Consultation Question 116

Object

Representation ID: 5415

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Andrew Coates

Agent: Rural Solutions

Agree with the suggested requirement for 175 houses for Addingham during the plan period.

Disagree with the preferred option sites which do not deliver sustainable development. All the suggested preferred option development sites (aside from AD5/H) are located on the south side of the settlement boundaries, essentially abutting the bypass and a considerable distance from the services and facilities of Addingham Local Centre.

A significant proportion of the preferred option sites are, as recognised within evidence documents, constrained in that ‘access to both primary and secondary school is somewhat limited due to distance, and residents may find they need to travel up to 1.4 km, significantly beyond the target distance, to access services and amenities’. This is not appropriate sustainable development for Addingham especially when other sites, such as our client’s, within a significantly closer distance to services, are not being allocated.

Object

Representation ID: 5671

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Richard Powne

No reason to build on precious Green Belt land when so many Brownfield sites are available across Bradford District

Would extinguish beautiful local views forever

Object

Representation ID: 6072

Received: 04/03/2021

Respondent: Spink Amey

Village has too few amenities to support no of houses proposed
Loss of green belt would be a loss to people with dogs

Object

Representation ID: 6074

Received: 05/03/2021

Respondent: Harry Jevons

Green should be protected - use brownfield first
Increase since CSPR (75) to 163 in current plan is an increase of 117% when 30% decrease for Bradford
85% of the new homes will be on green belt sites - only 2 will have moderate impact. This is not realistic

Comment

Representation ID: 6665

Received: 11/03/2021

Respondent: Anne Hodgson

I am concerned about the developments between the Main street and the Addingham by-pass as these would increase to flood risk to the village from extra water run off. There are also footpaths in these areas which would need not only to be protected from building upheaval but would also need surfacing so they remain useable in wet weather and not become deep mud due to lack of drainage, and increased footfall.
The other sites would impact on wild life habitats and local important trees such as those seen as you enter the village from the Ilkley direction and the in-fill sites on nature reserves. I would want reassurance that specimen trees would be protected and wild life respected.
Finally I don’t know where you think any children will be able to go to school as local schools are full. Doctor’s surgeries and similar amenities are also at bursting point.

Object

Representation ID: 6910

Received: 11/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Emma-Louise Fawcitt

It is my strong view that our green belt land should not be considered for development at all, we need to retain our countryside and green spaces for future generations, we need green grass and trees to survive.
Have all other sites been considered?? We need to use regeneration sites in the area and brownfield sites before any green belt areas are considered for housing.
Do we have a need for 181 houses in Addingham can the infrastructure support this many more houses??

Object

Representation ID: 8083

Received: 12/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Lynne Walder

Addingham has been asked to provide 10.27% of new build yet the average is 5.38%
Village has limited facilities to cope with more families and traffic
School is oversubscribed
Infrastructure - sewers will be overwhelmed- drains cannot cope with run off causing flooding
Development will cause further congestion
Access - roads contain parked cars. Emergency services cannot get through
No objection to brownfield sites- these should be built first
Green belt land is used by local people for recreation, wildlife and the area attracts visitors to the village
Increase in development would be detrimental to character and would not be sustainable
*Curlews sighted on AD6/H*

Object

Representation ID: 8101

Received: 08/03/2021

Respondent: Gill Paxton

"Addingham is heavily constrained by Green Belt with limited deliverable brownfield and non-Green Belt growth options" - so why are so many houses proposed in this area when there are other less damaging brownfield infill sites in the Bradford area?
The village has a small school, limited shops and only green belt land available.
More houses will affect the wildlife, bird populations and put pressure on the village infrastructure, and have a damaging effect on the environment.
The village that has poor transport links, limited infrastructure and will merge the village into one long Wharfedale corridor of built up areas is not in keeping with preserving the environment and ensuring the beauty of Yorkshire is preserved.
I object to the number of properties that have been allocated, the use of green belt and the pressure this will put on the already stretched resources within the village.

Object

Representation ID: 8783

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: Neil & Deborah Hartley

Number of people: 2

Addingham has got very busy in last 15 years due to number of new houses built.
Number of cars per household, causing roads and streets to be over parked.
Main Street is a disaster with double parking and buses mounting pavements to get through.

Development at Moor Lane/Turner Lane will add to the existing problem of more cars zooming up the streets and double or treble parking, causing disruptions to the existing houses and will include safety issues for families with young children and pets.
Problem of speeding traffics and amount of traffic passing through village.

