| |
|
|||
|
||||
|
|
IMPORTANT PLEASE READ This website and forum has been living on borrowed web server time for years. At the end of this month silsden.net in it's present form will cease to exist, BUT there is a new silsden.net in the making, and a new forum, and lots of exciting new things coming to this space. Peter |
back
to EVENTS - ANNOUNCEMENTS - MEETINGS | back to forum index | login
|
sign
up | help
| latest topics | search
Replies in this thread : 65
Page : 1 2
<< next page next page >>
Author |
Topic : NEW PRIMARY SCHOOL CONSULTATION - 1st Feb 2017 |
|
| Peter |
 |
|
| midway |
Is there anymore information on this please, re, site plans or start date. |
|
| Peter |
It IS what it says on the poster - that's it. |
|
| Peter |
Just a reminder about the consultation on 1 February goo.gl/gqOH9V The comments on this KN article are of interest. |
|
| Peter |
quote THIS IS TODAY! THIS IS NOT JUST FOR PARENTS WITH CHILDREN - the new school will affect everyone who lives, and travels through Silsden. The new school will be sited on the edge of Silsden (above the park) and for the majority of parents with children of juniors and infant age it will mean a long trek twice a day. Of course, some will will walk but many will not which will result in traffic chaos twice a day (much worse than it already is). You WILL be affected and I urge you to go along to the consultation and ASK THE QUESTIONS THAT WILL BE IMPORTANT TO YOU. |
|
| gazzer |
Traffic provisions are a joke.There is no drop off/pick up area for parents only staff parking "because the council dont have to provide such". Middleway/Daisy Hill/Howden Road/Clog Bridge is one option for parents and Dale View onto Bolton Road is the other option. Neither route is suitable for the extra traffic that the school will bring!! |
|
| midway |
Well if you didn't manage to get there you didn't miss anything. The traffic direction not yet decided, no plans showing school, no relief road, even the map used to show the site was out of date, waist of time really. O yes completion date October 2019.  |
|
| davidaloud |
Well tonight’s event was very interesting. Overall, the vast majority of people that I spoke to from 6pm to 7.30pm were wholly in favour of Silsden having a new school as a single Primary to replace the existing Junior & Infant schools. This would bring Silsden into line with the rest of the schools and the educational set-up across the rest of the Bradford District and wider afield. There was however very vocal objections to the location of the school and in particular the location of the school with regards to traffic management. Firstly, we were informed that there were 6 separate locations that were considered by a small committee. The committee discussed the various sites with planning, highways, local councillors and other ‘interested’ parties. All sites were rejected with the exception to the proposed site. What local representation was there at these discussions, and where were the local councillors tonight who played a part in the preliminary discussions; there were a lot of local people who were raising very real concerns regarding this whole issue which will impact on a very large percentage of the population of Silsden. Adrian Naylor did attend earlier in the day but there certainly wasn’t any further local council representation that made their presence known. The alternative site that seems to have had the greatest local support where the old Weavestyle factory stood never even made it into the 6 primary sites for discussion. This decision was made on the grounds that the landowner was in discussions with a Supermarket chain (Tesco), and the cost to purchase the land was deemed to be excessive. In my opinion, a piece of land is only worth the price that an individual or business is willing to pay for it, and what planning will allow to be built on it has the biggest influence in what the actual value is. Why then did local planning approve the development of this site for such use when they knew that the site of a new school was desperately needed. Why was this site not re-examined when the Tesco deal fell through? The answer is, because they already had a piece of land that had been purchased back in the 70’s for educational purposes, and any further purchase of land in the same area for a larger school provision would not be as costly as this alternative location. In other words, the decision was on the major part, a financial decision and not on what was best for Silsden or it' Children's education. Well the land is now purchased and whatever any of us say, the school will end up being built on the new site. Common sense will not prevail. The team looking at moving the project forward were only told to go ahead in December 2016. They have a budget of approx. £8 million and the intention is for the school to be complete for the Autumn 2019. Tonight, the team were presenting 4 proposals for traffic management. All 4 options will funnel traffic that is presently diluted across the two existing schools to the one single school. It is fair to say that the concentration of traffic will increase substantially. Additionally, the access routes to the new school are far more limited and restricted when compared to the present network feeding the existing schools. Not only will the traffic be more concentrated, but the proposed routes use a number of junctions that any sensible person would consider dangerous just for the amount of traffic that uses them at the moment for purely residential use, never mind the school run. A traffic survey is likely to take place in the next couple of months. The representatives could not confirm if the report would be