AD3/H - Main Street / Addingham Bypass (East)

Object

Representation ID: 3996

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Robert Binns

Worsening of drainage issues. Limited employment within the village. Increased volume of traffic. Lack of capacity in schools. Loss of agricultural land. Lack of local amenities. Enviromental issues

Object

Representation ID: 4015

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Ilkley Clean River Group

Ilkley Clean River Group (ICRG) object to this plan because of the adverse impact the new houses and supporting infrastructure will have on river water quality.
The combined sewage and drainage system is already overwhelmed and these new buildings will directly lead to a degradation in water quality through more unauthorised sewage discharges directly into the river in Ilkley.
The Addingham at Low Mill CSO flows directly into a dry stream which is already a health hazard and the sewage from these additional houses will make that worse.
SuDS mitigation plans for run-off water in neighbouring Ilkley have been shown to be inadequate as there is currently a challenge on the adequacy of these plans at the new Moss & Moor Garden Centre.
Note: the Addingham sewage system runs into the Ilkley sewage system (which is already overwhelmed) so we also object to the plans for new houses in Ilkley.

Object

Representation ID: 4054

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs JENNY THOMSON

Road safety- too many cars already due to families with now grown up children, no where to park with only 1 space on drives. Families with smaller children moving in who wish to play out safely and this is becoming more of a concern. We already have a kids park that doesn’t fulfil children’s needs and with the current climate is busy at times. Internet is constantly an issue running slow. Local primary school does not have enough spaces and children have been turned away over the years so more houses would increase this problem. Which then follows onto IGS with more houses in Ilkley and Burley also planned how will all our children gain places locally? School buses are already short of places some children are made to stand on journeys from Addinghan to Ilkley which is completely unsafe.

Support

Representation ID: 4075

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Judith Ellis

I support this only because we have to have some houses somewhere. Since this field already has buildings on it, it's the least worst option.

Object

Representation ID: 4120

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Patricia Johnston

Development here will eventually result in the east - west sides of the village joining up into a sprawling estate. Development on this scale will overload local amenities - schools are already at capacity. Increased traffic density will represent a danger as development continues. The entire character of the village will be lost.

Object

Representation ID: 4248

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Catherine Binns

Worsening of drainage issues. Limited employment within the village. Increased volume of traffic. Lack of capacity in schools. Loss of agricultural land. Lack of local amenities. Enviromental issues

Object

Representation ID: 4256

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Julie Reid

Green Belt.
Site valuable for wildlife.
Large buffer zone of trees/hedging needed to protect residents from noise and pollution from the bypasss.

Object

Representation ID: 4265

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Jessica Penrose

This site has high value for wildlife, including barn owls which have nested in a field to the north of this site for many years. All the fields in the area are vital for foraging for barn owls, as well as for curlews. These fields, and the walls and hedgerows are historically important.

Object

Representation ID: 4320

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr A Idle

Based upon the total number of houses proposed, we would be concerned about the traffic flow into the Village's narrow Main Street. The Site appears to only offer the one access point from Southfield Lane/St Paul's Road down to Main Street. Wouldn't a better solution be to form a potential new access point directly from the Bypass seeing the Site appears to abut the Bypass?

Object

Representation ID: 4321

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Arthur Allsop

Taking away green belt, increased traffic through estate roads, taking away agricultural land. Only one shop and a very small doctors practice in the village. Major encroachment onto the green belt taking away one of the prime assets of the village

Object

Representation ID: 4327

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Jill Wilkens

I object because:
This is green belt land and will result in loss of habitat in a scenic and sensitive natural area, which will significantly impact natural views around the village.
The area is in close proximity to the moor; wild birds, bats and deer are frequently seen. The area provides a wildlife corridor and a significant habitat for wildlife.
The village school and medical centre are already oversubscribed. Children will have to travel to schools out of the area impacting their sense of local community. As public transport is limited, especially in the evenings, additional new housing will increase the already extremely high levels of local traffic.
There are many viable brown field alternatives, e.g. in Shipley and Bradford.
The development is non-compliant with the Addingham village plan and the Bradford council's own policy of a zero carbon future.

Object

Representation ID: 4336

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Sarah Davis

I object because:
This is green belt land and will result in loss of habitat in a scenic and sensitive natural area, which will significantly impact natural views around the village.
The area is in close proximity to the moor; wild birds, bats and deer are frequently seen. The area provides a wildlife corridor and a significant habitat for wildlife.
The village school and medical centre are already oversubscribed. Children will have to travel to schools out of the area impacting their sense of local community. As public transport is limited, especially in the evenings, additional new housing will increase the already extremely high levels of local traffic.
There are many viable brown field alternatives, e.g. in Shipley and Bradford.
The development is non-compliant with the Addingham village plan and the Bradford council's own policy of a zero carbon future.

