Consultation Question 117

Object

Representation ID: 4039

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr C S Millar

I am not opposed to additional housing in Addingham. The village has to grow and additional housing could help bring vitality to Addingham. But the housing development sites at AD1/H, AD2/H, AD6/H and AD7/H will work against that objective. They will be dormitory houses for car-based commuters. These sites are a mile uphill from the village centre. The road rises 200 ft. from the village centre. No one is going to walk or cycle to use the village amenities (shops, hospitality venues, doctor, dentist, school). All journeys will be by car. Up to 160 extra cars making several journeys a day mean significantly increased noise, pollution and risk of injury. 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: 4073

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Elaine Ackroyd

My objections for each category are listed below:
Object to AD1/H, AD5/H, Ad6/H and AD7/H
In summary:
-Increase in traffic
- Flood risk
-Green belt sites - contrary to NPPF
- Not affordable housing
- Impact on wildlife

Object

Representation ID: 4079

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs JENNY THOMSON

Addingham is already at his maximum capacity for population, adding more housing could be catastrophic to our village life. Taking into account current traffic congestion, local amenities sho suitable for small numbers of people including our already over subscribed health centre. To build more homes will take away the small historic village Addingham was meant to be and turn it into an over populated area where no one wishes to live.

Object

Representation ID: 4097

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Patricia Johnston

I object to the development of housing on each site listed below with prefix AD and give my reasons in each instance.

Object

Representation ID: 4164

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Christine Smith

The joy of Addingham is the number of walking routes around the village, and the accompanying wildlife. BMDC risks destroying the soul of the village by developing more of these precious areas. AD5/H, albeit PDL, has been shown by the Environment Group to be a site with a very high intrinsic biodiversity value; access to this site would destroy wildlife and adversely impact a safe walking route beside Back Beck.
AD8/H, is a brownfield site for which I have no objection to developing.
163 new houses (Table 1) would change the character of the village.
Access to AD3/H, a greenbelt site, will necessitate additional vehicles on Old Station Way, which has a steep lower section, and a blind corner from the left at the junction with Main St.
Sites which give access to the A65 bypass without driving through Main St would cause less vehicle pollution in the village.

Object

Representation ID: 4332

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Sarah Davis

I object because:
This is green belt land and will result in loss of habitat in a scenic and sensitive natural area, which will significantly impact natural views around the village.
The area is in close proximity to the moor; wild birds, bats and deer are frequently seen. The area provides a wildlife corridor and a significant habitat for wildlife.
The village school and medical centre are already oversubscribed. Children will have to travel to schools out of the area impacting their sense of local community. As public transport is limited, especially in the evenings, additional new housing will increase the already extremely high levels of local traffic.
There are many viable brown field alternatives, e.g. in Shipley and Bradford.
The development is non-compliant with the Addingham village plan and the Bradford council's own policy of a zero carbon future.

Object

Representation ID: 4431

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Allan Moffat

The lack of firm criteria for delivery of new housing in relation to supporting infrastructure is as ever, skimmed over by superficial comments that amount to nothing more than ‘we will keep talking about it, but actually do nothing’. Any responsible council would instruct those approving planning to insist on investment to support the expansion of schools, improvements to transport infrastructure and community facilities. Or is the council expecting the new residents to refrain from starting a family, or indeed those with school aged children to stay away?
ref section 5.15.33, which commits to nothing more than an ongoing dialogue.

Object

Representation ID: 5247

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Suzanne Garside

Yet again plans are being made by Bradford council without thorough consideration to the actual impact on a community.
Whilst there maybe targets to meet to provide adequate housing, addingham is not an area to accommodate this due to its limited infrastructure and no consideration to environmental impacts

Object

Representation ID: 5275

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Lesley Loughlin

I feel that the proposed number of new houses in general is too many for the village. In particular I am concerned about the proposed development of 5 houses on the Old First School site and the addition of a new access road from School Lane, which would lead to increased traffic on Chapel Street and Back Beck Lane. This area is rich in wildlife and the building of houses would destroy valuable habitat for birds, bees and butterflies.

Object

Representation ID: 6092

Received: 06/03/2021

Respondent: Jill Garforth

Loss of green belt areas in Addingham shown in the Bradford Draft Plan.
Impact badly on protected wildlife shown in Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside act.
Increase road congestion on the Main Street and raise carbon emissions.

