Consultation Question 116

Object

Representation ID: 25181

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.

Comment

Representation ID: 25501

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Maureen Wood

Addingham a "Local Service Centre" (para 5.15.6) "it will see a smaller scale of development comprising both market & affordable housing as well as the protection of its local centre".

5.15.21 & Table 1 refer to a total of 175 homes which is a substantial increase from the amended & reduced figure of 75, in the partial review of its Core Strategy.

Addingham having a population of 3,119 (para 5.15.3), Ilkey, a "Principal Town" with a population of over 14,000 has a target of just 300 units (para 5.17.21) which doesn't make sense &, therefore, Addingham's allocation of homes should revert to the figure of 75.

Proposals mean utilising a larger amount of Green Belt, the release of Green Belt should be kept to an absolute minimum. Only two sites have previously been developed.
Inadequate infrastructure, Schools , no public charging points for electric vehicles & one GP's surgery.
Threat of congestion.
Para 5.15.33 is purely "aspirational" in terms of how the necessary increase in facilities will be achieved.
Impact on the environment, habitat loss, increase in flooding risk & the preservation of the existing "green corridors"

Support

Representation ID: 25506

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Snell Developments Ltd

Agent: Pegasus Group (Leeds)

supportive of the Addingham Local Area Strategy and Plan. In particular, support Site AD6/H as a preferred allocation and its release from the Green Belt.
- The site is bounded by residential development to the eastern and southern boundaries and abuts the A65 to the west; the site therefore forms a logical extension to Addingham.

Object

Representation ID: 26529

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Alan Taylor

I support the status of the village in the hierarchy and the intention to protect and enhance green infrastructure links.

I do not support the housing development part of the “strategy” which proposes 8 new housing sites – this level of development would be unsustainable, environmentally damaging and contrary to many of the LP’s own policies.

Comment

Representation ID: 26535

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Harriet & Chris Truss

Support that nationwide there is a requirement for new housing and that it should not be limited to urban areas. Understand that Addingham should support an additional amount of housing suitable to the village. Concerned that the plan does not appropriately consider and provide for proposed development sites.

Concern is regards to traffic through the village. The site locations by the nature of land available are in the majority at the far reaches of the village which will inevitably by default mean additional traffic into the centre of the village to access local services. Main Street already suffers congestion as well as speeding and unsafe driving. No indication in the plan that traffic management with speed deterrents is being considered. Due to the nature of the bus charging structure there is no way to affordably travel by bus through the village which would also deter the need to drive.

Object

Representation ID: 28247

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Member of Parliament (Conservative)

Green belt should not be considered for development as it is in contravention to Governments aims and objectives.
Local Authorities should maximise the use of brownfield sites before considering changes to Green Belt boundaries.
There are no exceptional circumstances to justify releasing sites from Green Belt protection. All other reasonable options to meet housing need should be considered.
Inadequate proposals have been presented with regards to upgrading local infrastructure to cope with proposed extra housing. and extra pressures on local services.
There is no clear vision to increase passenger capacity on local public transport. This is in contravention to the Governments Decarbonising Transport strategic priority.
No justification for the proposed housing numbers identified to warrant removal of areas of Green Belt.

Object

Representation ID: 29508

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Emily Fox

•Addingham has been allocated far too many houses. The allocation is disproportionate to the size of the village and limited access to services/amenities.
•Local school are already oversubscribed as it the surgery and there are limited shops meaning residents travel to Ilkley.

Object

Representation ID: 29542

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Elizabeth & Tim Walton

Number of people: 2

•Goes against Neighbourhood Development Plan/referendum which concluded 75 houses v 181 proposed and it took 6 years for them to prepare
•Bradford has reverted to its 2014 Local Plan target housing figures for Addingham
•Smaller infill sites have been identified and should be considered as part of the plan.
•Not enough infrastructure and services to support extra homes and traffic/commuters
•Average house price is £350K which means new homes will not meet new home standards for affordability and residents will be priced out of the village
•Some brownfield sites need protecting more than greenbelt sites such as the old school site – this has been rewilded and is a place of significant environmental importance to many people in the village

Comment

Representation ID: 29809

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Addingham Parish Council

For Addingham, the Council welcomes the Plan’s recognition of the value of the Green Belt in the area, noting particularly the sites to the east of the main settlement between Addingham and Ilkley. These policies are very much in line with the Addingham Neighbourhood Development Plan, made in 2020, and forming part of the statutory framework guiding this review of the Local Plan as far as it relates to proposed developments in the Addingham area.

