AD7/H - Turner Lane/Silsden Road

Object

Representation ID: 21177

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Shannon DeLaureal

-This proposed development is inappropriate.
-Road safety - The area is already experiencing difficulties with heavy vehicle traffic and frequent disregard for established speed limits.
-Impact on local amenities / infrastructure / medical facilities. The commercial area of Addingham is not within easy walking distance for most people.
-Impact on primary school.
-Drainage issues are already a problem in that area and additional housing would certainly exacerbate the situation.
-Our green areas are under pressure and further major house construction would be detrimental to the environment and the wellbeing of all villagers.

Object

Representation ID: 21376

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.

AD1/H
AD2/H
AD6/H
AD7/H

All the above share access issues through busy residential streets. This area has seen significant recent and ongoing development with subsequent drainage issues into Town Beck.

Object

Representation ID: 21392

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs A V Burns

These sites are valuable Green Belt land and provide natural habitats for a variety of animal and bird life.

So many new houses will spoil the character of our village at this location and will bring many additional issues:
- Increased cars and traffic
- hazards for pedestrians;
- primary schools already over subscribed;

Object

Representation ID: 21667

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Sharon Thompson

Addingham is a small service centre – does not have infrastructure to support additional housing.

Green Belt exceptional circumstances not demonstrated.

2 of the 3 fields are not for sale.

Within overlapping zones of the North & South Pennines SPA/SAC. Area is important wildlife habitat including rare birds. It attracts wildlife and is important roosting/foraging area for bats. Site gives an open aspect entering the village.

Site over 1 mile from the village centre – not a sustainable location. Residents would drive to reach amenities, adding more car journeys to the overcrowded roads. Primary school is not within reasonable walking distance - meaning more cars doing school drop off.

Field acts as soakaway for run-off from the moor. No sewers or surface water drains. Housing will increase flooding. Existing infrastructure cannot cope - would need a major upgrade.

A65 runs nearby – not conducive/compliant with Council’s wellness policy.

Plenty unused brownfield sites in Bradford, close to urban areas, employment and transport that are more suitable. More sustainable sites also exist in Addingham.

Approach to consultation amounts to abuse of due process. Neighbourhood plan disregarded.

Object

Representation ID: 22170

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Richard Curtin

1. Due Process: consultation time is short. Residents not aware of plans.

2. Housing Demand: No evidence to demonstrate demand for the housing supply in Addingham.

3. Sustainability: site in excess of 1.4km from village centre causing people to drive. Extra traffic will increase congestion, pollution and emissions. Will be further crowding in Ilkley for those using the train for commuting. Limited employment and recreation services.

4. Transport links are poor – no rail network and infrequent buses.

5. Green Belt: release of site does not meet NPPF policy test of “exceptional circumstances” - sites not in a sustainable location.

6. Brownfield sites: plenty of unused, brownfield sites that could be utilised.

7. Schools: Ilkley Grammar School oversubscribed with no room for expansion. Suggestion of transporting children elsewhere is not acceptable – will result in longer days, loss of sense of community and impact on wellbeing/mental health.

Object

Representation ID: 24233

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: 24913

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Catherine French

Object to plan for 81 new houses at “top” of Addingham off Moor Lane & Moor Park Drive, for 4 reasons:

Existing access comes from Silsden Road. If this were to continue, it would lead to more queuing and increase safety concerns at a busy junction. Sites are a mile from the village centre with limited public transport, meaning most journeys will be by car;

Recreation ground on Silsden Road has significant drainage issues, which have worsened since recent development. Current drainage system cannot cope. Further developments will add to risk of flooding.

Recent new housing seems to be overcrowded with little room for outdoor space, placing extra pressure on the recreation ground/local amenities. 81 more households would seem to require significant due diligence to ensure adequate recreational amenities as well as educational facilities.

Increase in dwelling numbers seems very significant on an already well-developed estate, with the significant loss of Green Belt.

Object

Representation ID: 25074

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Creative Sales Team Ltd

Four sites mean potentially 160 additional vehicles in the area causing potential danger to residents.

Will severely impact on village’s character/appearance. Area supports wildlife, including Curlews. Within overlapping zones of North & South Pennines SPA/SAC. Foraging bird areas not taken into account. NPPF Green Belt “exceptional circumstances” test not passed. Will impact on long distance footpath.

Drainage/flooding is an issue. Existing system is dated and cannot cope now, resulting in flooding. Significant investment to drains would be required.

Allocation of 175 properties is more than previously agreed – how was this calculated? It is out proportion to the settlement’s size. Many brownfield sites the Bradford area that are far more sustainable option.

No employment and few amenities. School is over-subscribed. Due to location, children are unlikely to walk to school, meaning more cars using congested roads.

No railway station. Nearby stations do not have adequate parking to meet current/future demands. Buses are unreliable and stop is distant from the sites.