Object

Representation ID: 4343

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jenny Irving

Absolutely far too many houses. The access would presumably from St Paul's Rise. An area heavily populated by families with children. The extra traffic, noise and air pollution would be unacceptable. Green space will be lost reducing the wild life and agricultural land.

Object

Representation ID: 4353

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Catherine Thompson

Once again no access to bypass. Traffic will have to go through the estate before going into the village. Residents park cars on the street in Addingham as houses generally do not have parking spaces. Although there is a bypass the Main Street is always very busy and busses, lorries, vans and farm vehicles use it.
Addingham and Ilkley have limited school places already.

Object

Representation ID: 4367

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Addingham Environment Group

We do not support housing on this site unless stringent conditions are met:

• Protect the integrity of the medieval hollow lane and hedgerow along the northern boundary by blocking vehicular access from Southfield Lane and leaving a wide wildlife buffer strip along the southern boundary line;
• Protect the small beck running down the eastern edge of the site by creating a riparian buffer zone along the entire length of the boundary;
• Conduct a detailed ecological survey to identify the impact of house building on the foraging opportunities for the wader populations associated with the S. Pennine Moor SPA to the south and the hunting range of the local barn owl population in the field to the north.
• Ensure that surface water from this site especially is managed using SuDS and not allowed to enter drains that ultimately join Town Beck on Main St.

Object

Representation ID: 4444

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Allan Moffat

The delivery of 49 dwellings at this location with no proper provision for the additional infrastructure and facilities or pressure on the local education system is frankly irresponsible.

Object

Representation ID: 4522

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Chris Oakley

Site AD3/H is not in a sustainable location.
Site AD3/H does not comply with Strategic Policies SP4 Location of Development or SP7 Planning for Sustainable Transport.
Policy SP4 states that the local plan will adopt an accessibility orientated approach to ensure development:
... Supports the use of public transport and meets minimum accessibility standards as set out in the plan in Appendix 6,
... Maximises accessibility by walking and cycling....
Site AD3/H does not meet the minimum accessibility standards for public transport set out In Appendix 6. The standards used by BCC for bus accessibility are out of date and the latest best practice document identified by BCC in Policy TR3 identifies a more onerous standard.
Site AD3/H is very poor in terms of cycle accessibility. Unfortunately cycle links from Addingham to Ilkley and other centres are inadequate and will remain so. The site is not in a sustainable location.

Support

Representation ID: 4563

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jillian Hargrave

Much better site.

Object

Representation ID: 4602

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Jim Turnbull

I object to the planned housing in Addingham area designated AD3/H on these grounds :
1. The designated area is at the end of an existing housing estate and there is only one road into/out of the area. There is already excessive traffic on the access road. Further building on this site will incur far too much extra traffic.
2. The infrastructure of the village, the village school and medical centre are already oversubscribed, and would not cope with the additional number of inhabitants proposed.
3 The area provides a safe habitat for significant numbers of wild life and provides wildlife a corridor away from the main centre of the village.
4. Public transport to the village is limited, particularly in the evenings. Because of this, the additional housing proposed would introduce much more traffic in already busy roads.
There are many brown field sites in other areas more suitable

Object

Representation ID: 4635

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Christine Smith

This site is not acceptable for development.
There is already a large housing estate around St Paul's Rise, vehicles from which funnel onto Old Station Way, to access Main Street and a route out of the village.
The junction of Old Station Way and Main Street has poor visibility due to a blind corner to the left and parked vehicles to the right.
A development of 49 houses proposed at this site could easily be the equivalent of an additional 100 vehicles accessing this route on a daily basis, putting unnecessary strain on the route, and the well-being of those already living in the vicinity.
Buses, even with existing traffic volumes, often encounter delays negotiating Main Street at this point.
There are a number of ecological considerations, including possible interference with the hunting range of the local barn owl population in the field to the north.

Object

Representation ID: 4661

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Matt Carr

I object on the grounds of; Highway Safety, Traffic Generation and Road Access; at least 98 extra cars would lead to noise and disturbance, accidents, risk and pollution; Lack of Infrastructure particularly in relation to drainage, sanitation and energy supply; old and inadequate cabling, numerous issues with drainage, water supply and sewage, leading to gardens being filled with effluence; lack of Public Transport Provision; Lack of School Places; Loss of Trees, Nature Conservation and Biodiversity; the proposals would see the loss of a large number of trees, leading to nutrient loss from the soil and increased risk of flooding; including the loss of many mature oak trees, very important insect habitat, (e.g. Purple Hairstreak, Orange Tip, Meadow Brown and Green Vein White butterflies (and their foodplants Cuckoo Flower and Hedge Mustard)); nesting and hunting Barn Owls (listed as a ‘red data species’ by Natural England); Tawny Owls and Pipistrelle bats.