Comment

Representation ID: 29810

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Addingham Parish Council

The Parish Council would emphasise the importance of Addingham’s environment as a material planning consideration in the development of the new Local Plan. The Council would particularly draw your attention to the high quality of the village’s surrounding landscape, as highlighted in our adopted Neighbourhood Plan, which, in this regard, is evidenced by the Landscape Survey commissioned in 2018 by the Parish Council, and also by your own statutory Conservation Area Assessments carried out in February 2004. This key issue is also fully-detailed within the Civic Society’s separate consultation response, which the Parish Council supports.
Addingham is unique and distinct in the local area, compared with nearby larger and major urban settlements, in its location within two Natural Character Areas with special significance for the habitats of wildlife, such as curlews, and their associated foraging zones (internationally designated South & North Pennine Moors Special Protection Areas/Special Areas of Conservation and their protection/foraging zones, which overlap in Addingham, and Local Wildlife Sites in the countryside to the south of the village). The relationship between the landscape and the countryside immediately around and feeding into the village, by way of its green open spaces and footpath network, gives the settlement its particular value and weights the arguments towards continued and enhanced protections for the majority of Addingham’s Green Belt.

Object

Representation ID: 29811

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Addingham Parish Council

The draft Plan seeks to align the Core Strategy with a settlement hierarchy “which ensures that development quantums reflect the role and function of settlements, and their accessibility to jobs, services and public transport.” (para. 3.8.32)

The Parish Council welcomes this overall aim for the Plan’s Local Area strategy for Addingham, and also supports the objectives for its key elements.

However, the Council does not recognise the presumption that this particular area should contain 8 new housing sites in order to meet these objectives. The Council notes that within the Plan’s settlement hierarchy Addingham is categorised as a local service centre, due to attract a reduced scale of growth compared with urban areas. As a local service centre, not a principal town, any development should reflect its designation.

The Parish Council would recommend a review of the Local Area strategy, to base it on properly evidenced and updated data and to bring it into line with the settlement hierarchy, with a view to reinstating the relative position of Addingham within the hierarchy, as a local service centre, attracting a lower proportion of the district-wide housing growth target provision.

Object

Representation ID: 29813

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Addingham Parish Council

Furthermore, in directing a higher target for new housing than is justified to Addingham, a local service centre, the new draft Plan does not adequately take into account the lack of facilities, services and infrastructure in the settlement:

-Unlike nearby towns, such as Burley and Ilkley (whose housing targets have been reduced from the targets initially set, based on the 2014 housing needs assessment), there is no railway link into the village.
-The safe walking and cycling routes mentioned in the Plan, such as the Wharfedale Greenway, are at best a very long-term future aspiration for Addingham, given the logistical and engineering issues involved, and the scale of public funding which would be required.
-The settlement is ill-served by the local road network passing through the village, where the main through routes are severely and dangerously congested, often taking heavy vehicles along narrow residential streets.
-The settlement has few viable commercial or organised leisure facilities for the general public, and there is very little parking provision for residents and visitors alike.
-The village’s local primary school is well-regarded and serves the current population well, but the local secondary school, based in Ilkley, does not have capacity to offer places in sufficient number to meet the demands of an increased influx of new Addingham families on the outskirts of the catchment area.
-After heavy rains, the centre of the village is prone to severe groundwater flooding and Town Beck, which runs through the village, frequently overtops its banks. Developing the outer greenfield areas of the village, which help in water absorption upstream, increases these flooding risks, further exposing existing properties, especially in the Conservation Area of the village, to flooding. These risks will only increase over the period covered by the Plan, as climate change takes more effect.
-There is limited scope for commercial development in the village with only one small food store. Population growth, arising as a result of the implementation of these housing allocations, would therefore contravene policies for sustainable transport development as it would lead to a greater use of cars to access shops in Ilkley, Skipton, Silsden and Keighley.

