Consultation Question 116

Object

Representation ID: 382

Received: 22/02/2021

Respondent: Mrs Lynne Walder

-Far too many houses proposed for the size of the village.
-We do not have the infrastructure to deal with so many new properties.
-Huge increase in traffic.
-Flood risk.
-Impact on the green belt and protection of habitat.
-Addingham has been asked to provide a huge 10.27% of new build (163 houses), and yet the average is only 5.38%.
-Addingham village is small and has limited facilities to accommodate additional families and traffic.
-School is over- subscribed.
-Infrastructure such as sewerage will be overwhelmed. Drainage issues from run-off will be made worse.
-The bypass was built some time ago to alleviate traffic problems, and yet the added inevitable traffic increase would surely negate any benefit the bypass has provided.
-No objection to the brownfield sites being developed before impacting on the Green Belt.
-Impact on wildlife, footpaths, the Dales Highway, the Dales Way
-Addingham is a very special, unique village and deserves to have its character preserved.

Object

Representation ID: 432

Received: 24/02/2021

Respondent: Mr Roy Drew

Paragraphs5.15.23 and 5.15.24 are at odds with our village local plan and the Government Inspectors Report (Pratt) on Bradford's stance to local planning (paragraph 186). The proposed developments of site AD3/H and AD4/H involving 87 Dwellings is a major sacrifice of green space amongst existing large developments and the Councils deliberate sponsoring of larger site development is directly at odds with our local plan and the inspectors report.

Object

Representation ID: 447

Received: 25/02/2021

Respondent: Ms Anne Clarke

Too many houses proposed especially on greenfield sites gives rise to concern about Addingham retaining it's essential village nature and extra traffic through the area.
Re proposed desecration of fields surrounding the village there are enough of these developments already that have taken the open fields for wildlife and recreation which give the village it's nature.

Object

Representation ID: 462

Received: 25/02/2021

Respondent: Mr Neil Collins

Bradford has a plentiful supply of brownfield sites that have not been developed.
In her judgement dated 8/6/2020 in Aireborough Neighbourhood Development Forum vs Leeds City Council, Mrs Justice Lieven found that it was wrong to leave Green Belt sites in a development plan solely because the Council wished to reduce the numbers around the district proportionately. Green belt should be removed from the plan and brownfield sites built on first.
This judgement is surely just as relevant to Bradford.
Our Prime Minister's "Build Build Build" announcement on 30/6/2020 said brownfield building would be made easier to protect Green Belt. This should be bourne in mind and our Green Belt not built on.

Object

Representation ID: 588

Received: 01/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Andrew Best

At great expense, effort and soul-searching, Addingham's Neighbourhood Plan- which was overwhelmingly approved by the residents of Addingham- set out a reasonable, thought-through, sustainable and sensitive template for the future development of the village. The Emerging Local Plan appears to have ignored that exercise in local democracy and proposes to steamroller through both an increase in the housing development and any idea of sustainability, via a "top-down" imposition of development.
Sustainability should be the major driver in the decision-making process in the 21st century. No improvements in infrastructure are proposed in the plan for the village, Green Belt and bio-diverse, ancient habitats will be destroyed, car use will escalate (cf "5.15.8 There are limited employment opportunities within the settlement") and the landscape will be impacted, both within the village and from the adjacent National Park. All of this when a more sensitive alternative has been agreed within the village.

Object

Representation ID: 703

Received: 03/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Rachel Nickolds

Addingham is a beautiful village, mainly due to the surrounding countryside and the wildlife it encourages. I feel that building houses on green belt surrounding the village will not only take away from the beauty of the area, but will also drive wildlife out of natural habitats. There aren’t many places just a 40 minute drive from the city centre where you can take country walks and see curlews on a regular basis. I also fail to understand how this creates affordable housing when according to your report, the average price of houses in Addingham is £300k, which is almost double the average price of houses in West Yorkshire. There are surely more affordable/non-green belt locations to build houses? I can’t help but feel this is a greedy way of building more expensive and profitable houses, and feel disappointed that Bradford council would prioritise this over preserving the natural habitats.

Object

Representation ID: 784

Received: 05/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Jonathan White

181 houses too many. 2019 allocation of 75 is preferred target, with a smaller Green Belt release.
Proposals incompatible with 'Local Service Centre' contradicting many of its Core Policies.
There are other, smaller brownfield opportunities in the village.
Infrastructure corridors should be protected and enhanced.

Comment

Representation ID: 785

Received: 05/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Jonathan White

Green and blue infrastructure corridors in the village need protection and enhancement along with Green Belt. Any housing should be limited in number and such location.

Object

Representation ID: 890

Received: 07/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Simon Lawrence

The number of houses planned for Addingham is far too high. It represents more than a 10% increase in the total number of houses in the village.
The village does not have the infrastructure to manage a potential increase in population of 500+ people. The current facilities are sufficient for the village as it is but difficult to understand how they could manage with such an influx of people plus the road through the village is already very busy and used as a "rat-run" with many near misses for accidents as cars travel far too fast through the village. The Green Belt is precious land and there is such an abundance of wildlife much of which is under threat across the UK such as owls, bats etc.

