Consultation Question 116

Comment

Representation ID: 15505

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Highways England (Yorkshire & North East Team)

It is not considered that locating development within the settlements within Addingham, on their own, will have a severe impact on the capacity, operation and safety of the SRN, and this will be identified through the transport evidence base being prepared by the Council / the individual assessment of the transport implications of the sites by the sites’ promoters.
However, the quantum of sites forms part of a wider cumulative impact within Addingham and the rest of the development aspirations within the Plan could severely impact the SRN, and this cumulative impact will need to be established by the Council and considered by Highways England.

Object

Representation ID: 16237

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Michael Nichols

I object to the area Plan for Addingham for a number of reasons. The number proposed of 181 homes is far too high and cannot be accommodated without severely compromising the council’s own policies clearly set out elsewhere in the Local Plan.

Furthermore there is very little open land located within the boundary of the settlement or the surrounding green belt that can be developed without harming the character of the village.
All of the open countryside to the south of the village and most of the village is within the 2.5 km habitat protection zone for the South Pennine Moors SPA/SCA.

Many of the proposed sites including AD1/H, AD2/H, AD4/H, AD6/H and AD7/H are located a distance from village services and perform very poorly against Policy SP7.

Object

Representation ID: 16541

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Angela and Barry Tiffany

Number of people: 2

We are appealing to Bradford Council to reconsider plans for the developments here in our village.

The Main Street is as busy now as it was before the bypass was built. The main Street is the only route in for many of the newbuilds. To add to this without any thought for access would be adding to the problem.

And worst of all is the disruption to wildlife in the area, the site of the Old First School is a haven for wildlife.

The village has spread over the years and the facilities have not kept up.

As one of the last small villages before hitting Ilkley and the towns and cities thereafter we will do all we can to keep this place from becoming an extension of that chain.

Object

Representation ID: 16688

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Margaret Widdowson

1. Current population is 4,000. Number of new properties seem to increase it by an excessive percentage

2. Over the last 5 years, around 60 new properties have been built. Few are affordable/starter homes. These don’t make economic use of the land due to their size.

3. Increase in population will put pressure on school places. Ilkley Grammar School is over-subscribed.

4. There have been flooding issues in recent years. Building on hill increases flooding lower down as water cannot drain.

5. Removing trees increases flood risks and affects the carbon footprint.

6. Some of the proposes sites are on Green Belt. Loss of open spaces will affect Wharfedale’s character/appeal. Will be less land available for agricultural use and recreation.

7. There is limited public transport available – 3 miles for Ilkley railway station and limited bus services. A65 traffic also goes through village. More cars from additional population is unsustainable.

Object

Representation ID: 16749

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Addingham Civic Society

Bradford’s Draft Local Plan does not respect the village’s very sensitive environmental setting, its “Local Service Centre” status within the Plan Settlement Hierarchy, nor does it adhere to key elements of Addingham’s approved Neighbourhood Plan (adopted 2020). There is no specific evidence offered in support of the latest increase in the housing target from 75 to an unsustainable 175 for the Plan period to 2038.

Development should be achieved utilising carefully selected small sites with least environmental impact. Site AD/5H should be turned into a nature reserve; the Society proposes a new brownfield site for housing, within the Green Belt but with outline planning consent for a motel. A combination of sites AD1/H, AD2/H, AD6/H and AD8/H together with the “Motel Site” can provide 78 houses and minimise environmental impact, preserve important Green Spaces, whilst minimising loss to Green Belt.

Object

Representation ID: 16960

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Sarah Mortimer

object to planned development of the land in Addingham,
- no local amenities to support more housing in the village.
impact on infrastructure
- schools currently struggle with capacity

Object

Representation ID: 17133

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Addingham Civic Society

1. The housing allocation has been increased from 75 (Partial Review of the Core Strategy 2019) to 175 in the latest Preferred Options proposal, representing an increase of 133%. There is no specific evidence offered for this increase, which is incompatible with Addingham’s status as a “Local Service Centre” and should be accommodated in less sensitive parts of Bradford’s area.

