SI3/H - Woodside Road

Object

Representation ID: 861

Received: 07/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Stephen Memmott

Again the amount of housing here will create more traffic on a poorly maintained road creating more traffic and pollution. The local schools will not be able to cope with the extra families brought in by this mass house building scheme

Object

Representation ID: 996

Received: 08/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Brenda Tyler

Reasons for objecting:

Silsden is at its optimum size. Developments will harm this rural area, wildlife threatened and habitat lost.

Dentist/Health centre at breaking point.

Schools not able to cope.

Potential playing by the canal will endanger children.

Elliott Street junction is a hazard.

Traffic speed on Elliot Street to the detriment of safety.

Developing further roads would contribute to increases in council tax.

Roads inadequate to take more public transport.

Drainage and sewerage problems.

Increases of heavy goods vehicles in area.

Lack of employment opportunity.

Overload on local hospitals.

Destruction of open spaces.

Pollution by increased engine emissions.

Levels of road lighting in adequate.

Impact on National Grid and other utilities could cause overload.

Local shopping outlets inadequate. It would be much better if existing buildings could be converted to housing rather than new builds.

Renovating space above shops/using old buildings preferable to greenfields.

Visual impact upon an area of natural beauty.
Not sufficient leisure facilities

Object

Representation ID: 1236

Received: 10/03/2021

Respondent: Paul Redshaw

S13/H Woodside Road. The proposal to allow up to 146 houses on private high quality dairy fields is a ludicrous proposal. The impact of potentially 300 cars commuting down congested Elliott Street and turning along Keighley Road past a busy Surgery, Care Home, Children’s Centre and Fire Station could under no circumstance happen. It is already diabolical. Access is also a serious issue.

Object

Representation ID: 1485

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Kathreen Hanson

There is an underground stream runs under Woodside Road to one of the proposed fields.
Pheasants live there and Canada Geese visit annually. Birds have had their hedgerows reduced over years and other varieties of wild life have to be considered.
Housing by canal would limit wildlife habitat further; Swans, ducks etc.
Trees with TPOs??
Entry to site yards from dangerous bend.
Pressure on utilities??
Recent building of houses (ongoing) not created enough 'affordable' housing for local needs. Silsden is more of a commuter town and no longer reflects the friendly atmosphere it once had. It is now reaching optimum size and local amenities close to breaking point.
All roads are inadequate, more so with more housing. Elliott Street junction overwhelmed, more so with more housing and the new school location will cause complete traffic chaos.
Local bus route is a minefield of parked cars.

Object

Representation ID: 1505

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Kenneth Hobson

1. There will be an inevitable major traffic impact onto Woodside Road, Eliott Street, and especially the Eliott Street/Keighley Road junction. This is already massively (and dangerously) congested, and being surrounded by buildings, would not lend itself to opening out to ease traffic flow. The canal bridge contributes to the danger at the approach to this junction.Traffic lights would only further slow traffic.
2. It would see the loss of a large attractive greenfield site, which would also affect the Leeds/Liverpool canal conservation area and local wildlife site.
3. TPO trees, woodland and hedgerows would be lost, impacting on habitat for wildlife.
4. The report mentions the need for "sensitive design, layout, density and supposedly appropriate measures". Irrespectively, there will be a major visual impact and the loss of so much attractive pasture.

Object

Representation ID: 1627

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Dawn Mitchell

Objection to site S13/H
Silsden has only one major road running through which is very busy, adding more cars and public transport will impact air quality considerably. The junction at Elliott Street and Clogg Bridge is already dangerous, adding more pressure will create accidents. Woodside Road development runs to the canal which has already been over developed on the other side of town. The site has two large old trees which should not be destroyed as there is sufficient previously developed brown belt sites which should be accessed first. The site will create a loss of privacy to my household. I am disturbed that the council has used Covid as an excuse not to consult properly and thereby restricting objections. Silsden has seen many large recent developments and Bradford Council needs to look elsewhere for its development plans.
I would like someone to contact me personally to discuss my objections.

Object

Representation ID: 1802

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Zoe Sharpe

Objection due to the current Silsden infrastructure and local wildlife impact.

This development will create additional issues within an already stretched town infrastructure that is not suitable for the current planned expansions throughout the local area including the proposed residential conversion of the former schools. General points of concern are schooling, traffic in the Elliot street area and the impact of this joining a main road in Silsden that is not fit for the current level of traffic, managing to book a doctor/dental appointment is increasing difficult and consideration needs to be given on a space/activities for Children in the area.

Object

Representation ID: 1961

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Michael Elsmore

Another greenfield site which should remain as such (see my comments about the 2004 Inspectors report) 140 houses will mean up to 280 cars! Access to the main road at Elliott Street will be impossible without traffic lights, yet another lack of infrastructure investment by BDMC since 2004.
Questions about the sewerage system being able to cope with this development as YWA said a few years ago that the Elliot Street system is at maximum.

