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

Object

Representation ID: 3911

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Peter Barton

This development will increase traffic down into the centre of the village especially at school times when the Main Street and Bolton roads become heavily congested.
The fields are part of a larger green belt area in the middle of the village that is a very important habitat for birds and wildlife .

Object

Representation ID: 3940

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Sally Emery

I object to the proposed removal of a green belt site in this AD4/H location for various reasons. First and foremost, Addingham is just not physically designed to sustain the additional number of houses. The infrastructure of the village is already inadequate and this would only worsen the situation. The school doesn't currently offer the capacity for more village children, already pushed over and above the limit in a couple of yearly intakes. This would also increase the volume of children hoping to go to IGS. The removal of ancient hedgerows and the threat to wildlife is a concern, not to mention the obvious point that building on greenbelt is not welcomed.

Object

Representation ID: 3957

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Roger Seddon

I object VERY STRONGLY to this proposal. It can easily be seen from the map that if this site and/or site AD4/H are developed, there will inevitably be future proposals and pressure for the development of the four fields in between them and also the five fields lying to the north. It would transform the area from a rural village into a big suburban housing estate.
The removal of AD3/H and AD4/H from agricultural use would threaten the agricultural viability of the remaining fields.
The rural aspect of the southern side of the village would be lost.
There would no doubt be adverse effects on local wildlife, as the width of the village, both north-south and east-west, would be greatly increased, interrupting wildlife corridors through the area.
The traffic density through the adjoining housing estate and the village would be excessive, along with its adverse environmental effects.

Object

Representation ID: 3997

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: 4016

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: 4061

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs JENNY THOMSON

The area is a busy traffic route with cars cutting through Addingham at high speed to reach Bolton Abbey. We have no speed bumps only 1 zebra crossing it’s only a matter of time before a child is knocked down. The road across from the park is lethal with children wanting to cross to the co op. Your plans do not enhance the conservation areas of our village in proposing removal of trees and fields habited by wildlife. Our extension could not go ahead without provisions for bat boxes so how can a whole area be wiped out and replaced by housing? There have already been problems in many areas with drainage and sewage when pipes just cannot cope with the amount of waste. The electricity has been a big problem over the last 4 months and on more than 2 occasions our street has been in complete darkness.

Object

Representation ID: 4123

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Patricia Johnston

As with my objection to AD3/H - 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: 4247

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: 4264

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Julie Reid

Green Belt.
Large buffer zone of trees/hedging needed to protect residents from noise and pollution from the bypass.
Currently used by a variety of birds and animals.
What would happen with the field drain (not mentioned in your plan)?

Object

Representation ID: 4319

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: 4322

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: 4337

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: 4354

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Catherine Thompson

Traffic has to go onto Big Meadow Drive increasing traffic onto Silsden Road. 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: 4368

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Addingham Environment Group

We do not support housing here unless stringent criteria are met:

• 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: 4445

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Allan Moffat

The delivery of 38 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: 4530

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Chris Oakley

Site AD4/H is not in a sustainable location.
Site AD4/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 AD4/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 AD4/H is very poor in terms of cycle accessibility. Unfortunately cycle links from Addingham to Ilkley and other major centres are and will remain inadequate. The site is not in a sustainable location.

Support

Representation ID: 4570

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jillian Hargrave

Much better

Object

Representation ID: 4577

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs J Whitehead

Greenbelt! What is the point of having green belts and then not protecting them?

Object

Representation ID: 4603

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Jim Turnbull

I object to the planned housing in Addingham area designated AD4/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: 4659

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Mary Jenner

As stated in the description, this plot has a number of mature trees. These need protection.
This site slopes down from the bypass, has a beck to the side and multiple springs. This area is key to preventing flooding further down the village. If built upon, my house will flood. Who will pay for the repair work?
The entrance to this plot is wholly unsuitable! Building works in the area have already caused considerable frustration and depression with residents. The roads are covered in mud and building debris which has caused damage. The access to the site will be narrow and along roads parked with residents cars. Very much the wrong place to build if Bradford want to make any money. The flooding will be horrendous.

Object

Representation ID: 4672

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Matt Carr

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: 4701

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Tamsin Waddilove-Carr

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: 4818

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 AD3/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 !

Large greenfield site in the Green Belt, adjoining long- established residential area of Street House Farm. Development would be accessed off existing road network through this large estate
The site is a large pasture used for sheep grazing, and along with site AD/3H forms part of the larger Sailor Fields area.
The comments included for site AD/3H (see doc Response 1) apply equally to this site, which is therefore also considered completely unacceptable for housing development.
Regarding wildlife and biodiversity, the well-wooded Coppy Beck runs along the back of the Street House Farm estate and forms the western boundary of the field. Good hedgerows and mature trees line the other boundaries. The biodiversity value of the site lies in these boundary features and the use of the site by foraging birds including waders associated with the South Pennine Moors SPA to the south.

Object

Representation ID: 4850

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Judith Ellis

We have to have some houses, preferably the already agreed 75 not double that number, so I have supported AD3/H since it already has a building on it. AD4/H has no buildings and is part of the ancient field system. Building would destroy ancient hedges and other wildlife. Your report says 'Main Street is now a quieter local throughfare ... village characteristics'. This will change for the worse if additional traffice comes down from this developement for the school, medical centre, memorial hall, churches, shops and other local amenities. It will destroy the very characteristics the planners are extolling. The South Fields are a crucially important green space between the village and the bypass and enhance the rural nature of the village, coming right down to one house width of the Main Street.

Object

Representation ID: 4904

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.
This site forms part of the hunting ground for the local barn owl population and feeding for ground foraging bird populations, there is also a stream habitat on its western edge. Surface water run off is already a problem that contributes to flooding in the village and water quality in the becks.
If this were to be built on what safeguards would be put in place to ensure the intervening fields would not be built over in the future, further damaging the nature of the village and its green spaces?

Support

Representation ID: 4911

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Robin Hargrave

This appears more reasonable and nearer to the village centre and without a hill.

Object

Representation ID: 4915

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Lynda 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 AD3/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: 4990

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Charlotte Flather

1.We are a village, no infrastructure to sustain more housing.
2. Not on the trainline.
3,No job opportunities
4.Traffic in the village has become a nightmare in the 22 years I have lived here, My father moved out because of it!!
5.People living at the top of the village are always in their cars, hence why the traffic is so bad.
6. Only a primary school, young people need to be in towns close to schools.
7. Poor transport links, no train station.
8. Only small convenience store, 1 doctors, 1 primary school
9. Green belt is important to the village, it is why people moved here and paid a premium to do so
10. other brownfield sites in Bradford and keighley close to transport links and jobs
11. too expensive for affordable housing, our own kids have to move out of the village to buy homes.

Object

Representation ID: 5084

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Simon Flather

Whilst the site provides a good proportion of homes needed in the plan the total number allocated to Addingham is too high. How was the number decided? Why is there a higher proportion allocated to Addingham compared with the number of existing dwellings than to other areas in the plan? The number of dwellings in Addingham will increase by over 10% if all are built.
The site has limited public transport access and is over 400m from the nearest bus stop thus making it unsustainable according to your own suggestions.
The site is far from the village and also uphill - this will result in a significant increase in traffic - the Main Street cannot cope as it is
Being so close to the bypass is not in accord with your own wellness policy
There are other brownfield sites in the area closer to jobs with better transport links

Support

Representation ID: 5140

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 (AD4/H) fulfils these criteria and should therefore be a welcome development.