Consultation Question 112

Object

Representation ID: 29539

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Elizabeth & Tim Walton

Number of people: 2

•Silsden's 880 houses represents 37.6% of the total in constituency with no new infrastructure - 880 homes these days will mean 1500+ extra cars

Comment

Representation ID: 29721

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Caroline Whitaker

5.13.1 ‘The River Aire creates a natural division between Silsden and Steeton, approximately 3km to the North.’

This does not make sense, the River Aire and Steeton are both to the South of Silsden and only by 1.5km

Object

Representation ID: 29722

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Caroline Whitaker

The plan does not make any proposals for additional employment opportunities in the town and therefore an expansion of the population will mean that a greater number of its residents will be forced to commute further afield for work. This is not a sustainable development plan as it is encouraging more car use because of the limitations (in 5.13.11 below) and is therefore in conflict with Bradford’s transport policy, which aims to reduce journeys and is contradictory to its target to be net zero carbon by 2038. To be a vibrant self-contained ‘all day’ community then Silsden needs to avoid becoming a dormitory town

Comment

Representation ID: 29723

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Caroline Whitaker

5.13.10 The retail facilities ‘offer is below the national average’ and additional homes are not stimulating the growth of essential retail businesses therefore people are continuing to travel to larger towns and cities for these choices which does not boost the local economy. I welcome Braford’s ambition to promote15 minute neighbourhoods but for this there needs to be a strategy to make settlements such as ours more self-contained.

Comment

Representation ID: 29724

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Caroline Whitaker

There is an overemphasis on the connectivity of the town to other settlements.

1. The nearest railway station is not located in the centre of the town but a lengthy (for some) 1 mile walk to the south of it.

2. Pedestrian and cycling access to the station is further hampered by a lack of safe crossing over the A629 dual carriageway and an inadequate pavement out of town along the A6034.

3. Those travelling by car to the station are unable to park there after 7.30am in the morning because of the station’s popularity with commuters from other towns both within and outside West Yorkshire. The promised car park extension (Table 1 TR1.B.2) was abruptly halted when the rail franchise was passed back to the Government and may now be delayed indefinitely.

4. Buses do run from the town to the station but they do not run through the middle of the town and they are not timetabled to connect with the arrival and departure of rail services.

5. Other bus services are of limited distance i.e. they terminate at Ilkley and Keighley and there is no direct bus service to Skipton. In particular, much is made throughout the report (including public transport accessibility statements on each site) of the bus to Leeds Bradford Airport. This service no longer runs, in fact the No. 62 Transdev bus service now terminates in Ilkley

Comment

Representation ID: 29725

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Caroline Whitaker

5.13.12
The report confirms that ‘The A6034 through the centre of the town has a number of narrow sections or pinchpoints which, together with the historic layout and features of the town, can cause traffic congestion at peak times. It is proposed to undertake a transport study to better understand the key issues within the town as part of wider work on the emerging Transport Strategy and future infrastructure planning.’ This study needs to be undertaken before any further largescale developments are approved.

Comment

Representation ID: 29726

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Caroline Whitaker

5.13.14

Correction - the No. 62 Transdev service no longer runs to Leeds Bradford Airport but terminates in Ilkley.
The Leeds Liverpool Canal Towpath is still poorly navigable westerly towards Kildwick and Skipton I understand that some work on this is due to commence in Autumn 2021but it is unclear whether this will extend all the way to Kildwick. (Table 1 TR1.A.5)

Comment

Representation ID: 29727

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Caroline Whitaker

5.13.21
The report claims that the new housing it proposes will meet the needs and aspirations of local people.

What supporting evidence can be provided for this?

When the type of housing is mostly led by the financial motivation of the developer of a site how will local demand for affordable housing and accommodation for the elderly truly be provided? Will the type of housing that is actually built only serve the needs of people moving in from other areas?

