SI2/H - Bolton Road Brown Bank Lane

Object

Representation ID: 1504

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Kenneth Hobson

1. A major attraction of Silsden is its beautiful surroundings of hill pastures and trees. As with most of the proposed sites, development here will have a major adverse impact on this.
2. Access onto Bolton Road is problematic in view of this being a major route between Airedale and Wharfedale.
3. There will be further impact on TPO woodland, streams, adjacent allotments and Grade 2 listed buildings.
4. The area is within the Green Infrastructure corridor and within 2.5 km of the SPA/SAC Zone B buffer. Thus development is entirely inappropriate.

Object

Representation ID: 1962

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Michael Elsmore

This is a greenfield site which should remain as such as recommended by the Planning Inspector in 2004. BDMC have not made any attempt to improve infrastructure in Silsden since then and so his comments are STILL valid.

Object

Representation ID: 2031

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Louise Farnell

Townhead Farm, North Street, a grade II listed building which will be negatively affected by this development. Development has already been approved in the field directly behind our house and now you are proposing further development in the fields at the front of our house. Due to the topography of the site, this new development will significantly impact our view and our listed building will be surrounded by housing.

I object for two further reasons:
1) nesting curlews on the site
2) Silsden was promised a bypass with further development. The level of traffic cutting through the centre of town significantly impacts quality of life in the town and this further development, directly off the main road will further impact this.

Object

Representation ID: 2564

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Simon Robinson

Town Head Farm on North Street, a grade 2 listed property, is in close proximity to the development. The setting of the 17th Century listed farmhouse will be severely adversely impacted by a housing development at this location. The farmhouse has been set amongst, and visible from, these rural fields for over 300 years. The setting of the farmhouse in its rural location, will be lost forever by this development.

The fields are also important wildlife areas, including as nesting sites for endangered curlews.

There was a historic agreement by the Council that there would be no further housing developments in this area of Silsden until relief from the relentless traffic through the town has been provided by a bypass. The current level of traffic through the town is diminishing the quality of life for residents and ruining the town centre. Adding further housing without tackling this is unsustainable.

Object

Representation ID: 3942

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr John Johnson

I want to protest in the strongest possible terms against this development. 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.
This particular site is forms a natural northern green space in the town. It is enjoyed by all, and forms a natural boundary, adding significantly to the landscape and surrounding views. To sacrifice this site, leading to the possibility of further adjacent developments, to meet targets which no longer apply would be a travesty. The effects of those developments and their impact on traffic congestion, need to be considered and fully understood.

Object

Representation ID: 3970

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Juliet Johnson

I object very strongly to the use of this beautiful greenfield site for the following reasons
It is a well loved and well used area for walkers
There is little sensible access from what is a busy thoroughfare
There are insufficient infrastructure to maintain more housing
This is a haven for wildlife and promotes well being

Object

Representation ID: 4068

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Philippa Crane

Objections:
Do not build on greenfield sites. Built on the number of brownfield sites available in the Bradford district and sell the many hundreds of empty houses in the Bfd district.
Landscape impacts due to location.
Save our greenspaces and wildlife. TPO tree and areas of TPO woodland present and within the 2.5km buffer of the SPA/SAC. Footpath. Close proximity to 4 grade II listed buildings.
Dangerous road. Regular car accidents below Brown Bank Lane. Traffic congestion. No pavement.
Poor infrastructure:
Silsden needs a senior school
GP Surgeries under pressure
Hospital not big enough
Sewage concerns
Constant traffic congestion to north and south of Silsden. Traffic noise / air pollution
Mental health concerns

Object

Representation ID: 4935

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: SHMS

Summary;
Drainage issues - Brown Bank Lane, site is next to old Silsden Reservoir, areas of site are bog (issues map) Land drainage will be a problem that could severely affect properties South of the site, Silsden Park (past experience) Electricity sub station.
HRA must take account of Badgers, Toad, Deer, Bats which have been seen in the area.
Site access - existing field access is on junction "Tannery Corner" , where frequent road accidents occur.
Road safety, topography, density - any design must include a "buffer zone" to the A6034 incorporating for example defensive hedgerows not trees, ( hence unlikely to achieve the density targets). Reasoning; Vehicles frequently collide with the lamp standards on Bolton Road.
Evidence; lamp standards provided over last 25 years. A recent serious accident resulting in life changing injuries occurred on Bolton Road, however many accidents and near misses have occurred which are not recorded.

Object

Representation ID: 6203

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: 6827

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: 7036

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: 7192

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!

Object

Representation ID: 8149

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: CPRE West Yorkshire

We’ve not been able to visit these sites ourselves but the following sites have been brought to our attention based on the concerns from local groups:

SI2/H
SI3/H
SI4/H
SI5/H

We support the position of Silsden Campaign for the Countryside, that the land at the southern point of Silsden, as well as the northern point towards the north and east of SI2/H, should be returned to the Green Belt. See attached map for clarity.

Through reviewing the density of these proposed site allocations, we do not accept that the extent of proposed greenfield allocation is necessary to accommodate the proposed amount of development. Similar to other areas of the district, the level of density proposed in Silsden is much lower than we would expect; this is also true of the brownfield site Si5/H. We suggest that the density should be increased and the size of allocation reduced accordingly.

Object

Representation ID: 11931

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Catherine Liddle

I am very concerned that two fields at the corner of Brown Bank Lane and Bolton Road, Silsden, are included as possible future sites for housing. Should this go ahead, there would be need for new road access to be created. This would severely disrupt, and create a dangerous corner, in one of the town's most popular road walking circulars. At times, this is a veritable promenade! (The route encompasses Brunthwaite and Swartha from the town centre and proceeds down Brown Bank Lane).

