Consultation Question 113

Object

Representation ID: 867

Received: 07/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jennifer Biagioni

I object to the number of houses for Silsden as the medical centre will not be able to cater for many more patients as it is difficult to get an appointment now. The roads are at capacity especially the junction of Elliott Street and Keighley Road so with 146 more houses up Woodside Road it will be impossible. There is a lot of wildlife in the fields behind Woodside Road which will dissapear. Silsden was once a village but the way things are going it is going to be a town.Can the sewers cope with all these new houses.

Object

Representation ID: 1235

Received: 10/03/2021

Respondent: Paul Redshaw

S13/H Woodside Road. The proposal to allow up to 146 houses on private high quality dairy fields is a ludicrous proposal. The impact of potentially 300 cars commuting down congested Elliott Street and turning along Keighley Road past a busy Surgery, Care Home, Children’s Centre and Fire Station could under no circumstance happen. It is already diabolical. Access is also a serious issue.

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: 5157

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: SHMS

Summary
The necessary common infrastructure needed for Silsden sites should be provided in advance or in parallel of development NOT after, namely combined sewer up grading, electricity supply upgrading, highway improvements, improvement of footpath routes and bridge to access rail network. All sites identified need supporting infrastructure, sites to the north also have a Yorkshire water supply pressure issue.
Additional pdl sites of 36 dwellings at Bradley Rd, Greengate, Cringles, Bolton Rd and many developments less than 5 units (infill sites) which contribute to the infrastructure load are not shown in the site allocations.
16/01844/OUT Bradley Rd 5 dwellings
18/05099/FUL Greengate 6 dwellings
16/02685/FUL & 16/02733/FUL Cringles Farm 5 dwellings
20/05292/MAF Tannery/Rotation Works 20 dwellings
plus some other pdl sites might be put forward in the future dependant on positive or negative economic recovery post Covid.
Green spaces, flood storage, need providing within sites or adjacent to the particular developments.

Object

Representation ID: 5472

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: CPRE West Yorkshire

We’ve not been able to visit these sites ourselves but the following sites have been brought to our attention based on the concerns from local groups:

SI2/H
SI3/H
SI4/H
SI5/H

We support the position of Silsden Campaign for the Countryside, that the land at the southern point of Silsden, as well as the northern point towards the north and east of SI2/H, should be returned to the Green Belt. See attached map for clarity.

Through reviewing the density of these proposed site allocations, we do not accept that the extent of proposed greenfield allocation is necessary to accommodate the proposed amount of development. Similar to other areas of the district, the level of density proposed in Silsden is much lower than we would expect; this is also true of the brownfield site Si5/H. We suggest that the density should be increased and the size of allocation reduced accordingly.

Comment

Representation ID: 15502

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: 17099

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Martin Wilkinson

Objection to the failure to allocate land to the east of Silsden (part of SI/003) for development.

Inclusion of this land, identified within the settlement boundary is compatible with both The White Paper- Planning for the future (2020) and the 25-year Environment Plan (2018).

Object

Representation ID: 17239

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mark Wogden

Since the publication of the draft plan, permission has been granted for 40 houses at The Willows site. A current application for 20 houses at Town Head seems likely to be approved.

This total of 60 new house makes the plan out of date before it begins, making it essential that any new applications need to examined very critically against the emerging policy as well as the existing ones, with future allocations being reduced substantially. Left unchecked our total would reach into the thousands rather than hundreds.

Comment

Representation ID: 29740

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Caroline Whitaker

I WOULD LIKE TO SEE

• Redrawing of the settlement boundary to permanently exclude rejected site SI/003 from further consideration of development.

Object

Representation ID: 30076

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Persimmon Homes (West Yorkshire)

Agent: Lichfields

Rejection of the full site SI/004

While the allocation of site SI2/H is supported it is important to recognise that this site forms part of a wider site in Persimmon’s control and it is inexplicable that the wider site that is located within the defined urban area of Silsden (and in particular the remainder of site SI/004 which has been identified within the Council’s own evidence based as being unconstrained) has not been also been identified as a preferred allocation.

As discussed throughout these representations, the most appropriate approach is the allocation of the full extent of the land within Persimmon’s control, as this would allow for the area to be comprehensively master planned for the long term reflecting the constraints and opportunities afforded by this site, for wider benefits to be delivered, and for a new eastern defensible eastern settlement boundary to this part of Silsden to be created.

In summary, Site SI2/H should be extended to accommodate the full extent of the 12.27 hectares of land within Persimmon’s control as shown on Figure 1.1 and Appendix 1 and allocated for 260 homes.

It is considered that development of the wider land holding (comprising the entirety of SLA site SI/004) would provide a suitable, available and deliverable extension of site SI2/H for allocation within the Local Plan.

The entirety of site SI/004 is located outside the Green Belt and within the settlement boundary for Silsden, it is identified by the Council’s own evidence base as being wholly unconstrained. The site should therefore be allocated in full within the next iteration of
the plan.

Object

Representation ID: 30214

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

Rejected sites:
The Willows site on Hainsworth Road (SI/006A) has just been approved for a further 44 homes. This is despite the site failing to match the criteria set by a different part of the Planning Department and the site been placed on the Rejected Sites document within the Proposed Local Plan. This is wholly conflicting and clearly different Planning officers hold quite different views on what is an appropriate site for development. This does not give confidence to the planning process nor the content of the Proposed Local Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 30216

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Persimmon Homes (West Yorkshire)

Agent: Lichfields

Rejected Site SI/003

Persimmon’s land holding also includes part of Site SI/003: Brownbank Lane.
We note that the more detailed proformas and analysis which sit behind the conclusions reached for rejected sites as set out within the Site Assessment Update Report have not been made available for comment as part of this consultation on the evidence and despite our requests these have not been made available. Persimmon reserve the right to view and comment on this more detailed information when this is made available.

In summary, it has been demonstrated with reference to the emerging site masterplan, and technical consideration of matters of access, landscape and heritage, that the Council’s conclusions regarding the unsuitability of parts of SI/003 for allocation are unfounded.

SEE FULL REP FOR ASSESSMENT OF HOW TECHNICAL ISSUES AND CONSTRAINTS TO BE ADDRESSED.
A comprehensive masterplan has been prepared which demonstrates how non-Green Belt land within the settlement limits of Silsden can be sensitively developed to deliver 260 new homes, alongside additional wider benefits including the ability to facilitate an eastern relief road should this be deemed necessary, and the creation of a permanent and defensible Green Belt boundary.

Comment

Representation ID: 30217

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Persimmon Homes (West Yorkshire)

Agent: Lichfields

Rejected Site SI/006

The only other non-Green Belt site (apart from site SI/003) to be rejected for allocation is site SI/006. This is a former safeguarded site. The reasons for non-allocation include access; protected hedges; landscape impacts; and flood risk (part).
We are aware that access to this site is severely constrained and that there is limited prospect of upgrading the access, which would require third party land. It is therefore not considered that this site comprises a comparable or more favourable site over SI003 and/or SI/004. This site has not been subject to assessment in the SA, suggesting that CBMDC do not consider this site as a potential allocation.