AD2/H - Parsons Lane

Object

Representation ID: 20046

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Simon Arnold

The site is located approximately a mile uphill from the village centre - its unlikely anyone will walk or cycle to to use the village amenities. Given existing problems already evident, the additional traffic from this and other proposed applications may impose an unsustainable load on the local road system, parking in general and the risk to public safety by the increased traffic load through the village.

The local drainage system in Addingham is already overloaded and there are frequently floods. Development at the top end of the village will exacerbate this problem.

The proposed development is on green belt land which should be preserved.

Development will detrimentally affect the overall amenity value of the village, and tourist numbers / visitors

Local school will be impacted, as well as the doctor and dentist surgeries. Ilkley grammar is already over subscribed so secondary school age children will be forced to travel to either Skipton, Guisely causing further traffic and environmental impact.

Object

Representation ID: 20050

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Nicola Edwards

There would be a significant detrimental impact on the local natural environment, being predominantly based on developing greenbelt and agricultural land around the fringes of the village and nature areas that provide habitat for local wildlife.

The number of houses are disproportional to the size of the village and will significantly increase the levels of traffic driving through the village. The small lanes around the proposed sites are inappropriate for the levels of traffic these developments would generate. It would also put at risk public safety.

Existing problems with flooding would be worsened.

These new houses would damage the villages reputation of a countryside community and would significantly downgrade the look of our village.

The developments would be detrimental to the natural views of hills and moorland that existing residents enjoy and would change the rural and natural setting of local paths and walking routes.

With only one school and Doctors that are already at maximum capacity, local facilities can not sustain more houses in Addingham.

Object

Representation ID: 20066

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Lee Edwards

There would be a significant detrimental impact on the local natural environment, being predominantly based on developing greenbelt and agricultural land around the fringes of the village and nature areas that provide habitat for local wildlife.

The number of houses are disproportional to the size of the village and will significantly increase the levels of traffic driving through the village. The small lanes around the proposed sites are inappropriate for the levels of traffic these developments would generate. It would also put at risk public safety.

Existing problems with flooding would be worsened.

These new houses would damage the villages reputation of a countryside community and would significantly downgrade the look of our village.

The developments would be detrimental to the natural views of hills and moorland that existing residents enjoy and would change the rural and natural setting of local paths and walking routes.

With only one school and Doctors that are already at maximum capacity, local facilities can not sustain more houses in Addingham.

Object

Representation ID: 20078

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Jayne Driver

I object to the development of the above site which I feel is clearly destroying our greenbelt, our village and our wildlife as well as endangering residents and damaging our drainage and increasing the risk of flooding both in this area and further down the village.

My reasons for objection are as follows:

- Increased Traffic causing potential danger to residents.
- Allocation of Housing - Why have you come up with this allocation of 175 properties in Addingham.
- Greenbelt - no exceptional circumstances
- Drainage
- Lack of local amenities
- lack of public transport

Object

Representation ID: 20096

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Laura & Patrick Wardle

Number of people: 2

•The numbers allocated to Addingham are out of proportion to the size of the settlement. No data has been provided to support the need for this housing.
•The proposed sites are at the top of the village and would increase traffic significantly up Moor Lane. Also, they are one mile from local amenities, making it more likely that will residents to drive to these. This is unsustainable given that Main Street is already congested. There is no train station, therefore more cars will travel into Ilkley. Given the proposal of 81 houses, this is a significant increase in traffic to a small area. Turner Lane specifically is a safe place to walk, similar to Chapel Street in the village.
•The Green Belt sites on the west of Addingham play an important role in keeping the character of a countryside setting which is part of its appeal. We chose to live here for this reason, we do not want the village to become urbanised.
•There are plenty of brownfield sites in Bradford close to employment and transport suitable for development.

Object

Representation ID: 20129

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Jane Snee

I wish to object to all the proposed housing developments in Addingham, including both green belt and brown field sites.

- Every area there is evidence of loss of habitat.

- Loss of opportunity of engagement with the countryside.

- Lack of infrastructure...inability to cope with traffic volumes, roads in and out of Addingham already congested. Addingham school is already over subscribed, as are all schools nearby. The medical center is already under funded and understaffed.

- Questionable benefit of proposed development when there is a presence of variable alternatives. There are many more appropriate brownfield sites and redundant commercial, premises nearby that could be adapted, in nearby towns, Keighley, Shipley, Bradford.

