SI4/H - Sykes Lane

Object

Representation ID: 863

Received: 07/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Stephen Memmott

Too many new houses will create more traffic protest Silsden already suffers from. Pollution will be made worse for the current population of this small town

Object

Representation ID: 1034

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Eddie Laughlin

The SI4/H belt is a greenfield site, this accommodates a number of long standing small holdings which are an integral part of Silsden community. The area houses many different types of wildlife such as deer/ bats/ owls and flora, which will be lost forever. The brownfield site off Kly rd when completed will add in excess of 300 vehicles and pollution to the area, adding a further 300 to a beautiful green space is irresponsible. The infrastructure in Silsden cannot cope now, the main route through overtly congested and a danger. The A65 bypass already a danger to cross.Sykes Lane is 500 year old and is being systematically dismantled by growth plans which has seen the demise of ancient hedge rows through poorly managed and detailed planning guidance and control, (Eg The Banks)There are enough brownfield sites across Keighley area to accommodate Bradford’s housing quota without impacting on green spaces.

Object

Representation ID: 1055

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Karen Anderson

This is a Greenfield site, providing natural habitats for wildlife we should not be building on these sites. Extending housing further from the centre of the town means more car use and less walking. Greenfield sites should only be used to provide some additional recreational/outdoor space to plant trees and enjoy nature. Currently the site is used for allotments, which provides outside space, enjoyment and improvements to mental health
Silsden is currently congested, with lorries rolling through the central road to get to the A59 or Ilkley, there needs to be some kind of bypass around the town to take this traffic away, rather than build more houses which brings more traffic with it. The current infrastructure isn't coping. Access to the station for the majority of people is by car and crossing the A629 is difficult for pedestrians, which leaves the bus routes that require changes at Steeton top.

Object

Representation ID: 1517

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Kenneth Hobson

1. There is a major access problem for this site and the plan makes no suggestion on this fundamental point. This is unacceptable.
2. There would be a substantial impact on traffic flow on Keighley Road, especially if site 15/HC were built up.
3. Further attractive greenfields and allotments would be lost, including trees and hedgerows.
4. The Leeds/Liverpool canal conservation area and local wildlife sites would be affected.
5. Active flood zones FZ2 and FZ3 would be built on. It is beyond belief to contemplate building here.
6. The conclusion/summary for this site states that this is an appropriate site. From the foregoing considerations, this is entirely untrue. The site is completely inappropriate.

Object

Representation ID: 1966

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Michael Elsmore

A greenfield site that should be protected. Over development in this area will increase the number of vehicles accessing Keighley Road (already busy). See my previous comments re 2004 Inspector's report.

Object

Representation ID: 3964

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 Silsden's infrastructure is unable to support further developments on this scale; in addition to destroying the sense of community which has developed over the years they will put unnecessary pressure on infrastructure and resources. There are insufficient school places (in spite of a brand new facility) to accommodate 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: 3979

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Juliet Johnson

I object to the proposal for the following reasons
The loss of allotments in this difficult time will impact on many lives, damaging well being and mental health.
Wildlife will suffer
We are no longer in need of more Housing and the infrastructure will not be able to cope

Object

Representation ID: 4240

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Philippa Crane

Objections:
Do not build on greenfield sites, 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 falls partially within the active flood zones FZ2 and FZ3 and contains hedgerows and trees. It is also adjacent to the Leeds and Liverpool Canal Conservation Area and Local Wildlife Site, which would be adversely affected by the development and to the Leeds and Liverpool Canal, so water quality would need protecting. The site also falls within 7km of the South Pennine Moors SPA/SAC.
The land is currently used for agricultural purposes (small holdings, animal pens, allotments).
Access should be investigated. Mitigation any impacts on Sykes Lane which is a protected lane.
Poor Infrastructure:
Silsden needs a senior school
GP surgeries under pressure
Hospital not big enough
Sewerage concerns
Constant traffic congestion / noise / air pollution

Object

Representation ID: 4862

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: SHMS

Site encompasses the protected Sykes Lane, protection of ancient hedgerows will be lost if integrated into site. Site should be split into 2 sections and ancient hedgerows protected along Sykes Lane which provide a natural barrier supporting habitats. Access across Sykes Lane would further erode the value of this key feature in the history of Silsden.
The adjacent completed development "The Banks" design layout included an access to SI4/H.
If access is from SI/020, additional improvements will be required to the junction with Keighley Road, possible including signalling.
Flood risk from canal, canal suffers leakage at several points. Allotments fulfill a local need, a large proportion of Silsden is terraced housing with little or no gardens. The infrastructure needed for Silsden sites needs to be 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.

Object

Representation ID: 6205

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: 6829

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: 6831

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: 7194

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: 8151

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.

Comment

Representation ID: 13198

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Silsden Town Council

Concerns about the impact on the highway infrastructure as Keighley Road is already heavily congested.

