AD4/H - Main Street / Addingham Bypass (West)

Support

Representation ID: 380

Received: 22/02/2021

Respondent: Mr Neil Godden

Whilst no-one in the village (myself included) really wants any new housing if it can be avoided and that some areas are more controversial than others it is undeniable that further infill to the bypass is the most logical answer to the requirement. It is logical and the access is already there. I would wish to ensure that all the footpaths remain in place as this is a primary route of access to the land south of the bypass for walkers.

Support

Representation ID: 615

Received: 01/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Eleanor Phillips

I support this proposed development that has good vehicular access.
I have concerns that there are currently insufficient primary school places to accommodate further development at any site in the village.

Object

Representation ID: 708

Received: 03/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Rachel Nickolds

Addingham is a beautiful village, mainly due to the surrounding countryside and the wildlife it encourages. I feel that building houses on green belt surrounding the village will not only take away from the beauty of the area, but will also drive wildlife out of natural habitats. There aren’t many places just a 40 minute drive from the city centre where you can take country walks and see curlews on a regular basis. I also fail to understand how this creates affordable housing when according to your report, the average price of houses in Addingham is £300k, which is almost double the average price of houses in West Yorkshire. There are surely more affordable/non-green belt locations to build houses? I can’t help but feel this is a greedy way of building more expensive and profitable houses, and feel disappointed that Bradford council would prioritise this over preserving the natural habitats.

Object

Representation ID: 1428

Received: 13/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Susan Robins

The development in this part of the village is already too large and out of all proportion

Object

Representation ID: 1581

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Daniel Keating

Too many new residences for village infrastructure to be able to support

Support

Representation ID: 1624

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Charlotte Jarvis

I support the devlopment of AD4/H, as I recognise more homes are needed, provided the path bordering the site is retained

Object

Representation ID: 1662

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Howard Griffin

strategy of BMDC is obvious as to build on these 2 fields, then next ones and then infill from main street. but..addingham already suffers serious flooding due run-off water ( not the wharfe) filling culverts on main street. Cellars have been flooded in all those that exist on main street at least 5 times in last 10 years. the culverts are too small and are broken, so that i believe there to be a serious risk of sink holes appearing on main street. Has the council done any ground survey work to find out the extent of this problem? try from the crown to the fleece.
I have no problem with extra housing IF the flooding problem is tackled and alleviated. by taking away fields and adding concrete roads/paths/driveways, it can ONLY increase the problem

Object

Representation ID: 1778

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Angela Hill

I do not wish to see more traffic on our roads nor the damage to the green belt.

Object

Representation ID: 1815

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Fiona Curtin

I strongly object to the releasing of such large amounts of greenbelt across the Wharfe valley. The main governments directive states that this should only be done in exceptional circumstance. These exceptional circumstances are in no way evident and have not been shared with the public.

Object

Representation ID: 1936

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jane Welby

Whilst not directly affecting me, my concerns are that the facilities including the schools in the local area do not have sufficient capacity for proposed residents and therefore would require more car use to use facilities outside the local area with an associated increase in environmental considerations.

Object

Representation ID: 2027

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Professor Rick Battarbee

Conditions:
• 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-east;
• Protect Coppy beck by creating a wide riparian buffer strip along the entire length of the western boundary;
• Enhance field boundaries by filling in gaps in the hedges and creating wide marginal buffer strips along hedge bottoms to improve wildlife habitat and connectivity;
• Ensure that surface water from this site is managed using SuDs to protect Coppy Beck to the west and Town Beck to the north.

On behalf of Addingham Environment Group
No further development to the east of this field should be allowed to maintain the broad green connection between the village and the Moorside

Object

Representation ID: 2078

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Graham Roberts

We are concerned regarding limited infrastructure eg schooling,medical,increased traffic congestion especially Main St. which is already bad despite the bypass.
However on this particular sight we have observed varied wildlife-barn and tawny owls,curlews and woodcock.
It would be a terrible shame if the Wharfe Valley became overdeveloped.

Support

Representation ID: 2236

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Malcolm Secrett

If development is allowed it will be important to:

• 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-east;
• Protect Coppy beck by creating a wide riparian buffer strip along the entire length of the western boundary;
• Enhance field boundaries by filling in gaps in the hedges and creating wide marginal buffer strips along hedge bottoms to improve wildlife habitat and wildlife movement along the hedgerows;
• Ensure that surface water from this site is managed by the installation of SuDs to prtect Coppy Beck to the west and Town Beck to the north.

Object

Representation ID: 2267

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Mr David Austin

AD4/H is situated within 2.5km of the Habitat Protection Zone for the South Pennine Moors SPA/SCA on the Wharfe Valley bird flyway.
It is the most important wild bird site in Addingham. Rough grazing is bordered by a stream on 2 sides with ancient hedgerows and mature trees. These form a wildlife corridor linking Town Beck to the woods adjacent to the A65, used by many small birds for nesting and feeding including Red Listed Tree Sparrows, Song Thrush, Mistle Thrush and Spotted Flycatcher. Bats and raptors like Barn Owl and Sparrow Hawk patrol daily.
The grazing is used for feeding by larger birds including Red Listed Curlew (see photo attachment1) and Starling. It is used by migrating birds eg. flocks of Redwing and Fieldfare and rarer birds such as Ring Ouzel (see photo attachment2).