2. This proposed increase will result in the partial development of the “Sailor Fields” between the village and the A65 by-pass. It will destroy the linear nature of the village and the setting of its 129 listed buildings and monuments. It will also negatively impact the distinctive Dales landscape and bring new development into the South Pennine SAC/SPA Protection Zone. The Green Belt was established to protect the “Sailor Fields” and this important function was confirmed by the Planning Inspectorate and BMDC itself. No “exceptional circumstances” have been put forward for these Green Belt changes.

Object

Representation ID: 18141

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Rachel Crolla

-Main concern is the number of houses proposed.
-Character of a Dales village and should be protected within the national park boundary.
-Impact on views of sites AD3/AD4 – these are particularly visible from the top of Beamsley Beacon (within the YDNP).
-Loss Green Belt land.
-The working from home population is greater than the commuting population as the village is notoriously difficult to commute from on public transport, not having a rail connection and relatively infrequent buses.
-Village infrastructure would not cope.
-Addingham 7 becks project has highlighted that drainage is a serious issue, particularly on the new build sites at the top of Moor Lane and Southfield Rd, risking flooding.
-Addingham Primary School is beyond capacity.
-Secondary school places in the area are also already stretched to capacity.
-The roads in the village centre cannot cope with more cars.
-Doubt that affordable housing in Addingham will benefit younger local families.

Object

Representation ID: 18718

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Shelly and Clive Bentley

Number of people: 2

The Addingham plan shows a large allocation of new houses with limited services.

These figures mean that Addingham has the biggest percentage of new houses than any other in the district.

This will put pressure on the medical centre, primary school & Ilkley Grammar school which is already oversubscribed.

Object

Representation ID: 18899

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: David Eggleshaw

The majority of Addingham people choose to live here for it's unique character, green spaces and the surroundings of countryside with nature and wildlife on their doorstep - and would like to keep it that way.

Development will cause the village to be overrun with commuter traffic, speeding vehicles and congestion problems.

The very restricted employment opportunities and public transport availability mean that there would be a huge increase in traffic on roads that were not meant to sustain such high volumes, causing pollution and congestion.

The limited amenities mean that people need to travel outside the village for shopping etc. so again, this would mean an increase in traffic.

We already have a fragile water and drainage system with a high risk of flooding. Pasture destruction, removal of mature trees, and introduction of vast areas of hard surfaces would cause a huge increase in the volume of unmanageable surface water.

Object

Representation ID: 19611

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Nina Dereix

I was shocked to discover the extent of the enormous number of 175 houses for the small rural village.

Addingham is a unique village on the edge of the Yorkshire Dales which does not have a rail link to Leeds or Bradford and there is only a limited and lengthy bus service to these towns. I am in doubt as to why the village would be required to accommodate so many new houses given its relatively small semi rural community.

Furthermore several of the sites are Green Belt land which, if developed, would impact hugely on the village.

The neighbourhood plan for Addingham has only just been voted upon and the agreed plan did not impact on any Green Belt areas within the village or surrounding fields. The proposed plans do not take into account the wishes of the local community therefore.

Object

Representation ID: 19728

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr & Mrs D & H Allanach

Number of people: 2

I would like to record the following objections in connection with proposed building of houses on land designated as Green Belt in the Addingham area.

We are not in favour of allowing the building of houses on the green belt at Addingham, principally because this is against general government policy designed to prevent urban sprawl. The two proposed developments designated AD3/H and AD4/H are of particular concern as they would begin the process of “in-filling” the designated land between Addingham village Main Street and Addingham bypass.

Furthermore the construction of a proposed total of 181 houses in the locality will add to the traffic load in an already congested Addingham Main Street, and put pressure on over-streatched medical and schooling provision in the village.

