AD5/H - Chapel Street

Object

Representation ID: 16832

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Lisa Hinds Mcconkey

This little Central Park of Addingham, this little oasis of peace and tranquility , is harder and harder to find these days , for humans and wildlife alike.

And especially being so near to town centre, makes it a golden unique gem , taking years to develop and minutes to destroy.

What is trying to be achieved here is no different than the destruction of the rain forest, albeit on a far smaller scale

Building new houses will give you one golden egg .

But keeping this wild , sunny ,green and peaceful sanctuary for people and animals ,will continue to earn and pay off dividends , and increase the value of houses in Addingham for years to come !

Even from a monetary point of view , a few more houses will yield a limited and finite profit that will quickly dissolve .

Object

Representation ID: 16961

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Sarah Mortimer

- impact on ecology/wildlife -this is a natural habitat for wildlife
- highway safety- a route many children walk to school . narrow road and extra traffic would make this dangerous.

Object

Representation ID: 17875

Received: 06/03/2021

Respondent: Louise Atkinson

Development unacceptable
-This Back Beck green corridor area is a beautiful tranquil place with an abundance of wild life.
-Vehicle access is a major problem.
-This area could also be used for wildlife and environmental education.
-This area should be kept as a village nature reserve.
-I strongly object to any development on this site

Object

Representation ID: 18142

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Rachel Crolla

-Main concern is road safety. Chapel Street is narrow with no pavement for half its length and the potential egress of any more cars down the one way Back Beck Lane.
-Potential entrance could be from School Lane, however is unsuitable, particularly the narrow lane linking the upper part of School Lane with the lower part where the junction of Green Lane, School Lane and Burns Hill is. This is an unusually narrow stretch with no pavement and no room to install a pavement. There is also a blind bend here.
-Safety concerns. 20mph speed bumps must go in on School Lane.
-Site could easily be much better developed as a nature reserve, green space or park. It is already reverting to nature and is well loved and used by local people.
-Concern regarding flooding. Back Beck has flooded spectacularly several times in the last few years.

Object

Representation ID: 18239

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Dr Glenn McConkey

The site should be preserved as a wildlife reserve.

The importance of maintaining areas as wildlife reserves in villages and towns is high in order to save our diversity of flora and fauna. Wildlife is dwindling and particularly threatened by climate change; maintaining habitats as reserved spaces in villages are valuable to preserve species.

This area of land has undergone ‘rewilding’ and is the richest site in Addingham for wildlife - the protected butterfly White letter hairstreak has been observed at this location as well as multiple other valuable bird and butterfly species such as meadow browns and small coppers.

Further, the bee population is threatened in the UK - this site represents an area important for maintaining this pollinating species.

The multi-utility of this space for residents to walk, children to play, and dog-walking in addition to preserving the wildlife is an ecological friendly and winning combination.

Object

Representation ID: 18717

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Susan Powls

Number of people: 2

- increased traffic on Sugar Hill
- this small lane is used by many walkers and dog walkers

Object

Representation ID: 18760

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: John Crellin

-Impact on wildlife habitats at this location,
-Infrastructure and access. Five dwellings is a small gain when measured against the impact from the necessary expansion of road and drainage systems and other infrastructure support in what is a remote and secluded site,
- What possible benefits could such a development bring to the community or to Bradford as a whole?

Object

Representation ID: 19070

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Paul Harris

-Devastation caused by development on such a sensitive site for 5 houses does not make sense.
-There have been less sensitive site suggestions put forward which have been ignored
- Impact on infrastructure to accommodate more people

Object

Representation ID: 19820

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Gill Witherington

I object to all further house building in Addingham but have had to concentrate on the areas most affecting myself with my objections. However, I would like to add my objection to Proposed site AD5/H which is the site of the old first school. This area has re-wilded over the years and is extremely rich for wildlife and should not be destroyed and is a quiet area of the village. Access is not feasible and not suitable for further traffic and alternative routes for access would impair the character of the area. This site should become a village wildlife site.