made available, or put out for further consultation. A traffic survey could not be carried out previously because that would have incurred a cost, for a project that hadn’t been given the go ahead or a budget. So in other words, let’s buy a plot of land and see what we need to do to make sure it works – has a distinctive whiff of ‘Chicken & Egg’ to me. The school will be built to have provision for 600 pupils. The present ruling is that the school can only be built based on the present demand of pupil numbers, and it will NOT allow the school to be built from the start on what are projected numbers for the future (even though the number of houses being built in the area is set to rise further). The design of the school however will make provision for expansion in the future, should it be needed, to allow for up to 800 pupils, increasing the existing traffic issues by a further 33% on present amounts. Where is the common sense - get it sorted now because as sure as day follows night the space will be needed. The school will sit centrally running left to right on the plot shown in the photo posted earlier by Midway, and is likely to be a two-storey structure. The plans have not been drawn up yet for the actual design. The area below or to the south of the school will form the outdoor play and sports area. The topography of the ground shows a difference in levels from top to bottom to be 10m. I know the present outdoor sports provision for the schools is poor but surely it is not beyond the whit of man to be able to provide a level playing area for sports. There will be no provision for a swimming pool. The existing pool will remain in situ on the present Hothfield School Site and will be safeguarded if the land is developed so long as there are parties interested in retaining and running the pool facility. This would probably be achieved by some sort of Assett Transfer but the discussions for that have not taken place as yet. The school is likely to be over two floors and the school will be built out of allocated council budget funding rather than the PFI type schemes that have seen other schools in the area being built. The good thing about that is that the team looking after the build detail can ensure that fixtures, fitting and other provision in the building can be properly specified and fit for purpose, which hasn’t necessarily been the case in some of the previously mentioned schemes. If you have any comments or concerns that you feel need to be raised, the council have a document that can be completed, but must be returned to them by 17th February. Could I ask that all the local councilors on both the Town Council, Bradford Council and our local MP confirm their opinions on the proposals so we can judge them on their position on this matter. Hope that helps and I welcome comments from anyone else who attended who came away with a different perspective. |
|
| hat |
very thorough, thanks. Were the locations of the alternate sites and the reasons for their rejection revealed? For the decision on location to be based purely on cost to the council is completely short sighted. Surely they bought this plot on the proviso that planning is granted? this could easily get thrown out at planning due to the traffic issues mentioned. the traffic survey will be critical & i'm not sure how they set that up to measure traffic flow at the existing two sites when like you say there are so many points of access. this specific location probably has the lowest concentration of primary age children of anywhere in town so most are going to be driven there |
|
| mayflower |
Thanks for the info Davidaloud. Very true Hat, traffic chaos!!!!! |
|
| gazzer |
this post has been edited 1 time(s) I will have a thorough look at highway regulations in the coming days.A brief look shows Middleway would class as a new road because it is being changed from a cul-de-sac to a through road. Currently Middleway is around 4.5m wide or 7.5m if you include the footpaths. The minimum requirement is 5.5m if its a access road or 6.75 if it is classed as an approach road.In addition the footways outside the school gates should be 3.0m(6.3.2 Footways of at least 3.0m wide should normally be provided outside the entrance/frontage to schools and similar community facilities). .If there is a possibilty of bussing children to the school the carriageway should be increased by a further 0.55m. Because Middleway is longer than 120m then traffic calming will be required. Obviously the council can get round this by saying its not a through road and is just a private entrance.Can you imagine Middleway at peak times if it remains a cul-de-sac. I will look in detail when I have the time. It is interesting searching google to see how other councils act. A consultation on the siting is the first step then detailed consultation on highways etc.Bradford Councils so called consultations are a sham when you look at the hoops other councils jump through. And dont get me started on the swimming pool.When we were kids they had us working on knocking walls down for the original pool and one lad lost a finger which was trapped between some bricks. |
|
| midway |
An alternative route to those proposed could be Howden road, Jacques Grove, Aireville Mount.  |
|
| midway |
 |
|
| Peter |
If you missed the consultation or didn't get to complete the consultation form, there is a copy of the form below. news.silsden.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/SilsdenPrimarySchool_commentsform.pdf Postal information is on the form, or the information can be emailed to schoolconsultation@bradford.gov.uk The completed form should be returned by 17 February 2017 |
|
| gazzer |
