SI1/H - North Dene Road

Object

Representation ID: 639

Received: 02/03/2021

Respondent: Mr David Lund

Access is presumably intended via Spencer Avenue?

This is unadopted - and untaxed vehicles are parked along here - seemingly unable to be removed by Police/Council.

Your comments on this please.

Object

Representation ID: 860

Received: 07/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Stephen Memmott

Silsden will not be able to cope with extra traffic and does not have the infrastructure for mass expansion.

Object

Representation ID: 1066

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Phil Wilson

Access to the proposed site is via an un-adopted roads ' Hillcrest Avenue & Spencer Avenue'. Increased heavy traffic will increase the damage to the road surfaces. These un-adopted roads aren't feeding a quite little cul-de-sac, they are already feeding 300+ houses.
Its my understanding that in past applications that have been granted by Bradford Council for housing developments accessed via these roads, it was part of the agreement that these roads would be brought up to standard by the developers, and adopted. The previous developers never completed the works, therefore were never adopted by the council, who never pursued the developers to ensure this element of the works was completed. A failure on the councils part that needs rectifying. Why should a few residents of Hillcrest Avenue & Spencer Avenue be responsible for the roads feeding properties with no responsibilities for the roads that access their properties?

Object

Representation ID: 1142

Received: 10/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Cath Fraser

1) I do not support the use of agricultural land for new build housing.
2) Building on this site would increase traffic through Silsden on already busy roads.
3) The main road through Silsden already cannot accommodate existing through traffic at busy times (eg a big truck or bus coming one way and a car coming the other way cannot pass when cars are parked near the duck pond, unless they drive on pavement.)

Object

Representation ID: 1415

Received: 13/03/2021

Respondent: Mr David Armstrong

We object to the purposed development at North Dean Silsden, due to Spencer Avenue been the main access, which is in a bad state of repair, due to the increase amount of traffic that will be using this road will only make the road worse then what it is already, If the development goes ahead, the developer should be made to pay for Spencer ave to be brought up to standard so it can be adopted, which Skipton Propertys had to do on Hill Creast Ave when they built Cobbedale Park. There are only 23 bungalows on Spencer Ave using this road, and 135 other housing using this road, Hunters Meadow, North Dean, East Dean etc. Plus another 43 houses to be built, We feel that the residents of Spencer Ave should not be responible for the upkeep of the road.

Object

Representation ID: 1491

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Kenneth Hobson

1. Once again, this contravenes the Government objective to avoid seeing prime greenfield land disappear under urban development.
2. There are objections under TPO woodland, habitats and likely impact on local streams and their water quality.
3. Part of the site is within 2.5 km of the South Pennine Moors SPA/SAC.
4. There will be substantial access problems from North Dene Road.

Object

Representation ID: 1963

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Michael Elsmore

This site must not be used until the access roads have been fully adopted by Bradford Council.

Object

Representation ID: 3474

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Michael Cox

The following are the adverse effects for a development at this site. I understand it was purchased by the council a long time ago as a potential site for a school but the world has moved on a lot since that was done and the constraints on the site have grown significantly over this extended period. Please read the full version to properly understand these bullet points.

1. Potential damage to trees with TPOs on the Eastern boundary. Two of these trees are uncommon (one possibly unique) specimens.
2. Loss of environment for a thriving bird and wlidlife population in the area.
3. Limited access becoming very limited and potentially dangerous in conditions with snow and ice.
4. The elevation of the site means potential significant overlooking and loss of privacy for some existing dwellings.

Object

Representation ID: 3932

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr John Johnson

I want to protest in the strongest possible terms against the proposed new housing developments in Silsden. It is clear that the town is taking far more than its future requirements, or its fair share of any anticipated growth. The needs of the community are being ignored and the town's identity subtended to that of a faceless housing dormitory in the Aire Valley.
The planners seem to take no account of the fact that Silsden's infrastructure is unable to support any further large-scale development; the 'in-fills' that have been taking place, once existing approvals have been fulfilled, will only result in the pointless sacrifice of much-loved open spaces, vital for recreation and well-being, to meet targets which no longer apply. The effects of those developments still unfinished (the housing estates and school currently under construction) and their impact eg. on local transport, first need to be considered and fully understood.

