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

Object

Representation ID: 20131

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: 20324

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Nick Pennington

This field is not only Green Belt (which must be respected for the reasons set out above) but is immediately adjacent on its North side to Addingham Conservation Area.

It surely goes without saying that conservation areas are characterised not only by the buildings within their curtilage, but by their setting. In the present case, this part of the village’s Conservation Area would be irrevocably debased by neighbouring development in the form of new housing.

Here again too, we have mature trees and hedgerows along the boundaries which could not help but suffer from the development suggested.

Object

Representation ID: 20446

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.

Object

Representation ID: 20763

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: 21257

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: 21377

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Julie & John Jenner

Addingham village services are already overstretched.

Recent housing developments have sold for £350k-£800k - they do not serve young people. They have failed to honor promises to sponsor school places etc.

AD4/H - this is designated green belt, a very wet field, increased runoff will drain straight into Town Beck which has flooded properties on Main Street at great cost and inconvenience to residents. It is fed from springs and run off from the by-pass. The only access, from Big Meadow Drive already serves a large residential estate and, as can be seen from the Hall’s development a large amount of mud and clay makes the road dangerous and blocks the drains.

The junction with Silsden Road suffers from runoff from the Moorside and springs erupt regularly. More heavy traffic will make this much worse and more expensive. This has lead to Big Meadow being blocked by floodwater and inhibits access to the houses for residents and emergency vehicles.

Object

Representation ID: 24230

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: 24491

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Madeleine & Philip Nichols

Number of people: 2

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 area and the 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.

Contradict aims of Policy SP7 as the site located at a distance from village services which would negatively effect the use of cycling or walking and add further cars to an already congested road network and village centre.

Object

Representation ID: 24612

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: 26488

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Ian Grant

Object to plans for the development of AD4/H for the following reasons:

• It is Green Belt, bordered by large trees & hedges. Range of wildlife is regularly seen on the site – if developed it would be destroyed;

• Putting in roads, drains and other infrastructure would kill the large trees bordering the site. Risks heave damage to neighbouring houses as well as degrading the environment and wildlife;

• Building work will pollute the beck running along its border which will go into the R. Wharfe;

• Will mean continual heavy traffic on the only road onto the estate for more than a year. It is used by children going to/from school. Increase in noise, pollution and traffic will be intolerable for residents;

• Road will have big increase in traffic from new residents causing an increase in noise, pollution and traffic;

• Main Street, Addingham is already heavily used by cars. New development will only make this worse.

Object

Representation ID: 26533

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: 28176

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: 28250

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: 28607

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: 29417

Received: 29/03/2021

Respondent: Historic England

The site is partially within the Addingham Conservation Area and close to several Grade II listed buildings, including Ivy 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, which also includes the field to the east of the allocated site, considers that if the fieldedge planting was maintained and reinforced as part of any development proposal, development would have a limited visible impact from within the Conservation Area. The proposed site is
separated from the built form of the Conservation Area by a deep series of fields, and it is felt that development of the site would not adversely affect the spatial qualities or setting of the conservation area. Development of only the westernmost field of the two assessed would further lessen impact. The HIA concludes that development would have a Less than substantial harm of an acceptable level impact on the significance of the Conservation Area.
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. Historic England would also endorse the removal of the easternmost field assessed as part of the HIA from
the allocation boundary. 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 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: 29529

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: 30033

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: 30064

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: 30074

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.

Object

Representation ID: 30317

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: 30328

Received: 13/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Margaret Austin

-Green Belt sites.
-Both 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.
-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: 30331

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Geoffrey Paul

AD4/H is designated green belt and should not be considered as development site.