Object

Representation ID: 28243

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Member of Parliament (Conservative)

Green belt should not be considered for development as it is in contravention to Governments aims and objectives.
Local Authorities should maximise the use of brownfield sites before considering changes to Green Belt boundaries.
There are no exceptional circumstances to justify releasing sites from Green Belt protection. All other reasonable options to meet housing need should be considered.
Inadequate proposals have been presented with regards to upgrading local infrastructure to cope with proposed extra housing. and extra pressures on local services.
There is no clear vision to increase passenger capacity on local public transport. This is in contravention to the Governments Decarbonising Transport strategic priority.
No justification for the proposed housing numbers identified for Ilkley and Ben Rhydding to warrant removal of areas of Green Belt.

Object

Representation ID: 28309

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs J. Moore

Object to plans for using green belt land in Ilkley and Ben Rhydding for building purposes. The purpose of the Green Belt is to stop it being built on and to prevent urban sprawl. There are lots buildings and brownfield sites in Bradford that could be converted into housing thus bringing the city centre to life.

There are a number of issues for not building at suggested sites in Ilkley and Ben Rhydding, namely traffic problems with increase of cars in Wheatley Lane, flooding and run-off water from the moors, and where area all the children going to go school?

Why is Bradford Council so intent on ruining Ilkley when it is the best area and tourist town in the Bradford Council area.

Object

Representation ID: 28316

Received: 13/03/2021

Respondent: Alan Priestman

I wish to comment on the proposed development IL3/H- Coutances Way -150 dwellings.

I object to the enormity number of dwellings. This number could be halved.

The town's folk would be losing a vast area of greenfield and also a loss of habitat of wild animals.

I think the town is quite big enough without these proposed developments. It would be really good if the town can keep its character.

Object

Representation ID: 28320

Received: 13/03/2021

Respondent: Alastair Burns

The requirement to build more homes I understand but NOT ON GREEN BELT SITES!

Subsidies should be provided to developers to use brown sites, making them more cost effective or build a new town in the countryside with their own facilities and road systems?

313 new dwellings = 1200 more people, adding the sites around Burley and Addingham will obviously add more. Where will these people shop, park their cars, doctors, dentists, sporting facilities like gyms etc; go? Where will the children go to school with our schools already being overcrowded.

Ilkley is a tourism hotspot in the local area. Adding more people can only put serious pressure on the facilities, environment. The plans will mean Ilkley, Addingham and Burley will no longer have a separate identity.

The council need to provide better roads/more roads, more street lighting, repair the current roads, build more shops, schools, health facilities, parking which are all already struggling with current demands.

Support

Representation ID: 28368

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Judith Dennis

Number of people: 2

We would like to record that we have no objection to any of the proposed developments in llkley IL1/H, IL2/H, IL3/H, IL4/H.

We think it would be beneficial to the age and social mix in the town to have at least some sites (or sections of sites) designated for social housing. What are the plans for this, please?

Object

Representation ID: 28372

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: A D Walbank

The proposals do not accord with the draft Ilkley neighbourhood plan.
Green belt should only be considered in exceptional circumstances.
The proposals will exacerbate the overloaded infrastructure.
Traffic congestion on A65 and the roundabout at the east of Ilkley at Burley.
This site is actually not on Coutances Way but off Wheatley Lane, a very congested access which has only recently been provided with traffic lights. It should be preserved for the exceptional vista available to the Cow and Calf area of Ilkley Moor from the A65. The land floods each year and because of its valley bottom situation cannot easily be developed. Any hard surfaces will inevitably drain into the river Wharfe and cause more flooding downstream as it does each year.
Ilkley has now reached a saturation point with new houses.
Parking issue, roads are permanently lined with cars on both sides.
Schools are oversubscribed.
Many shops are empty as the rates are too high.
Outdoor spaces are overwhelmed with visitors in hot weather.
Developments need to use brownfield sites first nearer the centres of employment to reduce the need for travel.
Impacts for visitors to Ilkley.

Object

Representation ID: 28379

Received: 25/03/2021

Respondent: David Blackburn

The appraisal leads me to come to the opposite conclusion that the site is unsustainable and does not comply with the findings of 5.0.1 & 5.0.2. The plan fails to acknowledge WYCA plans for a park and ride, noted in the text, but that would add additional traffic and environmental issues. Provision of access onto Wheatley Lane near current field access for 155 dwellings (and P&R) near a difficult junction in its current 3-way form and making it 4 way is high risk and increasing traffic flow at the single lane rail overbridge a very high risk strategy. A ‘major potential impact on the Green Belt’ contradicts the policy of only in ‘exceptional circumstances’ should Green Belt be used for development.

