Object

Representation ID: 25686

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Emily Sheedy Davies

Green belt land should be protected.

The council decides what we can do to our homes and gardens and should apply the same to keeping green spaces for our children to grow up with. 97% of the land is Green Belt with no justification and it will cause character, flooding and environmental damage.

The schools, particularly Ilkley Grammar, do not have the space and the Council have not taken into account the previous 30 per year houses built and there is no regard for the road safety issues

Support

Representation ID: 26313

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Nicholas Allon

This is an important green field site in Ilkley and offers a gateway to Ben Rhydding and Ilkley for visitors. It is important therefore that the houses are well designed and attractive. They should be affordable houses for people to purchase – this is really important.

The site is situated within walking distance to Ben Rhydding railway station and the local services which may result in more houses being able to be built per hectare for example 35 dph as the need for a private vehicle may be reduced.

There is flooding in this area and so it is important that developers are aware of this problem.

The Wharfedale Greenway route travels along this area and should not be restricted in any way.

Providing that there is good access for pedestrians and cyclists from this site onto Ben Rhydding I have no objections to this development going ahead.

Object

Representation ID: 26387

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mark Lawrence

Pushing more people into Principal towns would not be in the best interests of the residents, nor the localised town economy.

This plan represents a significant external influence on that organic balance, and a threat to the green space which helps to drive the attractiveness of the area in terms of visitation.

Loss of open spaces/vistas.

Increasing residential traffic.

The siting of additional housing may well have a positive effect, when located in areas surrounding "principal District towns", as there exists an opportunity
to boost revenues in other sectors important to the locality.

Bradford Council's parking strategy doesn't work.

There is no guarantee of driving the prosperity of a town's High Street, by putting more people on the periphery of that town, owing to the rise of eCommerce (e.g., Amazon) and the ability to travel to major commercial centres (e.g., Leeds and Harrogate).

The proposed plans will devalue existing properties.

Need for parking, or school places.

This plan is risky and based upon assumptions that amount to a false economy.

Object

Representation ID: 26446

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Tamsin Emma Wood

The aim of Green Belt is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping the land permanently open.
Green Belt should be protected.
New housing should be on brown field sites.
Sould only consider infringement on Green Belt in very ‘exceptional circumstances’
Issues of Flood risk.
Lack of sufficient infrastructure to support even the current needs of the population in Ben Rhydding and Ilkley.
- The Medical Centre
- Ilkley Grammar School
- Ben Rhydding Railway Station
- Public Sporting Facilities
- The extra burden of traffic for the proposed developments through the village will seriously detract from village life and cause increased parking problems and congestion.

I object to the proposed site on Coutances Way as 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.

Object

Representation ID: 26467

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Barrie & Celia Sinton

IL3/H

Again, the loss of important Green Belt land will open up the area to development creep along the A65 corridor.

Much of the land would not be usable as:

a) It is liable to flood.

b) It is essential that a significant portion of the land be used as a car park for commuters to Ilkley, Leeds and Bradford using the adjacent Ben Rhydding railway station. (This has already been identified by Bradford MDC to alleviate the problem of street parking
by rail commuters from both the Town and the surrounding areas; the problem has been transferred from the town centre to the streets of Ben Rhydding following the introduction of parking restrictions in the Town).

The amount of additional traffic from the development on to Coutances Way at an already busy junction would be unsafe.

Object

Representation ID: 26607

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Jessica Morgan-Smith

I am writing to object to the proposals to allocate two housing sites in the Ben Rhydding Green Belt. The majority of allocations for Ilkley are located in Ben Rhydding with only 29 of the 330 in Ilkley itself.

Neither sites are appropriate for such a large number of houses. Both sites are important green spaces in the Ben Rhydding area which should be retained as such to prevent inappropriate development that WOULD inevitably impact upon the openness of the Green Belt here.

Object

Representation ID: 26610

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Maureen & Andrew Evans

Object to the proposed planning IL3/H: Coutances Way on three grounds:

1. Over-development on Green Belt land – building on this Green Belt land changes the character of Ilkley/Ben Rhydding and should be rejected. Whilst there are significant brownfield sites available within Bradford District, building on greenfield sites should be a last option not a first;

2. Impact on Youth facilities – new houses will overlook the Scout and Guide property from two side;

3. Increase in traffic – proposed development will increase vehicles on an already very busy and dangerous road.

An increase in over 300 houses in Ilkley will have demands on local infrastructure that cannot support it. It will significantly increase the number of children needing schooling in Ilkley, a demand that the local schools are not able to meet.

