Consultation Question 112

Comment

Representation ID: 303

Received: 19/02/2021

Respondent: Mr Roger Lambert

I request that the semi-permanent "flash"/shallow wetland to the south of the new Barratt housing should be recognised and protected for its value to birdlife. This fragile water regularly supports large numbers of geese, ducks, gulls, etc. and it makes a delightful contribution to the Airedale Landscape Character Area.

Support

Representation ID: 635

Received: 02/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Janet Robinson

There is reference to the good transport links to Skipton. This is not the case. Whilst there are excellent & regular buses to Keighley & Ilkley & beyond there are no direct buses to Skipton. The only direct route to Skipton is via train following a mile's walk & death-trap dual carriageway. This makes working in Skipton very difficult if relying on public transport. This does not make sense given that Skipton is approximately the same distance away from Silsden as Keighley & Skipton are.

Object

Representation ID: 653

Received: 02/03/2021

Respondent: Mr David Lund

Re- Transport and Accessibility

Direct travel to Skipton via Public Transport, is inaccessible to Silsden residents without the aforementioned and difficult to access (on foot) Steeton & Silsden rail station. Would it not be possible as an interim measure to introduce a dedicated (trial?) bus route to Skipton or create an hourly round trip to Ilkley then on to Skipton, triangular or round route via Steeton?

Much is made about the Dales being on the doorstep - it is if you have a car!

Object

Representation ID: 897

Received: 07/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Terry Burton

No more houses to be built on on greenfield sites , Silsden has not got the infrastructure to build all the propose houses.

Object

Representation ID: 1050

Received: 09/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Robert Rycroft

This is a green space, and you're destroying it. Complete lack of consideration for local infrastructure.

Object

Representation ID: 1234

Received: 10/03/2021

Respondent: Paul Redshaw

Green Infrastructure GI
5.13.30 Why is there no purpose marked for land unmarked on the plan: surely they have a purpose and should be marked as such.

Purpose of Green Belt SP5 is to protect land from development so why is this contradicted by housing S13/H, which is private, high quality farm land.

The Open Space Assessment (2020) states there are notable deficits of certain types of open space yet this plan fails to address how they will be resolved of the time frame.
Much open space shown is private or operated privately, (allotments and sports grounds). The implication is that the public benefits from all this open green space when in fact that only have access to a small percentage of public land.
Item 5.13.36 "... South Craven is oversubscribed.” This is not a true statement, there are plenty of spaces and there is potential to add more.

Object

Representation ID: 1489

Received: 14/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Kenneth Hobson

1. The plan for Silsden contravenes Government objectives to prevent urban sprawl and instead maximise brownfield site development.
2. Massive need results from 580 houses for additional school places.
3. No indication in the plan for developing brownfield sites across the district such as East Parade in Keighley for housing.
4.There will be massive increase in traffic congestion around Silsden, especially along the town centre, Kirkgate, itself already a major problem.
This is blindingly obvious so further transport studies would be wasted time and money.
5. The local plan identifies Silsden as a local growth centre, considered to be a "most sustainable location accessible to higher order settlement". This is merely an assertion with no direct evidence included.
6.Open Space Assessment (2020) suggests a need to increase Natural and Semi-Natural greenspaces in the area. Building 580 houses on mostly greenfield sites contravenes this.

Object

Representation ID: 1976

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Michael Elsmore

In 2004 I made representations at the Public Inquiry of the UDP. The Inspector made relevant comments as to why Silsden should not be developed as planned. None of his recommendations as to infrastructure have been put in place in the last 17 years yet hundreds of houses have been built! This section of the plan needs to be rewritten with his comments in mind because they are STILL valid! No attempt has been made to improve foot access to the station - it needs investment which the Council are not prepared to make. There are three major junctions on the main road through the town, two minor attempts have been made to ease the problem but proper traffic lights are necessary (again lack of investment). There are so many issues that another public inquiry is needed.

Object

Representation ID: 2463

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Pat Dawson

At present there are already two large house building projects underway in Silsden. With even one of the proposed sites being passed, I am certain that the infrastructure in Silsden would not cope. Furthermore, I have major concerns regarding increased traffic that the housing projects would generate and the pollution that this would cause with subsequent effects for climate change. The government is hosting Cop26 in Glasgow in November this year, so we all need to make positive steps to reduce the causes of climate change.