Object

Representation ID: 28396

Received: 13/03/2021

Respondent: Professor David N & Sussi Louise Smith

Number of people: 2

This site is also Green Belt - the planning judgement states it has 'a major potential impact on the Green Belt' and that 'the site makes a major contribution to the purposes of including land in the Green Belt.... [and] would have a major impact on openness'.

We concur with this assessment.

There are also concerns about the 2.5km buffer of the SPA/SAC and SSSI impact zone, impact on setting of listed building (Wheatley Grange Farm Grade II Listed farmhouse and outbuilding), impact on landscape character, flood risk and areas of surface water flood risk, Green Infrastructure links through the site and need for new site access.

Nor do we believe that any potential opportunity to incorporate additional parking for Ben Rhydding Station should be allowed.

This whole site marks a definitive boundary to the Town of Ilkley and a visible statement of the distinction between rural and urban.

Object

Representation ID: 28399

Received: 13/03/2021

Respondent: Karen Leafe

I wish to object to the proposed plan to build a substantial number of houses in Ilkley reference numbers IL1/H IL2/H IL3/H and IL4/H.

There isn't the infrastructure to maintain these homes.

The plan would make significant changes to our town.

Object

Representation ID: 28403

Received: 13/03/2021

Respondent: Shirin Borrett

There are so many brownfield sites available in the Bradford District - why is the council even contemplating building in our ever diminishing Greenbelt!

How can they allow development of our green spaces. It is essential for everyone's wellbeing, that we keep our countryside and don't allow the urban sprawl to take over! Ilkley is a beautiful town set in the countryside that contributes significantly to Bradford both financially and by providing countryside for people to enjoy.

If over 300 homes were built, the town does not have the infrastructure to support the people who would live there. Ilkley Grammar school is bursting at its seams and primary schools are full. The surgery is very busy and does not have the capability to service another 300 households!

The developments will be very damaging to the environment and, with climate change, will increase the problems with flooding in the area.

Object

Representation ID: 28409

Received: 13/03/2021

Respondent: Julian Carter

• Greenbelt
Building on green belt sites is directly opposed to the principles of using brownfield sites first, and of urban regeneration via the recycling and repurposing of derelict land or buildings

• Environment
Building on the Greenbelt will have a number of direct and indirect consequences on the environment. The area itself has mature trees (with TPO) and an abundance of plant and wild flower species. In addition, there will be an increase in noise pollution and use of cars, reduced biodiversity

• Flooding
There is already substantial flooding within Ilkley and further run off from hard surfaces will only exacerbate the problem

• School and activities capacity
Local amenities are already at breaking point and cannot cope with the additional proposed housing

• Additional Building
In the last few years approximately 30 houses per year have been built in Ilkley – the plan fails to take into account these numbers, or those currently planned.

Object

Representation ID: 28436

Received: 13/03/2021

Respondent: Hilda Bryson

Green belts were specifically designated to prevent development on precious areas of green land.

Given climate change concerns and the fact that we are supposed to be increasing green areas where possible to combat the effect of carbon emissions and to give our threatened wild life some respite from loss of habitat it seems impossible to justify building houses on these sites.

The A65 into Ilkley is a bottle neck already and we now have a garden centre opposite the proposed sites which will increase the flow of traffic and add to the problem of tail backs.

The Grammar School is stretched for space. Are there plans for a new school or for the sewage system and for the health provision? Increased housing with no thought for the infrastructure is negligent to say the least.

Merging Burley and Ilkley into one amorphous mass destroys the community feel of both places.

Object

Representation ID: 28437

Received: 13/03/2021

Respondent: CJ Dodson

You have given no justification for this blatant intrusion onto such designated areas, with even your proposal stating that ‘Ilkley is set within a scenic and sensitive natural landscape.

I find it amazing that you cannot find under developed and brown field sites within Bradford which would be improved by development.

I find it strange that you would wish to provide just high priced housing in this area.

I would be interested to understand just where these children would be educated as current school capacity is oversubscribed.

Increased cars utilising the now one way system under the railway bridge will raise the already high level of traffic accidents and immediate adjacent congestion.

Where is the detailed traffic management survey to justify this proposal?