Comment

Representation ID: 29728

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Caroline Whitaker

5.13.24

While I welcome the reduction of the town’s housing allocation and the rejection of some sites which were incorporated in earlier iterations of the plan, I am deeply concerned by the statement that ‘Support will also be provided to developers who wish to redevelop larger sites and/or buildings for new homes not currently identified, subject to all relevant policies in the Local Plan’

Comment

Representation ID: 29729

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Caroline Whitaker

PLANNING FOR PLACES AND COMMUNITIES

5.13.28
I welcome the report’s acknowledgement that ‘The Landscape Character Assessment notes that both areas are considered to be sensitive to change.’ And seek clarification of how further large scale developments would not compromise this character.

Comment

Representation ID: 29730

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Caroline Whitaker

5.13.31
I also note the comment ‘The South Pennine Moors (Phase 2) SPA and SAC (and SSSI) are located around 2km to the east, placing the eastern part of the Silsden within the 2.5km buffer zone with the remainder being within 7km buffer’.

What then are the consequences of development within these buffer zones to the wildlife of these specially protected areas?

Comment

Representation ID: 29731

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Caroline Whitaker

5.13.32
Whilst there are several areas of green open space in the town the town has no all- weather sports facility or public swimming pool. NB/ Figure 7 (and also the Local Area Plan map) includes Silsden Golf Course under sports facilities but it is now permanently closed.

Comment

Representation ID: 29732

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Caroline Whitaker

5.13.35
Regarding the new primary school, it is being built as 3 form entry (which will only accommodate current demand) and though there will be scope to expand this to 4 form entry this will only be at some point in future if Bradford has the resources to pay for it. What will the tipping point be for this expansion to be funded?

Comment

Representation ID: 29733

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Caroline Whitaker

5.13.36
The statement in this section is rather inaccurate as it implies that most pupils in Silsden travel to schools Keighley for secondary education when in reality the majority attend South Craven School as well as the two grammar schools in Skipton.

Comment

Representation ID: 29734

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Caroline Whitaker

5.13.39
I am very concerned about the capacity of all utility services to the town. In particular I understand that the drainage system has already reached its capacity and the electricity sub stations are also at their limit.

Comment

Representation ID: 29738

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Caroline Whitaker

I WOULD LIKE TO SEE

Transport
• The prioritisation of funding for a safe crossing for the A629
• Linked improvements to pedestrian access from Silsden to the crossing
• A co-ordinated approach to bus and rail services and the provision of a new bus service to Skipton.
• That an essential transport study of the town is undertaken before any the local plan and accompanying housing allocation for our area is adopted.
• The town to be prioritised for funding to secure a 20mph zone beginning at all entrances to the settlement.
• A restriction on larger HGVs which are unable to negotiate the A6034 at Kirkgate safely.
• More access points to the towpath and an end to development which obscures the canal from view
• I support the ambition of better public transport but would like to know how plan to make a reality when bus services to our community continue to be cut, pedestrian routes are compromised and transport modes are not fully integrated.

Object

Representation ID: 30202

Received: 10/03/2021

Respondent: Paul Redshaw

Public transport links to and from Silsden are considered to be adequate. Steeton and Silsden railway station is located 1.6km to the south of the town on the northern edge of neighbouring Steeton. This provides frequent links to Keighley, Bingley, Shipley, Bradford, Skipton and Leeds.

What is not been considered is the proximity of place. The plan assumes that Silsden is a township with no other communities beside it. The whole plan must be viewed without bias just to West Yorkshire., after all people don’t live in Silsden simply because it is in
West Yorkshire. It has wider benefits and these should not be ignored. Silsden lies beside the North Yorkshire Boundary, so it is very clear that the benefits of living in Silsden go much further than the Wet Yorkshire Boundary.

The transport and Accessibility statement fails to address this. As the crow flies Skipton in North Yorkshire is the same distance as Silsden is to Keighley, yet accessibility to Skipton through use of public transport is extremely difficult; thus anyone living in Silsden will tell
you how inadequate the public transport facilities are, because their are non directly.