- Non compliance with Bradford Council policy on zero carbon future.

- Non compliance with Government policy - Government manifesto says councils must always develop brownfield sites for housing development in the first instance, and green belt land must be protected.

Object

Representation ID: 20322

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Nick Pennington

Similar objections apply here as for AD1/H - Turner Lane above, namely that this field has traditional stone walling along its boundary and a number of mature trees, the setting and character of which would be destroyed by development for housing purposes. Also: the historic character of Parsons Lane would be destroyed by any ‘improvement’ for access purposes.

Object

Representation ID: 20375

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Michael & Rose Smye

Number of people: 2

• The proposed housing will increase the number of children living in the village - there's no mention about increasing the school capacity to accommodate these new families. The primary school is already struggling to accommodate all the village children. Ilkley grammar school is already operating at full capacity and has already had to limit the catchment area in order to manage numbers.

• The proposed developments will significantly increase the traffic down moor lane, increasing pollution and making it more dangerous for our children.

• These proposed developments are around 1 mile from the village centre so most people would drive rather than walk to the village amenities which will also increase air and noise pollution.

• There are also concerns raised about the drainage around moor lane and increasing the floodrisk.

• As a small village with poor transport links i.e. no train station we appear to have been allocated a huge number of houses compared to surrounding towns/area with better transport links.

Object

Representation ID: 20436

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Lindsay Shaw

New residents of houses being proposed will have to a car to use the Village amenities because it is at least a mile from centre. This will cause increase in pollution, noise and traffic incidents.

There is only one school in Addingham which is already oversubscribed as is Ilkley Grammar School.

Addingham already suffers flooding which would be exacerbated by more houses being built, due to the strain on the already struggling drainage system;

Addingham parks are not big enough to accommodate the current residents, which, has lead to an increase in antisocial behaviour.

AD2/H

Extra pressure on the drainage system leading to an increased risk in flooding.

Increase in cars, noise, pollution and risk of being in a traffic incident.

Losing green belt, the feel of the lane will be completely diminished as it is currently, a beautiful field where I can take my son to see the sheep and the trees, it is very peaceful and a safe place to walk and enjoy.

Object

Representation ID: 20444

Received: 11/03/2021

Respondent: Lucy McKenzie

It is a slippery slope - it will set a precedent and make developing on the surrounding green belt areas all the more easy in the future.

It destroys natural habitat for animals as well as ruin the landscape that the village is known for.

It tarnishes the small village feel of Addingham as well as put pressure on the schools and GPs in the village with the added population these houses will bring.

A large housing estate as proposed in Addingham will alter the character of the village irreparably

It seems madness to over develop the village whilst at the same time reducing housing in Ilkley.

Addingham does not have the infrastructure, transport links to support the 175 houses proposed.

Object

Representation ID: 20747

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: John Roberts

All four parcels of land are lovely green spaces providing a beautiful habitat for wildlife & a green cushion between existing properties & the Addingham bypass.

The whole feel & atmosphere of the beautiful area will be lost forever if permission is granted & I would implore those considering this application to visit the area & see this for themselves.

Addingham has already outgrown it's infrastructure & yet more properties can only encourage further car use which as I understand is not what any of us want.

Let's look at a new railway station in Addingham to service the needs of residents travelling to Leeds & Bradford before allowing further developments.

Object

Representation ID: 20761

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Helen Whitham

1. This land is in the green belt. There are many brown field sites within the Bradford district which should be developed first.

2. Loss of wildlife

3. The character of the village will be forever lost. Addingham is surrounded by green fields and has a definite country feel.

4. Lack of capacity within schools - Addingham Primary and Ilkley Grammar.

5. There is only one road (the A65) from Addingham to Ilkley. Addingham has no railway and infrequent bus services. This road is often clogged with traffic.

6. Addingham has suffered from flooding in the recent years e.g on Main Street and at the bottom of the village. If houses are built on green fields this problem will only get worse as there will be less land to soak up the rain.

7. Infrastructure - the sewers will not take any added pressure. Schools, hospitals, roads, public transport will be under pressure.

