Object

Representation ID: 6140

Received: 02/03/2021

Respondent: Richard Archer

•Using Green Belt should be a last resort.
•Development at Countances Way would be ribbon development and reduce the area between Ilkley and Burley.
•The site floods. Significant expense would be incurred to drain the site.
•Ben Rhydding has expanded significantly. When combined with Ilkley does not have adequate schools, parks, playing fields or medical facilities. Additional development would put pressure on already oversubscribed schools. There are no plans to move the Grammar School to provide for the required extra places and one of the sites was previously earmarked for its relocation.
•Traffic issues on the single track road under the railway line.
•These sites should not be developed. If developed they should not be high density. Developers should fund an expanded Ben Rhydding primary school or build a new school. New development should have adequate playing space, plant significant trees and maintain green area for nature.

Object

Representation ID: 6147

Received: 02/03/2021

Respondent: Oliver Lewis

•How can the council justify building on Green Belt when there are numerous brownfield sites within the District?
•Development at these sites will expand the existing boundary reducing the distance between Addingham and Burley. Will the entire Wharfe valley eventually be joined up?
•There are no plans put forward to increase/expand GP services, schools or local amenities. Existing services already in high demand.
•Has the additional amount of traffic from each new property been factored into the plan?
•Has any regard been paid to the scenic setting of the town?
•Homes at IL2/H and IL3/H will spoil the landscape when entering Ilkley.
•Also the effect on local wildlife and trees in these locations.
•How can the council make these plans (building on green belt, adding to stresses in local services/infrastructure) without having regard to their own policy on maintaining the uniqueness of the town, enforcing strict planning laws and TPOs.

Object

Representation ID: 6154

Received: 06/03/2021

Respondent: Richard Wiley

It is not necessary to build in beautiful Ilkley as there are many brownfield sites in the Bradford area which would be suitable. The whole character of the area will be spoilt. The roads would become an eyesore.
The proposals would be a disaster for Ben Rhydding creating an eyesore and destroying valuable and beautiful green fields. The developments would most like lead to a huge devaluing of local property and greatly increase traffic and air pollution. The road infrastructure around the railway bridge on Wheatley Lane is inadequate and there would be intolerable congestion especially at “rush hour”.

Object

Representation ID: 6158

Received: 06/03/2021

Respondent: Katie Simons

Secondary school is full- development would impact on standard and delivery of education to local children
Flooding and strain on sewerage systems
Green belt site- impact on wildlife and natural habitat, moderate risk of impact is not acceptable level
Impact of development on local character and local services (GP) and schools

Object

Representation ID: 6169

Received: 07/04/2021

Respondent: Jessica Murray

Firstly I am opposed to developing on green belt. There are plenty of brown land sites that are not being used throughout the district of Bradford. Furthermore due to the pandemic there will be plenty of office blocks which will be unable to be used in the future purely because the workforce will be working from home more often. Please think about how these can be converted into holes before destroying land.

Secondly I’m opposed due to the ‘already at capacity’ infrastructure in ilkley. Schools are at their limit which means more homes with 2+ kids means 600 potential children adding into the primary and secondary school system. The catchment area for IGS is already narrower than it was when I attended in the 90’s. I lived at the top of Addingham and my parents house is now out of IGS catchment and further houses basically will continue to devalue these houses and more.

Object

Representation ID: 6178

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Peter Mate

In relation to the four proposed sites in Ilkley/BR, I submit the following points:
3) and 4). Wheatley Grove (130 units) and Coutances Way (155 units) are both huge proposed developments, and unacceptable for a wide range of reasons. A total of 285 new family homes will undoubtedly have a deeply negative impact upon the Ilkley Community. They would add to the existing strain on local services, in particular in relation to schooling places, medical services, and increased traffic and transport pressures. The two proposed sites are significant and disproportionate, and will damage our community. Both these proposals are unacceptable, and I write formally to raise my objections.

Object

Representation ID: 6285

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Lightowler Associates

Another large greenfield site for high density development of housing.

Both these developments IL1/H and IL3/H will put increased pressure on current amenities, communication and traffic flow; the latter includes a narrow single track railway bridge.

The advisability of releasing two greenfield sites for high density housing development in the same area of the town should be reassessed. The proposed two developments will add 285 households, representing 90.8% of the proposed housing developments in Ilkley. This will put enormous pressure on that part of the town and alter the whole ambience of the area.

Object

Representation ID: 6352

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Nicole Dillon

•Object to these sites as they are green belt land.
•Green belt is there to protect wildlife and provide green space for people.
•Building on these sites will decimate the habitats of hundreds of species of plants, insects, birds and animals.
•People come to the are to enjoy the countryside location. Building on these sites will damage tourism which is valuable to Ilkley, the surrounding areas and local businesses.
•More housing will increase traffic on busy roads. It will lead to further parking problems with no mention of designated areas for parking.
•Ilkley Grammar School is already over-subscribed as are many local primary schools, medical practices, dental practices etc. More housing will add more pressure to these public services.

