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

Object

Representation ID: 5083

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Joseph Sewell

1. Too much traffic in the village
2.the village is too small, poor infrastructure.
3. we need to protect our greenbelt in wharfedale that is why people visit us and like to walk here.
4. no trainline
5. always have to get in your car not good for the environment
6.we have nature and wildlife because we are rural dont spoil it.
7.no jobs, i have to go out of the village to work.
8, not much to di I have to go to Ilkley and Leeds to meet friends

Object

Representation ID: 5108

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Simon Flather

I object to this site because:
It is green belt
It is over 400m from the nearest bus stop making it unsustainable - there are no rail links in the village and the level of public transport is low
The site is hard to access given the fact that traffic will have to go up the main street which already struggles with the existing traffic flow - an extra 49 dwellings would cause a significant increase in traffic flow
It is also a long way and uphill from the village center
It is close to the South Pennine Moors SPA/SAC and development would have an adverse impact on wildlife
The proximity of the bypass will have a negative impact on mental health
There are few job opportunities in the village and local schools are full
There are many brownfield sites within the area which have better job opportunities/transport links

Support

Representation ID: 5138

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr C S Millar

I support additional housing in Addingham where it enhances the village. The village centre needs regeneration, with people walking to shop and use other amenities, bringing economic growth and strengthening the community. The village also needs affordable housing and it is important that such housing feels an integral part of the village (not tucked away out of sight) and has easy access to the primary school, doctor, dentist and other amenities. This site (AD3/H) fulfils these criteria and should therefore be a welcome development.

Object

Representation ID: 5272

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Suzanne Garside

Would impact negatively on the village

Object

Representation ID: 5434

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Andrew Coates

Agent: Rural Solutions

This is a site that has an identified capacity of only 21.3 dwellings per hectare. This is an ineffective use of land. Due to its topography/sloping nature and visible profile in the setting of Addingham, it is acknowledged that there is a need to mitigate impacts on the landscape character and conservation area. There are other sites, including AD/013, which can deliver housing that can be developed efficiently without compromising landscape character and the setting of Addingham historic core.

Object

Representation ID: 6036

Received: 01/03/2021

Respondent: Kathleen Smith

I object to the proposed housing developments on green belt land in Ilkley, Addingham and Burley in Wharfedale.

Apart from destroying the environment, are there plans to increase the infrastructure to accommodate the large numbers of residents who will occupy the houses. Our schools are full and the existing residents have difficulty getting an appointment at our doctors' surgeries.

The traffic through Ilkley is horrendous and parking is impossible at the weekends.

During the week people travel to Ilkley to take the train into Leeds or Bradford and park their cars on the roads outside resident's houses making peoples lives a misery.

If these proposals go ahead, no doubt in the future Addingham, Ilkley and Burley will become one if further development is allowed.

Please take into consideration the views of the people who live in these areas and reject any further development on green belt land.

Object

Representation ID: 6151

Received: 06/03/2021

Respondent: Helen Tordoff

Southfield lane which would be the access road is a narrow road on a corner with poor visibility and lots of cars parked. I am worried about the extra traffic as a risk to my children’s safety.

Object

Representation ID: 7818

Received: 05/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Jonathan White

Site needs protection and enhancement. It contains contain ancient hedgerows, and nesting, foraging and wading birds within a Special Protection Area for birds.

Object

Representation ID: 8142

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: CPRE West Yorkshire

We’ve not been able to visit the site ourselves but concerns have been brought to our attention by local groups in Addingham. In addition to the strategic level, we have noted these specific concerns which point to unsustainable outcomes from these allocations:

AD1/H - distance of the site from the village centre which is a deterrent to walking or cycling
AD3/H - not located near public transport
AD6/H - Only part of site within 400m of a bus stop with two services every hour; distance from the village centre will be a deterrent for walking and cycling

The sites proposed for Addingham, like many other sites across the district, are proposed to be built within green belt land and at a gross density as low as 16dpha on one site (AD7/H)

Object

Representation ID: 8577

Received: 11/03/2021

Respondent: Neal Cowan

Most sites proposed are on Greenbelt and residential development on it by definition would be harmful and should not be approved except in VERY special circumstances.