Object

Representation ID: 25244

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Andy Thompson

•Addingham is a service centre and does not have the infrastructure to support large numbers of additional houses especially on the west.
•Site is within the SPA/SAC zones and used for foraging by Curlew, Barn owls and is a habitat for other wildlife.
•The tree lined nature attracts hedgehogs. The quiet roads allow easy passage.
•Bats feed amongst the trees. The lack of lighting from streets is beneficial to this protected species.
•Given the distance/steepness from the village centre most people would drive to access amenities including the overcrowded school making the site location unsustainable. There is little parking in the village centre and additional vehicles will exacerbate the situation.
•Moor Lane is narrow with many park cars and does not lend itself to an increase in traffic.
•Turner Lane/Silsden Road fields act as a soak away for water running off the moor. Water runs off Turner Lane when it rains ending up in the becks flooding the village. There are no sewers or surface water drains on Tuner Lane. More houses will increase levels of flooding in the village. Surface water/foul water drainage systems would need major upgrade to meet the capacity of planned housing.
•Noise from the A65 bypass and proximity to new housing would not comply with the Council’s wellness policy.
•There are plenty of Brownfield sites in Bradford close to urban areas, employment and transport and therefore more suitable for development. There are sites in Addingham, such as the Old School site which was originally designated for 35 houses. This site is overgrown scrub land and close to the village centre and could be rejuvenated.
•The site adjacent to the telephone exchange has lain unused for years and this together with the fields next to the cricket pitch could be sustainable locations close to the village with little impact on the countryside.
•Exceptional circumstances for releasing Green Belt sites do not exist locally.
The site is made up of three fields. The owner of the two fields to the south and west has confirmed they are not available for development.

Object

Representation ID: 26534

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Alan Taylor

I object to this site; it provides a very important open green entry into the village from the bypass and would be environmentally damaging.

Object

Representation ID: 28252

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: 28610

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: 29507

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Emily Fox

•Volume of traffic generate from development is unsustainable. Moor Lane is already busy with cars from Turner Lane, Moor View and Moor Croft using it. Further development needs to allow for alternative access.
•Currently traffic control is a 20mph limit which is ignored. No supplementary measures in place to control speed on Moor Lane and there is been an increase in speeding since the completion of developments at Moor View and Moor Croft.
•Growing number of parked cars on Moor Lane making it difficult to pass. Development at 1b-1f Moor Lane has created a pocket of congestion and a blind spot. Risk of accidents is going to increase with the increase in traffic.
•Developments at Moor Lane and via Moor Lane have not provided sufficient parking leading to parking on the roadside. Adequate space for multicar households needs to be provided.
•Moor Lane/Turner Lane are popular walking locations. There is no pedestrian footpath at the top of Moor Lane nor beyond the access to the recreation field on Turner Lane.
•The increase in vehicles will significantly increase noise/pollution.
•Developments will mean the loss of Green Belt. It will fill in green spaces and considerably impact on the character and appearance of the village from the west.
•Developments will see the loss of trees which screen/improve the appearance of the village.
•Current drainage system unable to cope. During heavy rain water travels down Moor Lane depositing debris. Loos of the fields raises flooding concerns.
•The existing culvert between Moor Lane/Moor Park Drive already at capacity. Damage from water repeatedly emerging from culvert and breaking through the pavement is seen at Moor Lane under Skipton Road.
•Fields are an untouched sanctuary for small wildlife. Development will result in loss of habitat.
•Sites are a mile uphill from the centre of the village. There is limited access to public transport. All journeys to local amenities will be may by car increasing congestion, pollution, risk of accident and injury.

Object

Representation ID: 29527

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: 30031

Received: 16/02/2021

Respondent: Ian Benson

We can see the logic of this site and provided that suitable conservation measures are taken, its proximity to the bypass would make it an acceptable development site.

Whilst we accept that the development of any one of these site is acceptable, we would question the development of all of them as the cumulative impact would, we feel, be too great.

Object

Representation ID: 30283

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Barry Hopkinson

This site contributes to the excess housing allocated to Addingham. It performs an important Green Belt function keeping the entrance to the village along Silsden Road green and open. It is not in a sustainable location, being a long distance from services within the village. Two of the three fields incorporated in this site are confirmed not to be available for development

-Adverse effect on the character/appearance of Addingham which is close to the Yorkshire Dales National Park and the natural beauty of the river Wharfe.
-Loss of Green Belt land.
-Loss of valued flora and fauna, barn owls, tawny owls, curlews, lapwings and a colony of bats.
-Impact of increased dwellings/cars would put great pressure on Moor Lane and Moor Park Drive and impact traffic flow and safety.
-Air pollution will increase.
-This site is a mile uphill from the village center and the Primary School. Most residents would not be inclined to walk or cycle.
-The drainage system cannot cope with the current number of houses in Turner Lane/Moor Lane so there will be an increased risk of flooding.
-Sites are available in Addingham that are closer to the existing facilities/services

Object

Representation ID: 30321

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Angela Pearson

I object to the suggested developments AD1, 2, 6 & 7 for reasons of lack of suitable access to housing built in these areas. The feeder roads for these sites, Moor Lane and Moor Park Drive, are not wide enough to carry the amount of extra traffic which would be generated by houses in these areas. The speed of traffic coming eastwards down Silsden Road from the roundabout precludes the building of any additional access road from Turner Lane to Silsden Road for safety reasons.

Comment

Representation ID: 30339

Received: 05/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Jonathan White

Sites 1, 2 , 6, & 7 represent an infill of 81 houses and are too densely clustered in a small area at the western edge of Addingham. Infrastructure problems will be caused by excess traffic, limited and difficult access, drainage, flood risk etc.

Object

Representation ID: 30340

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Mr. & Mrs. J. Holmes

Number of people: 2

Object to plan for 105 house at Moor Lane/Moor Park Drive and Turner Lane on the following grounds:

1. Traffic increase on Moor Park Drive and Moor Lane - narrow estate roads not main access to other estates.
2. Speed increases on roads - already very dangerous.
3. Drains and sewers not able to take further large increases of sewage and tap water.
4. No felling of trees - leave as Green Belt.
5. Access to Silsden Road. Cars travelling at speed on A65.
6. Walks and pathways cannot stand increased population of approx. 250/450 people (105 houses).
7. Utility supplies are not sufficient.
8. Would spoil the aspect of this part of village - at present it is open aspect, green fields and trees.