AD8/H - Church Street/Main Street

Object

Representation ID: 4144

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Patricia Johnston

The proposed housing density is out of proportion to the site area. The approach to the village will lose its character.

Support

Representation ID: 4266

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr James Robinson

A ‘brownfield’ site, until recently it was one of your ‘stone/grit’ storage locations. It is a major eyesore positioned as it is, as a ‘gateway’ to the Village from an easterly direction.
It’s in a good position with Village access.
Housing would need to be of good quality design and reflect the character of our village.

Object

Representation ID: 4281

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Julie Reid

8 houses = overcrowding on this site

Support

Representation ID: 4388

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Addingham Environment Group

This is a Brownfield site. It is acceptable for housing subject to:

• an ecological survey to identify & mitigate any environmental impacts identified; and
• the retention of mature trees along the boundary, especially the trees along the front of the plot that contribute to the local street character and those to the rear (west) of the site that form the boundary with the newly planted hedge in Hofmann Wood Field.

Support

Representation ID: 4453

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Allan Moffat

This site is well suited to additional houses that are required in the village.

Support

Representation ID: 4589

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jillian Hargrave

Sensible site to use.

Object

Representation ID: 4668

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Mary Jenner

The one mildly less objectionable site. Still a site with mature trees, mixed wildlife and access issues.

Support

Representation ID: 4875

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Addingham Environment Group

AD8/H Church St/Main St – This is a Brownfield site. It is acceptable for housing subject to:

• an ecological survey to identify & mitigate any environmental impacts identified; and
• the retention of mature trees along the boundary, especially the trees along the front of the plot that contribute to the local street character and those to the rear (west) of the site that form the boundary with the newly planted hedge in Hofmann Wood Field.

Support

Representation ID: 4879

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Judith Ellis

I support this but only because we have to have some houses, though this should be limited to the already agreed 75 and not the doubled number now proposed. This site already has semi built / industrial use so is not a great loss though the boundary and nearby trees should be retained as they make a lovely village entry.

Support

Representation ID: 4916

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Robin Hargrave

This appears to be a very good site for the village.

Support

Representation ID: 4934

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Gill Battarbee

This is a brownfield site and would be suitable for building. However the mature trees and walls should be preserved. The overall design should take into account the fact that this site forms part of the eastern entrance to the village.

Object

Representation ID: 5024

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Gillian Fletcher

Green belt land.
Access through already busy estate which comes onto Main Street close to a blind bend and at a children's school crossing.
More houses mean more children needing to attend an already large Primary school or an over subscribed Secondary school in Ilkley.
More people for the doctors surgery
Is the antiquated drainage system able to cope with so many more dwellings.

Object

Representation ID: 5040

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Gillian Fletcher

Green belt land.
More houses mean more children needing to attend an already large Primary school or an over subscribed Secondary school in Ilkley.
More people for the doctors surgery
Is the antiquated drainage system able to cope with so many more dwellings.
This whole estate has expanded the village and if this site is granted it will only be a matter of time before additional fields are built on until it joins up to the St Pauls estate.

Object

Representation ID: 5050

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Gillian Fletcher

This will undoubtedly have access onto Chapel Street and Back beck lane. At this point there is no footpath and it is a busy route for pedestrian access to the primary school which may well put young children in danger.
Even if the access is from School Lane it will still impact on the school run down the cinder path running adjacent to Burns Hill

Support

Representation ID: 5062

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Simon Flather

Easily accessible and close to the village centre and shops
On the local bus route
Little impact on wildlife
The area is currently an eyesore

Object

Representation ID: 5079

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Gillian Fletcher

Green belt land.
Access through already busy estate which comes out at a children's school crossing. If all proposed development is granted that is another 58 houses using Moor Lane as access.
More houses mean more children needing to attend an already large Primary school or an over subscribed Secondary school in Ilkley.
More people for the doctors surgery
Is the antiquated drainage system able to cope with so many more dwellings.

Support

Representation ID: 5290

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: SHMS

Would second the constraints and opportunities vision that site presents an opportunity to self build, and satisfy a need for starter homes in Wharfedale. One of the major barriers to self build, is competing with established developers to purchase land and start up financing. Both issues could be addressed through council resources, note projects such as this have previously been completed in other areas of the district. Will help satisfy the target of 5% self build provision.

Object

Representation ID: 5292

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Suzanne Garside

This area should be improved but not for housing as it would be an eyesore upon entry to the village. The area should be invested to provide facilities for the older children in the village such as a bike track as currently they have nothing
It has been undisturbed for some time so existing wildlife is plenty

Support

Representation ID: 5449

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Andrew Coates

Agent: Rural Solutions

This preferred option for development of PDL is welcomed along with the acknowledgement that ‘the site is well situated to provide residents with good access to key services and amenities including shops, cultural spaces, jobs and school, with particularly good access to health facilities’.

Furthermore, the site is located within the 7 km buffer of one of the SPA/SACs rather than the 2.5 km zone in which all the other preferred sites are located in. It should be noted that site AD/013 is also within the 7 km buffer zone rather than the 2.5 km zone.

Support

Representation ID: 5868

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Christine Smith

Not just frontage trees, but also those to the rear (west) of the site that form the boundary with the newly planted hedge in Hofmann Wood field must be retained, but otherwise this site is acceptable.
From an access point of view there are no problems with this site being developed.

Comment

Representation ID: 9886

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Dr Carol Miles

AD8/H/Church Street/Main Street In principle, I do not object to building on this brownfield site as long as the wonderful group of mature trees on the front of the plot, along the Main Street, can be preserved. I would prefer to see no more than 5 houses here.

Support

Representation ID: 10428

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Lynne Walder

no objection to the brownfield sites being developed and indeed would welcome the repurposing of these

Object

Representation ID: 12010

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.

Comment

Representation ID: 13367

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Prof. Stanley Wainer

This site needs development, but is surrounded by mature trees which give an attractive and
impactful view as one enters the village from the A65 in the east. Those trees should not be disturbed.

Comment

Representation ID: 16695

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Margaret Widdowson

I respectfully suggest that this site be developed making optimum use of the space available.

Support

Representation ID: 16753

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Addingham Civic Society

The following sites could meet a revised and reduced housing target of 75 units while minimising the release of green belt and green field sites:

AD1/H, AD2/H, AD6/H and AD8/H

Object

Representation ID: 18552

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Michelle Roberts

Character - This site is located at the entrance to the village, a prominent gateway into the village. The site is surrounded by large trees and hedgerows. The proposal would significantly change the character of the entrance into the village. The development will spoil the views of residents of Abbey Close

Environment - adding these houses will - increase traffic and parking issues, increase air and light pollution. Removal of trees and wildlife impact.

Site is in flood zone 2.

Village capacity - Addingham Primary school is already at full capacity.
The village is primarily a retirement and commuter community. The village does not a the SA states provide “good access” to jobs and there is only one medical practice which serves nearly 4,000 people already. The Dental practice is at capacity.

Object

Representation ID: 18901

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: David Eggleshaw

The proposed site AD8/H is currently an eyesore and something needs to be done with it to improve the approach to the village but surely 8 houses is too many for such a small plot. It suggests that they would be crammed in, or very tall, neither of which would be in keeping with the area.

Object

Representation ID: 20135

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: 20450

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.