to Coutances Way floods regularly and this development will increase the severity and frequency of this, causing problems on the A65, a major route to the west especially Cumbria.

Object

Representation ID: 25453

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Dr Francesca Abigail Ridley

Bradford Council should protect Green Belt, should maximise the potential of brown field sites and only in exceptional circumstances build on Green Belt.
Effects of flood risk. The proposed developments will worsen the flood risk in Ben Rhydding.
The access roads for the Wheatley Grove site are inadequate for the increased traffic the proposed developments would create. The junction from these roads with Wheatley Lane are already difficult and would become hazardous with increased traffic. Increased traffic would lead to hazardous risk at the junction for the traffic emerging from Valley Drive into Wheatley Lane. As would be caused by the proposed site on Coutances Way, as this is the access route.
There is insufficient infrastructure to support the current needs of the population.
Schools won't be able to take additional numbers
Railway Station has insufficient parking
Commuter trains would become severely overcrowded.
The Medical Centre is at full capacity.
The extra burden of traffic will cause increased parking problems and congestion.
Public Sporting Facilities and the diminution of community spaces are insufficient even for the current population of Ilkley and Ben Rhydding.

Object

Representation ID: 25546

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Anne McNaughton

Object to the planning issues IL1/H & IL3/H on the grounds that:

• It is Green Belt. The need has not been demonstrated to warrant its use;

• It is a site for Curlews;

• There are many other empty, unused sites within the District;

• School infrastructure is at capacity and not ready to cope with additional demand from new homes. Concerned that the health centre/local NHS services will not be expanded to cope with additional demands.

• Junction of Valley Drive/Coutances Way is problematic. There have been numerous incidents/accidents. It is hard to clearly view traffic when exiting Valley Drive, and cars often travel at speed. Traffic management is very problematic and with more houses, will make it even more so.

Object

Representation ID: 25548

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Alison and Toby Starr

Number of people: 2

Flooding Issues.
Located between a site of special scientific interest and the Ben Rhydding Conservation Area.
Represents a high number of houses proposed in a small area, 97% planned on greenbelt.
Bradford Council’s Conservation Area Assessment and Appraisal documents has a section dedicated to Open Spaces and Natural Elements and specifically comments that “Fields and moorland surround the village and serve to remind the resident or visitor of the village’s past rural connections”. The fields are the subject of this planning application and 285 homes on this greenbelt land is inconsistent with the Council’s commitment to preserve the character of the Conservation Area.
The single lane under the railway bridge and narrow path could see an additional c.285 cars using this one road as the link to the A65 and to Ilkley. This hot spot has been of concern to parents walking children to school and children walking by themselves to school. The recently installed traffic lights has slowed the traffic down but this will not cope with the scale of the proposed developments.
No capacity in the local schools. Sewage regularly overflows into the Wharfe. The roads are already full of traffic.
Use of greenbelt land needs full scrutiny.

Object

Representation ID: 25553

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

97% is to be built on Green Belt. Goes again sustainability criteria seeking to “Minimises the use of Green Belt land”.

Would lead to urban sprawl, leading to lack of defined spaces between settlements/developments.

Access to IL3/H would exacerbate issues around Valley Drive/Wheatley Lane junction

Wheatley Grove is unsuitable for higher traffic levels.
Flooding is a serious issue. Will be exacerbated by development.

Infrastructure issues are not addressed.

Likely to create more pressure on sewage system.
Potential increase in students needing to attend secondary school. Ilkley Grammar School is at capacity. No site identified for expansion.

Middleton brownfield site (identified by NYCC for development) would add extra housing to the Ilkley area. Not considered by the plan.

Plan does not benefit Ilkley residents. Town has suffered over-development. Building more houses will add to existing infrastructure issues (parking, flooding, school places).

Look to develop suitable brownfield sites elsewhere in the District.

Object

Representation ID: 25608

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Colin Macdonald

I would like to object to the Local Plan proposed developments at IL1/1 and IL3/H

- it is green belt, and the need has not been demonstrated sufficient to warrant green belt use and both schemes would contribute to urban sprawl
- The sites are of ecological and biodiversity benefit which would be lost if the site is developed
- there are many other empty unused houses within the Bradford district and development should prioritise brownfield development over greenfield.
- Both sites form a natural boundary to the town that would be lost if developed.
- the IL3/H site to the site is constrained with an already poor junction at Valley Drive
- the IL3/H site has active springs and would require significant drainage / flood risk work to develop
-Nationally housing requirement for local plans has been overestimated.

Please take this view into account when looking at the planning policy.

Comment

Representation ID: 25623

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Gordon Perry

There is higher value Green Belt which deserves protection, but other which do not and could be developed. Exceptional cases should be considered for them.

This site was originally planned for a new Grammar School which would have been very sensible. However prioritising this as an affordable housing site makes sense, especially given that Bradford own the site so it should be more deliverable to be developed as such.

A mixed development of smaller affordable homes for rent, shared ownership and outright sale would be appropriate. Access is convenient. Many people are suggesting an alternative as parking provision for both the Ben Rhydding Station and potentially Ilkley Park and Ride. Additional parking for the Ben Rhydding Railway Station should ideally be provided as part of this development which would inevitably reduce the number of homes, but is needed and part could also be utilised as an Electric Car Charging facility.

Object

Representation ID: 25627

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Matthew and Rachel Twigger

Number of people: 2

No demonstrated need for additional housing, particularly 3/4/5 bed “executive”
No prospect of an increase in job availability in the town which would connote additional need.
It directly contravenes Bradford’s own green belt policies, the loss of these spaces has a “major” impact
The infrastructure, schools, roads, rail, cannot be mitigated for the increasing numbers of
households in Ilkley. When Addingham and Burley numbers are added to the mix, the
situation is even worse.
The Wheatley Grove site covered by WPOs and TPOs.
Construction on the site would mean removing a large section of the WPO boundary.
BMDC’s stringent approach to locally enforcing the WPOs and TPOs is in clear
contradiction of the local plan proposals. BMDC cannot objectively determine significant
valuable amenity value of the woodland character while simultaneously attributing little
significance to the same Green Belt land.
The traffic problems associated with servicing these sites would be severe; the Wheatley
Grove junctions are impossible to improve due to topography.
Significant ecological impact which cannot be mitigated including loss of nationally significant Curlew breeding grounds at Coutances Way and diverse habitat on Wheatley Grove.

Object

Representation ID: 25662

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: John Hunt

The same comments as for IL1/H.

This is the only green space for hundreds of Ben Rhydding residents. It is basically a dormitory settlement that has already grown far beyond the amenities the original village offers. Who thinks that swapping the last remaining green field for houses (with 2 or 3 that number of cars) is a good deal?

Please preserve the green belt.