Object

Representation ID: 906

Received: 07/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Ian Park

Based on at least 2 cars per household, these plans make that increase in traffic and pollution unacceptable and unsustainable.
Primary school couldn't cope and then you'd have to travel to Ilkley which doesn't have enough space either.
IGS would not be an option and families would want their Addingham kids to go to IGS. They won't buy if Keighley is the option.
Wildlife such as the barn owls and kites would suffer and probably would be lost to the area for ever.
There are so many better brownfield options to both enhance city centre living, boosting commerce and providing affordable city centre council owned properties and private. Why wouldn't you do that first. Work with Leeds council - this is the way forward!
The bottleneck at Ilkley, already bad at peak times, would be intolerable.

Object

Representation ID: 979

Received: 08/03/2021

Respondent: Sarah Sutherland

I strongly feel that the our village plan adopted by Bradford council in 2020 should be honored and respected. Following the referendum, CBMDC agreed to formally make (adopt) the neighbourhood plan on 22 January 2020 and I am concerned that the plans I have seen, along with the very short timescales for comments, contravene our agreement. I appreciate the need for quality, affordable housing but at what cost? Greenfield sites, including those in the village ‘envelope’ and in the surrounding Green Belt should not be built on. Previously developed land should be preferred wherever possible. There is a clear preference for smaller developments, in different parts of the village, rather than development of one large site, as long as access issues are appropriately addressed. I fail to see how 175 new houses forms part of this plan.

Object

Representation ID: 1188

Received: 10/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Michael Bolton

It is noted that the target allocation number of 175 houses remains virtually the same as for the period when the Addingham Neighbourhood Plan was being drawn up at 200 houses, despite the 2019 Core Strategy review allocating a target number of 75 houses. Proposals for achieving this target of 75 houses were developed in the Addingham Neighbourhood Plan.
However it is also noted that the Parish Council was subsequently advised to remove the Housing Allocations section from its Neighbourhood Plan, apparently on the advice of BMDC.

Object

Representation ID: 1222

Received: 10/03/2021

Respondent: Valerie Farley

I am objecting to the proposal of 181 houses being built in Addingham when residents expected 75 houses . Leaving the areas of conservation such as the old school site around the Beck and green belt areas where residents walk. The infastructure of the Village cannot sustain the amount of houses proposed.

Object

Representation ID: 1247

Received: 11/03/2021

Respondent: Neal Cowan

Most of the sites are proposed on Greenbelt.
See refusal notice application number 17/05036/MAO which highlights the arguments and is even more relevant now jus three years on.
181 new houses is too much for this small village that already has traffic,flooding , schooling amongst others.
Field between the cricket club and the Memorial hall have been rejected when they are closer to all amenities.
Lack of school places will force more traffic to commute outside the village

All of the greenbelt sites proposed are within the 2.5 km habitat protection zone for the South Pennine Moors SPA/SCA and within the 2.5 km zone of the North Pennine Moors SPA/SCA.
Impact curlews
There is little employment in Addingham and thus car travel to Ilkley and beyond will increase congestion on already busy local streets.
The village is situated adjacent to the very high landscape value regions of the Yorkshire Dales National Park (to the west) and Nidderdale Area of Outstanding National Beauty (to the north).

Object

Representation ID: 1282

Received: 11/03/2021

Respondent: Mr George Bennett

As Addingham is classed as a Local Service Centre, the proposed 181 new houses across 8 sites is far too many. In 2019 Bradford allocated a target of 75 houses for Addingham which is much more proportionate. A Principal Town like Ilkley should be supporting more housing not Addingham - Ilkley has a train and bus station, supermarkets and a secondary school - it has the infrastructure to support more housing.

The loss of valuable Green Belt under these plans is very disappointing and should be challenged.

The total numbers of houses is excessive and will have a detrimental impact on the village and its Green Belt.

Object

Representation ID: 1399

Received: 13/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Margaret Austin

The number of houses being proposed (181) will potentially mean another 181 cars passing along Addingham’s narrow main street along with the added pollution. The primary school is already oversubscribed and there is no provision in the plan for expanding school places.

Object

Representation ID: 1403

Received: 13/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Julie Cowan

I am against any building on green belt sites on the basis that these sites will be lost forever to everyone.
The sites in Addingham all have outstanding views and building on them would impact on the openness of the countryside and create sprawl outside the village boundary.

Object

Representation ID: 1423

Received: 13/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Susan Robins

181 new houses is not sustainable in this relatively small community.
1. The primary school has a one form entry. By far the most convenient secondary school is Ilkley Grammar School, which is already struggling to accommodate children from the village
2. There is one small Co-op and a handful of other small retailers, with few empty units and all of these are small
3. Roads in the village centre are narrow and would struggle to accommodate what would probably be well over 200 extra vehicles.
4. The village is rich in wildlife, including curlew, bats and barn owls, using the several blue and green corridors. The many public footpaths, several of which would be adversely affected by housing development, allow residents to stay healthy and appreciate the beauty of our environment.