Support

Representation ID: 3144

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Alison Tribe

I support most of the approaches in the Strategy: I agree that the business park should be safeguarded, that infrastructure needs enhancing and that open spaces and wildlife/heritage assets should be protected. I am very pleased that some sites have been removed from housing development, in particular the fields between Bolton Road and the Nab which provide important and much-used acess to adjacent countryside.
But, as I have commented elsewhere in this document (eg Question 30), 700 new dwellings is unbalanced and makes it impossible to conserve the character of the village. This number should be reduced, and the needed for housing should be reduced by greater housing density on these sites and elsewhere in Bradford.
Regarding infrastructure, improved pedestrian access to the train station MUST be a priority and, in future, improvements to infrastructure and services (eg GP) must come before additional development (see comments on Question 9).

Object

Representation ID: 5065

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: SHMS

Summary
Seriously question role of Silsden as growth centre. CS main amendments, questioned the lack of jobs growth. This latest plan includes no additional employment sites and 2 sites have disappeared since 2015.
Flooding issues continue to provide a threat, due to constraints on the culvert under Belton Road and water storage capacity.
Delivering new enhanced infrastructure is an essential already identified as a need combined sewers, electricity supply, highways, station access, broadband (note to date over 600 homes have been built from when infrastructure issues first identified, only education provision has been addressed). Electric capacity - No consideration given to alternative to fossil fuels e.g., hydrogen
Brown field sites and those closer to rail need developing first, (note 2 pdl sites at Bradley Rd 5, Bolton Rd 20 are not included - information is on planning portal)
Minimising travel distances must be top priority to access employment elsewhere..

Object

Representation ID: 6418

Received: 10/03/2021

Respondent: Adrian Brennan

This proposal is lunacy and very underhand in its execution. You are currently building a new combined junior and middle school that will not cope with an increase of more than 500 homes in Silsden. Furthermore the main drains are already at capacity.

Object

Representation ID: 6597

Received: 10/03/2021

Respondent: Adele Pillinger

•Object to 580 homes
•Silsden has suffered years of under-investment. Local services not available to support additional properties.
•New school cannot accommodate existing children.
•Silsden’s doctors do not have the capacity for existing residents.
•Bridge over the bypass to the station has not happened.
•Additional traffic would cause an even bigger hazard when accessing the station.
•Promised a bypass to alleviate traffic heading to Ilkley.
•Traffic in village centre is exceptionally busy/dangerous to residents, particularly children travelling to school.
•Additional houses/traffic should not be considered until the infrastructure is addressed.
•Council continues to build in Silsden as it is a prosperous/pretty area. Investment is only offered to Bradford City centre. Silsden is ignored for investment/services.
•Building on green belt land with no justification. NPPF says building on greenbelt land should only be considered in exceptional circumstances.
•Continually building in my beautiful village destroying countryside/the things that make it special.

Object

Representation ID: 6825

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: 6874

Received: 07/03/2021

Respondent: Cassandra Duffy

Object to further houses in Silsden. Silsden was once a village and small community and is now becoming a large town which i feel is a huge shame.
Silsden is a small area in comparison to other local towns/areas and as a resident i feel strongly that adding a further 580 house will severely overcrowd the area taking away the lovely countryside views we are so lucky to have and will be replaced with houses upon houses ruining the picturesque village!

Please look at land outside this small community

Comment

Representation ID: 8092

Received: 08/03/2021

Respondent: Lawrence Walton

Comments to specific paragraphs to strategy sections summarised by Local Plan Team
5.13.2 There is no bus service to Skipton!
5.13.3 Several hundred houses have been built in Silsden since 2011
5.13.5 Most of the population are commuters and therefore further development will increase air pollution as people work elsewhere.
5.13.12 The definition “Can cause traffic congestion at peak times” is a gross understatement, pre lock down during peak times, queues often stretched back to the A629, and up to the Reservoir on Cringles.
5.13.14 Many people work or attend school or College in Skipton- bus to Skipton is necessary
5.13.15 No Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) or Clean Air Zone (CAZ). The main road has narrow sections which,cause traffic congestion at peak times. Why isn’t Silsden covered by an A.Q.M.A.?
5.13.20. There is a need for affordable homes in Silsden but recent developments have not complied
5.13.36 Most pupils from Silsden go to South Craven School, the wording belittles this

Object

Representation ID: 9711

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Ransy Heppenstall

I wish to object to your proposed development plan in Silsden in particular Woodside Rd, S13/H .

1. Further development will harm the rural nature of the area.
2. Silsden is already at breaking point.
3. The health centre and dentistry practice would be unable to cope.
4. The school already under construction would not cope with the added influx.
5. The additional traffic onto an already choked junction Elliott St / Kirkgate / Clog Bridge would be extremely dangerous.
6. Traffic speeding down/up Woodside Rd would be a detriment to safety and cause more pollution.
7.Major loss of habitat for flora and fauna.
8.Environment around in danger of being spoiled.
9. An important buffer both visual and environmental to the area of Silsden and the Aire Valley.
10. Road widths inadequate to take extra usage---- parked vehicles a major factor.
11. Problems with drainage and sewer capacity.

