Consultation Question 116

Object

Representation ID: 2186

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Dr Keith Bothamley

I feel strongly that 181 additional dwellings in Addingham, in addition to recent and current builds in the West of the village is unsustainable, placing unrealistic pressures on roads, water courses and flood amelioration. New buildings on this scale will significantly increase local car journeys, at a time when Bradford Council is, white rightly, trying too reduce car-based transport. This would increase the number of houses in the village by over 11% and the vast majority of the sites are on the village periphery, where access to services is most limited

Building up to the A65 on the south side of the village, using AD3/H and AD4/H, would provide a further 87 houses without significantly extending the village boundary.

Object

Representation ID: 2229

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Malcolm Secrett

The plan for Addingham includes intended provision for 181 homes. In our view this number is much too high and cannot be accommodated without substantially compromising policies clearly laid out elsewhere in the Local Plan on sustainability and environmental protection.

Object

Representation ID: 2233

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Geoffrey Paul

The housing allocation is not justified in light of there being no additional infrastructure proposed and is disproportionate for a Local Service Centre, particularly when compared with the allocation for Ilkley, a much larger settlement. Another area of concern is that most of the development in Addingham is not via in-fill sites but is using green belt land.
The housing number is much too high and cannot be accommodated without substantially compromising policies clearly
laid out elsewhere in the Local Plan on sustainability and environmental protection.

Object

Representation ID: 2252

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Mr David Austin

This plan is fine apart from the proposed housing site allocations. I object to Greenbelt being used for housing. Virtually all the proposed sites are Green Belt. This will have a devastating effect on the rich wildlife that the village enjoys. The character of Addingham as a rural population centre will be changed to make it into a suburb of Ilkley.
I understand the Government formula would give Addingham an allocation of 75 houses so I think that an explanation of the extra 100 house is due.
The village is already struggling with existing traffic on the main street which is quite narrow. Parking is necessary to support local shops and businesses and an extra 175 households are only going to make thing worse.
Our Primary School is already oversubscribed so it will need to be expanded to cope with the increased population.

Object

Representation ID: 2340

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Lesley Place

Green belt should always be protected wherever possible. All recent applications in Addingham appear to be in green belt; there must be many opportunities for brown field sites to be developed in the metropolitan area before green belt has to be considered.

The developments at the western end of Addingham are remote from the majority of village amenities so this will result in a large increase in vehicle traffic on small residential roads, resulting in pollution and danger to children and pedestrians.

Object

Representation ID: 2358

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Keith Boothroyd

1.The strategy seems to favour property developers not the local community.
2The planned number of houses is well in excess of the "modest level of housing development , mainly to satisfy local need" as BMDC states is what is required for our sized community/Local Service Centre.There is no justifcation as to why there are now 181 proposed dwellings from the 75 originally proposed. Why does Addingham need so many?
3.The emphasis appears to be concentrating on green field green belt sites and hardly any attention has been given to examining brown field options.
4. The negative impact on the local natural habitat, ecology and environment that local residents and visitors enjoy has been greatly understated.
5. The unquantifiable but real village community spirit that exists in Addingham would be irreparably damaged.
6. There is no reference to any environmental standards required of new properties .

Object

Representation ID: 2412

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Neal Cowan

OBJECTING TO CONSULTATION PROCESS.
I wish to complain about the lack of advertising about the plan Today I have received my first official notification about the plan.
How can any normal person who has concerns consider the proposals and make sensible comments with no time to do it.
The consultation period should be extended

Object

Representation ID: 2606

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Professor Robert Smith

The 2019 Addingham Referendum in which I voted was in favour of 75 new houses during the 2020-2038 period. This seemed an acceptable level. To increase this to 181 is preposterous. The Main Street through the village is narrow and congested. Additional traffic demands therefore would have serious safety concerns for all proposed sites, but especially those which feed directly into Main Street. Public transport links are insufficient for the proposed increases (with no rail link, unlike Ilkley and other Bradford Council areas covered by the Plan, and reduced bus services now the No 62 does not go to LBA) - excessive car usage would put the village back to where it was before the construction of the A65 bypass. The impact on village facilities, together with the denigration of greenbelt areas and environmental considerations are totally unacceptable and would reduce the quality of life in the village.

Object

Representation ID: 2682

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Lesley Barnard

Addingham, as a village, is already losing its identity by over-development of brown and green spaces.
The traffic has increased dramatically over recent years causing congestion and ultimately impatience on the busier roads. The Main Street is constantly being blocked by inconsiderate parking and the build-up of passing traffic.
It is evident that the small new development at the top of Moor Lane has brought a significant rise in the number of cars speeding up and down the estate, making it dangerous for the predominantly older residents, whether walking or driving to and from their homes.
No one takes any notice of the 20mph speed limits either on the estates or in the Main St and it is becoming unbearable.
The proposed developments are mainly a large distance from the village's amenities which means that every journey will involve a vehicle.
Addingham is a village, not a town.