That area is susceptible to flooding from both surface water runoff and the river Wharf and the existing sewage treatment plants are unable to deal with current capacity resulting in regular runoffs into the river Wharfe.

Object

Representation ID: 28487

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Colm McCann

-This location will erode the boundaries between Ben Rhydding and Burley.
-Combined with the Ben Rhydding Drive proposal will lead to overdevelopment in this part of town.
-The proposed volume of new housing will significantly add to to local traffic volumes particularly under Ben Rhydding railway bridge.
-What will the impact be on air quality and aesthetics of the village centre.
-This is a substantial release of green belt land and would like to see evidence for this compared to using historic mill sites or empty offices within the district to provide housing units.
-Over crowding at IGS.
-In principle I do not support building on the green belt but this site is the only option for a replacement school outside the flood plain.
-Site should be reserved for a replacement school and current IGS site used for housing.

Object

Representation ID: 28491

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Rachel Scott

-No evidence of exceptional circumstances to justify these two sites and contrary to NPPF
-Protect greenfield sites
-Develop brownfield sites – regeneration etc
-IL01 and IL03 will serve to increase ‘unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas’ as well as continue the gradual increase of ribbon development between Ilkley and neighbouring villages.
-Impact on countryside, wildlife, flora and fauna, SSSi (SPA/SAC and buffer zones);
-Impact on setting and special character of Ilkley
- Impact on parking – current issues will be exacerbated as sites not within walking distance to town.
-Both Ilkley Grammar School and all local primary schools are full. Ilkley GS is unable to expand any further.
-Traffic/Congestion - query traffic assessment.
-Risk of flooding - site issues
-Proposals completely tone deaf to our environmental emergency.
-Impact on trees with TPOs

Object

Representation ID: 28517

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Dr & Dr William & Monica Tomkiss

Number of people: 2

•The two sites will provide the majority of additional houses in Ilkley within a small area of Ben Rhydding.
•The area is subject to flooding. The A65 has flood on a number of occasions near the traffic lights at the Factory shop/Denton Bridge. Building on land which absorbs water which flows down Ilkley Moor will exacerbate this.
•Busy traffic at the railway bridge, the junction with the A65 and the narrow one-way Denton Bridge. These structural issues cannot be easily remedied through usual road widening.
•These are greenfield site. Government states that only Brownfield sites should be developed wherever possible. Bradford will have several of these which can be developed.
•With the recovery from Covid and changes in habits, it is likely more brownfield site will become available and which should be used first.
•No proposal to address the impact on services from the proposed housing. Around 1000 additional people would place additional pressure on over-stretched services. The reality is that traffic associated with ‘school-runs’ will be generate and make problems worse.
•Development of the scale proposed would alter the character of Ben Rhydding. Historically, it is a distinct cultural entity, compared to the main part of Ilkley which these proposals overlook.

Object

Representation ID: 28519

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Dr & Dr William & Monica Tomkiss

Number of people: 2

•Although proposed as Coutances Way this site is in fact Ben Rhydding village.
•Density of the proposed housing would be unacceptable as it would be out of keeping with the surrounding area which is mainly, larger, individually-designed houses with large gardens.
•The risk of increased flooding if this were permitted cannot be overestimated. While technically this is not the flood plain, the land does serve this purpose. Added to this there will be water from the proposed houses which will needs to discharged somewhere.

Object

Representation ID: 28562

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Peter & Barbara O'Connell

Number of people: 2

Area between Burley and Ilkley

Scenic Landscape - We need to protect the local environment in Ilkley as its a scenic natural landscape.

Existing flooding risk - We have a problem with flooding now. The flooding problem will worsen.

Wildlife - Wildlife between Burley and Ilkley will be destroyed.

Sewage sites - Sewage sites have problems now, this problem will worsen.

Road Safety - Wheatley Road Train Bridge is already a high risk area, there will be an increase in traffic and an increase in accidents

Object

Representation ID: 28567

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Rachel Hanson

Nature/Environment
• Green Belt development should be last resort. There are brownfield sites and empty properties which should be developed first.
• It is a natural environment providing an important wildlife habitat, including feeding ground for Curlews, which should be protected.
• IL3/H part of a working farm.
• Will have negative impact on village’s nature/character.
• Would narrow gap between Ben Rhydding & Burley-in-Wharfedale.

Traffic & Congestion
• Wheatley Lane busy, with long queues at traffic lights.
• Junction between Valley Drive/Wheatley Lane is dangerous.

