SI3/H - Woodside Road

Object

Representation ID: 21181

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: 23477

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: 23795

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: 24276

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

This development will have a negative impact on the Leeds Liverpool Canal Conservation Area.

Object

Representation ID: 26643

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: David & Ruth Leech

Object due to:

Community/Utilities – utilities infrastructure cannot meet existing needs. Public transport efficiency/movement is affected by parking and traffic volumes. Without a bypass heavy traffic will continue to be a dangerous hazard, causing congestion and safety issues. Site access would cause chaos and compound existing problems. Junction at Elliot Street/Clog Bridge cannot meet existing demands – development would cause gridlock.

Schools – primary school is distant from the site and places are limited. South Craven over-subscribed.

Local Issues – children and residents need/deserve access to open green space for recreation, exercise etc.

Health & Wellbeing – health services are over-subscribed and cannot meet existing demands. Open space essential for wellbeing, exercise and fresh air.

Environmental – area is a Conservation Area and Local Wildlife Site, as well as home to a variety of wildlife (birds, bats, insects) and includes protected hedgerows and ancient trees. Development will cause run-off and result in loss of natural drainage. Air pollution issues exist on main roads.

Comment

Representation ID: 27475

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Persimmon Homes (West Yorkshire)

Agent: Lichfields

This site was removed from the Green Belt and Identified as Safeguarded Land suitable to meet long term housing needs in 2005 in the UDPR. Despite this, and the present need for additional housing within the district, there have been no planning applications progressed at the site and we are not aware of any pre-application discussions regarding its development. Indeed, we are aware that there are existing disputes over title which calls into question its availability and at very least is likely to prevent the site coming forward for residential development within the plan period. Given this position it is unclear what evidence CBMDC has to justify identifying the site as a draft housing allocation at this stage.

Comment

Representation ID: 28627

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Environment Agency

Site in Flood Zone 1 ONLY - Adjoins the Canal
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: 29409

Received: 29/03/2021

Respondent: Historic England

The site lies adjacent to the Leeds Liverpool Canal Conservation Area. Views across the site towards Silsden from the canal towpath are identified as important in the Leeds Liverpool Canal Conservation Area Appraisal. The development of this area could harm elements which contribute to the significance of this designated heritage asset.
See attachment for full representation
Before allocating this site for development:
(1) An assessment needs to be undertaken of the contribution which this site makes to those elements which contribute towards the significance of the Listed Buildings in its vicinity, and what impact the loss of this undeveloped site and its subsequent development might have upon their significance.
(2) If it is considered that the development of this site would harm elements which contribute to the significance of the Listed Buildings, then the measures by which that harm might be removed or reduced need to be effectively tied into the Plan.
(3) If, at the end of the process, it is concluded that the development would still be likely to harm elements which contribute to the significance of these Listed Buildings, then this site should not be allocated unless there are clear public benefits that outweigh the harm (as is
required by NPPF, Paragraph 195 or 196).

Comment

Representation ID: 29743

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Caroline Whitaker

1. I would requests that any hedgerows and trees on the site are retained as Policy EN3: Trees and Woodlands section C. states ‘There will be a presumption in favour of the retention and enhancement of trees, woodland and hedgerow cover’
2. I would request that the Leeds Liverpool Canal Conservation area is not compromised by any development.
3. The issues for increased demand on the Elliott Street exit need to be resolved.