SI5/HC - Keighley Road

Object

Representation ID: 1518

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Kenneth Hobson

1. As a brownfield site, this is acceptable on the face of it, for development.
2. However, it is almost entirely within the active flood zones. Point 5) in the notes for S14/H apply, especially as some areas are at high risk of surface water flooding. Further flood risk assessments would thus waste more time and money.
3. Point 2) for S14/H also apply.
4. Point 4) for S14/H also apply.

Object

Representation ID: 3967

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr John Johnson

I want to protest 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 little account of the fact that the town's infrastructure is unable to support further developments on this scale; other than destroying the sense of community which has developed over the years they 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: 3982

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Juliet Johnson

Although this is not Greenbelt land the building of more houses will affect the water courses and impact on the infrastructure of the town. There has already been a great deal of building in the town and the need for more housing no longer applies.

Support

Representation ID: 4958

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: SHMS

Support providing the necessary common infrastructure needed for Silsden sites is provided in advance or parallel of development namely combined sewer up grading, electricity supply upgrading, highway improvements, improvement of footpath routes and bridge to access rail network.
Note outline application had £120, 000 contribution to bridge over A629.
Disappointing access arrangements do not fully address possibility of SI4/H coming forward or inclusion of a crossing point to access the Aldi store, interconnectivity with Belton Road and access to cycle routes to discourage use of private motor car.

Support

Representation ID: 5380

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: SHMS

Support providing the necessary common infrastructure needed for Silsden sites is provided in advance or parallel of development namely combined sewer up grading, electricity supply upgrading, highway improvements, improvement of footpath routes and bridge to access rail network.
Note outline application had £120, 000 contribution to bridge over A629.
Disappointing access arrangements do not fully address possibility of SI4/H coming forward or inclusion of a crossing point to access the Aldi store, interconnectivity with Belton Road and access to cycle routes and encourage walking to discourage use of private motor car.
Site is to incorporate a wetland habitat area which should be worked prior to or in parallel with development to ensure future residents can use on 1st occupation.

Object

Representation ID: 6206

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: 6832

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: 6833

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: 6897

Received: 11/03/2021

Respondent: Lynne Barnett

No places at the local school - a new school is under construction but will probably be over subscribed before completion.
No appointments at the local NHS surgery -
The one road that goes through the village is a death trap.
An increase in housing will mean more people crossing to railway station to go to work. Crossing the road is a disastrous accident waiting to happen.
Site is contaminated with Japanese Knotweed. Many insurance companies require stipulation of this plant on their application for property insurance and it can effect cover.
The weight of extra people has had an detrimental effect. The village hasn't seen any money plowed into its upkeep. The roads are a mess, the pavements disintergrating, the Town Hall, the local park etc all run by volunteers who want to keep the pride of the village.

Object

Representation ID: 7195

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: 8152

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: 13199

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Silsden Town Council

Would like to see a mix of ‘affordable’ housing to include a substantial amount of shared ownership with suitable starter homes to enable younger people to be able to get on the property ladder.
Concerns about the impact on the highway infrastructure as Keighley Road is already heavily congested.
Much closer for the railway station but safe access to it still remains a problem.

Comment

Representation ID: 17238

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mark Wogden

Planning permission has already been granted for this site.

Proper account should be given to this as well as all the substantial housing development that has taken place in recent years and its cumulative effect.

Object

Representation ID: 20585

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.

Support

Representation ID: 21183

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Phil and Sally Brown

Number of people: 2

However we are in favour of the development of infill and brown sites and welcome the redevelopment of a small number of houses in areas of Silsden such as:
SI5/H Keighley Road
SI6/H Aire View site
Si7/H Hothfield site

Object

Representation ID: 23479

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: 23837

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Monica & David Scannell

Planning permission has already been granted for this site. Proper account should be given to this as well as all the substantial housing development that has taken place in recent years and its cumulative effect, before building an additional 700 homes.

Comment

Representation ID: 24278

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

I would like to see a mix of ‘affordable’ housing to include a substantial amount of shared ownership with suitable starter homes to enable younger people to be able to get on the property ladder.
There are still huge concerns about the impact on the highway safety as Keighley Road is already heavily congested.
This site is much closer to the railway station but the safe crossing of the A629 dual carriageway still remains a problem.
Flooding issues on this site are still a concern.

Comment

Representation ID: 27477

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Persimmon Homes (West Yorkshire)

Agent: Lichfields

This site has detailed planning permission for 156 dwellings and is therefore expected to come forward within the plan period in accordance with this permission.
It is of note that this site attracts more negative scores in respect of SA Objectives 6 (Biodiversity and Geodiversity) and 4 (Climate Change Resilience) than sites SI/003 and SI/004.

Comment

Representation ID: 28629

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Environment Agency

Flood Zones 2, 3 and the current/draft 3b/3a(i) within site boundary - Half the site is within FZ2 and 3 aswell as a small area in the current 3ai extent

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.

Comment

Representation ID: 29745

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Caroline Whitaker

Planning permission has already been granted awarded for this site on 22.1.21 (19/05267/MAR). There are still concerns re sufficient green space and planting and flooding issues.