Consultation Question 116

Object

Representation ID: 3624

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Christopher Acomb

Building over 160 extra houses will have a significant impact on the environment and the civic culture in Addingham. A number of the proposed building sites are on green belt land and environmentally important areas. The green belt areas are known to be areas that support wildlife and any development will lead dramatic reduction in their habitat. There is minimal employment within the village so this will result in a significant increase in unnecessary commuting with all the negative impact on the surrounding environment. This large increase in housing will inevitably mean increased number of children all requiring education. The primary school in the village will need additional capacity and the secondary school in Ilkley will also need increased capacity. Alternative schooling would mean unacceptable commuting. Increasing the population of the village will also have a significant negative impact on the community - less of a local village community.

Object

Representation ID: 3782

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Pamela Morgan

Addingham does not need more houses, more traffic, pressure on medical services and schools . It means loss of wonderful green space and wild life. The building of these house may cause flooding in the village.

Object

Representation ID: 3811

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Andrew Hodgson

COMMENTING ON CONSULTATION PROCESS
I believe there has been an abuse of due process with this consultation. It is deplorable that a minimum time scale for consultation has been set when key information has been difficult to access in the middle of a pandemic. It is only 2 years since the Neighbourhood plan for Addingham was adopted ad received 94% approval amongst residents only for its recommendations to be discarded.

Object

Representation ID: 3822

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Andrew Hodgson

The reasons for imposing 181 houses on Addingham is flawed. It is a 'Local Service Centre' yet it is proposed to increase its housing stock by 10.3% whereas some 'Local Growth Centres' (Steeton and Menston) and some 'Principal Towns' (Keighley and Bingley) are seeing lower percentage increases. Addingham does not have the infrastructure to accommodate this number of new dwellings. This appeared to have been recognised when the original number of 200 dwellings in the Core Strategy 2017 document was subsequently reduced to 75 dwellings in the 2019 partial review and supported by the Housing sites assessment (2018) and Addingham Neighbourhood plan. I is therefore concluded that the housing growth set out in Policy SP3: Hierarchy of Settlements, and does not offer a sustainable distribution of housing across the district. The adopted Addingham Neighbourhood plan is sustainable and does not require the allocation of Green Belt sites.

Object

Representation ID: 3838

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Peter Barton

While the bypass has relieved a significant amount of traffic from the centre of the village each new development increases the local traffic to schools and shops. The centre of the village has no off street public parking and therefore on street parking is necessary. As the amount of traffic through the village increases so will congestion and demand for the removal of on street parking. I think that the impact of more vehicles in all areas of the village but particularly, Main Street, Bolton Road, School Lane, Moor lane, Turner and St Pauls Rise has not been recognised in the plan . Certainly the new developments would lead to increase traffic in the centre of the village particularly for families driving to the primary school resulting in congestion, pollution and more likelihood of traffic accidents .

Object

Representation ID: 3910

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jeannie Buckroyd

The infrastructure of Addingham village cannot support the proposed developments. Particularly in relation to the school, the roads and parking issues. The Green Belt in the village supports a diverse natural habitat for wildlife - flora and forna This is an important legacy for future generations and must be protected. The Green Belt protects the linear nature of Addingham village and the setting of it's 129 listed buildings and monuments. The Green Belt protection should NOT be taken away. The house allocation has been raised from 75 to 175 I strongly disagree with this proposal and suggest that it remains at 75.

Object

Representation ID: 3946

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Roger Seddon

The Plan does not explain why Addingham's housing allocation has been increased from 75 to 175. There is no justification for that arbitrary increase. I object to green belt development in general in the absence of extremely compelling reasons. No such reasons exist in this instance.
Such a large increase in housing would adversely affect Addingham's character as a rural village with an 18th century core.
Schools and other local services are insufficient to support such a large increase in population. Addingham has no railway station and no direct bus services to Leeds or Bradford, so most of the additional residents would use cars, adding to traffic density, pollution and CO2 emissions.

Object

Representation ID: 4007

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Robert Binns

The numbers of proposed housing allocated to the village of Addingham is too high in proportion to the current housing numbers. More of the proposed housing should be in larger towns that have better infrastructure and more employment opportunities.