Object

Representation ID: 10006

Received: 16/03/2021

Respondent: Glenda McKiernan

I am writing to object to the ludicrously high amount of new housing development in Silsden as it is disproportionately high in comparison to current population.

You cannot keep developing greenfield sites, it is not good for the environment for one, and just encourages commuters into the area. Remember it is not easy to get to the station with it being the other side of the dual carriageway.

Priority should be given to developing brownfield sites both in this area, and others, and not allowing these large housing developers to erect ugly 'beige' estates.

Transport links are not great in Silsden, and the type of development is encouraging multi car households. Silsden also does not have road, health or school infrastructure to support. Even the site of the new school is rubbish, clogging up residential areas.

Object

Representation ID: 11401

Received: 15/03/2021

Respondent: W Naylor

I object to the 580 new houses you propose to build on the green belt surrounding Silsden.

Firsty, that you are even thinking about building on the green belt, secondly you would ruin the look of a lovely village by putting in more new properties.

Bradford Council have already done enough damage to the village by allowing building on flood plains which should never have happened.

Its disgusting the way you people are treating Silsden as your dumping ground when there are plenty of places round Bradford you could use without taking away green belt.

Comment

Representation ID: 13193

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Silsden Town Council

See attachment for comments on specific paragraphs of the Local Area Strategy.

Comment

Representation ID: 13332

Received: 20/03/2021

Respondent: Fran Elliott

-Disproportionately large number of new houses in Silsden.
-700+ on top of hundreds built in recent years.
-Suggestion allocation should be 400 houses based on Population.
-Sites map doesn’t show recently completed developments and approvals; PP granted for 40 house at The Willows.
-Houses to be of high design standard, a mix of housing types to serve the community. Higher density would reduce the amount of green field sites required.
-The Open Space Assessment (2020) highlights deficits of types of OS. Consideration should be given to increase provision of Natural/Semi-natural Greenspace and Parks and Gardens ref. Hawber Cote fields to the NE.
-Proposed housing to the east of Bolton Road up to Brown Bank Lane should be omitted and returned to greenbelt.
-Site left in allocation despite adjacent area rejected on access, landscape impact and heritage impact.
-The 'settlement boundary' should be redrawn now eastern bypass is no longer fundable CIL.

Comment

Representation ID: 15501

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Highways England (Yorkshire & North East Team)

It is not considered that locating development within the
settlements within Silsden, 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 Silsden 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: 17227

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mark Wogden

The underlying case for Silsden being designated as a local growth centre has not been proved; there is a misunderstanding of the reality of its transport links as well as the capacity of other infrastructure. It appears that the town is still, despite a reduced target, bearing the brunt of the plan’s housing allocation. It seems it has been given this huge target by default because it is surrounded by easily developable green fields, rather than because of local housing need.

Object

Representation ID: 21777

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Simon & Bernice Talbot

Number of people: 2

Silsden seems to have been allocated a bigger proportion of houses to find than some other areas.

Your plan seems to have neglected the willows development in your calculations.

Housing which is taking place / planned appears not to be aimed at lower paid workers.

You have also used a lower density factor for the proposed developments than that your policy states of 35 units per hectare.

There are no proposals to ease congestion along Keighley Road to Bolton Road.

Because of previous developments it seems unlikely that any bypass round Silsden will be almost impossible by the geography of Silsden and rash planning decisions which have been made in the past.

Silsden has a thriving tourist trade as a centre for walking, cycling and touring along the canal. There is v little parking for such tourists and the proposals will worsen this.

Comment

Representation ID: 23720

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: David Loud

All the sites listed need to be managed closely to ensure that the local ecology and environment and supported as part of the development. Overall, the low housing density and total number of houses being proposed falls well short of national recommendations and the NHP.
The plan makes no allowance for the Willows Development which will reduce the overall numbers of housing required.
Development over recent years have already impacted on the scale and dominance of Silsden on the area. Further development on proposed Greenfield sites will impact further on these material considerations that MUST be considered as part of the plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 23764