Sites AD3/4 do not reach the target for 35 dwellings/hectare if approved most houses including maximum affordable should be built here.

Lack of school places will force more traffic to commute outside the village

Comment

Representation ID: 9881

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Dr Carol Miles

AD3/H/ Main Street/ Addingham By-pass East I think that the proposed 49 houses are far too many:
• Car traffic from this extension to the existing estate would feed into the Main Street near a bend , increasing congestion and the risk of accidents
• It is important to preserve the medieval hollow way, the bird-rich hedgerows, the barn-owl hunting territory, and the quality of the beck at the eastern edge of the site.

Object

Representation ID: 11261

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Anne Eady

Wharfedale provides a green corridor through an urbanised landscape. Once developed in Addingham, Ilkley and Burley in Wharfedale, it will be changed forever. Wildlife must not be displaced.

Not necessary to build on Green Belt. Brownfield register shows Bradford has plenty sites, with other underutilised sites being considered before Green Belt. Urban/rural distinction should be maintained.

Eastern approach to Ilkley will be ruined by development of IL3/H. There are no exceptional circumstances for Green Belt boundary changes. Traffic pressure is a major issue – 300 homes will make it worse.

Use available office space for residential and look to locate housing closer to work places. Makes sense to reinvigorate cities and larger towns with housing and green spaces rather than countryside.

Plan should focus on quality of life for existing residents and workers rather than growth. Promises of environmental protection, mitigation schemes and better quality housing need to be kept.

Object

Representation ID: 12005

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Kelli Zezulka

I would like to formally register my objection to the proposed building plans in Ilkley (IL1/H, IL2/H, IL3/H and IL4/H), Burley-in-Wharfedale (BU1/H and BU2/H), and Addingham (AD1/H, AD2/H, AD3/H, AD4/H, AD5/H, AD6/H, AD7/8 and AD8/H), particularly those that are proposed on current green belt sites.

The current infrastructure of all three of these areas will not support further housing developments and the concomitant rises in population. The proposals would significantly change the character of these towns and the surrounding areas -- the Ilkley proposals and the Burley Sun Lane proposal, in particular, would devastate the local environment and wildlife.

None of this building should be allowed to go ahead, and no building should be allowed on green belt sites across the district full stop.

Object

Representation ID: 12933

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Eric Hemsley

Impact on the village community/infrastructure.
Traffic congestion/parking.
Traffic increases from tourists to Bolton Abbey.
Parking on Main Street creates difficulties in navigating through the village especially for buses.
Narrow road access to school.
Welfare of the villagers.
No businesses in the village to provide increase to local employment. Commuters drive to Ilkley and park to use the station. Ilkley is lacking in long period parking provision.
Schools - inadequate.
Extra healthcare facilities needed.
Impact on fauna and wildlife, deers birds such as owls, curlews, otters, loss of greenfields.
Need to reduce carbon footprint.
AD3/H Access will eventually lead into the Main Street and cause more congestion within the village, and the junction is close to a bend in the road where vision could be restricted in entering the Main Street.

Object

Representation ID: 12983

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Ann & Graham Bacon

Number of people: 2

Addingham is a "Local Service Centre” with a level of housing to satisfy local need mainly. The increase to 181 from 75 is totally unacceptable. The large use of greenfield sites will increase the burden on drains and roads. These are a major problem already.

We object strongly to AD1/H, AD2/H, AD3/H and AD4/H. AD5/H is a rich wildlife site which should be designated as such. The original 75 dwellings could have been accommodated in mainly brownfield sites which had been suggested by a local group who spent a lot of time. They were sensitive to the needs of the village.

Object

Representation ID: 13465

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: John & Lesley Hutchinson

Do not believe there is evidence of need to build 181 houses or anything approaching this number in Addingham.

All sites are Green Belt. NPPF states there should be “exceptional circumstances” before changing Green Belt boundaries and that inappropriate development is harmful to it and approved only in “very special circumstances”.

Council has not provided sufficient justification providing “exceptional circumstances” why sites should be considered or detailing “very special circumstances” for releasing them.

NPPF requires that before concluding exceptional circumstances exist, the Council should demonstrate it has fully examined all other reasonable options for meeting development needs.