Addingham has limited employment opportunities so new residents would have to seek employment further afield which would increase the use of cars. Addingham has limited public transport with no railway so most commuters would use cars for at least some of their journey. The volume of traffic is already too high on Moor Lane and through Addingham with congestion on Main Street and Bolton Road

The local school is already near capacity with some local children recently having to go to an appeal to try to secure a place. If further housing is built this situation would occur again.

Object

Representation ID: 4011

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Ilkley Clean River Group

Ilkley Clean River Group (ICRG) object to this plan because of the adverse impact the new houses and supporting infrastructure will have on river water quality.
The combined sewage and drainage system is already overwhelmed and these new buildings will directly lead to a degradation in water quality through more unauthorised sewage discharges directly into the river in Ilkley.
The Addingham at Low Mill CSO flows directly into a dry stream which is already a health hazard and the sewage from these additional houses will make that worse.
SuDS mitigation plans for run-off water in neighbouring Ilkley have been shown to be inadequate as there is currently a challenge on the adequacy of these plans at the new Moss & Moor Garden Centre.
Note: the Addingham sewage system runs into the Ilkley sewage system (which is already overwhelmed) so we also object to the plans for new houses in Ilkley.

Object

Representation ID: 4036

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr C S Millar

In principle I support the Area Strategy – supporting the regeneration of Addingham, supporting local services and protecting green and open spaces. However, there are two aspect of implementation that I do not support: 1) The number of new houses (181) is too high and there is no basis for the figure. The adopted Neighbourhood Plan should be followed. 2) Housing development at AD1/H, AD2/H, AD6/H and AD7/H will not support local services. They will be dormitory houses for car-based commuters. These sites are a one mile walk uphill from the village centre, the road rising 200 ft. No one is going to walk or cycle to use the village amenities. All journeys will be by car. Addingham village centre needs regeneration, with people walking to shop and use other amenities. It does not need another 160 cars driving through Main Street on their way to Ilkley and other centres.

Object

Representation ID: 4095

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr William Varley

The provision of housing described in the plan is not matched by any increase in the provision of local services, notably health and education. Such provision must be part of any comprehensive development plan.

Object

Representation ID: 4102

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Christine Smith

No additional secondary school provision is indicated for a total of 1400+ new houses in Burley, Menston, Ilkley and Addingham. This is not responsible or sustainable development.
This Plan directly contradicts UK Government aims of reducing emissions, leading on climate change and protecting the environment.
BMDC should be building first on brownfield sites, and 'infilling', before any consideration is given to forever destroying fields and greenbelt.
Public transport in Addingham is insufficient to discourage residents from using their cars. The X84 service from Leeds to Skipton now terminates in Ilkley, the 62 only runs between Keighley and Ilkley, no longer going on to Otley and the airport, the 784 runs between Skipton and Otley. Insufficient buses and no trains means residents will further clog and pollute our roads.
The Partial Review of the Addingham Neighbourhood plan recommended 75 houses, why now 175?
This village will be ruined by additional traffic.

Object

Representation ID: 4126

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Residents of Moor Lane, Turner Lane, Moor View and Moor Croft, Addingham

Agent: Airedon Planning and Design

There are many reasons why the number of houses that have been allocated to Addingham are inappropriate, and particularly the houses on the western edge of Addingham are not in a sustainable location.

Object

Representation ID: 4147

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Patricia Johnston

The proposed housing density is out of proportion for the character and nature of the village. Local amenities will be unable to cope with the additional pressure - schools are already at capacity and the local road net work not suited to the increased traffic density that will be a consequence of development.

Object

Representation ID: 4155

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr William Johnston

The housing density in the proposed development is out of proportion for the size and character of Addingham village. It will result in a large sprawling estate along the A65 destroying the nature of the village. Services and local amenities will not cope with the additional demand - local schools are already at capacity. Much of the development would be on green belt - we cannot keep losing green belt to housing. Many mature trees will be lost along with the loss of habitat for wildlife - one site (AD7/H) is directly opposite Marchup wildlife reserve - development here would be against the very purpose of a wildlife reserve. The area is generally wetland - flooding has already been observed as a consequence of previous development opposite site AD6/H on Moor Lane.

Object

Representation ID: 4224

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Julie Reid

Very concerned about using Greenfield sites and little heed taken of damage to local flora & fauna.
You claim there are no "gardens" in Addingham - there are (check with the Garden Friends group).
Traffic through Addingham is already high. You mention footpaths - some of these can be difficult to use given the traffic speed on the bypass!
There have already been a number of houses built in Addingham since the last "numbers" discussion - these don't seem to have been considered in your figures. Why Not?
Will all new properties be eco-friendly?
Will there be true variety of type and size of new properties?