Object

Representation ID: 6431

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Simon Baxter

Please note this is my objection to further houses being built in Ilkley and Ben Rhydding.

My concerns relate specifically to IL1/H and IL3/H.

Object

Representation ID: 6587

Received: 11/03/2021

Respondent: Ian Henderson

The areas proposed for housing off Wheatley Lane and between Wheatley Grove and Ben Rhydding Drive propose to destroy what The Green Belt is supposed to be there to protect. It would be part of a progression to join Ilkley to Burley and via Menston/Guiseley/Yeadon/Rawdon/Horsforth/Kirkstall to the centre of Leeds. The two areas I refer to are beautiful and relatively unspoilt, with the upper area between Wheatley Grove and Ben Rhydding Drive still preserving in the landscape the old coach road from Ben Rhydding up almost to the site of the former Hydro. This area also absorbs a great deal of moisture draining down off The Moor, thereby serving as a sort of elevated/sloping 'flood plain'. If it is built on, more water will descend to the river valley below, where we have seen significant flooding in recent time. Ian Henderson, Ben Rhydding.

Object

Representation ID: 6685

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Dudley Feather

I feel that the proposals IL1/H and IL3/H are too high density.

Object

Representation ID: 6698

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Elizabeth Scott

The proposed developments Site IL1/H Wheatley Grove, Site IL2/H Skipton Road East , Site IL3/H Coutances Way , Site IL4 Stockdale Road will not meet the overarching environmental objective of protecting or enhancing the environment including valued landscapes.
The development of the areas will increase pollution as well as increasing pluvial flooding. It will inhibit and reduce the environment that supports local wildlife , deer , birds including curlews and owls.
These developments will have a detrimental impact on the area for the following reasons:
Traffic and access, Infrastructure
See also attachment for objection to IL1/H

Object

Representation ID: 6704

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Jacqueline Watson

I very strongly object to the proposals to build houses on green belt land in Ilkley and Ben Rhydding.
This refers to plans IL1H, IL2H, IL3H and IL4H.

If more houses are needed other sites must be found.

Object

Representation ID: 6707

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Adam Scott

I write in relation to the following applications:
Site IL1/H Wheatley Grove
Site IL2/H Skipton Road East
Site IL3/H Coutances Way
Site IL4 Stockdale Road
and in particular that concerning the field on Ben Rhdding Drive where we have only just moved from Bingley; we moved indeed to escape development of the fields below our house there by the canal and are surprised to encounter again the urban sprawl that threatens what little is left of our Yorkshire countryside.
I enjoy walking now that I am retired and the traffic in this area already threatens the safety of my dog and I; we see a number of other residents similarly threatened as they walk for instance to local schools (which I understand to be full to bursting already) and I see too the pressure on local medical services.

Object

Representation ID: 6741

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Stuart & Joan Quarmby

Number of people: 2

We object to this unnecessary loss of valuable green belt land. It is important that Ilkley retains it’s identity through it’s clearly defined boundaries and that these boundaries are not lost by urban sprawl.

Whilst we sympathise with the Council’s obligation to identify land for housing, using this part of the country’s green belt is not the answer. One only has to travel by train from Ilkley into Bradford to see acres upon acres of surplus brownfield land ripe for re development as housing. The Council should use this in it’s entirety before even thinking about developing our green belt.

Further, there appears to be an error in the online description of IL2/H, at the top of the description it says 20 indicative dwellings but later on states 30 estimated. Which is it?

Object

Representation ID: 6758

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Dr Oliver Sykes

•Need to maintain greenbelt and no properties should be built on greenbelt.
•Any building should be on brownbelt or redevelopment opportunities.
•There are significant issues re pressure on the towns infrastructure. Particularly with respect to schools. An additional proposed increase is not appropriate for the level of infrastructure the town has.
•Also concerned re the effect on traffic.
•Also an significant environmental issue. We need greenbelt area to help absorb water and planting more trees in this area would delay water release and reduce the risk of flooding. The town already has a significant issue with flooding as seen over recent years. Adding housing and its associated loss of surface area for drainage and slow release increases flood risk in the area.