Object

Representation ID: 2689

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Kevin Nabb

CONSULTATION PROCESS
Running a consultation in the middle of a pandemic is underhand. No leaflet drop to inform everyone in the village there is a consultation is unlawful. Most people in the village are unaware there is a consultation. Anyone without access to online facilities are disadvantaged/can not have a say. The makeup of Addingham residents highlights this well, 36% are over the age of 65, most of who will be without access, online how can this be democratic or lawful ?

There are a number of other areas in the village which are not on the imposed areas which are more suitable eg land between cricket club and BT exchange.

Object

Representation ID: 2726

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mr William Johnston

The areas indicated will have a disproportionally high number of houses particularly in AD1/H, ADH/2, AD6/H, ADH/7. This housing density will be outside what I consider as being representative of the area in which they are proposed.

Object

Representation ID: 2734

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Maire O'Donnell

Many of the areas outlined go against the council's pledge to minimise pollution from traffic by building houses on the outskirts of the village ensuring residents will need to drive instead of walking. I fully support the responses from Addingham Parish council and the Enviroment Group. These plans will damage the environment and its flora and fauna, green corridors and spaces, plus additional drainage into the becks and affects from increased ground water runoff

Object

Representation ID: 2760

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Elizabeth Rutter

Number of houses is too high to be accommodated without substantially compromising policies within local plan on sustainability and environmental protection.
1. Limited open land that can be developed without harming the village landscape setting, character & biodiversity value of green & blue infrastructure corridors.
2. All open countryside to south is within 2.5km habitat protect zone, with remainder in 2.5km of North Pennine Moors SPA/SCA
3 Excessive development will lead to wildlife disturbance
4. Increase in road traffic - affecting air quality, and will affect the need for safe, sustainable, environmentally friendly alternative forms of transport within the village.

Object

Representation ID: 2801

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Addingham Civic Society

I believe that too many houses have been allocated to this plan for Addingham.
There will be an adverse impact in the work so far undertaken to protect wildlife corridors through the village.
I also think that local services and infrastructure will be unduly impacted.

Object

Representation ID: 2916

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mr David Hunter

181 new homes will put a great strain on the infrastructure and support services within the village. Main Street is already very busy and has vehicles parked along it for almost its entire length. I feel that development on this scale would be detrimental to the pleasure of living here.

Object

Representation ID: 3063

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Philip Galtry

I object to the plan covered in Consultation Question 116/117 as outlined in Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021, specifically site refs. AD1, AD2, AD6 and AD7 to the southwest of the Moor Park Estate in Addingham. Together these 4 site allocations represent 81 additional dwellings. The plan itself states that access from the main A65 will not be possible, thus these additional dwellings will all need to be accessed via Moor Lane or Moor Park Drive. The addition of so many dwellings will negatively impact the residents of this estate; 81 dwellings in an increase of over 50% on the number of houses currently in the estate. These are narrow residential roads servicing a community with a bias towards young families and more elderly residents. Although there is a 20 mph limit, few drivers abide by this and there is no enforcement.

Object

Representation ID: 3139

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Prof Abigail Harrison Moore

Addingham struggles to accommodate its current population given infrastructure issues of Highway safety, traffic generation, public transportation(leading to parking and congestion issues in Ilkley) and road access; Drainage, sanitation and energy and internet supply; School spaces; Green spaces and environmental issues.
This Area Strategy makes no sense, and is not sustainable given the major infrastructure issues. It does not ‘protect’ or ‘enhance’ green infrastructure links or protect the landscape and conservation areas in terms of access or ecology. It does the exact opposite, leading to the destruction and removal of biodiverse habitat and increasing flooding risk. It does not support the vitality or viability of Addingham, but instead places even further pressure on an historic infrastructure already over-loaded. It does not open up new areas of open space, instead destroys areas that are already so important to the current villagers, actively accessed via public footpaths and vitally used.

Object

Representation ID: 3159

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Dean Harrison Moore

Addingham struggles to accommodate its current population given infrastructure issues of Highway safety, traffic generation, public transportation (leading to parking and congestion issues in Ilkley) and road access; Drainage, sanitation and energy and internet supply; School spaces; Green spaces and environmental issues.
This Area Strategy makes no sense, and is not sustainable given the major infrastructure issues. It does not 'protect' or 'enhance' green infrastructure links or protect the landscape and conservation areas in terms of access or ecology. It does the exact opposite, leading to the destruction and removal of biodiverse habitat and increasing flooding risk. It does not support the vitality or viability of Addingham, but instead places even further pressure on an historic infrastructure already over-loaded. It does not open up new areas of open space, instead destroys areas that are already so important to the current villagers, actively accessed via public footpaths and vitally used.

Object

Representation ID: 3303

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Peter Miller

The plan provides for too many additional houses to be built in Addingham. It will compromise the village character with its increased traffic, removal of green corridors, threats to biodiversity and an increasing risk of flooding.
We need to protect our existing resources and maintain all of the many reasons people enjoy living here.