Object

Representation ID: 4242

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Jessica Penrose

I object to the size of the housing allocation. 181 new homes is too many for our village, and is a huge increase on the 75 that were previously designated. This number of houses will make it very difficult to protect and enhance the green infrastructure.

Object

Representation ID: 4308

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jenny Irving

A reduction of wildlife and agricultural land. The infrastructure of the village is not adequate. Most of the proposed sites are over one mile away from the village centre, meaning traffic will be increased and thus not enabling to decrease the carbon footprint. Volume of traffic and pollution. During construction the roads are not suitable to take the heavy machinery and large vehicles. Flooding is already an issue in parts of the village. The possibility of opening the floodgates to sprawl and alter the whole look and feel of the village. Lack of green space and openness.

Object

Representation ID: 4315

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jenny Irving

Bradford Council’s Local Plan Core Strategy for the District (adopted July 2017) includes an allocation
of 200 new homes for Addingham over the Plan period 2011 - 2030. I understand this was reduced to around 175. It seems the numbers have already increased. 181 has been proposed.

Object

Representation ID: 4358

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Addingham Environment Group

-Housing numbers – too high and cannot be accommodated without substantially compromising policies clearly laid out elsewhere in the Local Plan on sustainability and environmental protection.
- There is very limited open land within the settlement boundary or surrounding Green Belt 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;
- Sites that are potentially otherwise suitable under some of the housing allocation criteria 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, which are more important in a village context than proximity to bus routes;
-Impact on the South Pennine Moors SPA/SCA, and the North Pennine Moors SPA/SCA;
- 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). Connectivity between these areas and the Pennine Moors’ SPAs is essential for wildlife protection. Excessive development will lead to further fragmentation and cause wildlife disturbance. The recent loss of curlews in the field to the north of Springfield Mount is a prime example of the wildlife attrition currently taking place.
• Support - The importance of both Green and Blue Infrastructure and the need to protect and enhance green and blue corridors (although this is inconsistent with preferred sites AD5/H and AD 6/H (see below);
• Support - Enhancing the vitality and viability of the Local Centre to facilitate more sustainable lifestyles;
• Support - Creating and improving safe travel routes for walking and cycling both to village centre facilities and through village neighbourhoods (although this is inconsistent with support given for AD1/H, AD2/H, AD6/H and AD7/H);
• support - Protecting open space especially where there are opportunities to improve wildlife value and to create zones for natural flood water management and Sustainable urban Drainage Systems (SuDS); and
• support - Improving footpaths and biodiversity in the Southfield “green wedge”. The Area Strategy summary only highlights the importance of protecting the landscape to the South of the village; this needs strengthening by stressing:
• The importance of protecting and enhancing blue as well as green infrastructure corridors
• The importance of protecting and enhancing the Marchup and Back Beck/Long Riddings corridors especially the green entry into the village from the Silsden Road roundabout along Marchup and threats to wildlife habitats along Back Beck Lane.
• It has intrinsic heritage, archaeological and ecological importance with respect especially to its medieval history, the occurrence of ancient species-rich hedgerows and its barn owl population;
• It is located within the zone of influence of the internationally designated South Pennine Moor Special Protection Area for wading birds and is used as foraging ground for species such as curlew and lapwing; and
• Despite the barrier created by the A65 road, it links the village to the Street, Lumb Ghyll Wood and Stegholes Local Wildlife Sites and the wider countryside of Addingham Moorside beyond, forming a connection of immense value for both people and wildlife. Village gardens contribute to the conservation of wildlife populations across the site and wildlife observation and care for wildlife contributes to the enjoyment and well-being of residents in the centre of the village.
In this context and if housing is granted on Southfield land as proposed (AD3/H and/or AD4/H below) we seek assurances that no further erosion of this green wedge takes place and its integrity is permanently protected. It should be recognised along with the Wharfe and Beck corridors as an important green infrastructure asset for wildlife and people.

Object

Representation ID: 4370

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jenny Irving

I would like to see more of the areas in the centre of Addingham, which once accommodated buildings to be used. This would stop the village sprawling over the green spaces, using up agricultural land and disturbing wildlife and wild meadows. On the road out towards Ilkley there was once a garage, why not build on that site, where access is already in place?

