SI8/H - Dradishaw Road, Silsden

Object

Representation ID: 1237

Received: 10/03/2021

Respondent: Paul Redshaw

S18/H Dradishaw Road. I oppose the designation of development It is an urban pocket park. Kids love the freedom of the place and thats what makes it so special to the community.

Object

Representation ID: 1522

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Kenneth Hobson

The loss of this greenfield site and TPO woodland, however small, would see a further loss of open space in an urban setting, whereas the Open Space Assessment (2020) suggests the actual need to increase the Natural and Semi-Natural greenspace within the town.

Object

Representation ID: 1978

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Michael Elsmore

Simple -over development

Object

Representation ID: 3984

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Juliet Johnson

What a shame to lose a green area within existing housing at a time when people need to sit and reflect for their well being and mental health.
The wildlife will be driven out and the children will have lost a space to play

Object

Representation ID: 4744

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: SHMS

Site access to Dradishaw Road.
Site has trees with TPOs cannot envisage how site can be developed without damaging trees
Site acts as a green space (pocket park) used by local children.
Development proposed will be incongrous and over bearing to existing properties
Bus service now stops at Ilkley and does not continue to LeedsBfd Airport

Object

Representation ID: 6209

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: 6838

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: 7198

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: 8097

Received: 08/03/2021

Respondent: Lawrence Walton

The planning application for 7 houses on this site has been superseded by a new one for 6 houses, Bradford Council Highways dept: have previously said that the access into the site is not of sufficient width for this site to be developed. Since they made that statement another home has been approved, and built adjacent to the access Rd, making the access even more restricted. Application number 20/01508

Object

Representation ID: 13202

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Silsden Town Council

The planning application for 7 houses on this site has been superseded by a new one for 6 houses, Bradford Council Highways dept. have previously said that the access into the site is not of sufficient width for this site to be developed. Since they made that statement another home has been approved, and built adjacent to the access Rd, making the access even more restricted. Application number 20/01508. A planning application has already been rejected by Silsden Town for development on this area. It needs to be maintained as an amenity area

Object

Representation ID: 20580

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: 21182

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: 23482

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: 24281

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

This application has now been reduced to 6 dwellings- many objections have been made on this planning application for a number of reasons but particularly regarding the further reduction of an open space within the town. Silsden has been identified as having a lack of green space in the town.

Comment

Representation ID: 27479

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Persimmon Homes (West Yorkshire)

Agent: Lichfields

This site is subject to a live planning application for six semi-detached dwellings. At the time of writing there appear to be several significant unresolved planning issues, including loss of amenity space, impacts on protected trees, drainage and highways matters. Silsden Town Council objects to the application on similar grounds, and strongly objects to the loss of more green urban space.
Whilst it is recognised that the granting of planning permission would demonstrate the suitability of the site for housing development, site SI8/H and the Development of urban greenspace, does not appear to be an appropriate housing allocation, particularly in light of other deemed suitable for development by the Council’s own evidence case.
SI8/H should not comprise preferred allocatiions.

Comment

Representation ID: 28632

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.

Object

Representation ID: 29748

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Caroline Whitaker

I strongly object to the loss of green urban space amenity which Silsden cannot afford to lose any more of.

It would be preferable for this area be used as a children’s play area as there is limited provision of such facilities in this area of the town.

Planning permission is currently being sort on this site but there are many outstanding issues namely that:-
1. There appears to be no tree survey done, given the very close proximity of large mature tree to the boundaries this should be a requirement.
2. There are reports of bats roosting here and therefore a bat survey is required.
3. There is believed to be an existing sewer across this site which needs to be taken into account.
4. Other issues have been highlighted by Bradford’s own drainage and highways report. If the land was developed it is preferable that, as it is currently owned by Incommunities it should, at the very least be for social housing.
5. Access via a single track road does not appear appropriate particularly as there is now a new house build adjacent to this access.