Object

Representation ID: 20014

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Stewart Bannister

•Concerned that the consultation process has not been correctly followed. Significant information unavailable, extreme time pressure to comment and no way for elderly to object as they have no access/understanding of the internet.
•The number of houses proposed for Addingham seems excessive compared to other villages across Bradford. The village has limited services and is designated as a lower tier settlement.
•There are a significant number of Brownfield sites across Bradford with many closer to key transport links and general services. These are more sustainable and would not impact on finite green spaces.
•Addingham is a very special and unique village and should be kept that way for the community, tourism and future generations.

Object

Representation ID: 20016

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Stewart Bannister

•Concerned that the consultation process has not been correctly followed. Significant information unavailable, extreme time pressure to comment and no way for elderly to object as they have no access/understanding of the internet.
•The number of houses proposed for Addingham seems excessive compared to other villages across Bradford. The village has limited services and is designated as a lower tier settlement. The local primary school is full and Ilkley Grammar is oversubscribed.
•There are a significant number of Brownfield sites across Bradford with many closer to key transport links and general services. These are more sustainable and would not impact on finite green spaces.
•Addingham is a very special and unique village and should be kept that way for the community, tourism and future generations.

Object

Representation ID: 20018

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Stewart Bannister

•Concerned that the consultation process has not been correctly followed. Significant information unavailable, extreme time pressure to comment and no way for elderly to object as they have no access/understanding of the internet.
•The number of houses proposed for Addingham seems excessive compared to other villages across Bradford. The village has limited services and is designated as a lower tier settlement. The local primary school is full and Ilkley Grammar is oversubscribed.
•There are a significant number of Brownfield sites across Bradford with many closer to key transport links and general services. These are more sustainable and would not impact on finite green spaces.
•Addingham is a very special and unique village and should be kept that way for the community, tourism and future generations.

Comment

Representation ID: 20139

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Richard Hindle

I agree with the status of Addingham as set out in the Plan - a Local Service Centre - and also the emphasis placed on the importance of its environment and landscape setting.

Local services need to be safeguarded to serve the local community.

I recognise that some, limited, new housing will support this aim, as well as appropriate policies for maintaining local services and employment, and for walking and cycling paths and public transport.

I agree that Addingham is primarily a commuter village, but in the interests of building a more balanced and sustainable community, I would also like to see some limited development for new employment in the village as well as for housing - see below.

Housing site options are limited - it will be important to achieve a mix of house types including those currently unprovided or inadequate to meet the demands and needs of the local population - e.g. starter/affordable dwellings and some catering for special needs (disabled/older/ sheltered); also, some larger family houses.

Object

Representation ID: 20320

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Adrian Naylor

Concerns over the impact of the proposals for Addingham in particular:

Loss of green belt;
Impact on the character of the village;
Impact on the foraging areas which support the N Pennines SPA;
Impact on the landscape and archaeological setting of the village;
Pressures on infrastructure particularly education places and lack of proposals in the plan to address these issues;
Incompatibility with the villages status as a Local Service Centre which are supposed to have a reduced scale of growth;
Conflict withe strategic policies of the neighborhood plan and its preference against allocation of large sites.

Comment

Representation ID: 21022

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Julia Balderstone

-Concerned about flood risk - the proposed developments are all on higher ground farmland which currently provides drainage in wet weather. The play field at the top of the village is already noticeably more boggy since the small development at the top of moor lane. With the further proposed developments this field will be unusable.
- Impact on primary schools which is already over subscribed in 2 of the school years currently attending.
- Impact on GP practice.
-Transport - small main street with too many parked cars already, too much congestion already and no train links.
-Impact on infrastructure - There are far too many new houses planned for such a small village.
-A smaller number would be more acceptable. It is understood that new houses are needed however such a percentage that is in proportion with the current size of the village

Object

Representation ID: 21086

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Karen Elliott

-The figures you are planning on are over and above what was in line with the local plan.
-The village recently went to consultation and referendum on future housing for the village, it is at odds with your proposal.
- Turner Lane, Parsons Lane and the top of Moor Lane will become a sprawling mass of houses.
-The sites are marked individually but quite clearly it can be seen as one large housing estate.
-There will be a large increase in traffic on these minor roads, possibly up to 160 cars, passing several times daily, along with extra carbon emissions.
- There are other sites identified in the village, closer to amenities, which seem to have been dismissed.
- I'm concerned regarding the lack of future infrastructure regarding employment and schooling for new residents along with the impact it will have on services already in the village, ie Medical Centre.