Highlights the Council must identify a housing need requirement for a particular settlement, so that housing growth numbers can be justified. This has not been explored sufficiently. No evidence that Addingham’s housing need warrants releasing land for up to 181 houses. No justification that all other possible options have been considered.

Object

Representation ID: 14207

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Cherry & David Bartlett

Number of people: 2

-Conflict with BDLP seeing to protect green spaces and “minimises the use of Green Belt land”.
-Object to use of green belt sites
-If available, land should be used for sport and recreation particularly those at the west end of the village where such facilities are very limited or community orchards/ tree planting to be part of the Northern Forest/additional allotments.
-Prioritise brownfield sites in Bradford and empty retail premises in centres.
-Limited employment opportunities in Addingham.
-Lead to increase in commuting.
-Lack of public transport services
-Parking issues in Ilkley
-Green travel -no safe cycle routes between Addingham and other towns. These should be developed before any additional housing is approved.
-Education - capacity issues at Ilkley Grammar School
-Infrastructure - current water/sewage issues in Ilkley when the Wharfe floods.
-Internet - higher demand due to people working from home
-Concerns re assessment of effects on the sensitive local environment

Object

Representation ID: 16241

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Michael Nichols

Objection on following grounds:
- no justification for the number of dwellings proposed for Addingham;
- impact on local road network which is already congested;
- sites lie some distance from the village centre - village services are poor;
- infrastructure is inadequate / at capacity e.g. Ilkley Grammar school;
- flooding within the village centre / Town Beck
- landscape impact and impact on character of the village;
- impact on wildlife / area lies within SP{A /SAC 2.5 km protection zone

This is development is on green belt land - no justification particularly given the number of brownfield sites available in the Bradford district.

Impact on intrinsic heritage, archaeological and ecological importance with respect especially to its medieval history.

The “green wedge” between the St Paul's Rise area and the Big Meadow Drive area is a popular recreational area

Object

Representation ID: 16754

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Addingham Civic Society

Impact on Character of Village and the Conservation Area - AD3/H and AD4/H are portions of a much larger area including “Village Green Space” and known collectively as the “Sailor Fields” - see Addingham Village Design Statement June 2001 and the 2007 Conservation Area Appraisal and the Neighbourhood Plan.

Impact on Landscape and Landscape Setting of the Village – the villages landscape accord closely with that of the adjoining Yorkshire Dales.

Impact on Biodiversity - Virtually the entire village is within 2.5 km habitat protection zones for the South and North Pennine Moors SPA’s/SAC’s. The “Sailor Fields” area (including AD3/H andAD4/H) has heritage, archaeological and ecological importance with respect especially to its medieval history, the occurrence of ancient species-rich hedgerows, dry stone walls and its barn owl population. It is used as foraging ground for IUCN Red List threatened species - lapwing together with 33 other bird species.

Impact on Green Belt

Object

Representation ID: 17134

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Addingham Civic Society

1. The housing allocation has been increased from 75 (Partial Review of the Core Strategy 2019) to 175 in the latest Preferred Options proposal, representing an increase of 133%. There is no specific evidence offered for this increase, which is incompatible with Addingham’s status as a “Local Service Centre” and should be accommodated in less sensitive parts of Bradford’s area.

2. This proposed increase will result in the partial development of the “Sailor Fields” between the village and the A65 by-pass. It will destroy the linear nature of the village and the setting of its 129 listed buildings and monuments. It will also negatively impact the distinctive Dales landscape and bring new development into the South Pennine SAC/SPA Protection Zone. The Green Belt was established to protect the “Sailor Fields” and this important function was confirmed by the Planning Inspectorate and BMDC itself. No “exceptional circumstances” have been put forward for these Green Belt changes.

Object

Representation ID: 17528

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Thomas Tordoff

I am already concerned by the speed at which both residents and delivery drivers speed on the road when my children are outside and the addition of 49 dwellings (many of which will have multiple cars) greatly concerns me.

Also, the fact that it would be a loop road connecting to St Paul's Rise would turn it into a 'rat run'.