Object

Representation ID: 26621

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Bethany Wright

Prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open.
Protect the Green Belt.
Build new housing by maximising the potential of brown field sites.
Only to consider development of Green Belt in exceptional circumstances’.
Goes against Green Belt Policy.
Flood risk.
Traffic Issues.
I object to the proposed site on Coutances Way as the access route onto Wheatley Lane would further increase the already dangerous situation at the junction for the traffic emerging from Valley Drive into Wheatley Lane.
Lack of sufficient infrastructure to support even the current needs of the population in Ben Rhydding and Ilkley.
Ilkley Grammar School and need for a separate location to build a 6th form college.
Primary Schools
Ben Rhydding Railway Station is inadequate with insufficient parking.
Medical Centre is currently working at full capacity
Traffic and parking problems causing congestion
Ilkley and Ben Rhydding create bottle necks to traffic on the A65.
Public Sporting Facilities and the diminution of community spaces (with many community spaces having been converted into flats).

Object

Representation ID: 26630

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr A Gudgeon

I am opposed to the proposed building on green belt areas of Ilkley.
The site on Coutances Way would present issues when entering Ilkley from Burley in Wharfedale. The traffic increase would be huge.
No consideration has been given to the residents living locally who'll suffer as a direct result. A transparent public consultation must be held so all plans can be viewed and scrutinised properly.

Ilkley is a spa town, a place people aspire to live. But, that does not mean poorly considered new build properties should be erected on the last remaining green belt spaces. It would change the town, not for the better, and detract from what attracts people to Ilkley in the first place; Gateway to the Dale's, a town with a village 'feel', aesthetically pleasing and not busy.

The prospect of seeing 314 properties added to Ilkley is deeply concerning. How would the schools, doctors, public transport, Policing, hospitals etc going to manage with this increase in demand? The infrastructure isn't in place to service an additional 314 dwellings. Ilkley residents feel a great disconnect with Bradford Council and enforcing unwanted building like this will only serve to divide the community.

Object

Representation ID: 26705

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mark Roe

No point designating as Green Belt only to later seek to override that classification. Green Belt should preserve existing natural habitats and outlooks for future generations and to prevent the creep of urban sprawl when a plentiful supply of brownfield sites remain in BMDC area.

Development and carbon-intensive activities is hypocritical in light of BMDC's declaration of a climate emergency and commitment to a green economy: https://www.bradford.gov.uk/environment/climate-change/climate-emergency-and-green-economy/

Insufficient consideration to resurrecting brownfield sites in which the planet's resources have already been depleted to create them, yet remain underutilised: proper and full regard should be given to those before destroying Green Belt areas.
This site offers beautiful uninterrupted landscape views from the A65 and surrounds, from whatever mode of transport is used, and it's permanent redevelopment I consider the most objectionable of all the development proposals . . . when the planet's resources have already been used or destroyed in producing brownfield sites within the BMDC area that remain underutilised.

Object

Representation ID: 26746

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Lee Ryan

We plan to leave the district entirely, should development go ahead.

Planned proposals would in effect kill the golden goose.

The reasons for living in Ilkley are, good schools & the surrounding green belt. Both of which will in effect be eradicated by the current proposals.

The plan to bus children an hour away to school in Keighley, is an outright admission of failure.

There are so many brownfield sites available for development within the district.

The Wharfe Valley will become one large conurbation, the two developments will join Ilkley to Burley.

Loss of attractive character of the town, which is vital to the local economy in terms of tourism, will be ruined.

Increase flooding risk to an area which has experienced exceptional levels of flooding dozens of times over the last 5 years. This will directly increase risk to both life and property from flooding.

The A65 is already severely overburdened. Wheatley lane.

Valley Drive is blighted by speeding drivers using the route as a rat run.

Increased congestion on the A65 and the level of dangerous driving through Valley drive.

Damage to the environment.

Object

Representation ID: 26748

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Richard Sherington

Green Belt development should as a last resort. Development is inappropriate, harmful and only approve in very special circumstances.

Would have a detrimental impact on area by removing valuable green space. Sets unacceptable precedent for future Green Belt expansion and sprawl towards Burley in Wharfedale.

IL3/H abuts flood zones 2 & 3. Development of both sites will reduce lag that water takes to reach the river and contribute to making flooding worse. Will also impact on the sewage works that are at capacity.

Schools are generally at capacity. Ilkley Grammar, the only secondary school, is already at capacity and cannot expand further.

Both sites will significantly increase traffic movements in an already congested area. Traffic assessment has not been presented.