Object

Representation ID: 3971

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Juliet Johnson

I object to this proposal on the following grounds: The premise that these houses are needed in Silsden not longer applies, we have had significant building over the last few years and are not in need of further accommodation.
The infrastructure, gas, electricity, water, sewerage has not been updated to sustain so much extra building
The new school is already over subscribed
The use of greenfield areas will impact on wildlife and wellbeing

Object

Representation ID: 4091

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Philippa Crane

Objections:
Do not build on 100% greenfield sites, instead build on the number of brownfield sites available in the Bradford district and sell the many hundreds of empty houses in the Bfd district.
Impacts on adjoining TPO woodland. Part of site falls within 2.5km buffer of the SPA/SAC. Save our woodlands and wildlife. Footpath adjacent to west. Water courses along eastern / western edges. Water quality impacted by construction / occupation of this site.
Poor infrastructure:
Silsden needs a senior school
GP Surgeries under pressure
Hospital not big enough
Sewerage concerns
Constant traffic congestion to north and south of Silsden. Traffic noise / air pollution
Mental health concerns.
Not more houses PLEASE

Support

Representation ID: 4742

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: SHMS

Site is close to Silsden centre and offers opportunities to enhance the local environment if carefully planned.
Ancient hedgerows and trees should be preserved by using a sympathetic design layout to incorporate as a key feature.
Number of dwellings has potential to increase, if incorporated with re-development of PART of the pdl adjacent "Incommunities" site (garages)
Consider including 5% plus for self build on council owned land as per Gov guidelines (e.g. 5 -10 dwellings)
Development needs to condition improvements to highway, namely junction of Spencer Ave & Hillcrest Ave. Public footpaths.
Land drainage- loading on combined sewers, Silsden Beck , nearby older housing stock needs consideration.
Habitats- Bird survey MUST be provided. HRA to take account of Badgers, Toad, Deer , Bats which have been seen in the near adjacent areas.
Opportunity for green space and/or pocket park within development, currently children have to cross A6034 to access park.

Object

Representation ID: 6202

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: John Rogers

•Proposals are on Green Belt land which will erode the character of Silsden, impact nature and compromise the day-to-day lives of residents.
•The impact of incomplete developments has yet to be felt – yet the proposals indicate another 580 houses are to be built.
•Infrastructure to support further development is not there. Congestion on the Aire Valley Trunk Road at Steeton roadabout and into Silsden is already unacceptable. Trains are overcrowded. Passengers have to cross the busy road to get to the station from Silsden – an issue the council has failed to address. Issues with ‘through traffic’ on Kirkgate, lack of capacity at health centre, and capacity issues at the new school.
•Keighley town centre is becoming a retail wasteland and should be considered for affordable housing rather than green belt.

Object

Representation ID: 6655

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Paul Price

•Object to building 43 homes at North Dene Road
•Access to the site is via unadopted roads. The state of these roads are unsuitable for an additional 43 houses.
•Existing infrastructure drainage is unable to cope with additional houses. The site is green belt. Additional homes will increase surface water run-off and exacerbate flooding issues.
•The site is below Silsden reservoir and in an inundation area.
•Building on Green Belt land is in contravention of the government’s aims. NPPF emphasises that local authorities should maximise suitable brownfield sites before considering changes to Green Belt boundaries.
•There should be exceptional circumstances before Green Belt boundaries can be changed.
•Should demonstrate all other reasonable options for meeting identified development needs have been fully examined.
•No evidence which stipulates that Silsden, Steeton or Easturn’s housing need warrants releasing land for 798 houses. No justification that demonstrates all other possible options have been considered.