Object

Representation ID: 20015

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Stewart Bannister

•We have experienced general flooding in the area and despite mitigating actions this is still an ongoing issue. More housing will create bigger future problems
•The site is close to and falls within the protection zone for the SPA/SAC. There are a number of threatened bird species and the field is used as an important wildlife corridor and has been rewilding in a very natural way over a number of years.
•Bats regularly fly around the proposed site and nest both on and close by to the site. The site is a major source of insects on which the protected bats feed.
•As a significant green space in the centre of the village this supports the Bradford Council wellness aims and policy.

Object

Representation ID: 20053

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: 20069

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.

Object

Representation ID: 20132

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: 20141

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Richard Hindle

I share AEG's strong opposition to the development of the old school site (AD5/H), on environmental and traffic grounds, and I oppose development of the Hunterlands site (AD7/H) for housing.

Object

Representation ID: 20325

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Nick Pennington

From the Council’s own Site Description: “The site has a degree of colonisation / seeding of vegetation……..and is enclosed by woodland and hedgerows.”

This, a particularly rich wildlife habitat, would be destroyed by any building on this piece of land. As if that were not enough to quash any possibility of development, the latter would necessitate the creation of new traffic access facilities along the already very narrow – and historic - School Lane and/or Chapel Street.

The deleterious effect on the Conservation area, and at least one Listed Building, in this corner of the village would be devastating

Object

Representation ID: 20378

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Michael & Rose Smye

Number of people: 2

• The proposed housing will increase the number of children living in the village - there's no mention about increasing the school capacity to accommodate these new families. The primary school is already struggling to accommodate all the village children. Ilkley grammar school is already operating at full capacity and has already had to limit the catchment area in order to manage numbers.

• Location AD5/H is a site very rich in wildlife and by building even one house it will destroy a number of habitats. The access road to this site currently has a low volume of traffic and the school children who walk to school feel safe. However by building houses and therefore increasing vehicle traffic it will increase air/noise pollution and make the road less safe for the children.

• There are also concerns raised about the drainage around moor lane and increasing the flood risk.

Object

Representation ID: 20447

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: 21014

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Rebecca Carter

- challenging access to the site. Potential access at School Lane very problematic. Impact on allotments, and snicket. Need to bridge a stream and impact on highway safety.
b. Back Beck Lane is used as the main walking route for children going to school. Impact on highway/pedestrian safety
c. Majority of the site is greenfield and an important wildlife haven.
d. Access along Chapel Street, is equally challenging. with no possibility of expanding the road .
e. There are alternative site where there is better access.

Object

Representation ID: 21156

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Jake Witherington

Addingham and the surrounding towns do not have the infrastructure to support all of these proposed buildings. It is not sustainable to keep adding dwellings into this part of the village which already has tight roads packed with vehicles.

The current drainage system cannot cope with the existing number of houses in this area.

All these proposed sites are on green field sites if not green belt and have a wealth of wildlife and flora and mature trees which should be protected.

There must be many alternative brownfield sites in the Bradford district that could be used. All these proposed sites are close together in an area which is enjoyed by walkers and local residents.

AD5/H has rewilded over the years and is extremely rich for wildlife and should not be destroyed and is a quiet area of the village. Access is not feasible.

Object

Representation ID: 21378

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.

AD5/H this site is of significant importance to residents of the village as a proposed site for a nature reserve.

It is isolated with no road access from any point in the village. Chapel Street and Sugar Hill are single track without passing places.

Green Lane and School Lane are narrow, residential and already busy. Back Beck Lane serves the school, is one way only and unsuitable for traffic. It has recently collapsed into the beck.

The abutting beck regularly over tops into this site.

Object

Representation ID: 21495

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Margaret Longden

This is quiet corner of the village with extremely poor road access, which makes it a safe walk to the primary school for a lot of children, a lovely place for a walk for the many village people who use it and the actual site is full of a wide variety of plants, animals and birds increasing annually.

Even five houses would have a great impact on this site and the necessary improvement to access for cars would have an effect out of all proportion to the small number of houses proposed.

This site should be completely protected and in our very active and community minded village, there are many people who would care for it and see its wildlife cared for and enhanced.

While there is an acceptance that we must have some houses in Addingham, this site is special and must be left alone.

