Draft Bradford District Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021

Comment

Representation ID: 24228

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

Is this site actually available? I understand this site belongs to Addingham Parish Council.

Object

Representation ID: 24229

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

This site is within Green Belt. Planning Policy states that Green Belt should only be released for housing in exceptional circumstances. Policy SP5 –Green Belt and SP8 –Housing Growth are narrative statements which are subjective and are no justification for releasing this Green Belt site for housing.
Addingham’s Landscape Character would be greatly impacted if a large scale housing development was allowed and Green Belt policy states it is to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns which is how Addingham is defined.
There are also ecological and habitat concerns with this sites close proximity to the South Pennine Moors Special Protection Area.

Object

Representation ID: 24230

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

This site is within Green Belt. Planning Policy states that Green Belt should only be released for housing in exceptional circumstances. Policy SP5 –Green Belt and SP8 –Housing Growth are narrative statements which are subjective and are no justification for releasing this Green Belt site for housing. Addingham’s Landscape Character would be greatly impacted if a large scale housing development was allowed and Green Belt policy states it is to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns which is how Addingham is defined.
There are also ecological and habitat concerns with this sites close proximity to the South Pennine Moors Special Protection Area.

Comment

Representation ID: 24231

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

There are concerns about any impact on the Conservation Area and also regarding drainage issues.

Object

Representation ID: 24232

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

This site is within Green Belt. Planning Policy states that Green Belt should only be released for housing in exceptional circumstances. Policy SP5 –Green Belt and SP8 –Housing Growth are narrative statements which are subjective and are no justification for releasing this Green Belt site for housing. Addingham’s Landscape Character would be greatly impacted if a large scale housing development was allowed and Green Belt policy states it is to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns which is how Addingham is defined.
There are also ecological and habitat concerns with this sites close proximity to the South Pennine Moors Special Protection Area.

Object

Representation ID: 24233

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

This site is within Green Belt. Planning Policy states that Green Belt should only be released for housing in exceptional circumstances. Policy SP5 –Green Belt and SP8 –Housing Growth are narrative statements which are subjective and are no justification for releasing this Green Belt site for housing. Addingham’s Landscape Character would be greatly impacted if a large scale housing development was allowed and Green Belt policy states it is to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns which is how Addingham is defined.
There are also ecological and habitat concerns with this sites close proximity to the South Pennine Moors Special Protection Area.

Comment

Representation ID: 24234

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

Part of this site is within Flood Zone 2 which will potentially cause flood risk issues.

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.

Comment

Representation ID: 24273

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

TR1 A5 & TR1 B2
There is no mention of the footbridge or safe crossing across the A629 (at Silsden) within this table.

Comment

Representation ID: 24274

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bradford District Ward Councillor (Conservative)

The access to this site is un-adopted roads which are in extremely poor condition.
Spencer Avenue is subsiding and cannot withstand any additional vehicular traffic. Sackville Road is riddled with deep potholes and Hillcrest Avenue particularly near the Co-op store is in a terrible state.
This particular site is another water logged field, covered in springs and culverts.
There are also ecological sensitivities with this site,