Object

Representation ID: 3960

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr John Johnson

I want to protest in the strongest possible terms against this new housing development. 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.
Planners seem to take no account of the fact that Silsdens infrastructure is unable to support further developments on this scale; they will, destroy the sense of community which has developed over the years and put unnecessary pressure on infrastructure and resources. There are insufficient school places (in spite of a brand new facility) to cater for them. Development of this site will simply open the door to future expansion. The effects of current schemes on infrastructure and transport need to be fully understood before further development takes place.

Object

Representation ID: 3978

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Juliet Johnson

I object to this development for the following reasons
Once again there is proposed infill thus robbing the town of green areas for the promotion of well being and good mental health.
We have no need for further housing as there has been much building over the last period of time.
The infrastructure will not cope with the proposals
The new school is already full

Object

Representation ID: 4186

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Philippa Crane

Objections:
Do not build on 100% greenfield sites (agricutural land), instead build on the number of brownfield sites available in the Bradford district and sell the many empty houses in the Bradford district.
This site is adjacent to the Leeds Liverpool Canal which is a conservation area and this could be adversely affected by the development as well as the Canal itself. Also a Local Wildlife Site.
Significant landscape impact and visual issues due to its locaton.
Several TPO trees and 2 areas of TPO woodland as well as hedgerows present within the site. Within a Green Infrastructure corridor and 7km buffer of the SPA/SAC. Footpath.
Impacts and migitation measure at junction of Elliott St/Kly Rd/Clogg Bridge.
Poor Infrastructure:
Silsden needs a senior school
GP surgeries under pressure
Hospital not big enough
Sewerage concerns
Constant traffic congestion, traffic noise, air pollution
Mental health concerns
No more houses PLEASE

Object

Representation ID: 4362

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Garry Bottomley

This site was rejected by the inquirey in 1996 because of the problems with access via Eliot St and stated a new access Rd had to be built first before the site could be developed . If this was the verdict reached then , surely the same conditions should apply today . Of the 2 access roads one is a single carridgeway farm track that cannot be widened .
Although not in the green belt it is part of the green corridore and plays a huge role in the sustainability of local wild life . From different types of deer and wild hedgerow birds to a local colony of bats and other wildlife the loss of this habitat would have huge effect on all local wildlife in the area .
The site also contains several ancient hedgrows which would be under threat if this site was to be used .

Object

Representation ID: 4809

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Kevin Mitchell

Objection to site S13/H
The village has developed into a town with a severe lack of infrastructure following.
Road traffic has increased massively without one single update to the road infrastructure.Silsden is a thoroughfare for commuters and transport vehicles.
The site for development has turned from a once quite road for home owners to having thousands of cars using daily.. You intend to add 146 houses without any means of accommodating this extra traffic which will cause noise pollution and added car emissions plus fast traffic.
The site has 2 small access roads which are insufficient especially for emergency vehicles.
Disappointed Bradford Council used COVID as an excuse to not properly consult. This is deliberate deception and you should be ashamed. With an ageing population in this postcode, most do not have access to technology. You have used this to your advantage to try and sneak this in you snakes!!!!

Support

Representation ID: 4832

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: SHMS

Support providing the necessary common infrastructure needed for Silsden sites is provided in advance of development namely combined sewer up grading, electricity supply upgrading, highway improvements, improvement of footpath routes and bridge to access rail network.
Public transport and connectivity - 4 bus stops in close vicinity, possibility to provide separate vehicle and pedestrian/cycle routes to Woodside Road. Easy access to canal towpath for pedestrians and cyclists via existing footpath and canal bridge.
Topography and ecology - site contains established hedgerows and trees which should be retained, strong possibility of integration into site layout. Additional planting to support wildlife centered around the canal for example buffer of hedgerows and enhancing existing tree cover.
Consultation with canal and river trust regarding structural integration of canal banking, understand steel re-inforcement has been installed along the length of canal fronting the site.

Object

Representation ID: 6161

Received: 06/03/2021

Respondent: Dawn Feather

1. Loss of green field - other brown field sites available in the area - opposite Aldi for example.
2. Increased traffic - air pollution and safety
3. Access - Car travel at speed . Adding an entrance to a housing estate will be incredibly dangerous.
4. Community services are already stretched - doctors, school and children’s centre cannot support additional people.
5. Noise pollution, destruption, mess and inconvenience a large housing development will bring.
6. Loss of view - devalued homes.