Comment

Representation ID: 24231

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

There are concerns about any impact on the Conservation Area and also regarding drainage issues.

Object

Representation ID: 24497

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Madeleine & Philip Nichols

Number of people: 2

-Safety of Pedestrian and children - many streets are narrow. Any development of the site will increase traffic on all 3 roads with or without an additional access route. This will create an unacceptable amount of danger and risk to pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders.
-Flooding - This site is at risk of surface water flooding with history of flooding. Any new development should be focused on areas at a lower risk of flooding in line with SFRA.
-Impact on natural wildlife habitat / unofficial nature reserve
-Impact on village Character
-Ultimately this site is vastly unacceptable for development.

Object

Representation ID: 26537

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Harriet & Chris Truss

There are two sites specifically we object to:

AD5 – The objection to this site is due to the access to the site via School Lane, and the fact there is no alternative suitable access. School Lane which is part of the quiet and safe back access down the village joining up with Back Beck Lane. Many children take advantage of this area for this reason. The increased weight of the traffic would change the nature of this part of the village and the unsuitable current nature of School Lane for the increase make the proposed site unsuitable.

Object

Representation ID: 27551

Received: 13/03/2021

Respondent: Margaret Norris

I would like to express my concern regarding the proposed build of five dwellings on the site of the Old First School, Chapel Street, Addingham, ref: AD5/H.

Since the closure of the school the area has re-wilded and has become home and shelter to a large variety of wildlife, I therefore feel that it would be an asset to the community if it was retained as a wildlife sanctuary.

Secondly, if left wild it would form an integral part of the green/blue infrastructure corridor which links the green spaces in our village to the open countryside.

The proposed access to the area from School Lane would be very damaging to the environment.

Object

Representation ID: 28318

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs G. Milburn

I disagree with proposed plans for development AD5/H for 5 houses on the grounds of:

• I would agree with affordable housing for the youngsters of the village, for even a bigger development of more moderate accommodation;

• Access for pupils of Addingham Primary because of Covid 19 access/exit uses bottom end of Back Beck Lane on a daily basis. I feel children’s safety should be our main priority

• A nature reserve would involve locals to look after this site.

Comment

Representation ID: 28608

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.

Object

Representation ID: 29418

Received: 29/03/2021

Respondent: Historic England

The site is located adjacent to the Addingham Conservation Area and close to the Grade II listed George Oates Greenwood Mausoleum. The development of this area could harm elements which contribute to the significance of these designated heritage assets.

Before allocating this site for development:
(1) An assessment needs to be undertaken of the contribution which this site makes to those elements which contribute towards the significance of the Listed Buildings in its vicinity, and what impact the loss of this undeveloped site and its subsequent development might have upon their significance.
(2) If it is considered that the development of this site would harm elements which contribute to the significance of the Listed Buildings, then the measures by which that harm might be removed or reduced need to be effectively tied into the Plan.
(3) If, at the end of the process, it is concluded that the development would still be likely to harm elements which contribute to the significance of these Listed Buildings, then this site should not be allocated unless there are clear public benefits that outweigh the harm (as is
required by NPPF, Paragraph 195 or 196).

Object

Representation ID: 30034

Received: 16/02/2021

Respondent: Ian Benson

A totally unsuitable site, access from Chapel Lane is very poor and entirely unsuitable. The plan mentions access from School Lane and mentions that School lane would need to be improved to achieve this, no mention is made of exactly what improvements to School Lane might be needed. No consideration has been made of the relative cost, practicality and disruption caused by such an access for just 5 houses. Environmental impacts on Back Beck and surrounding woodland habitat of building a bridge etc. would be significant.

It mentions further development of site SHLAA 11B – but this is not in the plan.

If 11A entails further development of land to the north of Back Beck, the same arguments apply, access is very poor, any development and access to it would have a significant impact on both the Beck and fringe woodland not to mention residents of School Lane and the top end of Burnshill. We suggest that the whole of this areas could be designated a “wild space” to enhance the biodiversity of the village.

We suggest that this site be removed from the plan.

Support

Representation ID: 30276

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.