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

Object

Representation ID: 5274

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Suzanne Garside

Any building of houses would impact negatively on the village

Object

Representation ID: 5437

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Andrew Coates

Agent: Rural Solutions

Development on this site is promoted at an inefficient 24 dwellings per hectare. This will not provide sustainable use of land

Object

Representation ID: 5731

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Alison Bradbury

Object on the basis of agricultural green belt land containing trees shrubs and wildlife. Development in no way supports local residents born in the village as the houses are not affordable for first time buyers. There is no capacity at the Addingham schools to expand and services such as doctors and dentist cannot support extra housing. Is there really a demand in a small village when there are brownfield sites needed for affordable houses. These developments are for the sole profit of developers and in no way support locals. The damage being done is irreversible and the need to preserve and protect the environment and this goes totally against what is needed for future generations. Places need green spaces. The developments in Addingham should not go ahead on this scale as they are not needed.

Support

Representation ID: 5800

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Christine Smith

If this site is developed it must be with the installation of SuDs to protect Coppy Beck and Town Beck.
Access to the site via Great Meadow Drive means not having to drive through Main St to exit the village, but rather to access the A65 via Silsden Road, which is a plus factor for a development on this site.
38 new homes probably means a minimum of 70 additional vehicles, which would deleteriously affect the village Main Street if they travelled along it.
Coppy Beck must be protected by a wide riparian buffer strip along the western boundary.
Wide marginal buffer strips should be created along the hedge bottoms to improve wildlife habitat and movement.

Object

Representation ID: 6037

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: 6700

Received: 23/02/2021

Respondent: Addingham Civic Society

Green belt
Far too many,Infrastructure will not cope-roads,schools etc.
Will make a huge block of houses with a small break which inevitably will be infilled.

Comment

Representation ID: 7367

Received: 06/03/2021

Respondent: Mr M Whitehouse

Heavy vehicles travelling in the direction of Skipton A65 are pushing out pollution as they come up the hill which is transferred via south west wind onto proposed AD4/H development.
Bypass is raised 10 metres approx above the proposed AD4/H development no adequate barriers are on the road side. Maximum speed is permitted.

Object

Representation ID: 7819

Received: 05/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Jonathan White

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

Object

Representation ID: 8006

Received: 08/03/2021

Respondent: Ross Henderson

This is a greenfield site in a greenbelt zone which goes against everything that we should be looking to do in order to achieve a net zero society.
Whilst there are still brownfield sites withing Bradford Council’s boundaries we should not be looking to irreversibly destroy the greenbelt
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: 8564

Received: 10/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Michael Bolton

The proposed destruction of two important parts of the valued landscape, used for recreation and as green corridors for wildlife, is in direct contravention of the spirit and the letter of the National Planning Policy Framework updated 19th February 2019. It also opens the way for the remainder of the site to be infilled with the total loss of this green landscape.

Object

Representation ID: 8578

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.

Comment

Representation ID: 9882

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Dr Carol Miles

AD4/H/Main Street/Addingham By-pass West Access by road to and from this site is less problematic than for AD3. However, I would hope that this proposed number could be reduced to well below 30 :
• There is a danger that this very suburban state will become disproportionately large
• Any new development should respect the concerns expressed by the Addingham Environment Group, which would require the preservation of boundary hedges and trees and the creation of a riparian buffer strip.

Object

Representation ID: 10022

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: 10890

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr John Moulden

AD4/H - too many houses proposed for these sites which will impact on the environment, biodiversity, wildlife and character of the village.

Object

Representation ID: 10892

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Irene Moulden

AD4/H - too many houses proposed for this site which will impact on the environment, biodiversity, wildlife and character of the village.

Object

Representation ID: 11262

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: 12006

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: 12548

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Tony & Sandra Dexter

A greenfield site that supports a wide variety of wildlife and habitats. Includes a stream, fed by rain water and drainage from the site, that is a wildlife corridor. Impact of 38 houses would severely detrimental to its continuation, specifically as proposed access would pass directly over it or destroy it. Site is frequented by bats, owls, curlews, roe deer, badgers, squirrels, tree creepers and many common birds along with Sparrow Hawks and hedgehogs. To lose this habitat would be an attack on wildlife and in turn on the village of Addingham.

Impact of development and the environmental disaster it would create, as well as infrastructure issue are not compatible with the neighbourhood plan. The Preferred Options plan rides roughshod over the views and representations of the community and should be withdrawn.

Object

Representation ID: 12984

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: 13466

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: 14208

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: 16242

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 SPA /SAC 2.5 km protection zone

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

Contrary to Policy SP7 as the site is a distance from village services - would not encourage cycling / walking & would add further cars to an already congested road network and village centre.

Object

Representation ID: 16693

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Margaret Widdowson

This land is uphill from the village centre and development here will very likely cause flooding as the land will not be able to drain effectively.

Object

Representation ID: 16755

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: 17135

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: 18144

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: 19730

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: 19877

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: 20052

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: 20068

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.