Object

Representation ID: 6798

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: F Jelley

•The Green Belt to the east of Ilkley should be land which keeps Ilkley and Burley-in-Wharfedale as separate places.
•Green Belt land should only be built on in exceptional circumstances –these should be explained.
•Single access to these estates would cause more traffic problems to the very busy access roads and onto the congested A65. Difficulty getting around Ilkley in the summer.
•Tourists are currently welcomed by a view of the moor from the south of the A65. A large housing estate would turn Ilkley into another anywhere town and the district would lose one of its attractions.
•The field floods regularly –is it suitable for housing.
•With more houses being built in Burley-in-Wharefdale/Menston -how will traffic on the A65 keep moving with existing congestion?
•Planning should be about creating communities not just building houses. Roads, schools and other amenities should be considered alongside existing communities and infrastructure.

Object

Representation ID: 6818

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Dr Roger Cook

I object to ALL developments on green belt land in Ilkley. I particularly object to the site in Ben Rhydding wher the EU designated of importance that ground nesting birds should not be disturbed.

Object

Representation ID: 6856

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Jon Tighe

I would like to log an objection to then current local plan out for consultation. Specifically areas IL1/H, IL2/H, IL3/H, and IL4/H.

I do not believe green belt land should be used for development and there is no clear explanation how local services will meet increased demand.

Object

Representation ID: 6885

Received: 07/03/2021

Respondent: Annet Nottingham

These plans involve development on green belt areas. These fields between Ilkley and Burley in Wharfedale are important to the natural beauty and are a natural demarcation between the two towns. A strong enough case has not been made for the use of the green belt area, as there are numerous brown field areas available in the Bradford district that would not have the same negative effect on the beauty of Wharfedale.
The impact on the roads and general infrastructure will be significant and contribute to the congestion and parking problems.
It will put further pressure on schools, doctors' surgeries and other amenities. I am particularly concerned about the impact it will have on local secondary schools.
Quite regularly there is signifcant flooding in these fields. The development would also have a significant negative impact on the natural environment and Ilkley Moor as an SSSI

Object

Representation ID: 6896

Received: 07/03/2021

Respondent: Jenny Wholley

Any incursion on to Green belt land should not be allowed - there is no justifiable reason for development on this site.
The size is disproportionate for the size of the town
The site is covered in water courses which would make any development problematic and result in pushing water to other areas to course further problems.
The site is a wildlife haven including trees with TPO’s The site will increase in traffic, which will exacerbate the problems around the Ben Rhydding Station and bridge. In normal conditions the queues in to Ilkley are a nightmare without adding further cars. I foresee more road accidents!
Ilkley schools cannot take any more students nor does the Grammar school have any more land to extend further.
Leisure facilities (Bradford Council owned) are not fit for purpose.
The infrastructure is not able to cope as the best of times, sewage noticeably being a problem.
This is a money making gambit by Bradford council to try and milk the Ilkley area as much as possible by taking as much council tax as possible and giving virtually nothing back.

Object

Representation ID: 7048

Received: 02/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Sam Hadfield

Site is unsuitable to housing development. Given firstly that this land was promised to the local secondary school for new much-needed schooling space, the plans for which were subsequently scrapped, and now replaced by a new plan for unwanted housing, does sting for the local community. Much better use would be to return to those plans and convert the current school into housing
This area has proven to be particularly vulnerable to flooding during the winter months, which would make housing built there at least uncomfortable. More pressingly however is the location of the nearby scout hut, which is in desparate need of more space to help entertain the local children in the evenings. This space could easily be converted into an extended area for the scouts to use, which would greatly enhance the education they can provide.
Site suffers from consistent flooding in the winter months, which would present significant problems to anyone trying to make a home there, as well as exacerbating the problem for the housing nearby.

Comment

Representation ID: 7083

Received: 11/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs June Blakelock

There are, according to your document, ‘Listed farm buildings to the south and east of the site.’ Surely 155 new houses with associated cars and noise would have a bad impact on this farm, especially the horses that are its main animals.

The site is often flooded in winter, as well as if there is heavy rain at other times if year and this again is reflected in your document. This alone makes it unsuitable for housing.

The housing would exit on to a main road, the A63. This road is extremely busy at most times. Together with the allocation to the west of Burley in Wharfedale, it would lead to the two towns being joined together. I understand that Bradford Council is against ribbon development, which is what this amounts to. 155 houses would reduce the impact of the entry to Ilkley from the Otley and Leeds side of the town.
Why potentially destroy the SSSI? Wildlife is very important to the way we live our lives. I think that the powers that be will not recognise this until there is no food to be had because we have built on the sites where pollinators have their habitats. Or houses have been built quite close to their habitats meaning they have to move because their present habitat is no longer viable.