Object

Representation ID: 1492

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.

Object

Representation ID: 1577

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Daniel Keating

The % of green belt development proposed for Addingham is significantly higher than most other areas of Bradford

Addingham's infrastructure (schools, health centre and road network) cannot sustain the proposed additional housing

Object

Representation ID: 1603

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Catherine Laycock

There is far too much traffic on Moor Lane, inability of sewage system to cope. Cars will be used to access already overstretched amenities in the village. An increase in traffic on Moor Lane will contribute to noise. It will also possibly endanger lives. Already many houses built recently at the top or Moor Lane which has already increased traffic and put a strain on amenities. It has already destroyed much wildlife and green space. Please do not exacerbate this. The village itself, primary school, high school (in Ilkley) is already under strain to provide resources for the number of houses that currently exist. Addingham will lose its village feel, which is why many people chose to live here in the first place.

Support

Representation ID: 1617

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Charlotte Jarvis

I strongly support the proposal to develop the Wharfedale Greenway for cyclists from Addingham through to Otley via Burley and Ilkley. At present the route between Addingham and Ilkley is extremely dangerous for cyclists and I would like to cycle rather than drive from addingham to Ilkley to shop/use the amenities IF there was a safer route. I see the development of this route as a way of reducing Co2 emissions and supporting a healthier lifestyle. I hope that the planning, development and buildign of this route can be delivered in by 2025, at the latest.

Object

Representation ID: 1690

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Catherine Sweet

The infrastructure i.e. roads, are inadequate to support another 81 houses. Access is via 2 roads Moor Lane and Moor Park Drive. Both these roads are narrow in places and struggle to give good access with the houses already there. Danger to other road users and pedestrians. Poor access for emergency vehicles.

Object

Representation ID: 1784

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Fiona Curtin

no valid reason for the release of greenbelt
inadequate drainage - old victorian drains
increased surface water run off - increased risk of flooding
poor transport links therefore increased traffic and carbon emissions
sites in excess of 1m from village center no sustainable and increased traffic
damaging to the historical character of the village
limited retail and employment opportunities

Object

Representation ID: 1843

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Angela Walton

I object to developments planned on green field sites (environmental reasons) and larger developments of more than 6 properties as the village already can not handle the amount of local and other traffic passing through it, and there is very limited parking for people driving in to use village amenities. There is only one road and even with the bypass this is already very congested and difficult to navigate. It spoils the village with traffic noise and pollution. Traffic from Keighley, etc travelling to Harrogate, etc also comes through the village. I don't object to a few small brownfield developments but significant development that feeds traffic directly through the village is a disaster. The village needs to be able to accommodate tourism and as it is a conservation area we do not want over development or the village will choke. Thank you.

Object

Representation ID: 1955

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Michael Neal

Addingham is already over populated.
I challenge members of the planning committee to walk the length of the village, to pause and see the Main Street "car park", a line of parked vehicles reducing many sections to a one way system. Six PSVs an hour, plus school buses, have to negotiate the chicanes. In particular, vehicles park opposite and close to Bolton Road, creating limited visibility when exiting the latter.
Addingham was a mill village, populated by pedestrians. An increase of the magnitude proposed, will only add some 200+ vehicles.

Object

Representation ID: 2007

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Val Ogden

School and Green Lane plus Main Street will not support additional traffic, village does not have facilities for an additional 150+ households and whilst I appreciate housing is required these proposals will decimate the environment for people and wildlife and impose massive infrastructure problems that have not been considered

Object

Representation ID: 2019

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Professor Rick Battarbee

181 homes is excessive, compromising policies laid out elsewhere in the Local Plan on sustainability and environmental protection:
• There is limited open land within the settlement boundary that can be developed without harming the village character, landscape setting and biodiversity value of the green and blue infrastructure corridors identified in the Plan;
• Many sites are located at a distance from village services and perform poorly against Policy SP7 that seeks to promote a transformation to sustainable modes of transport, such as walking and cycling;
• The sites are all within the 2.5 km habitat protection zone for the South Pennine Moors SPA/SCA, and the North Pennine Moors SPA/SCA;
• Connectivity between the YDNP, the AONB and the SPAs is essential for wildlife protection. The recent loss of curlews in the field to the north of Springfield Mount is a prime example of the wildlife attrition currently occurring.

Object

Representation ID: 2053

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Paula Bui

Our village needs to be protected as a small village community, the roads, schools are not able to cope with the current demands let alone more. Environmentally green space needs to be protected to help support wildlife as well as preventing flooding

Object

Representation ID: 2176

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Nicola Phillips

Moor Lane is already a busy road with many cars going up and down and parked along the road especially since the new development built two years ago.
There are many families with young children and I have concerns about the significant increase of cars this would bring up and down the street and potential cause for injury.
Also the extra noise levels, congestion and pollution to the street. It is already a congested area and there is simply not the right access to build an extra 81 houses.
I support new developments and the need to enable people to buy properties but this is not the right location unless you can consider another access route.