Object

Representation ID: 21117

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Anna Lynch

- Objection to the proposed building of the houses in Addingham.
-although extra housing is always welcomed I do not feel that the proposed site would be suitable.
-The traffic throughout the village is already excessive for the small village roads we have.
-On street parking would add more problems to the village and the safety of its people.
-The primary school is at capacity.
-The secondary school at capacity.
-Lack of amenities in the village to provide for extra housing and although many people use the facilities available in Ilkley all our doctors/dentists/other medical provisions are under immense pressure already.

Object

Representation ID: 21349

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Kiran Sharma

I'm emailing to register my objection to the above. The proposal is ridiculous for such a small village, the loss of green space is pretty unforgivable. The village can't take more traffic or people. I sincerely hope someone sees sense and rejects the application.

Object

Representation ID: 21602

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Les Jones

Number of people: 2

- Impact on Greenbelt- openness/sprawl
- Accessibility- Sites to the west of the village are too far from services, increasing car journeys
- total number of new homes is disproportionate tot he size of the village
- lack of supporting local infrastructure
- better located alternative Green Belt sites to the east

Object

Representation ID: 21850

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: D Elliott

I wish to object to your plan for extra housing in Addingham. It is over and above the proposed allocation that was shown in the local plan for the village, a plan that went to consultation and referendum. The number of houses for the village has increased whilst Ilkley, with a larger area has had their housing allocation reduced. The top of the village will become one large housing development with the numbers you are suggesting, all on Green Belt Land. I'm concerned that in the future more development will then extend further into Green Belt.

Lack of future infrastructure for employment and schools for new residents along with the impact on the Primary School and Medical Centre.

A large increase in traffic using these minor roads several times a day.

Other sites in the village seem to have been dismissed.

Object

Representation ID: 23643

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Peter Bryson

Few Local Employment Opportunities

Addingham has very limited employment opportunities. No growth in local employment opportunities are planned, or possible, in the foreseeable future.

The policies place increased emphasis on strategies designed to achieve net zero carbon emissions by promoting greener lifestyles/practices, and recognising the value of more green infrastructure and open spaces. This is being completely ignored in the proposals for where new housing sites are located.

The previous reduction in the housing target was justified on the basis of employment-led scenarios – designed to align housing needs with economic growth. On that basis, fewer houses were required in Addingham – it is a less sustainable location with limited employment opportunities.

Residents of new housing would need to commute to work, mostly by car, adding more pressure to the busy road network – a direct breach of the policy of sustainable transport. When compared to nearby towns, Addingham is a far less sustainable location for more housing.

Object

Representation ID: 23647

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Peter Bryson

The settlement of Addingham has few viable commercial properties, and very few organised leisure facilities for the general public. Also especially on Main Street, there is little parking provision for residents and visitors alike.

The village’s local primary school is well-regarded and serves the current population well, but could only be expanded with a significant investment in capacity, none of which is even planned. The village primary school is currently at capacity, which means that any new families would be educated elsewhere. With regards to secondary schools, Ilkley Grammar is already overloaded. Therefore any additional housing will put further and unwarranted pressure on all primary and secondary education facilities throughout the Wharfdale area.

Object

Representation ID: 24224

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

-Plan recognises that Addingham is surrounded by Green Belt, remains highly attractive with historic character and a special setting in the landscape which will be conserved and enhanced through the Plan.
However, the Plan appears to be heavily conflicted when five sites out of the eight proposed sites situated in the Green Belt. If developed, the attractiveness of the village would start to be diminished and its beautiful landscape would be severely impacted.
-Negative Impact on the ecological and wildlife sites
-Concerns regarding flood risk.
-Highly unlikely that ‘the distinctive landscape setting will be conserved and enhanced’.
-Sites do not appear to fit with SC4 to prioritise brownfield sites first and then secondly sustainable greenfield sites. I agree with these priorities and am strongly opposed to Addingham’s Green Belt being considered for development.
-There are brownfield sites elsewhere in the District which should be prioritised first.
-Proposed housing numbers for Addingham appear to be out of all proportion for the size of the village.
-Economy and Employment - para 5.15.8: acknowledges limited employment opportunities.
-Para 5.15.11: No specific employment land allocations are proposed. Residents will need to travel for their employment, leading to air pollution and traffic congestion. The proposed Plan seeks to employ people nearer to where residents live but this cannot be demonstrated in Addingham.