Object

Representation ID: 2619

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Professor Robert Smith

This is a Greenbelt site, but at least its access point would probably mean that there would be less of a problem in the centre of the village from increased traffic as a good proportion of the cars would access the Bypass at the Silsden Roundabout. The recurring objections of poor public transport links from Addingham into Bradford or Leeds, compared to sites in Ilkley, Shipley etc, for any new housing in the village is a negative aspect of building on this site also.

Object

Representation ID: 2691

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Lesley Barnard

Is Bradford Met intent on destroying all of our green spaces?
Another addition to this already sprawling estate is pure madness.
More traffic through the village, trying to park outside our limited amenities, and adding to the congestion onto the A65.

Object

Representation ID: 2749

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: 2768

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mr William Johnston

As with AD3/H - allowing building here will lead to an eventual loss of more green belt as the east - west part of the village along the A65 are lost. The local services are not able to accommodate housing on the scale proposed for the village as a whole.

Object

Representation ID: 2781

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Elizabeth Rutter

Concerned about damage and impact on wildlife, and encroachment onto green space that provides habitats for a variety of birds

Object

Representation ID: 2835

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Mike Roberts

There are no exceptional circumstances to justify the use of this Greenfield Site, which is unsuitable for development for several reasons:
Excess Traffic Generation : Addingham is a commuter settlement with few employment opportunities and only a Primary School. There is no station and no direct bus service to Leeds/Bradford. 38 new dwellings would produce significant additional daily car journeys for work, education and retail reasons. The site is in an elevated position some way from the Primary School so this would generate further car journeys.
Access: The only access is along a residential road adding significant volume (see above) to a single junction onto Silsden Road.
Water Runoff and Sewage Volumes: Addingham's facilities are already overwhelmed during heavy rainfall. 38 houses would make things worse.
Local Plan: Such a large development is at odds with the Neighbourhood Plan of 2020, agreed by the residents and adopted by BradMet.

Support

Representation ID: 2870

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Christine Makowski

I support this site provided that ecological survey is undertaken and acted upon were necessary.And Drainage of the right type is used .
High Quality but affordable housing especially considering carbon,surface water using SuDs and biodiversity net gain

Object

Representation ID: 2930

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mr David Hunter

This site is both greenfield and greenbelt and is a long way from any of the facilities in the village meaning an increase in traffic would result from its development with all of the associated impacts of pollution and noise. It could also lead to further development of the fields to the East which would be disastrous.

Object

Representation ID: 3124

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Carl McKeating

I object to essential beautiful green belt pasture land for housing. If these two sites Ad3/4 get the go ahead, sprawl will spread further west of Southfield Farm until it fills all of this precious chunk of greenbelt land north of the bypass (A65). This would set a worrying precedent and impact views/village chacater from particularly the Yorkshire Dales National Park at Beamsley Beacon to the north and the moors west. This ancient pasture land, is bisected by two main walking routes out of the village . Increased traffic in the village centre on the narrow streets and pressure on the drainage, schools and road network are all massive onjections to this huge development going ahead.
These fields are a wildlife haven with 'Mature trees and hedgerows along boundaries.- ecologically diverse site that you are potentially destroying. Barn owls which can be seen here on a daily basis at dusk.

Object

Representation ID: 3155

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Prof Abigail Harrison Moore

I object on the grounds of; Highway Safety, Traffic Generation and Road Access; at least 60 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; the loss of a biodiversity of birds, animals, plants and insects.

Object

Representation ID: 3163

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Dean Harrison Moore

I object on the grounds of; Highway Safety, Traffic Generation and Road Access; at least 60 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; the loss of a biodiversity of birds, animals, plants and insects.

Object

Representation ID: 3255

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Keith Boothroyd

Unnecessary loss of green belt and creates water run off issue.

Object

Representation ID: 3491

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Shirley Walters

Too much pressure on infrastructure, roads, drainage school and loss of village atmosphere

Object

Representation ID: 3577

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Barbara Millar

There is already a large development at Street Lane with existing problems of one entrance from and exit onto Silsden Road. Additional traffic here would not help with the combatting climate change. Residents would use their cars as the site is too far from the centre of the village. Once in the car people are inclined to drive on to Ilkley.

Object

Representation ID: 3608

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Susan Drysdale

Loss of Green Belt land.
How can local services in a small village cope with all the extra population?
Where are secondary school pupils to go - Ilkley Grammar School is already oversubscribed?

Object

Representation ID: 3628

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Anna Robinson

This housing estate is big enough. It already looks like urban sprawl with the architecture of the properties. Further development will add to this. The village will expand too much and developing the site to this extent is not sustainable in terms of resources such as places in the primary school, community aspects etc. The village has been working towards being sustainable and more environmentally focused. This development is huge and goes against the ethos of what the aims are of most of the community. Developments need to be considerate to the environment, be sustainable and minimise impact on the local environment. The barn owls live in the field close to this development and this field is a key aspect to their hunting ground. The more housing that is built, the more we are going to lose this varied habitat and the ability to sustain an ecosystem for the wildlife.