Consultation Question 106

Support

Representation ID: 364

Received: 22/02/2021

Respondent: Miss Kathryn Nutter

The town centre requires investment and overall improvement. Many shops have closed, there is a lack of amenities and free parking, which means that consumers use retail parks rather than the town centre. More consideration required regarding variety/ quality of shops. Town centre has too many bargain shops / charity shops. Lower rents to attract businesses. Allow one hour free parking around town centre.
AAddress crime and anti social behaviour around the bus station.

Object

Representation ID: 5523

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford Cycling Campaign

Bradford Cycling Campaign is disappointed by the lack of any specific proposals for new walking and cycling infrastructure within the Keighley area, beyond the rather vague ‘supporting opportunities [to] improve cycling and walking connectivity to and from the railway station and employment areas’. Rather than ‘supporting opportunities to improve’, we would substitute the words ‘create’ or ‘develop’ as a positive commitment towards improvement rather than mere aspiration. We would also take issue with the notion that the link to Airedale Greenway ‘is connected to the town centre via an on-road section of cycle lanes’ (Para 5.12.23). These lanes do not exist in any meaningful sense, nor in fact does any provision for cycling. This should be remedied urgently. Finally, we note that cycling and walking are not mentioned for any area of Keighley outside the Central area.

Object

Representation ID: 7203

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: 15495

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Highways England (Yorkshire & North East Team)

It is not considered that locating development within the
settlements within Keighley, on their own, will have a severe impact on the capacity, operation and safety of the SRN, and this will be identified through the transport evidence base being prepared by the Council / the individual assessment of the transport implications of the sites by the sites’ promoters.
However, the quantum of sites forms part of a wider cumulative impact within Keighley and the rest of the development aspirations within the Plan could severely impact the SRN, and this cumulative impact will need to be established by the Council and considered by Highways England.

Object

Representation ID: 28362

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Cengiz Philcox

Consultation period is not long enough to comment on a massively complex, detailed plan. It is tokenistic. Undertaking take into the middle of a pandemic is cynical.

Plant faces several serious crises (biodiversity/ecosystem collapse, climate chaos, flooding, global health crisis). Plan will smother areas of Green Belt, nature reserves and agricultural land in development. It is part of the problem, not the solution.

Building on Green Belt land contravenes Government policy. Boundaries can only be changed in exceptional circumstances and inappropriate development approved only in very special circumstances. What the very special circumstances for releasing sites from the Green Belt.

Area has ex-industrial past. It full of brownfield/potential brownfield sites. Keighley College building has pulled down with proposed use for the site. Marley incinerator site provides no communities benefit. Would have been a perfect housing site, providing a benefit.

No concern for welfare of citizens or natural heritage and character.

Support

Representation ID: 29102

Received: 29/03/2021

Respondent: Historic England

We welcome that each of the Local Area Strategy’s for the
Keighley area specify that development should seek to
ensure that development conserves and enhances key
heritage assets and their settings.

Comment

Representation ID: 30124

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Dewar Planning Associates

Site KY/105 The site is highly sustainable, suitable, and immediately available to meet some of the housing
needs of the district and all the local demand in Keighley for the plan period. It will help to address
the planned distribution of housing land, as set out by the Council, helping to demonstrate a robust
housing supply to meet Bradford’s housing delivery targets, whilst also providing a range of housing
types and sizes to meet the identified long-term needs of the local area as part of a sound and planled approach.