Comment

Representation ID: 13661

Received: 18/03/2021

Respondent: Canal & River Trust

The site is at a lower level to the canal, which is supported above the site by an embankment. The site would be vulnerable to any breach or leakage from the canal. We therefore advise that any future planning proposals should consider the risk within the flood assessment, including any mitigation to reduce the risk of flooding in the event of any breach. We advise that this risk should be included within the development considerations to ensure that this risk is appropriately identified and mitigated against.
Changes to levels on site also have the potential to impact the stability of the embankment. To ensure that the Local Plan complies with the aims of paragraph 170 and 178 from the National Planning Policy Framework with regards to stability, 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 adversely impact the embankment supporting the canal above the site”
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.
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: 19903

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: 20365

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Megan King

With an additional 145 houses, the town will look extremely industrial. Silsden is a small village nestled in the beautiful Yorkshire countryside and is being ripped apart.

This together with other recent development sites (totaling 450 units) would have severe repercussions with access issues, increased population thus leading to higher crime and violence.

Increased traffic on the narrow roads through the town are creating access problems for emergency services and safety issues.

Services such as the supermarkets, doctors surgery are all busy and under pressure.

There is a severe lack of care for the pedestrians of Silsden as despite all additional properties, no pedestrian crossing has been implemented.

There is also no access to the site along with a highly busy bypass which is required to be crossed to reach the neighboring towns and/or train station.

The site adjoins allotments - looking out over a construction site would be awful for allotment holders.

Object

Representation ID: 20584

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: 21180

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: 23478

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: 24277

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

Concerns about the impact on the highway infrastructure.
The negative impact on the Leeds Liverpool Canal Conservation Area.
The Ancient Hedgerows need to be protected (and not have a repeat of what happened with the Harron Homes Development).

Comment

Representation ID: 27476

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Persimmon Homes (West Yorkshire)

Agent: Lichfields

As the proforma for this site within the Draft Local Plan confirms, there is no direct access to site SI4/H, with access proposed to be taken from the adjacent site (SI/020 or SI5/HC: Keighley Road). Whilst the detailed plans approved in respect of site SI5/HC indicates two potential points of access into the site, site access is ransomed by at least one third party, and both access points are required to cross Sykes Lane as an unregistered and un-adopted road. It is therefore important for the plan to acknowledge that delivery of site SI5/HC does not necessarily guarantee the delivery of site SI4/H, and significant concerns regarding the achievement of site access are likely to undermine the site’s deliverability.
Even if the access could be resolved, the site is in multiple ownerships and cannot reasonably be considered to be available and deliverable now. There are also other key site constraints which would need to be overcome in advance of, or mitigation incorporated within the development, including the loss of allotments and potential impacts on Sykes Lane (identified in the emerging Neighbourhood Plan as a key feature/protected lane).
The Sustainability Appraisal identifies potential major adverse effects on climate change (SA Objective 4) on account of parts of the site being within flood zones 2 and 3, and the site’s location within a green infrastructure corridor (SA Objective 6). These scores are worse than those predicted for sites SI/003 and SI/004.
It is therefore not considered that there is sufficient certainty for this to be a preferred allocation, particularly when there are other comparable, and more sustainable, non-allocated sites which can demonstrate immediate deliverability

Comment

Representation ID: 28628

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Environment Agency

Flood Zones 2, 3 and the current/draft 3b/3a(i) within site boundary - Site contains a small area of FZ2 and 3 aswell as the current 3b and 3ai extents

There is to be no development with the 3b/3a(i) extent unless considered water compatible or essential infrastructure. Where this is the case the development must demonstrate no increase in risk to others, no loss of Functional Floodplain and suitable mitigation measures for use and the lifetime of the development.

Development on site should follow a sequential layout so as to prevent unnecessary development within Flood Zones 3b, 3 and 2 wherever possible. 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. Some SuDs principles such as storage ponds should not be solely relied upon within areas at risk of fluvial flooding as they may not be operational during a flood.

Development must be shown to be safe for the lifetime of the development. See the Adept Guidance of Access and Egress plans. Hazard ratings may need to be assessed as part of the proposal.

Mitigation such a proofing measures and raised Finished Floor Levels, must be set above the 1 in 100 plus Climate Change level for the site. Current Guidance is on .gov.

The applicant must ensure there is no increase in risk to others for the lifetime of the development (including climate change). Where on Greenfield sites compensatory storage must be actively sought.

Consideration must be made to making space for water and providing betterment in terms of flood risk management where ever possible. For development 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 likely these sites are going to show changes/increases in flood risk as a result of climate change.

The SFRA (to follow) is going to consider future flooding including future Functional Floodplain this may identify sites at more future risk than others which may affect its allocation or how development should be sequentially laid out on the site.

Object

Representation ID: 29410

Received: 29/03/2021

Respondent: Historic England

The site lies adjacent to the Leeds Liverpool Canal Conservation Area. 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: 29744

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Caroline Whitaker

1. I would request 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.