Object

Representation ID: 29815

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Addingham Parish Council

The Council also notes the Plan’s recognition that Addingham is heavily constrained by Green Belt with limited deliverable brownfield and non-Green Belt growth options available or identified (para.5.15.23). The draft Plan suggests that in these circumstances, housing growth should be delivered through a mix of committed sites that are either under construction or which have planning permission but have not yet started, as well as sites to be allocated in the Local Plan. The draft Plan is only able to identify 2 small sites which have been previously developed, one of which is of high environmental value for biodiversity, and one greenfield site within the settlement.
This leaves by far the major proportion of the targeted housing allocation proposed for sites which could only be made available as a result of Green Belt releases.

Not only is this not consistent with our adopted Neighbourhood Plan, it is clearly inconsistent with the draft Plan’s strategic policy as well. To accord with the government’s planning guidance in NPPF, Green Belt should only be released if this is justified by exceptional circumstances. As the draft Plan stands, policies SP5 and SP8 do not adequately explain or quantify any exceptional circumstances, other than by subjective narrative statement, to justify these releases in this location, especially given the comments made above (Q.116) in relation to the distribution strategy.
Where evidence is provided, it would seem that the development of Green Belt sites in this settlement area is not consistent with local housing need analysis, as this seems to suggest requirements for affordable housing and housing suitable for an older demographic; the release of relatively large new-build greenfield sites will favour the provision of commercial family-sized units.

Addingham’s adopted Neighbourhood Plan reflects the views of the local electorate, with fully 94% voting in its favour in the referendum held in 2019. In terms of new housing development, the Neighbourhood Plan policies clearly recognise the importance of the village’s protected status as a Conservation Area, in which its setting, encircled by and containing its Green Belt and open spaces, contributes substantially to the quality of the local area’s landscape and views. Throughout the period of the Neighbourhood Plan’s development, residents overwhelmingly favoured the use of brownfield sites and small infill sites as opposed to the use of larger sites, especially those involving release of Green Belt.

Object

Representation ID: 30280

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Barry Hopkinson

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: 30293

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: John Roberts

All four parcels of land are lovely green spaces providing a beautiful habitat for wildlife & a green cushion between existing properties & the Addingham bypass.

The whole feel & atmosphere of the beautiful area will be lost forever if permission is granted & I would implore those considering this application to visit the area & see this for themselves.

Addingham has already outgrown it's infrastructure & yet more properties can only encourage further car use which as I understand is not what any of us want.

Let's look at a new railway station in Addingham to service the needs of residents travelling to Leeds & Bradford before allowing further developments.

Object

Representation ID: 30296

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Creative Sales Team Ltd

-Allocation of 175 properties is more than previously agreed – how was this calculated? It is out proportion to the settlement’s size.
-Many brownfield sites the Bradford area that are more sustainable options.
-Four sites mean potentially 160 additional vehicles causing potential danger to residents.
-Drainage/flooding is an issue. Existing system is dated and cannot cope now, resulting in flooding. Significant investment to drains would be required.
-Will severely impact on village’s character/appearance. -Area supports wildlife, including Curlews.
-Within overlapping zones of North & South Pennines SPA/SAC. Foraging bird areas not taken into account.
-NPPF Green Belt “exceptional circumstances” test not passed. Will impact on long distance footpath.
-No employment and few amenities.
-School is over-subscribed. Due to location, children are unlikely to walk, meaning more cars using congested roads.
-No railway station.
-Parking at nearby stations is not have adequate to meet current/future demands.
-Buses are unreliable and stop is distant from the site.

Object

Representation ID: 30297

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Andy Thompson

-Approach to the consultation is an abuse of due process.
-The Neighbourhood Plan has been disregarded.
•How has the housing requirement been derived?
•Addingham is a service centre and does not have the infrastructure to support large numbers of additional houses especially on the west.
•Impact on the SPA/SAC zones and used for foraging by Curlew, Barn owls and is a habitat for other wildlife.
•Given the distance/steepness from the village centre most people would drive to access amenities including the overcrowded school making the sites unsustainable.
-Increased flood risks
-Surface water/foul water drainage systems would need major upgrade to meet the capacity of planned housing.
•Noise from the A65 bypass and proximity to new housing would not comply with the Council’s wellness policy.
•Brownfield sites in Bradford close to urban areas, employment and transport and therefore more suitable for development.
-More sustainable sites within Addingham within walking distance of the village.
•Exceptional circumstances for releasing Green Belt sites do not exist locally.

Object

Representation ID: 30298

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Mr B Brown

The general plan with the increase in housing is too great for a 'Local Services Centre' and would change its village character and involve loss of precious green field land.