There a number of brownfield sites in the District. Proposals places disproportionate amount of housing on Green Belt in Ilkley. Council has not justified why these site should be developed ahead of brownfield sites. Very special circumstances not justified/proven.

Object

Representation ID: 26999

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Lisa King

Not in keeping with Green Belt policy. Council’s responsibility is to protect it, build housing by maximising brownfield sites and consider it only in very exceptional circumstances.

Will exacerbate surface water run-off, waterlogging & flood risk.

Access roads inadequate for increased traffic. Junctions would become more dangerous. Ben Rhydding drive is narrow - would be unsafe for pedestrians. Coutances Way would exacerbate the dangerous situation at Valley Drive/Wheatley Lane junction.

Lack of sufficient infrastructure to support current needs. Grammar School is at full capacity and separate location for a 6th Form needed. Primary schools struggle to accommodate increasing pupil numbers. Ben Rhydding station is inadequate. Medical centre at full capacity with no plans in place for further surgeries.

Traffic congestion/lack of parking are problems - extra traffic will increase them. Situation on A65 will be worsened. Sporting facilities/community spaces are insufficient.

Should acknowledge lack of infrastructure. Focus on developing facilities before proposals for further housing.

Object

Representation ID: 27089

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Ms E. McAuslan

Not in keeping with Green Belt policy. Council’s responsibility is to protect it, build housing by maximising brownfield sites and consider it only in very exceptional circumstances.

Will exacerbate surface water run-off, waterlogging & flood risk.

Access roads inadequate for increased traffic. Junctions would become more dangerous. Ben Rhydding drive is narrow - would be unsafe for pedestrians. Coutances Way would exacerbate the dangerous situation at Valley Drive/Wheatley Lane junction.

Lack of sufficient infrastructure to support current needs. Grammar School is at full capacity and separate location for a 6th Form needed. Primary schools struggle to accommodate increasing pupil numbers. Ben Rhydding station is inadequate. Medical centre at full capacity with no plans in place for further surgeries.

Traffic congestion/lack of parking are problems - extra traffic will increase them. Situation on A65 will be worsened. Sporting facilities/community spaces are insufficient.

Should acknowledge lack of infrastructure. Focus on developing facilities before proposals for further housing.

Object

Representation ID: 27258

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Sarah Saxton

Proposals not in keeping with Green Belt policy. Council has responsibility to protect it. Should maximise potential of brownfield sites and only consider it in only very exceptional circumstances.

Should consider springs/underground water courses sourced from Moor. Ilkley seems susceptible to flooding. Also more surface water issues and drains cannot cope. Development is going to make these problems worse.

Lack of sufficient infrastructure. Medical centre is at capacity and no plans for further surgeries. Facilities for older people are at breaking point, whilst sporting facilities/community spaces are insufficient.

Grammar School is at capacity and separate location is needed for a 6th Form College. Primary schools struggle to accommodate growing numbers of children. Also difficult to find nursery places.

Development will worsen A65 traffic problems. Extra traffic will cause increase parking problems and congestion in Ben Rhydding. The railway station is inadequate.

Access onto Wheatley Lane would add to dangerous situation at junction with Valley Drive.

Object

Representation ID: 27482

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Alice Ryan

Increased traffic on Wheatley Lane, exiting Valley Drive is difficult, will be made worse with development.
Valley Drive is used as a rat run to avoid the A65.
Numbers of cars and speed at which they travel is detrimental, no traffic calming measures have been proposed. The traffic on the A65 is constant, adding more cars will make it unbearable.

Ben Rhydding is prone to flooding. Loss of natural irrigation system.
Sports pitches flood, this will worsen by development. The field opposite the garden centre has been waterlogged for months.

Development will increase school aged children into the area. Class sizes will increase, but ultimately change the catchment area meaning children can no longer go to their closest school.
Ilkley Grammar is at capacity breaking point, the catchment area will have to be reduced.

97% of proposed developments are on green belt land. There is a wealth of brown belt land in Bradford that is not being used.
Destroying large swathes of green belt land will eradicate the beauty/desirability of Ilkley.

Infrastructure needed before 300 houses are developed.

Object

Representation ID: 27502

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Angela Chappell

Plans are to build on Green Belt, undermining its stated principles.

Recent permission in Burley and sites will edge the settlements closer together. This is before considering other developments earmarked in the locality e.g. Addingham & Middleton.

Sites contribute significantly to Ben Rhydding’s character. They will be lost at great expense to the landscape and natural environment.

There are many brownfield sites in the District which have not been earmarked in the plan. Better they are developed rather than Green Belt.