Developing these two fields in isolation will only lead to eventual extension of development in this beautiful district, which offers excellent bio-diversity and community amenity, and has great historical merit.

In view of major developments in other parts of Silsden, take the right decision and exclude these two fields which play such an important role within the life of Silsden.

Object

Representation ID: 13195

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Silsden Town Council

Strongly oppose building on this Greenfield site. The landscape impact of building on this site would be detrimental to the town and affect the rural aspect of Brown Bank Lane. The South Pennine Moors (Phase 2) SPA and SAC (and SSSI) are located around 2km to the east, placing this site within the 2.5km buffer zone.

Object

Representation ID: 13333

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Fran Elliott

• Proposed housing to the east of Bolton Road up to Brown Bank Lane should be omitted and returned to greenbelt.
• Site left in allocation despite adjacent area rejected on access, landscape impact and heritage impact.

Object

Representation ID: 17228

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mark Wogden

We do not support the development of this site because:

• It is a well-loved green field site part of an area which is well used for recreational purposes by residents.
• It is not a sustainable development because of the distance to the railway station and the associated access issues raised above
• There is no path to the site on east side of Bolton Road which eradicates sustainable pedestrian access into town.
• The South Pennine Moors (Phase 2) SPA and SAC (and SSSI) are located around 2km to the east, placing this site within the 2.5km buffer zone.
• The impact on the neighbouring allotments (which are not mentioned in the description).
• This site is not required to meet the stated target number of houses. Our argument for its exclusion have been set out in more detail above.

Comment

Representation ID: 19896

Received: 01/04/2021

Respondent: Natural England

The site lies in proximity to the South Pennine Moors (Phase 2) SPA and has potential to lead to the loss of functionally linked land for SPA birds.

We welcome the approach taken in the draft plan, SPD and assessments to loss of functionally linked land.

The council has a copy of a model to identify the suitability of sites for SPA golden plover and recommend that allocations are screened against this dataset taking the following approach:

• Maximum Training Sensitivity plus Specificity (MTSS) layer: full survey for Golden Plover likely to be required. The WY Ecology Service SPA Bird Survey Methodology should be followed.

• Minimum Training Presence (MTP) layer or 10 Percentile Training Presence (10PTP) layer: scoping survey to determine if a full Golden Plover full survey required. A desk based survey may be sufficient for sites within the MTP whereas a walkover survey may be required for sites within the 10PTP;

• Not within an area of predicted presence: No survey required for Golden Plover.

Where loss of functionally linked land cannot be ruled out at this stage we recommend that allocation requirement text in the plan sets out survey and mitigation requirements clearly.

Object

Representation ID: 20581

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: 21179

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: 23476

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.

Comment

Representation ID: 23716

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: David Loud

As part of the UDP, any development on this site along with other sites in the immediate vicinity had a caveat stipulating that an Eastern bypass and would run as part of the development. The piecemeal development that is happening at the moment will not attract the funding required that will be needed to provide such infrastructure. In my opinion this site should be taken out of the allocation. There is a new school coming on stream shortly and the effect of increased traffic up Bolton Road is as yet unknown. No sites in this area should be brought forward until the new school is fully open and a full transport survey has been completed. The indicative number of houses on this site could be incorporated into other sites. See below.

Object

Representation ID: 23836

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Monica & David Scannell

Planning permission shouldn’t be granted:

- it is a well-loved green field site part of an area which is well used for recreational purposes by residents.

- the South Pennine Moors (Phase 2) SPA and SAC (and SSSI) are located around 2km to the east, placing this site within the 2.5km buffer zone.

Object

Representation ID: 24275

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

There is strong opposition to build housing on this greenfield site. Any development here would have a detrimental affect on the landscape character of the town and would affect the rural aspect of Brown Bank Lane.

Support

Representation ID: 27471

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Persimmon Homes (West Yorkshire)

Agent: Lichfields

Support the conclusions reached in the site allocation pro-forma.

Persimmon has undertaken technical work to inform development of a masterplan for its development as part of the wider site SI/004. This work confirms the conclusion set out within the Site Assessment Update Report (February 2021) that site SI/004A is suitable and deliverable for housing development.

However note our objection to the failure to allocate the wider site area (see separate representation).

Comment

Representation ID: 28626

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.

Object

Representation ID: 29742

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Caroline Whitaker

I do not support the development of this site because:-

1. It is a well-loved green field site part of an area which is well used for recreational purposes by residents.
2. It is not a sustainable development because of the distance to the railway station and the associated access issues raised above.
3. The South Pennine Moors (Phase 2) SPA and SAC (and SSSI) are located around 2km to the east, placing this site within the 2.5km buffer zone.
4. The impact on the neighbouring allotments (which are not mentioned in the description).
5. As mentioned in the plan there is potential contamination of the stream which runs through the site both during construction and occupation of the site.
6. The site contains an area of TPO woodland.
7. The site is in close proximity to four Grade II listed buildings, the setting of one may be adversely affected by the development due to the topography.
8. There is no path to the site on east side of Bolton Road which eradicates sustainable pedestrian access into town.
9. The bus to Leeds Bradford Airport no longer runs, in fact the No. 62 Transdev bus service now terminates in Ilkley
10. This site has been arbitrarily left in the allocation despite the adjacent area being rejected on the basis of access, landscape impact and heritage impact.
11. The town's 'settlement boundary' should be redrawn now that the eastern bypass is no longer fund-able through housing development and would in any case contravene all of the policies. To make this protection more permanent the area shown on our map should be returned to greenbelt.
12. This should also be omitted as a proposed housing site since it would no longer be required to reach target numbers because of the recent inclusion of the Willows and Rotary works sites which will contribute 60 additional homes.