Object

Representation ID: 30299

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Simon Flather

The total number of homes allocated to Addingham is too high. How was the number decided? Why is there a higher proportion allocated to Addingham compared with the number of existing dwellings than to other areas in the plan? The number of dwellings in Addingham will increase by over 10% if all are built.
Limited public transport access
There are other brownfield sites in the area closer to jobs with better transport links

Object

Representation ID: 30301

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: Heather Tysoe

-Impact on traffic, speeding, parking, pollution, noise and the risk of accident and injury.
-Impact on stressed roads, shops, medical centre and primary school.
-Schools - oversubscribed.
-Flood risk - due to house building and ground springs.
-Impact on footpaths
-Impact of local wildlife
-More suitable brown belt pieces of land should be considered.
-Proposals disproportionately large for Addingham which has been allocated a bigger percentage of houses than the surrounding villages.

Object

Representation ID: 30302

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Timothy Pratt

The current drainage system cannot cope with the current number of houses.
Increased risk of flooding.
Additional cars will significantly increase noise, congestion, pollution and risk of injury.
Loss of Green Belt land. It will greatly diminish the setting of the village from the Western side, spoiling the character and appearance of Addingham.
Addingham has been allocated too many houses overall. It is a small village with limited services but has been allocated a bigger percentage of new houses than any other.
Local schools are oversubscribed.

Object

Representation ID: 30303

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Martyn & Sandra O'Toole

Number of people: 2

•NPPF demands that changes to greenbelt can only be justified if exceptional circumstances exist. Unaware that evidence for more housing has been provided to justify development.
•Impact on the environment is already substantial.
•Already seen a large number of houses built in here, leading to substantial increases in traffic, reduction in greenspace.
•Current infrastructure cannot support additional road use. Moor Land/Moor Park Drive already heavily congested with parked cars. These narrow roads not designed to support existing amounts of traffic.
•Additional noise and pollution.
•Capacity issues of primary school, Ilkley Grammar and Addingham medical centre.
•Resident voted in a referendum to adopt a plan which would protect green belt. If more housing is needed, then existing brownfield sites should be redeveloped first.
•Years of potential construction work to build the current/future requirement is not a healthy prospect for our minds/bodies.
•Can the number of houses to be built be reduced. Can the expansion of the village be delayed to take into consideration alternatives and allow proper consultation?

Object

Representation ID: 30304

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Jayne Driver

-Proposed sites would clearly destroy our greenbelt, our village and our wildlife as well as endangering residents and damaging our drainage and increasing the risk of flooding both in this area and further down the village.

- Increased Traffic causing potential danger to residents.
- Allocation of Housing - Why have you come up with this allocation of 175 properties in Addingham.
- Greenbelt - no exceptional circumstances
- Drainage
- Lack of local amenities
- lack of public transport

Object

Representation ID: 30305

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Laura & Patrick Wardle

Number of people: 2

•The numbers allocated to Addingham are out of proportion to the size of the settlement. No data has been provided to support the need for this housing.
•The proposed sites are at the top of the village and would increase traffic significantly up Moor Lane. Also, they are one mile from local amenities, making it more likely that will residents to drive to these. This is unsustainable given that Main Street is already congested. There is no train station, therefore more cars will travel into Ilkley. Given the proposal of 81 houses, this is a significant increase in traffic to a small area. Turner Lane specifically is a safe place to walk, similar to Chapel Street in the village.
•The Green Belt sites on the west of Addingham play an important role in keeping the character of a countryside setting which is part of its appeal. We chose to live here for this reason, we do not want the village to become urbanised.
•There are plenty of brownfield sites in Bradford close to employment and transport suitable for development.

Object

Representation ID: 30306

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Jane Snee

I wish to object to all the proposed housing developments in Addingham, including both green belt and brown field sites.
- Every area there is evidence of loss of habitat.
- Loss of opportunity of engagement with the countryside.
- Lack of infrastructure...inability to cope with traffic volumes, roads in and out of Addingham already congested. Addingham school is already over subscribed, as are all schools nearby. The medical center is already under funded and understaffed.
- Questionable benefit of proposed development when there is a presence of variable alternatives. There are many more appropriate brownfield sites and redundant commercial, premises nearby that could be adapted, in nearby towns, Keighley, Shipley, Bradford.
- Non compliance with Bradford Council policy on zero carbon future.
- Non compliance with Government policy - Government manifesto says councils must always develop brownfield sites for housing development in the first instance, and green belt land must be protected.