Drainage & Flooding
• Fields provide drainage for the surrounding area. Would worsen flooding issues.
• More water will run-off onto roads/adjacent homes.
• Drainage system under stress.

Lack of Infrastructure
• Schools operating at capacity.
• Places for doctors/dentists lacking.
• Trains full, station platforms not long enough for more carriages.
• Sewage system needs upgrading to cope with current demand.
• Development would need significant infrastructure investment to cope – would damage the character of the village.

Object

Representation ID: 28604

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Peter & Susan Lithgow

Number of people: 2

•Clear and obvious conflicts with existing amenity and welfare to locals arising from the planned developments. Negative impacts will be long lasting and undermine the attraction that Ilkley is known for. The heritage of Ben Rhydding will be lost. If Bradford Council recognise the ‘scenic and natural landscape’ of the district then it can be concluded these plans are ill-judged.
•Past poor developments have given rise to increased traffic, worsening flows, increased accidents (Wheatley Road Railway Bridge), noise and pollution. New developments can only make these problems worse, with parking in residential streets and across the drives of homes. No road traffic assessment has been provided.
•The areas are prone to flooding. Denying natural drainage and surface absorption through the addition of hard surfaces will provide a greater flood risk along Coutances Way and the River Wharfe floodplain.
•This area has been shown to flood many times and occasionally blocked the road.
•Development will result in permanent change to natural habitats and have a damaging impact on Flora and Fauna.
•Local infrastructure and institutions are at their limits. Increased population can only further stress limited medical services, schools and other amenities.
•The catchment areas are becoming extended means the social amenities should be extended.
•The proposals do not appear to have considered the potential for overloading existing facilities or considered the impact on existing residents. The proposals should be withdrawn as they are not credible.

Comment

Representation ID: 28614

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Environment Agency

Flood Zones 2, 3 and the current/draft 3b/3a(i) within site boundary - Site contains FZ2 and 3 and contains small bit of 3b.

There is to be no development with the 3b/3a(i) extent unless considered water compatible or essential infrastructure. Where this is the case the development must demonstrate no increase in risk to others, no loss of Functional Floodplain and suitable mitigation measures for use and the lifetime of the development.

Development on site should follow a sequential layout so as to prevent unnecessary development within Flood Zones 3b, 3 and 2 wherever possible. If the site is considered Greenfield then surface water discharge rates post development should be restricted to the pre development Greenfield discharge rate.

If the site is considered Brownfield then there should be a 30% reduction in surface water discharges, or restricted to Greenfield rates, there should be no increase in brownfield surface water discharge rates post development. So as to support prevention of cumulative increases to flood risk and should be in line with SuDs design principles. Some SuDs principles such as storage ponds should not be solely relied upon within areas at risk of fluvial flooding as they may not be operational during a flood.

Development must be shown to be safe for the lifetime of the development. See the Adept Guidance of Access and Egress plans. Hazard ratings may need to be assessed as part of the proposal.

Mitigation such a proofing measures and raised Finished Floor Levels, must be set above the 1 in 100 plus Climate Change level for the site. Current Guidance is on .gov.

The applicant must ensure there is no increase in risk to others for the lifetime of the development (including climate change). Where on Greenfield sites compensatory storage must be actively sought.

Consideration must be made to making space for water and providing betterment in terms of flood risk management where ever possible. For development near ordinary watercourses we would recommend an 8 metre easement strip along the length of the riverbank, or a 45degree angle from the bed in the case of culverts, to be kept clear of permanent structures such as buildings. This is to maintain access to the riverbank for any improvements or maintenance. A Flood Defence Consent may be required for the LLFA for works in/affecting an ordinary watercourse.

For main rivers, we generally require an 8 metre easement strip along the length of the riverbank to be kept clear of permanent structures such as buildings, or a 45degree angle from the bed in the case of culverts. This is to maintain access to the riverbank for any improvements or maintenance. Environmental Flood Risk Activity Permits may be required for development near rivers.

It is likely these sites are going to show changes/increases in flood risk as a result of climate change.

The SFRA (to follow) is going to consider future flooding including future Functional Floodplain this may identify sites at more future risk than others which may affect its allocation or how development should be sequentially laid out on the site.

Object

Representation ID: 29042

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Anne & H Graham Peacock

Number of people: 2

This is extremely valuable as green belt because this site provides, for visitors arriving by road or rail, the first real view of the open countryside of the Dales and Ilkley Moor.