No explanation as to why housing is needed in Ilkley over somewhere else in the District with available brownfield sites.

Valley struggles with flooding. Run-off from Moor leads to sewage overflowing into the river. Infrastructure is not adequate. River is incapable of carrying away the volume of water running of the Moor/fields. Sites absorb run-off. If developed, flooding will be significantly exacerbated.

Transport assessment not available.

IL3/H access from Wheatley Lane means increased traffic at a problematic junction. Want to know how issue will be resolved.

Object

Representation ID: 27526

Received: 13/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Robin Snook

1) Council has failed to provide evidence that there is a need to build 285 new houses in Ben Rhydding, and have not taken into account the significant number of newly built houses in the town already. On Clifton Road alone, there has been 32 new houses built in the last 10 years, including the latest plot under development for 5 Town Houses. (See image)

2) Council has failed to demonstrate that any of the proposed new build houses will be affordable (ie - below £170,000)
3) Bearing in mind Ben Rhydding’s narrow railway bridge, the Council are yet to provide a plausible traffic impact and access statement.
4) The Council have also failed to provide an infrastructure statement.
5) Worst of all, and on the back of last week’s announcement that 500 new houses are to be built in Neighbouring Burley in Wharfedale, the Council appear to want to ride rough shod over their own Green Belt policy again. The potential loss of openness and the impact of a “Housing Blot on the Green Landscape” on the approaches to Ilkley along the A65 would be an act of environmental vandalism, and should these developments be passed, then those councillors responsible for the decision, who I suspect do not live in the area, should be named and shamed.

Object

Representation ID: 27529

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Jo Batterham

Hello,

I would like to oppose the planning for the new housing in ilkley and Ben Rhydding.

Please let me know if I need to write anything further.

Many thanks,

Object

Representation ID: 27554

Received: 13/03/2021

Respondent: Emma Snook

1. How the can the council even think about building on green belt when it is their policy not to do so
2. There seems to be no Infrastructure in place
3. The A65 and Wheatley Road are two busy roads at the best of times with extra traffic from 185 new Dwellings how will this affect the junction for Valley Drive and the very narrow access under the railway bridge!
4. Driving into Ilkely what a blot on the landscape they will cause sprawling out towards Burley In Wharfedale of which planning for 500 dwellings have already been passed.
5. These fields are constantly under water, where will it now go? over the road into the Sports Club which already has issues with flooding
6. Will there be any affordable housing?
7. Ilkley Grammar School is oversubscribed where will these children be schooled?

Comment

Representation ID: 27784

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Robert Gibson

Number of people: 2

1) If the developments go ahead they should be to the highest environmental standards and design incorporating energy conservation and generation.
2) the sites in question do not have the infrastructure to support the number of new residents.
3) lack of school places
4) impact on Sewage and waste management system and resulting pollution of the River Wharfe. Water run off will need careful management
5) will planned access and surrounding road network be able to support the developments

Object

Representation ID: 27862

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Dominic Wright

-Green Belt should be protected.
-Maximise the potential of brown field sites
-Infringement on Green Belt only in very ‘exceptional circumstances’ and after reasonable consultation/ agreement with local residents.
-Increased flood risk. Recent building has resulted in unforeseen problems with surface water run off causing problems for existing properties, waterlogged land and flood risk including the proposed sites.
-Traffic Issues. Coutances Way access route onto Wheatley Lane would increase the dangerous situation at the junction for the traffic emerging from Valley Drive into Wheatley Lane.
-Lack of sufficient Infrastructure to support the current population needs.
-Ilkley Grammar School is at full capacity.
-Need for a separate location to build a 6th form college.
-Capacity issues at Primary schools
-Ben Rhydding Railway Station parking is inadequate.
-Medical Centre currently working at full capacity and no plans are in place for any further surgeries,
-Traffic / parking issues - developments will cause extra burden and congestion.
-Congestion on A65
-Insufficient Public Sporting Facilities and the diminution of community spaces

Object

Representation ID: 27929

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Jason Harden

•Green belt area - does this go against Environmental Bill 2020. In the development considerations it is mentioned that compensatory green belt enhancement is required - DON't USE GREEN BELT
•Site access will be on Wheatley Lane - this is already a difficult junction due to it being at the end of Valley Drive but also so close to the new traffic lights under the railway bridge. Further development of this site with rush hour traffic will cause a gridlock in the area and gain stretches the capacity of the local roads.
•Parking, this area on Wheatley Lane is also used by people parking for Ben Rhydding station.
•Sprawl - Ilkley and Burley gap closing

Object

Representation ID: 27935

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: John Wilkinson

Not only are the proposed houses on dwindling green belt land when other brown field sites should be considered first the shear numbers of houses are going to put a huge strain in the local public services. All the local schools and doctors practices are full to capacity. New houses can’t continued to be built without consideration for the impact on local services and increased traffic on local roads.