Object

Representation ID: 6826

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Paul Dinsdale

I would like it to be recorded that I object to your housing proposals to build 580 new homes in Silsden, including all 8 proposed sites. As a resident, we neither have the infrastructure to cope now, and do not wish to lose anymore greenbelt land.

Object

Representation ID: 7035

Received: 10/03/2021

Respondent: Rosanna Anderton

•Environment shape our lives/wellbeing. Pandemic has made us value outdoor spaces.
•Access to open spaces has become a lifeline, providing a welcomed escape from indoors. We have walked daily. People of all ages are now exercising.
•Access to open space really matters for our heath. Walking in spaces where there is no pollution is recognised as being beneficial for: reducing levels of depression, anxiety, helps fatigue, lowers levels of cardiovascular disease, assists in maintaining a healthier weight
•Public Health England review 2020: £2.1 billion/year could be saved in health costs if everyone in England had good access to open greenspace, due to increased physical activity in those spaces.
•Local authorities play a vital role in: providing new, good quality green space that is inclusive and equitable; improving, maintaining and protecting existing green space; increasing green infrastructure within public spaces and promoting healthy streets.
•Not enough research carried out to assess long term effects of bold decisions. Need to take health and wellbeing into consideration and keep local open greenspaces.

Object

Representation ID: 7191

Received: 10/03/2021

Respondent: Jacqueline Jarvis

I strongly object to Bradford Council building houses on Greenbelt land. There are enough Brown field sites with abandoned buildings and unused warehousing that should be considered first. Also what about housing that is unoccupied by missing landlords? Why aren’t these compulsory purchased to start with? You never consider the infrastructure, roads, doctors, schools, sewage, increased traffic etc., when drawing up these plans and what if any will be social housing which is the most needed of all builds? NONE!

Comment

Representation ID: 8093

Received: 08/03/2021

Respondent: Lawrence Walton

North Dene Rd not suitable, the only access is via an unadopted Rd.

Object

Representation ID: 13194

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Silsden Town Council

North Dene Rd not suitable, the only access is via an unadopted Rd.
The access to this site is un-adopted roads which are in extremely poor condition. Spencer Avenue is subsiding and cannot withstand any additional vehicular traffic. Sackville Road is riddled with deep potholes and Hillcrest Avenue particularly near the Co-op store is in a terrible state.
This particular site is another water logged field, covered in springs and culverts.

Object

Representation ID: 20579

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Roger Bridges

I am writing to object to Silsdens unfair Housing Allocation viz S11/H - S18/H 580 houses plus the 300+already built/building or approved. I note you have made no provision for a By-Pass on your maps . How you can believe that you can put 1000+ houses in Silsden and do nothing for the infrastructure shows your contempt for the place. All Bradford Council is interested in is the extra rate money from new houses . I can remember a Bradford Council leader stating there would be no developments in Silsden until the infrastructure had been sorted. Another lying politician .
I feel that all this new development will spoil the town and its surrounding green spaces.

Object

Representation ID: 21178

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Phil and Sally Brown

Number of people: 2

Whilst appreciating the need for more housing, Silsden has already had its fair share with some negative effect and the infrastructure is struggling.

We object to this site as:

• There are already frequent delays in traffic trying to get into or through and even around Silsden
• Parking is limited in the centre and at the station
• Water, sewerage, gas and electricity were not designed to serve the additional homes
• Already a lack of capacity in schools, doctors and dentists
• Lack of local jobs will mean more commuters adding to the already busy roads and pollution
• Although the new school has been future proofed to cater for 840 pupils it is only being built to accommodate 630 pupils the same number who attend at the split sites
• Lack of playground areas for young children
• The destruction of wildlife habitats.
• The reduction in agricultural land

Object

Representation ID: 23475

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Fay Bridges

I am writing to object to Silsdens unfair Housing Allocation viz S11/H - S18/H 580 houses plus the 300+ already built/building or approved. I note you have made no provision for a Bypass on your maps. How can you believe that you can put 1000+ houses in Silsden and do nothing for the infrastructure shows your contempt for the place. All Bradford Council is interested in is the extra rate money from new houses. I can remember a Bradford Council leader stating there would be no developments in Silsden until the Infrastructure has been sorted. Another lying politician.
I feel that all this new development will spoil the town and its surrounding green spaces.