It is high amenity green belt defining the boundary of the town and negates urban spawl along the A65. It provides the sense of arrival at a special place, with views towards the heather moors of the Cow and Calf rocks and up the Dale.

The assertion that this site location has good transport connections is questionable. Bus services (none at all to Bradford) are poor especially early in the morning. Train services are limited.

The fields are poorly drained and the bottom section floods as does the A65 in places.

The railway embankment has been unstable for years. Whilst remedial work was undertaken some 10 years ago it is still being monitored. Any changes to drainage arrangements may adversely impact the stability of the line.

The fields are a wildlife haven both for nesting and wintering birds.

The distance of the site from retail services and local amenities will increase car journeys.

Object

Representation ID: 29123

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Cherry Dexter

Number of people: 2

• Green belt
• NPPF Brownfield first approach
• Ilkley strategy against NPPF – GB sites with justification as little brownfield land in the Wharfedale area.
• Contradictions between site Sustainability Assessment and the SA assessment for IL/009
• Against the plan focus upon connecting and improving open spaces, GI and the importance of landscape/green belt.
• Contrary to building to adhere to target of ‘environmental net gain’.
• Proximity to South Pennine Moors SPA and provides a corridor and habitat for wildlife - like deer, bats, birds of prey and a significant number of owls.
• Health and recreational value of site
• Impact on nature conservation and biodiversity (SPA)
• Ancient trees are protected TPOs.
• curlews use the field as a feeding area in Spring.
• Climate change resilience / Accessible Services / Capacity of infrastructure – drainage
• Impact on traffic
• Noise and disturbance / Smells and fumes
• Local Services and Facilities overstretched
• Negative impact on Visual amenity
• Impact on Cultural heritage – listed buildings and conservation area
• Density requirement will not be met

Object

Representation ID: 29266

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Nicole Dillon

Oppose proposed development around Burley in Wharfedale, Ben Rhydding, Ilkley & Addingham.

1. More needs to be invested in infrastructure to support increased population

• Ilkley Grammar School (the only secondary) is already full as are the primary schools

• Roads are busy and parking is a big problem – without proper provision roads will become blocked due to on-street parking. More traffic will see traffic jams increase, which is a safety issue as well as an environmental problem.

• Doctors/Dentists are busy. Development will lead to more patients, longer waiting times etc.

• Problem with sewage in the River Wharfe. Sewage sites overflow regularly. Development will make this worse.

2. Green Belt development should be a last resort. Will impact on wildlife. Available brownfield sites should be developed first.

3. Development will significantly/permanently change the area’s character. Coutances Way site will see Burley almost merging with Ben Rhydding/Ilkley.

Other considerations include flood risk.

Object

Representation ID: 29386

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Jane Wearing

•No justification given for building on green belt land when there are brownfield sites available in the district. Fundamental aim of Green Belt is to prevent urban sprawl and the essential characteristics are openness and permanence. Green belt can help urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict land.
•Development should be focused on urban and brownfield land for regeneration and to stimulate investment in the site allocations and wider area to provide infrastructure improvements.
•Proposed approach is a wasted opportunity to focus development within the settlement boundary. Ignores the need to regulate the size and shape of urban areas which are currently bounded by Green Belt.
•Approach does not adhere to the basic principle of Green Belt as the sites risk the potential of neighbouring towns eventually coalescing. If developed they will blur the contrast between urban and rural facets of Ilkley.
•No suggestion that there will be any social housing in these two developments.
•Proposals would significant change the character of the town and surrounding areas. IL3/H would remove the small number of field between Burley and Ilkley which are being eroded by the development at Sun Lane.
•Developments will significant increase traffic through the Wheatley Road railway bridge and junction with Valley Drive. No plans to widen the bridge and single land traffic will remain. These two areas already have a high risk of accidents.
•No traffic assessment has been carried out. Increases of traffic will have a significant impact on air quality.
•Ilkley Grammar is already at capacity, is unable to expand further and has already limited its catchment area. No additional secondary school capacity has been proposed.
•Demand for GP services will be extreme. No plans to create additional medical centres.
•Developments will put serve pressure on utilities. Sewage sites are already over capacity and regularly overflow their storm surge capacity.
•Broadband is exceeding capacity. At a time when record numbers of people are working from home. Additional homes will create significant issues for access to reliable broadband.
•Ilkley’s character is defined by its natural setting amongst the countryside, and these proposals go completely against the defined local plan to protect the local environment.
•Coutances Way is a nationally significant area of Curlew feeding.
•Both Wheatley Grove and Coutances Way provide wildlife corridors and significant habitat for wildlife. They have mature trees and a number of Tree Protection Orders / Woodland protection, due to the nature of the land.
•Significant existing flood risk. Development would exacerbate these issues.
•Sites are sinks for rain water delaying the flow through Ben Rhydding/Ilkley. These areas are regularly sodden and have springs.