Councillor Jackie Whiteley has said ‘The Conservative group are concerned at the assertion that Bradford Council makes that 20% of homes during the Plan period need to be built on Green Belt’ she goes on to say that Bradford Council have been given a contribution from central Government allocation of £67 million to make brownfield sites viable to alleviate the need to use Green Belt.
Why build so many houses in Ilkley if homes are needed in Bradford? According to our Ilkley councillors, there are many brownfield sites in Bradford that need using which could be used to better purpose. Ilkley’s infrastructure cannot cope with the total of 314 new houses. We do not have the school spaces at primary or secondary level. It is unlikely that young people with families or people wanting to downsize would be able to afford any of these houses, basing what they are likely to cost against present housing stock on the market. In more normal times, the commuter trains to Leeds are overfull. It is highly unlikely that anyone moving in to any of the housing planned for Ilkley will use public transport for anything other than commuting, leading to more traffic on busy roads and adding to air pollution.

Object

Representation ID: 7213

Received: 05/03/2021

Respondent: Kevin Dixon

Development would create a number of negative impacts:
Trains are over overcrowded- travel to work place often involves private car travel
Road congestion on A65- further cars will exacerbate problem
Access close to junction with Valley Drive - offers poor sight lines is an area where there are many collisons. Traffic lights here would impede traffic flow
Negative visual and environmental impacts for visitors
Overloaded sewerage system which discharges into River
Development will exacerbate flooding south of Coutances Way
Site is an area of open space/amenity for residents and habitat for wildlife
Ilkleys infrastructure is stretched - schools, medical services, parking (in town)
Derelict sites available in Bradford which could be used

Object

Representation ID: 7219

Received: 11/03/2021

Respondent: Rebecca Lee

The areas are in flood risk zones which if built on make the flooding problems in Ilkley worse.
The areas are places where numerous different species of wildlife are homed.
A big issue would be with the already maxed out high school places available to current residents of Ilkley, burley and Addingham - there wouldn't be enough places to accommodate all the additional children.

Object

Representation ID: 7223

Received: 10/03/2021

Respondent: Alan Strachan

Why are you planning to build houses on Green Belt in this area ?

The Government’s policy on protection for the Green Belt is set out in chapter 13 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in 2012, which clearly states the importance of Green Belt land and emphasises that when protecting the Green Belt, local authorities should maximise the use of suitable brownfield sites before considering changes to Green Belt boundaries. -I have attached a copy of the Government National Planning Policy Framework for your reference

The Brownfield Sites available in Bradford Council is huge and according to your website it states:

“The purpose of the register is to promote sites with unimplemented planning permission for residential development and to identify further opportunities where land is suitable for new homes in the District, to encourage re use of the land/buildings, stimulate regeneration and drive up housing delivery.”

There are NO Brownfield Sites in Ilkley.

Object

Representation ID: 7227

Received: 11/03/2021

Respondent: Drusilla Wiggins

I am very concerned about the plan for more housing in ben rhydding.

My question is about the infra structure of our area to accommodate more families.

Traffic?? Schools?? Medical facilities??

These are important questions that need to be answered realistically.

We moved into ben rhydding 41 yrs ago and it was a lovely town with a lot less traffic, only 1 set of traffic lights and green fields. It is now becoming an extension along with Burley to Otley.
The traffic which will be going thro the benrhydding station bridge is already considerable.
Have you considered ALSO the traffic situation at the traffic lights and the" toll bridge" road.
That is already a dangerous "road rage" position

Please please reconsider

Object

Representation ID: 7319

Received: 07/03/2021

Respondent: Carole Riley

Traffic congestion/air quality concerns/noise pollution -
The A65 is already an extremely busy road and traffic is continuous from 7am to around 9pm at night. Further housing, off Wheatley Lane, would increase this traffic flow further, not only on the A65 but also along Wheatley Lane. A further 130 homes would generate more cars and a further increase in noise and air pollution to Wheatley Lane residents. This is detrimental to mental health and this should be considered by Bradford Council who have a duty of care to protect existing residents.
Parking/traffic congestion - lack of parking spaces in general and for residents of Wheatley Lane (no residents permits or off street parking. Adding housing off Wheatley Lane will inevitably increase the demand for parking which will leave existing residents with more of a parking problem and make crossing the road less safe. Proposed traffic management will not mitigate against 260 additional cars
Local Schools/doctors surgeries/dentists at capacity
Loss of greenspace, impact on wildlife in Ben Rhydding

Object

Representation ID: 7397

Received: 07/03/2021

Respondent: Nancy Moss

Land is vital to retain a good habitat for wildlife, and trees need to be protected and nurtured for universal benefit.
We are worried about potential flooding and drainage, and alarmed at the prospect of increased traffic with the attendant congestion and pollution. We already find crossing Wheatley Road and Bolling Road hazardous! and we have noticed the traffic pollution on these roads.

Comment

Representation ID: 7425

Received: 07/03/2021

Respondent: Maureen Johnson

Development could exacerbate the problem on Coutances Way which is already prone to flooding. As you point out, this is the main access road into and through the town.