Addingham already feels so congested with cars

The school is already at capacity

On an environmental level, I am already aware of the risk of flood from water runoff. Adding more asphalt areas rather than green fields would only serve to compound the issue.

This particular area is also home to many animals such as Owls and bats.

This development on green belt land is not in keeping with the villager's wishes as outlined in our community neighbourhood plan and would only damage the character of the village.

Object

Representation ID: 18143

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Rachel Crolla

-I specifically object to these sites for housing development.
-Object to use of green belt pasture land for housing.
-Concern regarding the sprawl which will continue to spread further west of Southfield Farm until it fills all of this precious chunk of greenbelt land north of the bypass (A65).
-Bisected by two PROWs. These are the main walking routes of the village, along with allowing residents to access the Millennium Way, Addingham Moorside and Addingham High Moor/Rombalds and Ilkley Moor.
-Benefits of the land and PROWs to people’s physical and mental health.
-Report states, a wildlife haven with 'Mature trees and hedgerows along boundaries' This speaks for itself in showing you the ecologically diverse site.
-Impact on wildlife - barn owls, hares, other bird species, old hedgerows and trees.
-Setting precedent that green belt land is fair game for development.

Object

Representation ID: 19729

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr & Mrs D & H Allanach

Number of people: 2

I would like to record the following objections in connection with proposed building of houses on land designated as Green Belt in the Addingham area.

We are not in favour of allowing the building of houses on the green belt at Addingham, principally because this is against general government policy designed to prevent urban sprawl. The two proposed developments designated AD3/H and AD4/H are of particular concern as they would begin the process of “in-filling” the designated land between Addingham village Main Street and Addingham bypass.

Furthermore the construction of a proposed total of 181 houses in the locality will add to the traffic load in an already congested Addingham Main Street, and put pressure on over-streatched medical and schooling provision in the village.

Comment

Representation ID: 19876

Received: 01/04/2021

Respondent: Natural England

The site lies in proximity to the South Pennine Moors (Phase 2) SPA and has potential to lead to the loss of functionally linked land for SPA birds.

We welcome the approach taken in the draft plan, SPD and assessments to loss of functionally linked land.

The council has a copy of a model to identify the suitability of sites for SPA golden plover and recommend that allocations are screened against this dataset taking the following approach:

• Maximum Training Sensitivity plus Specificity (MTSS) layer: full survey for Golden Plover likely to be required. The WY Ecology Service SPA Bird Survey Methodology should be followed.

• Minimum Training Presence (MTP) layer or 10 Percentile Training Presence (10PTP) layer: scoping survey to determine if a full Golden Plover full survey required. A desk based survey may be sufficient for sites within the MTP whereas a walkover survey may be required for sites within the 10PTP;

• Not within an area of predicted presence: No survey required for Golden Plover.

Where loss of functionally linked land cannot be ruled out at this stage we recommend that allocation requirement text in the plan sets out survey and mitigation requirements clearly.

Object

Representation ID: 20051

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: 20067

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: 20130

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: 20323

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Nick Pennington

Once again this piece of land has boundaries characterised by mature trees, ancient hedgerows and traditional stone walls which would suffer catastrophically from development, however ‘sympathetic’.

The prospective increase in traffic occasioned by the threatened proposal of 49 new dwellings is unthinkable in this corner of the village. The land is Green Belt and this should be respected in the sense for which that term was originally coined by the early town and country planners.

Object

Representation ID: 20441

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Alice & Luke Lambert

Number of people: 2

AD3/H lies outside the Addingham settlement boundary and is an area defined as green belt its development is contrary to section 13, sub section 133 & 134 of the NPPF. Development would affect the village's historic importance and cause urban sprawl.

Its at odds with the village plan and the conclusions of Government Inspector Mr Pratt.

The field AD3/H is utilised by a number of European Protected Species which I have no doubt will be highlighted once a Habitat Phase 1 survey is carried out. The linear native oaks and important hedgerows which support an abundance of flora and fauna, will be impacted to such a level that they will lose all bio-diversity value.

Village infrastructure would unable to cope. Traffic through the village would reach unacceptable and potentially dangerous levels. Addingham Primary School, which has recently struggled with large year groups and class sizes, would be over-subscribed.

Object

Representation ID: 20445

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.