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: David Loud

-Public transport options for the West is limited. No direct bus links to Cross Hills/Skipton. Train station location is inconvenient.
-Type of housing for older residents (65+) needed locally
-Review of Silsden and Steeton’s Neighbourhood Plan
-No additional employment opportunities identified – result increase in commuting.
-Local employment would contribute to the target of Net Zero.
-Plan positively biased on appraisal of retail/leisure facilities.
-Sports and leisure facilities are limited.
-Transport study should be completed/consulted on.
-Transport projects do not detail the proposed crossing over the A629 (ref to RUDP and pre-requisite requirements for infrastructure)
5.13.24 Additional larger scale development would be completely unsustainable/impact on the wellbeing/require green field sites.
-Impact on the character and local ecology.
-Secondary education.MAJORITY of pupils attend South Craven School in Cross Hills.
-Impact on healthcare - sufficient resources should be in place ahead of development.
-Utility companies refuse to provide information on capacity for future planned housing development.
-Flexibility of the plan should be built in to respond to changes
-Sustainability/Net zero carbon goals will not be reached due to the dependence of commuting for employment.

Object

Representation ID: 23835

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Monica & David Scannell

Silsden is a Local Growth Centre, but no provision made for expanding employment, hence new residents will commute for work.

Nothing to promote retail facilities or 15 minute neighbourhoods.

No mention that significant proportion of housing is 1.5 miles or more from the railway station. Buses don’t synchronise with trains. Most residents will drive to the station. No direct bus to Skipton

Station parking is inadequate. Proposed extension will not adequately accommodate the new commuters. Also there is no completion date.

Safe access across A629 is a major issue and no definite plan/timescale to increase safety.

Population doesn’t need extra housing. Recent new/proposed housing is families – Silsden needs quality housing for the elderly.

Plan implies more housing for Silsden – not included within the 700 already proposed.

Proposed 700 houses doesn’t factor in sites with planning permission – should be deducted from the figure.

Plan makes no recreational provision for new residents, especially children/youth.

Comment

Representation ID: 24272

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

-Welcome the further reduction in housing numbers.
-Contest the proposed high number which is disproportionate for the size of the town especially as the infrastructure is still woefully inadequate.
-Silsden has already taken a considerable amount of housing but the promised infrastructure has never been delivered.
-Dispute that Silsden has a local employment base (5.13.2). There is SOME employment but in the main it is a commuter town.
-Dispute that there are GOOD connections to these local towns and cities.
-It is about 1.5 miles to the railway station which involves crossing the A629 dual carriageway. There is currently no footbridge nor safe crossing to do this. There is no bus service to the neighbouring town of Skipton. No proper cycle lanes. The canal towpath on the Leeds to Liverpool Canal is still awaiting upgrading.
-No explanation for classifications as Local Growth Centre.
-Existing sustainable transport links are inadequate which conflicts with the transport policy and reduction for net zero carbon target.
- 5.13.15: Why is Silsden not covered by an Air Quality Management Area nor within the proposed Clean Air Zone? Silsden is congested with slow moving and stationary traffic.
-Non-specific and vague details about strategic transport projects. (TR1.A.5 and TR1.B.2) There is no mention of the footbridge or safe crossing across the A629 within this table.
-Local housing needs - older than average population requires suitable accommodation to match their needs. There needs to be a mix of ‘affordable’ accommodation with shared equity homes.
-Support shift in Road Space & Delivering Walking, Cycling and Public Transport Infrastructure
-It is acknowledged there are notable deficits of certain types of open space. Building on the greenfield sites is not going to improve this situation.
-5.13.33: Llittle emphasis of how much flooding the town has experienced in recent times and the increased frequency of flood warnings/flood risk alerts.

Object

Representation ID: 26517

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Jacqueline Bates

Silsden allocated a disproportionate number of houses for its current size, level of amenity and road network.

Not clear how the town’s expansion is justified when traffic congestion and lack of green amenity space is a problem.

No planned employment expansion. New houses will bring more commuters.

New school will exacerbate traffic issues exiting onto Bolton Road or from Howden Road. School is a long way from most densely populated areas. More homes and families will equal more strain.

Idea that town is well-connected to the rail network is untrue. Walk is unpleasant and connections problematic.

Roads/pavements are crumbling. CCTV is required to stop crime. Flooding is an issue – more development means more run-off. Town centre requires investment. Will increased housing ensure a proportionate increase in investment?

Would be re-assuring to see Council acknowledging issues raised by the community, devising strategies and designating funds to prepare for problems that development will bring before it takes place.

Object

Representation ID: 26642

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: David & Ruth Leech

Silsden is a gridlocked community. It is being strangled from the centre through lack of investment with minimal shopping opportunities, no direct banking facilities for residents but is ballooning from the outside in a disproportionate, and clearly unplanned way. There has been overbuilding to such an excess yet Silsden still has plenty of opportunities to regenerate ‘infill land’ without destroying greenfield sites. Coherent town planning appears to be non existent.