Flooding and drainage problems will increase as more houses are built
Drainage system at the top of Moor Lane over-flows and water pours out of the drain down the street.
Pressure on Infrastructure from increased population -schools, Doctors and Dentist’s
We need Green Belt Land otherwise Addingham will no longer be a “Pretty Village” and will become overrun by housing estates and will become an urban sprawl.

Object

Representation ID: 8793

Received: 15/04/2021

Respondent: Shirley Bolton

I object to recent proposals to develop areas in Addingham targeting 175 new homes. The Addingham Neighbourhood plan was adopted by a large majority in the village reducing the original target of 200 homes to 75. It was fully expected that after the village consultation the conclusion of the Addingham Neighbourhood Plan would be respected.
Objections
1. Encroachment into Green Belt demonstrating poor sensitivity to the Environment and affecting protection for wildlife sites and biodiversity, hedgerows, trees and green corridors.

2). Impact on Infrastructure.
Transport by increasing the number of cars in relation to the number of houses built - build up of traffic increasing pollution levels and affecting residents health and safety.

3). Education - local schools have limited capacity.

4). Effects on health by increasing housing density, reducing green space, altering the nature of the village impacting wellbeing.

Object

Representation ID: 8834

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: Alan Davies

Number of people: 2

Addingham Housing Plan - having studied your proposals in detail, I would like to register my objection to the level of development.
Irrespective of the location of the proposed houses, 171 houses are just too many for our infrastructure to absorb. It is reasonable to assume 171 houses will mean approximately 350 additional residents (approximately a 10% increase) that will need to be accommodated with school places, car parking. medical facilities and policing - we are already under-policed with little control or influence over the growing youth activities frequently disturbing a rural environment.
My greatest concern is increased traffic movement and the lack of parking facilities when visiting various facilities within the village. Additional to this concern is the growth of "through traffic" on Main Street and the B6160 where the traffic flow rarely observes the 20mph speed limit.
More houses will bring more pressures on this infrastructure.

Object

Representation ID: 9004

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Julia Barrow

I object to the building of houses, on green belt land in Addingham.

Object

Representation ID: 9524

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Sarah Canelle

I am writing to object to the proposed developments in Ilkley & Addingham.
Impossible for developers to leave green belt land in a better state than beforehand.

Very heavy traffic, queues, congestion When this route Traffic diverts into Burley and the Moor Road in busy times, increasing pollution, changing feel of village and will lead to more accidents.

What infrastructure is being put in place?

Use disused mill buildings around Bradford for housing.

Protect Green Belt to maintain individual conurbations and stop urban sprawl.

EDUCATION Schools at capacity.

Proposals will change the character of the valley from villages within a green landscape to another suburb.

People who live here do so because of the fields and the good education facilities - Neither of these will exist in a few years time with potentially another 1600 cars on an already busy road and 1600 children trying to get into schools.

Comment

Representation ID: 9878

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Dr Carol Miles

-Against the numbers of houses proposed.
-Inpact on the provision of school places, sewage processing, and traffic in the Main Street.
-Few job opportunities.
-Nearest station is Ilkley
-Traffic would increase.
-Addingham is a large characterful village, with a strong community spirit in a beautiful Dales setting. Excessive suburban-style development threatens to diminish the impact of both character and setting.
-Incursion into the Green Belt would threaten green/blue corridors and sensitive wildlife habitats which form part of Pennine SPAs/SCAs.
-It may be necessary to build some less sensitive parts of the Green Belt to preserve more precious spaces elsewhere, which is characterised throughout by the interconnection of green spaces.
-Could designate the “old garage site” at the entrance to Addingham. It is reverting to scrub; and building on this former brownfield site could take some pressure off more sensitive sites elsewhere.

Comment

Representation ID: 10226

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Dr Christian Pacsoo

In reference to the Draft Plan to build additional housing in Addingham.

I would like to express my concern about the amount of housing planned for Addingham under the draft plan.

I feel the number of houses proposed is out of proportion for the size of the village and will have a detrimental effort on various aspects of the infrastructure and services, be it, utilities,education, pollution, transport congestion or general health and well being.

Object

Representation ID: 10360

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: David Thwaites

My objections are as follows:

1. Population. The requirement for new housing is already fatally flawed due Brexit, falling birth rates and need for lower population growth. Should have “wind back” strategy in plan when housing need starts to unravel.

2. Village. Wish to live in a village not a town. Add houses to existing towns or build a new town – can build infrastructure in at the start

3. Windfalls. Recent and imminent builds, including those off Moor Lane, must be taken into account.

4. Brownfield sites, e.g. former petrol station. Should be used up first and is more accessible to facilities than Moor Lane sites.

