SI7/H - Hothfield Junior School, Norton Street
Support
Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021
Representation ID: 636
Received: 02/03/2021
Respondent: Mrs Janet Robinson
Re the Hothfield site: there is no mention of what will happen to the swimming baths on this site. This was built by public fundraising & has taught many children to swim - a vital facility considering the close proximity to a canal. This facility should be retained for future public use.
Support
Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021
Representation ID: 1521
Received: 14/03/2021
Respondent: Mr Kenneth Hobson
As with S16/H the buildings should be retained and rebuilt sympathetically to maintain the distinctive character of the area.
Support
Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021
Representation ID: 1970
Received: 17/03/2021
Respondent: Mr Michael Elsmore
A good use of the site
Object
Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021
Representation ID: 5366
Received: 24/03/2021
Respondent: SHMS
Object, but would support;- provided Swim start facility, class room, parking, green space is secured with CAT (namely Buildings facing onto Hothfield St) & existing buildings are converted to sheltered housing.
Note the playground adjacent to Norton St could be excavated for underground water storage(rain water harvesting) flood mitigation then car parking on completion. The surrounding residential properties (Barrett St., Skipton Rd etc) often suffer with flooding in cellars in winter months and after heavy rainfall. Poor drainage in area.
Solar panels could be incorporated into design and a shared heating system. Electric feed in to grid via unit on site.
Traffic; - Site should not impact on Elliott St/A6034, residents use Skipton Rd (as most school users do) lower traffic at peak times, close to town centre (encourage walking)
Sheltered housing will enable local elderly to downsize, provide disability access, whilst achieving target of 21 units possibly more.
Object
Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021
Representation ID: 6208
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
Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021
Representation ID: 6823
Received: 07/03/2021
Respondent: Kirsty Richardson
Parking is already difficult and roads are narrow
Object
Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021
Representation ID: 6835
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
Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021
Representation ID: 6836
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
Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021
Representation ID: 6837
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
Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021
Representation ID: 6847
Received: 07/03/2021
Respondent: Lauren Shuttleworth
I was under the assumption that if houses were going to be made from the site, they would be apartments. 22 houses i feel is absolutely ludacris, we are in my opinion, not in a big enough area to accommodate 22 extra houses, at least 1 car per household, making parking which is already a challenge, even more of an issue, and just generally more people clogging up an already small area.
More cars mean more potential danger to our children simply crossing the road.
My concerns would also be who would be able to live in these houses as i am aware that 20% of the housing has to be given to the council to house people released from prison for example. My worry is that because the schools in silsden will now be in a totally different area, the risk of "unsavoury characters" will be heightened because there is no school nearby.
Object
Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021
Representation ID: 7197
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
Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021
Representation ID: 8096
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.
The site map shows the whole of the school grounds are included in the development.
This includes the Swimming pool, and the classroom attached to it! Which Bradford Council have (Supposedly) said will be transferred to swimstart; when the school moves.
Comment
Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021
Representation ID: 13201
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.
S17/H If this area were to be used for housing , this would mean that Silsden would lose it’s only swimming pool, where almost all the towns’ children are currently taught to swim
Object
Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021
Representation ID: 20587
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 have lived in Silsden for 35 years and feel that all this new development will spoil the town and its surrounding green spaces.
Support
Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021
Representation ID: 21194
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
Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021
Representation ID: 23481
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
Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021
Representation ID: 23719
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
Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021
Representation ID: 24280
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
Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021
Representation ID: 28631
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
Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021
Representation ID: 29412
Received: 29/03/2021
Respondent: Historic England
A number of the school buildings could be considered to be nondesignated heritage assets. We therefore welcome reference in the Development Considerations for this site that consideration should be given to the retention and conversion of the existing buildings.
Support
Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021
Representation ID: 29747
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 understand that Swimstart are in discussion with the council regarding a Community Asset Transfer of the swimming pool and adjoining classroom. It is vital that this transfer is confirmed and the development area amended accordingly as this is a valuable asset to the community.
3. 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.