Object

Representation ID: 6150

Received: 06/03/2021

Respondent: Helen Tordoff

Loss of Green belt - benefits for mental and physical health
Traffic - The Main Street and bark lane are already congested at peak time and with no crossings are a danger for people walking.
Schools- at capacity with no proposals as part of the plan to extend capacity.
Village has an disproportionately older community which is already inevitably resulting in a fresh generation of families buying houses and putting pressure on the infrastructure without further housing adding to this pressure.

Comment

Representation ID: 7808

Received: 05/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Jonathan White

Sites 1, 2 , 6, & 7 represent an infill of 81 houses and are too densely clustered in a small area at the western edge of Addingham. Infrastructure problems will be caused by excess traffic, limited and difficult access, drainage, flood risk etc.

Object

Representation ID: 11433

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Richard Thackrah

1)There is already a great deal of traffic congestion in Main Street .
2) Drivers go too fast in the 20mph speed limit area on the Moor Park Estate where many elderly people and young children reside.
3) There will be a diminution in the green spaces and in the general environment.
4) Educational facilities are already under pressure in terms of numbers and space.

Object

Representation ID: 11801

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Julie Cowan

The site AD/005 that was rejected in the centre of the village is a far better site for development even though it is on greenbelt.
It is close to all amenities in the village.
It would reduce to almost zero traffic entering and passing through the village
This site alone would provide most of the housing numbers for the whole village.
Residents can walk into the village and support local business a requirement of policy SP7
Entrance to the site is safe and easy.

The points re AD/005 are not present at site AD6/H.

Object

Representation ID: 11823

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Helen Birdwood

Moor Park Drive is not a very wide road and I think the extra traffic would bring serious risk to the children and people who live there. I don’t think many of the new residents would trail round to the bus stops or even go in to the village on foot since it is quite a climb up the hill, so this would add to the traffic on the main roads also.
The drainage would become impossible with the extra buildings. From time to time the roads have to be repaired where the water has forced its way up and damaged the surface – also the pavements are not food in places which is probably partly due to the water, especially after a storm.
The facilities were not really designed for so many houses, are they to be improved?
We keep being told we should get out into the country for our mental and physical health. This reduction in the green belt would run counter to this advice.

Support

Representation ID: 11825

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Clive Brook Planning

Support for sites AD3/H and AD4/H.

A unifying master plan approach proposed for totality of the landholding (inc. remainder of land between sites) and the enhanced quality of the environment, place and design which can be achieved via the proposals including:

• Provision of on site habitat improvements, particularly in 4 southern fields, Other habitat/biodiversity enhancements will be included subject to consultation with local groups, who hold valuable expertise and survey information having closely monitored species within the village locality. Natural England and the Yorkshire Wildlife Trust will be consulted. Approach is to form a mosaic of habitats with appropriate after management plans.

• A network of tree and hedge planting improvements along existing and new lines are proposed with appropriate after management.

• The northern three fields which make up the designated Village Greenspace area will primarily be improved as a parkland area to provide certain on-site recreation facilities.

Object

Representation ID: 12062

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Judy Kennedy

The village has been swamped with huge developments on several sites equivalent to what is proposed in Addingham.
There are no increased amenities to cope with influx of people and cars. Parking is a huge problem.

Fear that the same thing will happen in Addingham wildlife areas, particularly AD5/H will be destroyed. The site is rich in biodiversity. Would be increased traffic on the relatively safe walk to school. Roads are one-way or narrow making traffic difficult.

The Beck back corridor gives a safe walk to school.
I am opposed to other sites in the village as it will fundamentally change the nature of Addingham that ceases to be a village but will become a small town. Wildlife will be destroyed. There are plenty of falling down buildings in the towns and so it would be money well spent in renovating them.

Object

Representation ID: 12211

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Mel Morgan-Davis

Instead of adding to the overcrowded north of the village, why not build to the south at the old Ilkley Road between its junction with Church Street and Old Lane (Green space, but so are the current proposals), all new traffic would have easy access to all routes without compounding problems on Main Street and Bolton Road. New residents there would still have easy access to village facilities (such as the doctors, pharmacy, supermarket, village hall) because they are all located at the southern end of the village and offer parking.