Object

Representation ID: 27988

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Jo Fletcher

Object to plans to develop 314 new homes largely on two greenfield sites.

Has not been enough time to consult. Consultation period was short and cannot given those affected enough time to consider the proposals before putting forward their views.

Consultation has been rushed through in the pandemic. Should have waited to conduct it in a public forum,

Want fair changes to weigh up pros and cons, given the impact on the countryside, wildlife, road safety, flooding and schooling.

Object

Representation ID: 28080

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Emma Williams

The allocation of green belt sites when other brown field sites are available is in contravention of national planning policy.
Furthermore, if the Council has undertaken sequential testing correctly, it is wholly inconceivable that the above sites would have been prioritised or even deemed appropriate for residential development on this scale.
Of particular concern, the drainage infrastructure (flooding), impact on green belt environment, highway network (including safety) and schooling provision within Ben Rhydding and Ilkley undermine the allocations.
I request that the Council promote alternative sites that are more sustainable and accord with national planning policy.

Object

Representation ID: 28084

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr & Mrs J Wilkinson

Number of people: 2

-Green Belt Land and should be left as such. In line with the Government's Green Belt Policy / protect open land and thus prevent urbanisation.
-Brownfield sites should be built on first
-Impact on wildlife and their habitats
-Impact on natural landscape and character of Ilkley
-Impact on town and local services.
-Secondary school provision at capacity
-Many primary schools in the area are also over stretched on funding, resources and staffing.
-Drainage is huge risk, we cannot let flooding increase any further.
-The field on Ben Rhydding Drive is often flooded and boggy.
-Doctor's surgeries, community health services and NHS dentists, both are hugely in demand in this area and extra housing with families will put an increased strain on these services.
-Increased traffic in Ilkley/Bolling Road, impact on congestion into and out of town, pollution and noise
-Any new housing developments must come with increased funding to allow the services provided in this town to provide a full service to everyone.

Object

Representation ID: 28168

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Will Nossiter

A number of the existing primary schools have recently been increased to cope with an existing demand. An additional primary school is likely to be required and has not been planned for.

Ilkley Grammar the only secondary school for the intake of children between Addingham and Burley in Wharfedale. It is already over-subscribed with children being sent to the next valley. If these houses are built the Wharfe valley will need a new secondary school to handle the increase in children.

Insufficient transport capacity on the trains to Leeds and Bradford from Ilkley and Ben Rhydding.

Increase in road traffic. Increasing traffic on roads outside schools will increase the danger to young children.

Object

Representation ID: 28179

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Emma Roe

Green Belt should preserve existing natural habitats for future generations and prevent urban sprawl.
Development permissions and carbon-intensive activities is laughably hypocritical in light of BMDC's declaration of a climate emergency and commitment to a green economy.
Insufficient consideration has been given to resurrecting brownfield sites.
Green Belt - what point is there to such a classification if it can be so easily over-ridden,
The retention of key characteristics of Ilkley as a rural community and town, which incorporates outlooks of fields and key green spaces throughout the town's landscape
The impact on the climate emergency we all face collectively means it is irresponsible to future generations for us to consider planning proposals without recognition of the use of precious resources in development of new buildings. We must look to utilise our resources with more emphasis on a re-use, recycle and redevelop approach in order to meet our climate change commitments rather than repeatedly considering housing needs as only being met by new build developments.
This site offers beautiful uninterrupted landscape views from the A65, from whatever mode of transport is used, and it's permanent redevelopment I consider the most objectionable of all the development proposals.

Object

Representation ID: 28213

Received: 19/08/2021

Respondent: Margaret Huggon

I would like to object to proposed planning proposals for Ilkley.
I am concerned that this will change the character of the town to its detriment.
The development of the green field area proposed will mean a loss of separate identity and will result in a gradual merger of Ilkley and Burley in Wharfedale.
Ilkley already has a shortage of parking is congested and this proposal would make this worse.
If this development is allowed to go ahead, will the developments provide some affordable housing ?
What would the character of the buildings be ? Many of Ilkley”s current new housing developments are predictable and very dull.
I am against proposal. 1L3/H and 1L1/H but do not object to 1L2/H.