Object

Representation ID: 3417

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr James Robinson

Any new housing development should be directed firstly to brown field sites. If “green land” has to be considered then land of lesser environmental value should be prioritised wherever possible, with minimal impact on heritage assets. Green Belt should only be used in exceptional circumstances. These principles run through your own Draft Local Plan and our recently adopted Neighbourhood Plan (NP). I acknowledge the need for more housing but it has to be directed to the most appropriate locations.
Addingham was allocated 75 new houses in your Partial Review of the Core Strategy undertaken in 2019. This figure has now been increased to 175 in the Draft Local Plan, a significant increase of 133%. So, why has Addingham’s housing allocation been increased ? How can this be justified given many of your own policies as well as those in the NPPF ? There is a clear conflicting message.

Object

Representation ID: 3430

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Ian Rutter

As a property owner both in Addingham and Ilkley I do not believe that using green belt land will deliver affordable housing due to the local high price of housing. The schools are already full, the village amenities will be compromised . Access to the sites from public transport is poor. The developments would result in the destruction of many mature trees and natural habitats.

Object

Representation ID: 3471

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Irene Moulden

There are too many houses in this local area strategy. In this age of rapid climate change it is imperative that the environment and biodiversity in Addingham is protected. We have thriving wildlife areas which should not be destroyed by building too many houses in the village.

Object

Representation ID: 3478

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr David Johnston

Policy SP4 talks about smaller scale of development in Local Service Centres as well as enhancing biodiversity.

This policy contradicts that policy on both counts

Object

Representation ID: 3498

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr David Johnston

Most of the proposed sites are too far from the village centre to encourage walking /cycling which means that cars will be the favoured mode of transport into the village where there is extremely limited parking (the Memorial Hall plus a small parking area near Burnside Mill). Can the village cope with at least another 180 cars and more likely around 250? I think not.

Object

Representation ID: 3499

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr John Moulden

There are too many houses in this local area strategy. In this age of rapid climate change it is imperative that the environment and biodiversity in Addingham is protected. We have thriving wildlife areas which should not be destroyed by building too many houses in the village.

Object

Representation ID: 3511

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Rosie Brightman

Not enough School places. The road infrastructure is already overwhelmed despite the bypass, additional road safety around additional traffic. Insufficient local amenities, lack of parking. Taking away green spaces, when there are other brown field sites elsewhere.

Object

Representation ID: 3531

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Sabine Robinson

Bradford's policy SP3 identifies Addingham as a Local Service Center within which a smaller scale development will allow for protection of these centers. The scale of the planned development is disproportionate to the size of the village (an increase of over 10% in total for the entire village). Bradford's own increase is only just above 9% when the plan states that the focus of new development should be in Bradford itself. The suggested housing increase will have a significant and detrimental impact on the character of the village set within the historic farming setting. Before the bypass was built, Addingham Main Street was a dangerous and hazardous road. It is likely that cars from the new houses will once again dangerously increase congestion in the village center as it cannot be assumed that the bypass will be used.

Object

Representation ID: 3559

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Barbara Millar

The strategy to increase the number of houses in Addingham by adding a significant to the number of houses in proportion to what already exists is unlikely to add to the sustainability of Addingham’s special features and its resilience to climate change. There is little employment in Addingham and most people need a car to get to work as there is no direct transport to centres such as Leeds and Bradford. These additional cars will not improve the village’s resilience to climate change.

Object

Representation ID: 3585

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Janet Hebbert

The four adults in my household have major concerns about the proposed plan. In particular, there is a significant impact on the green belt areas of Addingham, negatively affecting wild life habitats, areas where people walk, including walking dogs. There would also be a negative affect on the environment, with significant increase in traffic, leading to more air pollution, at a time when recent surveys, including research by Essex University, demonstrate that most areas of the UK are affected by road traffic pollutants, affecting wildlife and seriously harming human health (the only areas to avoid this are those at high altitudes). The bus service is inadequate and unreliable, thereby increasing volume of traffic. This also increases risk of accidents - there has recently been a fatal accident.
The current infrastructure would not support another 180 households, which would necessitate further building/expansion of current primary school, shops etc.

Object

Representation ID: 3602

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Lynda Robinson

The proposals for Addingham in the Draft Local Plan involve a 133% increase in housing allocation from 75 to 175 homes. There is no concrete evidence for this change which is in marked contrast to the other Local Service Centres and our neighbouring Principal Town of Ilkley which has seen a reduction of 40%. Bradford’s overall housing requirement has not changed since the 2019 Core Strategy Partial Review, nor has Addingham’s infrastructure.
The housing increase will require additional land to be removed from Green Belt with no specific “exceptional circumstances” justifying it. It will cause permanent damage to village character, environment, heritage, setting and ecosystems. These proposals do not accord with Addingham’s Neighbourhood Plan, adopted by you less than a year ago. Far from being in general conformity with the Draft LP as envisaged, the 2 are now at odds!