A fundamental re-think of these proposals is required because if permitted the village will be ruined!

Object

Representation ID: 14496

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Antonio Melechi

Object to proposed building on land adjacent to Turner Lane, Parsons & Moor Lane.

1. Building will increase flood water/run off to the field of Heathness Road and other western sections of village. Perimeter walls are eroding and garden is flooded for several months of the year. This problem, exacerbated by the building of the dual carriageway to the west, has not been addressed. Current drainage cannot cope with eastern moving run-off.

2. Since there is no rail link and limited bus service, this will bring an inordinate amount of traffic through a small village, For the size of village, we have been already overburdened with new builds. School will not be able to cope with enlarged intake, and neither will our main road.

3. Proposed area is a gateway for walkers. It forms part of the Dales High Way and will completely transform the western side of the village.

Comment

Representation ID: 15506

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.

Comment

Representation ID: 15829

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Timothy Gaunt

For an alternative site the council could consider putting houses on the site at the beginning of Main street in Addingham where for years there has been speculation that a motel would be built there.

Object

Representation ID: 16542

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.

Comment

Representation ID: 16757

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Addingham Civic Society

An alternative site for residenmtial development is proposed:

The new “Motel” site proposed at Ilkley Road would reuse a brownfield, previously developed site, in line with national and Local Plan priorities; it could provide 12 dwellings in a sustainable location without adverse environmental impact.

Object

Representation ID: 18216

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr James Robinson

Proposed new housing site - Motel Site, Ilkley Rd / Main Street Addingham

Object

Representation ID: 18900

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.

Comment

Representation ID: 20140

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Richard Hindle

I support the position taken by the Addingham Environment Group (AEG), which is to allow new development on most but not all of the designated sites, but following environmental assessments and under safeguarding conditions, in particular to protect the important 'green/blue corridors' in and beyond the village.

Object

Representation ID: 20143

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Richard Hindle

Suggested alternative site so far rejected by the Council :

I also support the Environment Group with regard to the partial development of part of the rejected site AD008 (former garage). In line with my comments above, I suggest that this should be safeguarded for a type of mixed development which would secure additional employment in the village as well as a housing contribution. This might perhaps be in the form of live/work accommodation, and/or with a few small workshops and shared work/meeting space.

Object

Representation ID: 20319

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Adrian Naylor

The Emerging Local Plan’s draft policies are also not consistent with the Neighbourhood Plan’s policies as regards the proposed allocation of relatively large sites for housing.

The Neighbourhood Plan’s policies are therefore to be given full weight in the proposal of site allocations in the draft Plan. Since the Neighbourhood Plan’s policies clearly indicate that these particular preferred options are not appropriate, they should immediately fail.

Object

Representation ID: 21388

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Lesley Barnard

It appears that Bradford Met is intent on destroying the character of Addingham, by spoiling the green space, pastures and woodland and allowing developments which risk overwhelming the infrastructure while increasing the danger of floods and pollution.

Our village provides very limited employment opportunities which in turn means that the majority of the new residents would have to travel to work.

There is a limited transport service, limited shopping facilities which again means increased traffic.

The local health centre is already over subscribed.

The village historically has been a retirement home for people from Ilkley and other towns , we need to preserve the identity of it and not turn it into another suburb of Keighley. Affordable housing is all well and good and should be provide but it has been proved that it does not work when mixed with properties of a much higher value, for obvious reasons.

Object

Representation ID: 23661

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Peter Bryson

Large majority of housing allocations in Addingham is proposed for sites within the designated Green Belt – a clear breach of, and in consistent with, policy SP4 and the NPPF.

Addingham has been able to deliver housing requirement by developing brownfield and infill sites. Draft Plan suggests that housing growth should be delivered though a mix of committed sites as well as sites to be allocated. It is only able identify two small sites which have been previously developed.

Plan has not identified a large number of obvious potential infill, brownfield and windfall sites. It seems to suggest requirements for affordable and older peoples housing –release of larger greenfield sites will favour larger, unaffordable, family sized units. Thus, major proportion of the housing allocation is proposed for sites that could only be made available as a result of Green Belt release.

The proposed housing site allocations on Green Belt is strongly objected to. Residents wishes have been ignored.