Object

Representation ID: 21017

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Jessica Murray

Lack of road space already in the estate with most dwellings having two cars, and it is a very difficult route around to pass in a car let alone with lorries to a) make the houses, and b) increased vehicles on the road if the developments happen. It will make the roads unsafe.

There is a distinct lack of secondary school spaces in this area, even if there are enough primary spaces. The far end of addingham is already out of Ilkley grammar school catchment. More dwellings in ilkley planned, and further planned in central addingham are only going to devalue these currently standing larger family homes further.

I’m opposed to building on green belt when there are plenty of other brown belt sites throughout the West Yorkshire district, these need to be explored first and foremost before proposing building on land where a very established habitat has developed.

Object

Representation ID: 21043

Received: 22/02/2021

Respondent: Joseph DeLaureal

-This proposed development is inappropriate.
-Road safety - The area is already experiencing difficulties with heavy vehicle traffic and frequent disregard for established speed limits.
-Impact on local amenities / infrastructure / medical facilities. The commercial area of Addingham is not within easy walking distance for most people.
-Impact on primary school.
-Drainage issues are already a problem in that area and additional housing would certainly exacerbate the situation.
-Our green areas are under pressure and further major house construction would be detrimental to the environment and the wellbeing of all villagers.

Object

Representation ID: 21158

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Jake Witherington

Addingham and the surrounding towns do not have the infrastructure to support all of these proposed buildings. It is not sustainable to keep adding dwellings into this part of the village which already has tight roads packed with vehicles.

The current drainage system cannot cope with the existing number of houses in this area.

All these proposed sites are on green field sites if not green belt and have a wealth of wildlife and flora and mature trees which should be protected.

There must be many alternative brownfield sites in the Bradford district that could be used. All these proposed sites are close together in an area which is enjoyed by walkers and local residents.

Object

Representation ID: 21175

Received: 22/02/2021

Respondent: Shannon DeLaureal

-This proposed development is inappropriate.
-Road safety - The area is already experiencing difficulties with heavy vehicle traffic and frequent disregard for established speed limits.
-Impact on local amenities / infrastructure / medical facilities. The commercial area of Addingham is not within easy walking distance for most people.
-Impact on primary school.
-Drainage issues are already a problem in that area and additional housing would certainly exacerbate the situation.
-Our green areas are under pressure and further major house construction would be detrimental to the environment and the wellbeing of all villagers.

Object

Representation ID: 21374

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Julie & John Jenner

Addingham village services are already overstretched.

Recent housing developments have sold for £350k-£800k - they do not serve young people. They have failed to honor promises to sponsor school places etc.

AD1/H
AD2/H
AD6/H
AD7/H

All the above share access issues through busy residential streets. This area has seen significant recent and ongoing development with subsequent drainage issues into Town Beck.

Object

Representation ID: 21390

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs A V Burns

These sites are valuable Green Belt land and provide natural habitats for a variety of animal and bird life.

So many new houses will spoil the character of our village at this location and will bring many additional issues:
- Increased cars and traffic
- hazards for pedestrians;
- primary schools already over subscribed;

Object

Representation ID: 21665

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Sharon Thompson

Addingham is a small service centre – does not have infrastructure to support additional housing.

Green Belt exceptional circumstances not demonstrated.

Within overlapping zones of the North & South Pennines SPA/SAC. Area is important wildlife habitat including rare birds. It attracts wildlife and is important roosting/foraging area for bats.

Site over 1 mile from the village centre – not a sustainable location. Residents would drive to reach amenities, adding more car journeys to the overcrowded roads. Primary school is not within reasonable walking distance meaning more cars doing drop off.

Field acts as soakaway for run-off from the moor. No sewers or surface water drains. Housing will increase flooding. Existing infrastructure cannot cope - would need a major upgrade.

A65 runs nearby – not conducive/compliant with Council’s wellness policy.

Plenty unused brownfield sites in Bradford, close to urban areas, employment and transport that are more suitable. More sustainable sites also exist in Addingham.

Approach to consultation amounts to abuse of due process. Neighbourhood plan disregarded.

Object

Representation ID: 21867

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Richard Curtin

Object to the site for a number of reasons:

1. Due Process: consultation time is short. Residents not aware of plans.

2. Housing Demand: no evidence to demonstrate demand for the housing supply in Addingham.

3. Sustainability: site in excess of 1.4km from village centre causing people to drive. Extra traffic will increase congestion, pollution and emissions. Will be further crowding in Ilkley for those using the train for commuting. Limited employment and recreation services.

