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

Object

Representation ID: 20762

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: 21256

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Dr. M.B.P. Phillips

1. Misappropriation of Green Belt:
-Contrary to Green Belt policy aims
-Important to retain vital/health-giving opportunities for accessing countryside and retain/enhance landscapes.
-Degrading it will affect current/future inhabitants.
-Retention will secure nature conservation interests and contribute to non-carbon future.
-Will be a matter of time if sites are developed, before argument is made to infill the fields in-between.

2. Misrepresentation of current state of Addingham:
-Description of Addingham is not recognised. It has a small number of shops/businesses, some of which contribute to traffic issues.
-Main Street is a “rat run” for traffic, which ignores speed limit, making it difficult for people to feel safe. New homes will add more cars.
-Co-op attracts constant stream of vehicles via Main Street. Housing will increase this.

3. Impacts on ecosystem & inhabitant’s wellbeing:
-One of the richest areas of fauna/flora and home to several rare/endangered bird species
-No evidence of coherent planning for protecting Green Infrastructure or delivering Wharfedale Greenway.
-Little thought given to increased traffic and pressures on schools.

Object

Representation ID: 24229

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

This site is within Green Belt. Planning Policy states that Green Belt should only be released for housing in exceptional circumstances. Policy SP5 –Green Belt and SP8 –Housing Growth are narrative statements which are subjective and are no justification for releasing this Green Belt site for housing.
Addingham’s Landscape Character would be greatly impacted if a large scale housing development was allowed and Green Belt policy states it is to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns which is how Addingham is defined.
There are also ecological and habitat concerns with this sites close proximity to the South Pennine Moors Special Protection Area.

Object

Representation ID: 24490

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Madeleine & Philip Nichols

Number of people: 2

I object to this site for a number of reasons:
This is development is proposed to be on green belt land and the council has not given any significant justification why they have proposed green belt land, especially given the number of brownfield sites available in the Bradford district.

Addingham’s character is defined by its natural setting amongst the countryside, and these proposals go completely against the defined local plan to protect the local environment.

It has intrinsic heritage, archaeological and ecological importance with respect especially to its medieval history. It contains ancient species rich hedgerows and contains a barn owl population. All of which will be effected greatly by any development.

In addition to this the current “green wedge” between the St Paul's Rise /Big Meadow Drive area is a popular recreational area for villagers to enjoy the many footpaths, wildlife and green belt area. Any development would negatively effect the area and further erode the green belt environment.

Object

Representation ID: 24611

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: 26487

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Gill Moon

Object to the number of houses proposed for building in Addingham. Too many houses will change the character of the village.

Comments, in particular, relate to AD3/H (49 houses). Concerned about the loss of agricultural land with mature trees & hedgerows; land which is currently in Green Belt. Are there are not other brownfield sites that could be used?

Access would be via Southfield Lane & St. Paul’s Rise. Would be a significant increase in traffic using Old Station Way, which due to parked cars is in reality one lane. The estates centred around St. Paul’s Rise/Southfield Lane have a mix of older residents and young families. More traffic will not enhance the neighbourhood or add to the quality of anyone’s lives. These roads will become a drive through to another estate.

There has been flooding in the village centre – could be exacerbated by building on agricultural land.

Object

Representation ID: 26532

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Alan Taylor

I object strongly to these sites, which are located in the Green Belt; development here would be extremely damaging to the historic character and landscape setting of the village, valuable assets which the LP itself sets out to protect. Development on these sites would also be contrary to the adopted Addingham Neighbourhood Plan which directs development to small infill sites which these are clearly not.

Object

Representation ID: 26536

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Harriet & Chris Truss

There are two site specifically we object to:

AD3 – This site in particular pulls traffic right into the heart of the village where congestion is already an issue. This is the largest of the proposed sites increasing the concern.

Object

Representation ID: 28175

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Oliver Wilson

Destruction of green belt.
Overstretched local demand for transport infrastructure and schooling.
Green belt should be preserved to keep land open and protect against urban sprawl. Green belt land around Addingham is the character of the village, its aesthetic appeal, for the wellbeing/mental health of its local inhabitants as well as helping to drive visitor/tourist demand.
No justification for the destruction of this natural asset given the number of brownfield sites that are available for development.
Proposals ignore approach put forward in Addingham’s Neighbourhood Plan.
Few local employment opportunities, instead Addingham serves as a commuter settlement.
No train station.
Only one small food store.
Additional road traffic/Traffic congestion.
Residential parking
Road safety, especially around the junction with Bolton Road in close proximity to the proposed access for site AD3/H via Old Station Way and St Paul’s Rise.
Ilkley is nearest train station, trains are full and car parking is stretched far-beyond existing capacity.

Ilkley Grammar school is at full capacity with significant access issues and no opportunity to expand.

Object

Representation ID: 28249

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Member of Parliament (Conservative)

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

Comment

Representation ID: 28606

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.