Object

Representation ID: 30307

Received: 11/03/2021

Respondent: Lucy McKenzie

-set a precedent and make developing on the surrounding green belt areas all the more easy in the future.
- It destroys natural habitat for animals as well as ruin the landscape that the village is known for.
- It tarnishes the small village feel of Addingham as well as put pressure on the schools and GPs in the village with the added population these houses will bring.
- A large housing estate as proposed in Addingham will alter the character of the village irreparably
- It seems madness to over develop the village whilst at the same time reducing housing in Ilkley.
- Addingham does not have the infrastructure, transport links to support the 175 houses proposed.

Object

Representation ID: 30308

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Richard Curtin

-Housing Demand: no evidence to demonstrate demand for the housing supply in Addingham.
- Sustainability: sites in excess of 1.4km from village centre causing people to drive. Extra traffic will increase congestion, pollution and emissions. Will be further crowding in Ilkley for those using the train for commuting.
-Limited employment and recreation services.
-Transport links are poor – no rail network and infrequent buses.
- Green Belt: release of site does not meet NPPF policy test of “exceptional circumstances” - sites not in a sustainable location.
- Brownfield sites: plenty of unused, brownfield sites that could be utilised.
-Schools – Ilkley Grammar School oversubscribed with no room for expansion. Suggestion of transporting children elsewhere is not acceptable – will result in longer days, loss of sense of community and impact on wellbeing/mental health.

Object

Representation ID: 30309

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mary Tierney

Object for the following reasons:
-Concerns over consultation process.
-Village deserves a clear outline of where housing numbers come from. Data not supplied to support need.
-In area of overlapping North & South Pennine Moors SPA/SAC. Foraging areas need to be considered.
-Location is too far from village centre - people will have to drive, going against sustainability. No cycle paths and more than 400m for a bus stop. Not sustainable when so many more suitable brownfield sites exist close to urban areas, employment, transport and retail.
-
-Flooding is a massive problem. Drainage system will not support more development until remedial action has taken place.
-Noise from A65 – not conducive/compliant with Council’s wellness policy.
-A65 is busy with many accidents. Bringing more traffic increases accident risk. Addingham lacks public transport to places of employment.
-School over-subscribed.
-NPPF Green Belt “exceptional circumstances” policy test not passed – they do not exist.

Object

Representation ID: 30310

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: John & Lesley Hutchinson

Do not believe there is evidence of need to build 181 houses or anything approaching this number in Addingham.

All sites are Green Belt. NPPF states there should be “exceptional circumstances” before changing Green Belt boundaries and that inappropriate development is harmful to it and approved only in “very special circumstances”.

Council has not provided sufficient justification providing “exceptional circumstances” why sites should be considered or detailing “very special circumstances” for releasing them.

NPPF requires that before concluding exceptional circumstances exist, the Council should demonstrate it has fully examined all other reasonable options for meeting development needs.

Highlights the Council must identify a housing need requirement for a particular settlement, so that housing growth numbers can be justified. This has not been explored sufficiently. No evidence that Addingham’s housing need warrants releasing land for up to 181 houses. No justification that all other possible options have been considered.

Object

Representation ID: 30311

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Dr. M.B.P. Phillips

1. Misappropriation of Green Belt:
-Contrary to Green Belt policy aims
-Important to retain vital/health-giving opportunities for accessing countryside and retain/enhance landscapes.
-Degrading it will affect current/future inhabitants.
-Retention will secure nature conservation interests and contribute to non-carbon future.
-Will be a matter of time if sites are developed, before argument is made to infill the fields in-between.

2. Misrepresentation of current state of Addingham:
-Description of Addingham is not recognised. It has a small number of shops/businesses, some of which contribute to traffic issues.
-Main Street is a “rat run” for traffic, which ignores speed limit, making it difficult for people to feel safe. New homes will add more cars.
-Co-op attracts constant stream of vehicles via Main Street. Housing will increase this.

3. Impacts on ecosystem & inhabitant’s wellbeing:
-One of the richest areas of fauna/flora and home to several rare/endangered bird species
-No evidence of coherent planning for protecting Green Infrastructure or delivering Wharfedale Greenway.
-Little thought given to increased traffic and pressures on schools.