4. Transport links are poor – no rail network and infrequent buses.

5. Green Belt: release of site does not meet NPPF policy test of “exceptional circumstances” - sites not in a sustainable location.

6. Brownfield sites: plenty of unused, brownfield sites that could be utilised.

7. Schools – Ilkley Grammar School oversubscribed with no room for expansion. Suggestion of transporting children elsewhere is not acceptable – will result in longer days, loss of sense of community and impact on wellbeing/mental health.

Object

Representation ID: 23865

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mary Tierney

Object for the following reasons:
-Concerns over consultation process.
-Village deserves a clear outline of where housing numbers come from. Data not supplied to support need.
-In area of overlapping North & South Pennine Moors SPA/SAC. Foraging areas need to be considered.
-Location is too far from village centre - people will have to drive, going against sustainability. No cycle paths and more than 400m for a bus stop. Not sustainable when so many more suitable brownfield sites exist close to urban areas, employment, transport and retail.
-
-Flooding is a massive problem. Drainage system will not support more development until remedial action has taken place.
-Noise from A65 – not conducive/compliant with Council’s wellness policy.
-A65 is busy with many accidents. Bringing more traffic increases accident risk. Addingham lacks public transport to places of employment.
-School over-subscribed.
-NPPF Green Belt “exceptional circumstances” policy test not passed – they do not exist.

Comment

Representation ID: 24228

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

Is this site actually available? I understand this site belongs to Addingham Parish Council.

Object

Representation ID: 24610

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Rachel Whitham

-Greenbelt land
-Many brownfield sites within district
-Disproportionate figures between Bradford and Ilkley.
-Impact on landscape, setting and character.
-Approach to village will drastically change
-Impact of views from the The Dales Way footpath
-Site separates the village from the bypass when looking from further distances.
-Local Service Centre due to not being able to provide a full range of services within the village.
-Limited employment opportunities, limited leisure services and only basic shops and services.
-Site is not close to amenities.
-The primary school is at a distance to the site encouraging use of car.
-Large numbers commute to train station/work by car
-The trains to Leeds are full
-Flood risk issues locally and downstream in Ilkley
-Improvement should be undertaking development.
-Impact on South & North Peninne Moors SAC/SPA
-Impact on wildlife - curlews.
-Impact on wildlife corridors, providing habitats.
-Capacity of IGS limited for local children
-No additional secondary school capacity proposed despite several large, proposed developments.
-Road Infrastructure - the A65 is often overwhelmed by the volume of traffic

Object

Representation ID: 24911

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Catherine French

Object to plan for 81 new houses at “top” of Addingham off Moor Lane & Moor Park Drive, for 4 reasons:

Existing access comes from Silsden Road. If this were to continue, it would lead to more queuing and increase safety concerns at a busy junction. Sites are a mile from the village centre with limited public transport, meaning most journeys will be by car;

Recreation ground on Silsden Road has significant drainage issues, which have worsened since recent development. Current drainage system cannot cope. Further developments will add to risk of flooding.

Recent new housing seems to be overcrowded with little room for outdoor space, placing extra pressure on the recreation ground/local amenities. 81 more households would seem to require significant due diligence to ensure adequate recreational amenities as well as educational facilities.

Increase in dwelling numbers seems very significant on an already well-developed estate, with the significant loss of Green Belt.

Object

Representation ID: 25072

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Creative Sales Team Ltd

Four sites mean potentially 160 additional vehicles in the area causing potential danger to residents.

Will severely impact on village’s character/appearance. Area supports wildlife, including Curlews. Within overlapping zones of North & South Pennines SPA/SAC. Foraging bird areas not taken into account. NPPF Green Belt “exceptional circumstances” test not passed. Will impact on long distance footpath.

Drainage/flooding is an issue. Existing system is dated and cannot cope now, resulting in flooding. Significant investment to drains would be required.

Allocation of 175 properties is more than previously agreed – how was this calculated? It is out proportion to the settlement’s size. Many brownfield sites the Bradford area that are far more sustainable option.

No employment and few amenities. School is over-subscribed. Due to location, children are unlikely to walk to school, meaning more cars using congested roads.