Object

Representation ID: 4428

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Allan Moffat

Noting that the summary description references limited employment opportunities.
Section 5.15.8

The delivery of 163 new houses, is not justified. Only a small number of newly formed households from within the local population are required. At the term ‘modest growth’ is not a reasonable description, particularly when Addingham is unlikely to attract new residents looking to establish businesses in the village and create employment opportunities. The sites (Main Street /Addingham Bypass (East) and Main Street Addingham/ Bypass (west)) that are in effect infill of existing developments will put an extraordinary strain on the local provision of services and facilities, not least of which the oversubscribed local education system.

Object

Representation ID: 4503

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jillian Hargrave

Addingham have recently devised a Local Plan for 2018-30 which was agreed by 93% in a local referendum.

The house numbers for Addingham in this new consultation are far too high, and there is no reason given why they are so high. There was no data given to support the extremely high number.

Object

Representation ID: 4551

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jillian Hargrave

Totally object to the extremely high house numbers for Addingham, which are illogical and show no reason or data for being so high. The growth percentages for higher are higher than principal towns of Ilkley, Keighley and Bingley, and also higher than Bradford City.
I object to the planned sites AD1, 2, 6 & 7/H. All these sites are to the far west of the village, over 1 mile from the village centre,
the surgery and the primary school. No elderly residents will walk that distance to the surgery, and no young children will walk
that distance with their parents to the school. All will use cars, which will therefore add to the village congestion, clearly not
sustainable transport or sustainable development.
Many of the houses will be next to the A65 bypass, which is not conducive to the Council's wellness policy.

Object

Representation ID: 4650

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Craig Thomson

Firstly, traffic volume in the village of Addingham is already a significant problem due to commuters using the village as a route to Bolton Abbey and Harrogate. The roads within the village are not fit for this volume of traffic and the 20mph speed limit is seldom adhered to by drivers. Any significant uplift in houses are going to make an already significant problem worse.

Addingham utilities infrastructure is insufficient to accommodate additional dwellings.

Local children clearly want.to attend the primary school in the village and the school is already over subscribed. Adding further housing is counter productive.

The surrounding fields are situated on green belt and proposed building on this green belt would be detrimental to numerous aspects. Loss of trees, nature conservation and biodiversity.

Addingham offers vey little it terms of available employment opportunities, with only local shops and public houses situated in the village

Object

Representation ID: 4665

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Matt Carr

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: 4699

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Tamsin Waddilove-Carr

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: 4863

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Richard Walton

The population Figures shown in 5.15.3 state that 3,119 people live in Addingham. I am advised that these are 2014 figures, yet the 2011 Census records 3,730 live in Addingham and that is very unlikely to have reduced. Additionally, 5.15.17 records 1,587 dwellings yet when we deliver our Village newsletter we deliver to 1847 dwellings - less that 100 of which are solely business premises. Both people and dwelling figures seem to be very inaccurate and would suggest flawed research at the heart of the document.

Object

Representation ID: 4906

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Robin Hargrave

This is totally wrong, innumerate and illogical for Addingham, which is a Local Service Centre (emphasis on a smaller scale of development), has growth of 10.3% - being the highest in this tier, and double the average of the other 10 centres.
Addingham's growth is also higher than Ilkley (only 4.2%), Keighley and Bingley, and also less than Bradford City (growth 9.3%) which will be “the prime focus of new housing development” within the area.
I object to the planned sites AD1, 2, 6 & 7/H. All these sites are to the far west of the village, over 1 mile from the village centre, the surgery and the primary school. No elderly residents will walk that distance to the surgery, and no young children will walk that distance with their parents to the school. All will use cars, which will therefore add to the village congestion, clearly not sustainable transport.

Object

Representation ID: 5236

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Suzanne Garside

The proposed plans for development in no way protect the green belt sites and would prove to be catastrophic for local wildlife and environment.
The school are already at max capacity in some year groups
The increase in traffic would create safety risks to local houses
Access to some of the suggested sites are extremely restricted
The local amenities are already stretched with no chance of investment from the council such as parks and play areas.
Addingham is a quaint village with narrow roads that already struggle with larger vehicles so adding to that would add too much pressure on providing further services which cannot be accommodated.