Object

Representation ID: 6204

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: 6828

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: 6830

Received: 07/03/2021

Respondent: Ruth Barker

I think we have more than enough houses and housing estates in Silsden, thought this was a green belt area

Object

Representation ID: 6849

Received: 07/03/2021

Respondent: Lauren Shuttleworth

146 Houses is absolutely ridiculous - Increase in cars and parking issues. 20% will be houses for people which have just left prison- safety of children

Object

Representation ID: 7038

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: 7193

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: 8094

Received: 08/03/2021

Respondent: Lawrence Walton

The inspector in the public enquiry ruled this site out for development because the Elliott St Keighley Rd junction was not capable of safely dealing with the increase in traffic this site would create.

Object

Representation ID: 8150

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: 9712

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Ransy Heppenstall

I wish to object to your proposed development plan in Silsden in particular Woodside Rd, S13/H .

1. Further development will harm the rural nature of the area.
2. Silsden is already at breaking point.
3. The health centre and dentistry practice would be unable to cope.
4. The school already under construction would not cope with the added influx.
5. The additional traffic onto an already choked junction Elliott St / Kirkgate / Clog Bridge would be extremely dangerous.
6. Traffic speeding down/up Woodside Rd would be a detriment to safety and cause more pollution.
7.Major loss of habitat for flora and fauna.
8.Environment around in danger of being spoiled.
9. An important buffer both visual and environmental to the area of Silsden and the Aire Valley.
10. Road widths inadequate to take extra usage---- parked vehicles a major factor.
11.Problems with drainage and sewer capacity.

Object

Representation ID: 10948

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Lawrence Sydney Peake

Number of people: 2

Sub Ref. East Access to Site adjacent to 47 and 45 Woodside Road,
- increase in pedestrian and vehicular traffic
- landscape impacts on Aire Valley
- impact on surface water flood risk
- impact on wildlife

Object

Representation ID: 11492

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Phil and Sally Brown

Number of people: 2

Silsden has already had its fair share of new housing with some negative effect and the infrastructure is struggling.

146 additional houses will add cars to roads which are difficult to navigate as many homes only have on street parking.

A long way for children to walk to the new school which is on the other side of Silsden thus many will travel to school by car.

Building on green fields and destruction of wildlife habitats. The fields are homes to owls, sparrow hawks, smaller birds, swans etc

Reduction in agricultural land.

Problem of lack of parking at rail station will overseen.

Lack of capacity - doctors and dentists, utilities such as water, sewage, gas and electricity.

The school is over subscribed.

Comment

Representation ID: 13197

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Silsden Town Council

The inspector in the public enquiry ruled this site out for development because the Elliott St Keighley Rd junction was not capable of safely dealing with the increase in traffic this site would create. Impact on the Leeds Liverpool Canal Conservation Area.

Comment

Representation ID: 13660

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Canal & River Trust

The site is located on the non-towpath side of the Leeds & Liverpool Canal, owned and managed by the Trust.
The land is on a gradient that slopes down towards the canal. The construction of new buildings here could impose loading, that could impact the stability of this land, increasing the risk of land slip. To ensure that the Local Plan complies with the aims of paragraphs 178 (part a) from the National Planning Policy Framework, we advise that the development considerations should include the need for contextual information to demonstrate that the development will not result in land instability. Suggested text is provided below:
“Development will need to demonstrate that it will not impose adverse loading that could adversely impact land stability towards the canal”
At application stage, we advise that cross sections would be required to indicate the initial impact on slope stability. Further stability analyses may be required subject to the sections provided.
The development considerations argue that a sensitive layout and design is required to address and mitigate landscape and visual impacts.
Strengthening the established vegetated buffer between site and canal may well be the best approach to minimise any adverse impact on the canal. We advise that a landscape visual impact assessment would be required to recognise the value of the setting of canal, and make a reasoned evaluation and recommendations. Provisions for this could be included within the ‘Development Considerations’.
In line with the principles of paragraph 170 (part d) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), development on site should seek to minimise impacts on and provide for net gains to biodiversity. Given the semi-natural nature of the site, there is a risk that development could harm biodiversity associated with the Green and Blue infrastructure along the canal. To ensure the Local Plan is effective and accords with the principles of the NPPF, we advise that the development considerations should require the provision of biodiversity assessments and enhancement strategies for the site.

Comment

Representation ID: 19902

Received: 01/04/2021

Respondent: Natural England

We note that the following allocations are on land which may be best and most versatile agricultural land. The plan should safeguard the long term capability of such land (NPPF para 170).

In order to inform the sustainability appraisal and ensure an accurate assessment of the impact of the plan on soil resources we recommend that allocations over 5ha, or at least those over 20ha, have ALC surveys undertaken in order to determine the ALC grade and help inform master planning and soil handling going forward.

Object

Representation ID: 20582

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.