Consultation Question 117

Object

Representation ID: 24601

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Andrew Coates

Agent: Rural Solutions

REJECTED SITE AD/013
Despite the clear beneficial location of the Bolton Road (Site AD/013) outside the 2.5 km SPA/SAC and in close proximity to the primary school and within close walking proximity to services and facilities within the Local centre, it has been rejected due to ‘landscaping constraints’. However, other sites which have been suggested for allocation make reference to ‘sensitive site design to mitigate any impact on landscape character’. Site AD013 is not in any sensitive landscape designation (over and above any other of the preferred allocations) and as such, there is no reason as to allocate site over and above this well-located site.
Site AD/013 is located within two existing pockets of housing and across the road from the caravan park. All these existing built forms are what is immediately visible when travelling along Bolton Road from the north.
-Request that AD/013 is allocated within the Publication draft as it represents sustainable development.
-Site will continue to be promoted through all the various stages of the Local Plan process and be heard by the Inspector.

Comment

Representation ID: 25502

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"

Object

Representation ID: 26530

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Alan Taylor

I do not agree with the allocation of all 8 proposed sites in the village. As mentioned above, a sustainable level of housing growth for the village is around the previous figure of 75, certainly not the 175 proposed in the LP. This would clearly require less land, and could be accommodated on less environmentally damaging sites, including large areas of Green Belt, than proposed.

I do however accept that some Green Belt release will be required even to meet the suggested lower housing figure, as other opportunities are limited.

Object

Representation ID: 29009

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Chartford Homes

Agent: Barton Wilmore

AD/005 should be included in the Plan, it is in the control of Chartford Homes, is suitable and deliverable and can deliver approximately 50-80 homes. These representations demonstrate the following,
- The need for significantly more homes in the plan;
- The need for more homes to be allocated in Addingham;
- The unsuitability of the proposed sites;
- The suitability of Our Clients site.

Addngham is tightly bounded by the Green Belt or designated Local Space, resulting in limited
opportunities for new housing to be developed.

The Council will need to allocate more homes, Addingham should receive a proportion of these and
this site is a suitable location for them. Should the Council not consider more homes are needed, it
is clear that at least one of AD3 or AD4 should be deleted in line with the evidence and as such a
further site for 40 homes needed, which Our Clients site can provide.
However it is considered that once a methodology is published to be able to assess the sites our
Clients site will be shown as more suitable and preferable and it should replace sites for
approximately 80 homes

Object

Representation ID: 29816

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Addingham Parish Council

The Parish Council would recommend a full reassessment of the SHLAA, taking account of the current Call for Sites, and would recommend the identification of revised site allocations in Addingham, based on a revision of the district-wide distribution strategy as set out in answer to Q.116 above, and with a view to ensuring compliance with the policies in the adopted Neighbourhood Plan and with the priorities set out in policy SP4 as applied to a local service centre.

Comment

Representation ID: 30036

Received: 16/02/2021

Respondent: Ian Benson

Potential alternative site

Crown Inn and Craven Heffer – these sites could easily be developed into a number of flats or maisonettes. The village is already well served with pubs and meeting/entertainment venues, the loss of the Crown and or the Heffer would serve to enhance the viability of the existing facilities.

Comment

Representation ID: 30260

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Andrew Hodgson

The council should revisit reassessing AD005 as a suitable alternative (to AD7/H) which has far less impact on the green belt in an accessible location.

Object

Representation ID: 30314

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: 30323

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Philip Galtry

I object to the plan covered in Consultation Question 116/117 as outlined in Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021, specifically site refs. AD1, AD2, AD6 and AD7 to the southwest of the Moor Park Estate in Addingham. Together these 4 site allocations represent 81 additional dwellings. The plan itself states that access from the main A65 will not be possible, thus these additional dwellings will all need to be accessed via Moor Lane or Moor Park Drive. The addition of so many dwellings will negatively impact the residents of this estate; 81 dwellings in an increase of over 50% on the number of houses currently in the estate. These are narrow residential roads servicing a community with a bias towards young families and more elderly residents. Although there is a 20 mph limit, few drivers abide by this and there is no enforcement.

Comment

Representation ID: 30324

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Addingham Environment Group

Before commenting on individual site allocations we should like to stress the importance we attach to high quality (but affordable) sustainable house building especially with respect to carbon, water and biodiversity. We expect Bradford Council to grant planning permission to developers only if the highest environmental standards are guaranteed, for example as follows:
• Homes to be built to zero carbon standards with respect to insulation, heating (e.g. by ground source heat pumps), renewable energy provision (e.g. by roof top solar panels and battery storage), house orientation (to maximise solar power generation) and the provision of electric vehicle charging points;
• The need to manage surface water sustainably with respect to installation of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SuDS), both within the curtilage of individual homes and within housing sites, to prevent surface water entering the sewer network or local becks;
• The need to achieve biodiversity net gain by protecting existing on-site habitats, especially trees, hedgerows, and the riparian zones of becks and by creating additional opportunities for wildlife both on and off sites.

Object

Representation ID: 30334

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Geoffrey Paul

AD7/H is designated green belt and should not be considered as development site.

Object

Representation ID: 30351

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr David Johnston

I am amazed that the Council has a not considered the old garage site ('Motel' development) as an alternative to this site. ie Main Street close to the Cricket ground - an ideal site for 5 dwellings.

Comment

Representation ID: 30359

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Andy Thompson

•There are plenty of Brownfield sites in Bradford close to urban areas, employment and transport and therefore more suitable for development.
There are sites in Addingham, such as the Old School site which was originally designated for 35 houses. This site is overgrown scrub land and close to the village centre and could be rejuvenated.
•The site adjacent to the telephone exchange has lain unused for years and this together with the fields next to the cricket pitch could be sustainable locations close to the village with little impact on the countryside.