5. Sewers. Existing system cannot cope and will be overloaded. New sewer system required.

6. Traffic. Moor Lane is a narrow road and not suitable to support 80 houses of the planned development. Concerns about impact on road safety.

Object

Representation ID: 10423

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Lynne Walder

object to the proposed Development Plans for the village of Addingham as identified in the Draft Bradford District Local Plan.
- Addingham has been asked to provide a huge 12.7% of new build (175 houses),an increase of 7% from the previous plan, and yet Ilkley, which is the nearest main time to Addingham (used for work, transport, shopping, schools etc, has had a reduction of 39%. How has this come about?
- limited facilities to accommodate additional families and traffic. There is limited public transport and no railway line.
- impact on school places and sewerage infrastructure.
- Green Belt harm- encroachment into the countryside
- Landscape harm impact the character and uniqueness of Addingham and impact on views form PROWs
- housing target is unsustainable and detrimental to the village

Object

Representation ID: 11254

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Dr Vanessa Taylor

- housing target too high for a local service centre
- increased housing targets is inconsistent with Polciies SP2 and SP3 which seek to focus development on Regional city and principal towns.
-Addingham is not a sustainable location for a significant increase in the number of houses
- In particular development to the west of Addingham is not sustainable- distinace from centre, services and school
- 81 additional households result in significantly increased noise, congestion, pollution and risk of injury
- inconsistent with Policy SP4 Location of Development
- Green Belt impact- encroachment into countryside
- landscape impact - Beamsley Beacon /Dales Way
- impact on character of village
- impact on infrastructure- drainage

Object

Representation ID: 11362

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Jennifer Kitson-Bambridge

Understand that there is possibility of another 175 houses to be built in Addingham.

One of the proposed sites was donated for educational purposes and has not been used as intended. Could have provided opportunities to support children’s education.

Site is named as Green Belt. It should be protected from development as it would a detrimental effect and spoil the village's character.

Education capacity is a concern for many people. The primary school has no capacity of expansion to cope with larger class sizes. Pupil numbers has also affected Ilkley Grammar School meaning that not all can attend it with those that can’t needing to go to Keighley instead.

In relation to traffic, the village is lucky to have a bypass and is mostly very quiet. The amount of traffic that will pass along the roads if these houses were to be built, cannot be ignored. Could be as much as 350 extra cars. That is an increase in risk to safety and comes with a pollution risk.

Object

Representation ID: 11555

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Bridget Attia

- Squeezing housing developments into tranquil green spaces that local families use for exercise and fresh air in a safe environment is not the solution to the housing shortage.
- unlikely that low-cost affordable housing will be available for young people.

Object

Representation ID: 11808

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: John & Elisabeth Stanley

•Concerned about the increase in houses to be built in Addingham from 75 to 175 without notice.
•Accept that Government policy is to increase housing but feel the use of Green Belt sites is detrimental.
•In the last few years a significant number of new builds have taken place with these houses being unaffordable to most local young people, no doubt any new houses will be similar.
•Housing plans are under the influence of property developers who are unwilling to invest in less profitable areas.
•We contend that building on any green belt land is detrimental to the surrounding area wherever it might be.
•It impinges on the quality of the surrounding area and calls into question the ability of the whole infrastructure of wherever new builds take place.

Object

Representation ID: 11856

Received: 12/05/2021

Respondent: Brian & Annette Roberts

Wish to object to the proposed new buildings on land at the top of Moor Lane & Turner Lane

Estate is becoming a car park, with drivers not paying attention to 20 mph speed limit. New Houses would mean more cars and become a danger to children and elderly people.

More houses would mean more children. Doubt if the school could cope and Ilkley Grammar School is already over-subscribed.

Have limited services in the village – every journey will be by car. This will increase pollution.

Have had more than our fair share of new homes – more will affect the Green Belt and wildlife.

Another concern is drainage and fear of flooding. Flooding has become a problem.

Object

Representation ID: 12089

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Judy Mason

AD5/H and the adjoining beck is visited by a variety of birds, butterflies and other wildlife and one which is visited a good deal by dog walkers and others enjoying the nature.
To put houses there would mean spending money on access and presumably on drainage as flooding can be a problem.
Access would cause difficulties as Chapel Street is narrow and is already a problem for local traffic and to create access elsewhere seems to me to be an extravagance when there are only 5 houses to be served. It would be far less expensive to spend some money on developing the site as a nature reserve as an amenity . It would also be a useful amenity for Addingham primary school.