Object

Representation ID: 23794

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: David Anderton

Regarding Bradford Council's housing proposals in Silsden, I object to the following site references:

- SI1/H North Dene Road
- SI3/H Woodside Road

The reason I am objecting is because they are both greenfield sites and are currently in permanent grassland.

They sequest carbon & are vital to the current efforts to reduce carbon in the atmosphere.

More effort should be made to build houses on brownfield sites.

Comment

Representation ID: 24274

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

The access to this site is un-adopted roads which are in extremely poor condition.
Spencer Avenue is subsiding and cannot withstand any additional vehicular traffic. Sackville Road is riddled with deep potholes and Hillcrest Avenue particularly near the Co-op store is in a terrible state.
This particular site is another water logged field, covered in springs and culverts.
There are also ecological sensitivities with this site,

Comment

Representation ID: 27474

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Persimmon Homes (West Yorkshire)

Agent: Lichfields

This site was removed from the Green Belt and identified as safeguarded land in the 2005 UDPR. The site now remains outside the Green Belt and within the settlement boundary. Despite this, and the present need for additional housing within the district, the site has not yet come forward for development and we are not aware of any active discussions or planning applications regarding the site’s development. We note that the site is owned by CBMDC.
It is unclear whether acceptable access to the site can be achieved given the nature of the narrow
streets and on street parking on the approach to the site. Site levels could also present a potential barrier to the site’s delivery.
This site scores less favourably than sites SI/004A, SI/004 and SI/003 in respect of flood risk (SA Objective 4) and access to public transport (SA Objective 10).

Comment

Representation ID: 28625

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Environment Agency

Site in Flood Zone 1 ONLY
Mitigation should be set above the 1 in 100 plus cc level for the site as suitable for the proposed vulnerability classification (EA standing advice should cover this).

If the site is considered Greenfield then surface water discharge rates post development should be restricted to the pre development Greenfield discharge rate. If the site is considered Brownfield then there should be a 30% reduction in surface water discharges, or restricted to Greenfield rates, there should be no increase in brownfield surface water discharge rates post development. So as to support prevention of cumulative increases to flood risk and should be in line with SuDs design principles.

For developments near ordinary watercourses we would recommend an 8 metre easement strip along the length of the riverbank, or a 45degree angle from the bed in the case of culverts, to be kept clear of permanent structures such as buildings. This is to maintain access to the riverbank for any improvements or maintenance. A Flood Defence Consent may be required for the LLFA for works in/affecting an ordinary watercourse.

For main rivers, we generally require an 8 metre easement strip along the length of the riverbank to be kept clear of permanent structures such as buildings, or a 45degree angle from the bed in the case of culverts. This is to maintain access to the riverbank for any improvements or maintenance. Environmental Flood Risk Activity Permits may be required for development near rivers.

It is possible the sites within close proximity to Flood Zones 3b, 3 and 2 may be subject to future risk identified within the SFRA (to follow) which may affect its allocation or how development should be sequentially laid out on the site.

Consideration must be made to making space for water and providing betterment in terms of flood risk management where ever possible.

Comment

Representation ID: 29741

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Caroline Whitaker

There are various issues with the viability of this site

1. Access is via an unadopted road (Spencer Avenue)
2. The public transport accessibility quoted is no longer as described at the no. 62 Transdev bus service no longer runs to Leeds Bradford Airport but terminates in Ilkley
3. Benefit to local economy would only be more relevant if it were not for issues X and Y above
4. The site is adjacent to TPO woodland
5. Potential contamination of stream