Object

Representation ID: 24425

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Luke Lynam

•Absolutely supportive of increased affordable housing, but it is quite obvious that this isn't going to be the case.
•There is so much Brownfield space across the district that could be developed to help the affordable housing crisis, however these plans to instead build on precious Greenbelt highlight Bradford Council's priority to profit from land that can be sold to developers for top council tax property.
•To show complete disregard for the amazing wildlife which inhabits these areas is extremely disappointing to see.
•Has anyone at the council considered the local infrastructure before submitting these plans for development? Particularly in my village of Addingham which has seen its allocation of houses increase from 75 to 175. This seems excessive given that no additional infrastructure has been proposed for the village. Also particularly surprising given that no increase in allocated houses has been proposed for a major town like Ilkley.

Object

Representation ID: 24489

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Madeleine & Philip Nichols

Number of people: 2

-The number proposed of 181 homes is far too high and cannot be accommodated without severely compromising the council’s own policies clearly set out elsewhere in the Local Plan.
-Draft Plan does not adequately take into account the severe lack of infrastructure, services and facilities in the settlement.
- poorly served by the local minor road network passing through the village, where the main through routes are severely and dangerously congested
-local secondary school based in Ilkley
-Very few viable commercial or organised leisure facilities
-village centre is prone to severe ground water flooding and the Town Beck which runs through the village is known to frequently burst its banks
-Impact on landscape, setting, blue/green infrastructure
-Impact on SPA/SAC
-Many of the proposed sites including are located a distance from village services and perform very poorly against Policy SP7.
-Inconsistencies with proposals and the environmental elements (paragraphs 5.15.27 to 5.15.31):-
-Creating and improving safe travel routes for walking and cycling.
-Impact on biodiversity

Object

Representation ID: 24614

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Rachel Whitham

-Greenbelt land
-Many brownfield sites within district
-Disproportionate figures between Bradford and Ilkley.
-Impact on landscape, setting and character.
-Approach to village will drastically change
-Impact of views from the The Dales Way footpath
-Site separates the village from the bypass when looking from further distances.
-Local Service Centre due to not being able to provide a full range of services within the village.
-Limited employment opportunities, limited leisure services and only basic shops and services.
-Site is not close to amenities.
-The primary school is at a distance to the site encouraging use of car.
-Large numbers commute to train station/work by car
-The trains to Leeds are full
-Flood risk issues locally and downstream in Ilkley
-Improvement should be undertaking development.
-Impact on South & North Peninne Moors SAC/SPA
-Impact on wildlife - curlews.
-Impact on wildlife corridors, providing habitats.
-Capacity of IGS limited for local children
-No additional secondary school capacity proposed despite several large, proposed developments.
-Road Infrastructure - the A65 is often overwhelmed by the volume of traffic

Object

Representation ID: 25075

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Clem & Mary Smith

Our objections to the plan are as follows -

The number of houses allocated is far too large for Addingham.

We are concerned about the encroachment into the Green Belt.

AD5/H is a wildlife habitat - the richest wildlife site in the village - and should be retained as such. A new access to this site from School Lane would be totally unacceptable. An increase in traffic on Chapel Street and Back Beck Lane is equally unacceptable.
There is extreme pressure on parking in Addingham at present and this would be greatly exacerbated.

Roads in Addingham are currently inadequate for motorists and pedestrians which would be made much worse with the risk of accidents to the elderly and children.

It would be necessary to increase the school capacity.