Object

Representation ID: 29423

Received: 29/03/2021

Respondent: Historic England

This site should not be allocated for development.
The site contains the Grade II listed Wheatley Grange Farm. The site is also close to the north-east boundary of Ben Rhydding Conservation Area. The development of this area could harm elements which contribute to the significance of these designated heritage assets.
The Heritage Impact Assessment for this site considered that development of the proposed site would result in a Major negative impact on the immediate setting of the listed buildings at Wheatley Grange Farm. A component of the significance of Wheatley Grange farm is that it remains in its unchanged agricultural use and setting.
The proposed site comprises a substantial part of the pastoral setting of the farm building and forms the backdrop to the farm buildings in views from the east and north. The open backdrop enables appreciation of the farm buildings in their agricultural setting, and longer distance views of the farm in its surroundings,
including up towards Ilkley Moor. The HIA concludes that
development of the proposed site would result in Less than substantial harm of an unacceptable level which is not capable of mitigation to achieve a less harmful impact on heritage significance.
Historic England would concur with this analysis, with the
assessment of the degree of harm that the development of this site would be likely to cause, and with the conclusion on the lack of appropriate mitigation measures.
The site enables us to better understand the different layers of history of the village, from its late medieval period, when Wheatley was a small rural village of which Wheatley Grange was part of, most likely related to the Grade II Listed Wheatley Hall. The Victorian terraces on Wheatley Lane (to the west of Wheatley Grange) are probably linked to the development of the village in this
period following the ‘discovery’ of the curative powers of the local spring water and the creation of the Ben Rhydding Hotel as an hydropathic facility which led to the village’s change of name. Development here would detract from the prominence and clarity of these elements.
Therefore, the loss of this area is considered likely to cause considerable harm the setting of Wheatley Grange Farm and Ben Rhydding Conservation Area. As such, its Allocation and eventual development would run contrary to the advice set out in the NPPF.

Object

Representation ID: 29510

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jean Jones

I cannot believe the enormous number of houses that are proposed being built in the Ben Rhydding area. This will totally change the character of Ilkley from a lovely tourist town, to one sea of houses.
Coutances Way - 155 dwellings, despite cars having to wait for hours trying to get into Ilkley, already. An extra 300 cars probably revving and adding to the air pollution and a danger to the health of the Ben Rhydding population.
There are many sites BROWN in Bradford which could be used for housing without developing the countryside in the Ilkley area.
The schools, doctors, dentists etc cannot now cope with the increased numbers of people that have moved into Ilkley over the past few years , so what will happen in the future?
These plans are not thought through.

Comment

Representation ID: 29512

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Robert B Marshall

I think that it would be unwise to have two large groups of houses leading in to Wheatley Lane the B6382, down to the A65.
It has proved impossible in the past to build a by-pass around Ilkley. As it is the A65 is overwhelmed at many parts of the day. The junction with the A65 and the A 65 itself could not cope with a large increase in traffic.

Object

Representation ID: 29534

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Elizabeth & Tim Walton

Number of people: 2

1) GREEN BELT
Proposals through Keighley and area district which is against Government and Bradford Council Green Belt and Zero Carbon Future policies resulting in sprawl, loss of identity, damage to wildlife, loss of natural views loss of green habitat and wildlife, pollution.

Object

Representation ID: 29553

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: P A Smith

- IL3/H Coutance Way
The lower area of this development again will cause more traffic on an already congested road, and this area floods on a regular basis. (will these lower houses get flood damage insurance?)
At the top end near the scout hut, cars already have problems turning right from Valley Drive to go up under the bridge due to the bend in the road and also turning left out of Valley Drive as the view is obstructed due to the bend. More cars driving out of this area (155 dwellings) will make it more dangerous.
What Ilkley needs is less cars not more. The permit areas for workers is already having an impact for people living outside the permit area as traffic is moving out of Ilkley to side roads and causing distress to households when they cannot park outside their own houses.
Bradford never tries to help Ilkley, all it wants is the money from the rates and gives us nothing in return. The amenities cannot cope in the area for any more houses.