Object

Representation ID: 4669

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Mary Jenner

I object to this proposed site. This is green belt and needs protection. These fields are hunting grounds for barn owls which have only recently made a come back in the area.
There are a number of established trees and a medieval hedge way that would be removed if these plans were successful.
This part of the village would not cope with the added traffic caused, especially the junction onto the Main Street. If council representatives spent some time witnessing the traffic already in this area they would note house unsuitable this proposed site is.

Object

Representation ID: 4684

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Craig Thomson

Old station way leading to St Pauls rise was intended to allow access to the estate developed in the 1970s and would not be suitable for access to new dwellings given the volume of additional traffic, let alone all the HGVs needed during any development. Many houses on the estate have insufficient room on their driveways meaning there are many parked vehicles parked on roadside. More houses, more vehicles leading to safety issues and noise and air pollution.

Alternatives must be looked at rather than build on green belt.

Object

Representation ID: 4700

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Tamsin Waddilove-Carr

I object on the grounds of; Highway Safety, Traffic Generation and Road Access; at least 98 extra cars would lead to noise and disturbance, accidents, risk and pollution; Lack of Infrastructure particularly in relation to drainage, sanitation and energy supply; old and inadequate cabling, numerous issues with drainage, water supply and sewage, leading to gardens being filled with effluence; lack of Public Transport Provision; Lack of School Places; Loss of Trees, Nature Conservation and Biodiversity; the proposals would see the loss of a large number of trees, leading to nutrient loss from the soil and increased risk of flooding; including the loss of many mature oak trees, very important insect habitat, (e.g. Purple Hairstreak, Orange Tip, Meadow Brown and Green Vein White butterflies (and their foodplants Cuckoo Flower and Hedge Mustard)); nesting and hunting Barn Owls (listed as a ‘red data species’ by Natural England); Tawny Owls and Pipistrelle bats.

Object

Representation ID: 4816

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr James Robinson

This proposed development will require a large area of land to be removed from Green Belt and you have not given ‘exceptional circumstances’ for it.
This figure and that indicated in AD4/H add significantly to the 175 figure which is unsustainable in terms of the Village’s infrastructure. Both developments are contrary to the principles set out in our Neighbourhood Plan and indeed your Local Plan !

- Site critical to the character of Addiingham, conservation area and landscape setting
-Impact on the openness of the greenbelt
-Impact on wildlife and biodiversity - SPA

Object

Representation ID: 4867

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Richard Walton

AD3/H & AD4/H do not represent the wishes of Addingham Residents as clearly shown in the Approved Neighbourhood Plan. Although they are two separate sites they are both with the same landowner and developer and cannot be regarded as small scale development or infill.

Object

Representation ID: 4897

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Gill Battarbee

Housing on this site is unnecessary for Addingham. The Neighbourhood Plan is explicit in recommending small infill developments, maintaining the character of the village and its green spaces. Utilising the infill sites would provide sufficient new housing stock.
Any development on this site would inevitably have a detrimental impact on the wildlife in the area. A barn owl population has been present on the adjacent site for many years and this field constitutes a significant part of its hunting ground. Other birds also forage here. The disruption and noise during building work would probably be sufficient to prompt the birds to leave.
To the northern end of the site is a medieval pathway edged with old hedgerows and is much used by residents and walkers. This may be irreparably damaged as an unintended consequence of the building work.

Support

Representation ID: 4909

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Robin Hargrave

This appears a reasonable site near to the village centre.

Object

Representation ID: 4913

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Lynda Robinson

Full Text:
This proposed development will require a large area of land to be removed from Green Belt and you have not given ‘exceptional circumstances’ for it. This figure and that indicated in AD4/H add significantly to the 175 figure which is unsustainable in terms of the Village’s infrastructure. Both developments are contrary to the principles set out in our Neighbourhood Plan and indeed your Local Plan !

Object

Representation ID: 4977

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Charlotte Flather

1. Too much traffic in the village
2. We dont have the infrastructure.
3. Not on the trainline
4.Drainage
5.No employment opportunities
6. We are a village, too much housing already it has changed so much in the 22 years I have lived here.
7.Mental Health is huge - people dont want to feel hemmed in or have overcrowding, green space is very important.
8.green belt is so important for people visiting /living in the wharfedale area.
9.young people want to live close to towns and cities therefore trainlines