SI6/H - Aire View Infants, Elliot Street

Support

Representation ID: 1519

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Kenneth Hobson

Whilst 21 dwellings would cause little impact on traffic flow, the buildings are part of the local character of stone constructed terraces. They must, therefore, be converted into dwellings sympathetically.

Support

Representation ID: 1968

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Michael Elsmore

No objection a useful way of using this site

Support

Representation ID: 4743

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: SHMS

Support;- providing it includes conversion of the existing building (this school building is significant to the conservation area and the History of Silsden, and should be preserved) convert to sheltered housing (14 apartments) plus
6 new build east of site(nursery playground) for persons of impaired mobility with access from Elliott St
Building fronting Aire View could be re purposed into a project/social room.
Provision of lay by and bus shelter on Elliott St would remove existing problems with Stop ID45029574
Consider rain water harvesting schemes,(https://www.rainwaterharvesting.co.uk/content/rainactiv-18) community heating system, solar pv
Site is reasonably flat allowing easy walking to local shops and bus service
Car parking on Western playground
Access possible from both Aireview and Elliott St with separate pedestrian and cycle access arrangements
Additional planting garden provision fronting Elliott St

Object

Representation ID: 6207

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: 6834

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: 7196

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: 8095

Received: 08/03/2021

Respondent: Lawrence Walton

This sites is close to Town Centre and Bus routes, should be allocated specifically for sheltered housing developments.

Comment

Representation ID: 13200

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Silsden Town Council

SI6/H and SI7/H Aireview and Hothfield School Sites
Due to these two sites location close to Town Centre and Bus routes, should be allocated specifically for sheltered housing developments.

Object

Representation ID: 20586

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: 21184

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: 23480

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: 23718

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: David Loud

The old school sites will become available for development once the new school opens to pupils. Both of these sites could be used to provide supported living for the elderly. Not only will this strategy address a need in the community, it will also provide a substantially higher yield than a traditional housing site. With an indicative 43 houses, the yield expected over both sites could increase to over 80. This could be run as a community land trust however significant support would be required to assist in the process. Remaining grounds could be developed as community garden and part of the existing school buildings could be used as a social hub for the residents and possibly the wider community.

Support

Representation ID: 24279

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

This is a good central site and may be suited for some of the accommodation to meet the needs of elderly residents who may wish to down size but wish to remain in the town.
To retain the original building if at all possible.

Comment

Representation ID: 27478

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Persimmon Homes (West Yorkshire)

Agent: Lichfields

Whilst these two sites are currently in use, a new 3 form entry primary school is under construction such that sites SI6/H and SI7/H are likely to become available for development in the short-medium term.
At 42-43 dwellings per hectare, the estimated yields at these sites appear high, particularly if the existing buildings are of historic interest, as suggested by the pro-forma for site SI6/H, and the existing buildings are to be considered for retention. Any reduction in yield would potentially require additional sites being identified for allocation even before any uplift in the apportionment of housing to Silsden is considered (as advocated elsewhere in the representations).
If the level of housing identified for Silsden remains as proposed then the allocation of sites SI/004 and SI/003 would be preferable to a number of the currently identified preferred allocations.

Comment

Representation ID: 28630

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.

Support

Representation ID: 29411

Received: 29/03/2021

Respondent: Historic England

The site is opposite the Leeds Liverpool Canal Conservation Area. The development of this area could harm elements which contribute to the significance of this designated heritage asset. We welcome the inclusion of a reference to the proximity of these designated heritage assets as a Constraint in the sites pro forma, and that the Development Considerations highlight that consideration should be given to the retention and conversion of the existing buildings and that development should take account of potential impacts on the setting of the Conservation Area. This will alert potential developers of the need to take account of those elements which contribute to their significance, and ensure that they are not harmed by development proposals. The Council should consider whether any of the buildings and
structures on the site should be classified as non-designated heritage assets.

Support

Representation ID: 29746

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Caroline Whitaker

I support development on what will be a brownfield site however:-
1. The issues for increased demand on the Elliott Street exit need to be resolved.
2. I would like this site to be considered for supported accommodation and/or affordable community/self-build housing. This could be via a Community Land Trust or development ‘in house’ by Bradford Council.