Reconsider plans for the area generally particularly with regard to secondary school provision. The only school is Ilkley Grammar School which is already over-subscribed yet your plans would mean hundreds more children living in the area who would need to be provided for

Object

Representation ID: 12100

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Mike & Janet Cooper

Number of people: 2

Building on Greenbelt should not be allowed destroying views and the openness of the village.

Opportunity for sprawl, views over the open fields towards Beamsley will be lost forever.

Sites AD1/H,AD2/H,AD6/H and AD7/H are too far from the village amenities to expect families to walk, meaning car journeys will increase on already busy village streets.

AD6/H was refused planning, nothing has changed so the reasons put forward then are still valid for that site and all the others on greenbelt.

Number dwellings proposed is disproportionate to the size of the village. In the last review only 70 houses were required.

There is no supporting infrastructure for the village. No train station, no secondary school, poor bus links, most commuting is by car already.
Contrary to pollution targets.

If there is no option to using greenbelt there are sites closer to the village, land between the cricket field and memorial hall seems more sensible, close enough to walk to amenities, cars will not have to travel through the village and access is safe/direct.

Object

Representation ID: 12927

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Eric Hemsley

Impact on the village community/infrastructure.
Traffic congestion/parking issues through village
on Main Street.
Traffic increases in summer months with tourists to Bolton Abbey.
Properties in Main Street have to park their vehicles on the Main Street creating difficulties in navigating through the village especially for buses.
Narrow road access to school, problems would increase with additional traffic.
Welfare of the villagers.
There are no businesses in the village to provide increase to local employment.
Commuters drive to Ilkley and park to use the station. Ilkley is lacking in long period parking provision.
Schools - inadequate to accommodate additional numbers.
Extra healthcare facilities would be required.
Impact on fauna and wildlife.
Affect on nesting habitat for curlews.
Affect on Otters.
Loss of greenfields
Brownfield sites nearer to more facilities reducing impact on infrastructure should be developed first, helping cut down on their carbon footprint.
Creation of larger connabation leading from Menston down the whole of Wharfedale to Addingham.

Question reasons behind plans, is it for larger revenue?

Object

Representation ID: 12974

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Julie Melechi

- object to 81 houses (AD1/H, A2/H, AD6H, AD7/H)
- combination of sites will add to sprawl and encroachment into green belt
- negative impact on character of the village
- loss of important green spaces
- unsustainable development located long way from services
- impact on local highway network/safety

Object

Representation ID: 12980

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Ann & Graham Bacon

Number of people: 2

Addingham is a "Local Service Centre” with a level of housing to satisfy local need mainly. The increase to 181 from 75 is totally unacceptable. The large use of greenfield sites will increase the burden on drains and roads. These are a major problem already.

Comment

Representation ID: 13365

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Prof. Stanley Wainer

I agree with the overall comments and recommendations of the Addingham Civic Society
and Parish Council. In particular there should be fewer houses planned than is stated,
and great care should be taken to protect the local environment and wildlife. Further increase
in housing numbers demands newer facilities - especially for young families. These must be
thought through.

Object

Representation ID: 14211

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Cherry & David Bartlett

Number of people: 2

-Conflict with BDLP seeing to protect green spaces and “minimises the use of Green Belt land”.
-Object to use of green belt sites
-If available, land should be used for sport and recreation particularly those at the west end of the village where such facilities are very limited or community orchards/ tree planting to be part of the Northern Forest/additional allotments.
-Prioritise brownfield sites in Bradford and empty retail premises in centres.
-Limited employment opportunities in Addingham.
-Lead to increase in commuting.
-Lack of public transport services
-Parking issues in Ilkley
-Green travel -no safe cycle routes between Addingham and other towns. These should be developed before any additional housing is approved.
-Education - capacity issues at Ilkley Grammar School
-Infrastructure - current water/sewage issues in Ilkley when the Wharfe floods.
-Internet - higher demand due to people working from home
-Concerns re assessment of effects on the sensitive local environment

Object

Representation ID: 14999

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Martin Wardle

I object to the proposed new housing developments.
The new developments will increase traffic in the village. You wouldn’t think this village had a by-pass. The amount of traffic travelling from Bolton Abbey through to Silsden is far too high not to mention the speed of the traffic.
I have complained to Bradford council highways including local MP, Robbie Moore about the speed of traffic through this village. Addingham is a Mecca for cyclists thanks to the success of the visit of the Tour de France and regular Tour of Yorkshire visits. Heavy fast traffic and cyclists don’t mix.
There will be a fatality in Addingham due to the traffic and these developments will only increase the risk of this happening.
Why is there money to build houses but not to save lives. Commercialism before safety breaks every health and safety rule in the book and is morally wrong.