No railway station. Nearby stations do not have adequate parking to meet current/future demands. Buses are unreliable and stop is distant from the sites.

Object

Representation ID: 25242

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Andy Thompson

•Addingham is a service centre and does not have the infrastructure to support large numbers of additional houses especially on the west.
•Site is within the SPA/SAC zones and used for foraging by Curlew, Barn owls and is a habitat for other wildlife.
•The tree lined nature attracts hedgehogs. The quiet roads allow easy passage.
•Bats feed amongst the trees. The lack of lighting from streets is beneficial to this protected species.
•Given the distance/steepness from the village centre most people would drive to access amenities including the overcrowded school making the site location unsustainable. Site is more than 400m from a bus stop.
•Turner Lane field is constantly wet/acts as a soak away for water running off the moor. Water runs off Turner Lane when it rains ending up in the becks flooding the village. There are no sewers or surface water drains on Parsons Lane. More houses will increase levels of flooding in the village. Surface water/foul water drainage systems would need major upgrade to meet the capacity of planned housing.
•Noise from the A65 bypass and proximity to new housing would not comply with the Council’s wellness policy.
•There are plenty of Brownfield sites in Bradford close to urban areas, employment and transport and therefore more suitable for development. There are sites in Addingham, such as the Old School site which was originally designated for 35 houses. This site is overgrown scrub land and close to the village centre and could be rejuvenated.
•Exceptional circumstances for releasing Green Belt sites do not exist locally.
•The Parish Council have stated there are no plans to build on this land.

Support

Representation ID: 26531

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Alan Taylor

I support this site; it is not Green Belt or environmentally sensitive, does not affect village character, and due to its ownership, development can be controlled to ensure it delivers affordable housing or other homes to directly meet local needs.

Comment

Representation ID: 28605

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Environment Agency

Site in Flood Zone 1 ONLY
Mitigation should be set above the 1 in 100 plus cc level for the site as suitable for the proposed vulnerability classification (EA standing advice should cover this).

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.

For developments 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 possible the sites within close proximity to Flood Zones 3b, 3 and 2 may be subject to future risk identified within the SFRA (to follow) which may affect its allocation or how development should be sequentially laid out on the site.

Consideration must be made to making space for water and providing betterment in terms of flood risk management where ever possible.

Object

Representation ID: 29505

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Emily Fox

•Volume of traffic generate from development is unsustainable. Moor Lane is already busy with cars from Turner Lane, Moor View and Moor Croft using it. Further development needs to allow for alternative access.
•Currently traffic control is a 20mph limit which is ignored. No supplementary measures in place to control speed on Moor Lane and there is been an increase in speeding since the completion of developments at Moor View and Moor Croft.
•Growing number of parked cars on Moor Lane making it difficult to pass. Development at 1b-1f Moor Lane has created a pocket of congestion and a blind spot. Risk of accidents is going to increase with the increase in traffic.
•Developments at Moor Lane and via Moor Lane have not provided sufficient parking leading to parking on the roadside. Adequate space for multicar households needs to be provided.
•Moor Lane/Turner Lane are popular walking locations. There is no pedestrian footpath at the top of Moor Lane nor beyond the access to the recreation field on Turner Lane.
•The increase in vehicles will significantly increase noise/pollution.
•Developments will mean the loss of Green Belt. It will fill in green spaces and considerably impact on the character and appearance of the village from the west.
•Developments will see the loss of trees which screen/improve the appearance of the village.
•Current drainage system unable to cope. During heavy rain water travels down Moor Lane depositing debris. Loos of the fields raises flooding concerns.
•The existing culvert between Moor Lane/Moor Park Drive already at capacity. Damage from water repeatedly emerging from culvert and breaking through the pavement is seen at Moor Lane under Skipton Road.
•Fields are an untouched sanctuary for small wildlife. Development will result in loss of habitat.
•Sites are a mile uphill from the centre of the village. There is limited access to public transport. All journeys to local amenities will be may by car increasing congestion, pollution, risk of accident and injury.

Comment

Representation ID: 30029

Received: 16/02/2021

Respondent: Ian Benson

We can see the logic of this site and provided that suitable conservation measures are taken, its proximity to the bypass would make it an acceptable development site.

Whilst we accept that the development of any one of these site is acceptable, we would question the development of all of them as the cumulative impact would, we feel, be too great.