Support

Representation ID: 29416

Received: 29/03/2021

Respondent: Historic England

The site is adjacent to Addingham Conservation Area and close to several Grade II listed buildings, including Burnside Mill House. The development of this area could harm elements which contribute to the significance of these designated heritage assets.
The Heritage Impact Assessment for this site considers that if the field-edge planting was maintained and reinforced as part of any development proposal, development would not be visible from within the Conservation Area. The HIA concludes that development
of the proposed site would have a Negligible impact on the significance of the Conservation Area.
For the most part, Historic England would concur with this analysis and with the assessment of the degree of harm that the development of this site would be likely to cause. We do however consider that the mitigation measures could have provided further guidance regarding the form of development that is likely to be
acceptable on this site and minimise impacts on the Conservation Area, particularly in relation to the height of buildings, roofscape design and building material. Nevertheless, we would endorse the development considerations set out in the site pro forma for this
allocation.
As highlighted by the HIA, in allocating this site the Council must be satisfied that the fields within the Conservation Area to the north of the site remain viable farm land, will not otherwise risk degeneration to scrub if they become disused, or face increasing pressure for development. The same applies to the fields between
sites AD3/H and AD4/H.

Object

Representation ID: 29528

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Elizabeth & Tim Walton

Number of people: 2

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

Comment

Representation ID: 30032

Received: 16/02/2021

Respondent: Ian Benson

AD3/H AD4/H
Again, subject to suitable mitigation we can see the logic of these two developments. However, we concerned regarding the impact of residents generally on the remaining pasture fields (barn owls etc.), even if not developed. Also we have a suspicion of “mission creep” for further development of the fields between the two sites.

Object

Representation ID: 30063

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr J.H. Cove

Concern over sites AD3/H, AD4/H, IL1/H, IL3/H & BU1/H resulting in virtual ribbon development between Guiseley and Addingham. Creeping urbanisation is a major threat to the environment and damage those qualities that attract visitors and prosperity.

Maintaining open spaces and wildlife is fundamental to environmentally sound and sustainable development. Plan deviates from this.

Plan offers destruction of the Wharfedale environment with no clear benefit.

Support

Representation ID: 30073

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Clive Brook Planning

Support for sites AD3/H and AD4/H.

A unifying master plan approach proposed for totality of the landholding (inc. remainder of land between sites) and the enhanced quality of the environment, place and design which can be achieved via the proposals including:

• Provision of on site habitat improvements, particularly in 4 southern fields, Other habitat/biodiversity enhancements will be included subject to consultation with local groups, who hold valuable expertise and survey information having closely monitored species within the village locality. Natural England and the Yorkshire Wildlife Trust will be consulted. Approach is to form a mosaic of habitats with appropriate after management plans.

• A network of tree and hedge planting improvements along existing and new lines are proposed with appropriate after management.

• The northern three fields which make up the designated Village Greenspace area will primarily be improved as a parkland area to provide certain on-site recreation facilities.

Support

Representation ID: 30275

Received: 08/03/2021

Respondent: Ross Henderson

There are other developments planned in Addingham which are not greenfield in the greenbelt and I have no objections to these (AD2/H, AD3/H, AD5/H, AD8/H) as I recognise there is a need for additional housing.

Object

Representation ID: 30313

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Maire O'Donnell

AD3/H, AD4/H. these two sites have wildlife and heritage value. The village has already noted effects of recent building on birds, and here we specifically have curlew feeding areas and owl breeding and feeding in these fields.
In case we are accused of being 'NIMBIES', we are trying to protect and enhance the environment for people and creatures as part of countrywide efforts to create a safer and cleaner environment.

Object

Representation ID: 30326

Received: 13/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Margaret Austin

-Green Belt sire.
-Surrounded by ancient hedgerows and mature trees and AD4/H has a stream flowing through it. These features provide a highway for wildlife.
-Commonly seen in these fields are Barn Owls, bats, Sparrowhawk, Great Spotted Woodpeckers and Curlews. Curlews are on the red list of endangered birds, mainly due to loss of habitat. Many other birds also use these hedgerows and trees for shelter and nesting. Flocks of birds visit these fields to hunt for food including Starlings, Rooks, Jackdaws and migrating flocks of Redwing and Fieldfare.

AD3/H is adjacent to the medieval hollow lane and hedgerow on the northern boundary. Addingham already has a problem with surface water runoff in times of heavy rain leading to potential flooding in the village. Surface water runoff from more roads and 87 more driveways on the hillside will only increase this problem.

Object

Representation ID: 30330

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Geoffrey Paul

AD3/H is designated green belt and should not be considered as development site.

Object

Representation ID: 30335

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Mr David Austin

I object because sites AD3/H and AD4/H are situated within 2.5km of the Habitat Protection Zone for the South Pennine Moors SPA/SCA on the Wharfe Valley bird flyway.
AD3/H is bordered by an ancient hollow lane and hedgerow providing valuable habitat for birds.