quoteAn alternative route to those proposed could be Howden road, Jacques Grove, Aireville Mount. Aireville Mt is slightly wider but still nowhere near wide enough for a 3.0m footpath.And Banklands Lane is a non starter |
|
| hat |
Also theres s new fence line been put in from the end of middleway running parallel to the existing footpath ehich looks to define the land bought from that owned by the farm. This effectively cuts off the aireville mount entrance |
|
| gazzer |
If anyone is interested on how Bradford Council SHOULD run a consultation details are here https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/514548/16-04-06_FINAL_SO_Guidance__PA_Regs.pdf |
|
| victor |
What kind of idiot would buy an island without realising you need a bridge for access. The only possible road access to this land would be a new road from Bolton road. This could be paid for by allowing some of the new housing we are getting to be built on the land either side of the new road. At the consultation on Tuesday one of the officials told me that this land was already earmarked for housing. |
|
| Happywalker |
I couldn't agree more with Victor. Clearly the most sensible site for a new school would be the former Weavestyle site. It is level ground, is central, has good vehicular access and offers room for future expansion. If the powers that be are insistent on the "Drabble House" option, then the issue has little to do with the route off Howden Road. The problem is the Clog Bridge junction. It is a dangerous and difficult junction at the best of times,and it is simply not fit for purpose to cope with the future school and housing traffic. Why is everything concerning planning in Silsden being done in such a short-sighted and peace meal way? I don't particularly want Silsden to expand, but if it is, lets have it done properly and get the infrastructure in place first. I have muted an access road of Bolton Road previously. Relying on Clog Bridge to serve the Howden Road side of Silsden in the future is simply ridiculous. I halt should be put on all future development until a proper long term strategy is in place. |
|
| gazzer |
this post has been edited 1 time(s) We all know that school traffic is intense twice a day and neither access proposed is suitable.A supermarket would have lower volumes of traffic but spread throughout the day but there is no way a supermarket would get permission to build on this site. But Bradford Council owned some of this land then bought some to join to it.They have planned to build the school here.They are holding some sort of consultation into the proposals and they will make the decision on if it goes ahead.There is only one way this decision will go. |
|
| hat |
If bradford council are the landowners and applicants for planing, surely they cannot also be the planning authority who make the decision? How is this impartial or objective? |
|
| Peter |
this post has been edited 1 time(s) quoteIf bradford council are the landowners and applicants for planing, surely they cannot also be the planning authority who make the decision? Oh yes they can, perhaps the truth is dawning. |
|
| midway |
Yes they want as many objections as possible, and the outcome will be, the plans for the new School will be postponed until a traffic management plan has been developed to look at how the nearby roads could cope with extra traffic. |
|
| Corky Yorky |
RE: Victors Post (03/02/2017 : 09:17:39 ) NEW PRIMARY SCHOOL CONSULTATION First of all I must say the Bradford Consultants for this proposal were great. They were friendly and open. You get the impression from of lot of you regulars that Bradford are bad folk..I found out that is not the case. They have many difficulties just like the rest of us in our lives and jobs. I spoke to them specifically about a possible access from Bolton Road near the allotments (as Victor Mentions) ...but was told that there was no money for access roads. The money in the pot for the school must only be spent on the school. However they did say that should housing be proposed for building on the lands near by in line with the Development Framework then it would be possible for planning to seek 106 agreements to fund a road access. They even told me that a 106 agreement was in place to put a path along the east side of the park which I wasn’t aware of! However as you all have heard on previous posts this school has funding to commence and be built fairly soon...so funding for access will not be sought. It would appear sensible to me to invoke applications, or have discussions with the landowners, for housing on the fields in line with the Development Framework to create access for the school and withhold building the school until that happens. It could be also possible for Bradford to buy strips of land, maybe even compulsory purchase to create access. I, possibly like a lot of you are happy there is money for a new school and though that site isn’t my first choice, I’m happy to accept it ...but it should only be built with proper transport access is in place. The argument the consultants said is that we should educate parents to walk their children to school. All well and good but we know that for the majority of parents walking to school isn’t an option when you have also to drive to work straight after. We are basically a commuter town after all! I like many folk favoured the old Weaverstyle Factory site, and was astounded that it never made it on to the so called list! It was ideal...and it could have been even possible to merge Steeton School with Silsden, because as many of you know Steeton requires a new school also. But this week the scheme to expand Steeton school as be scrapped. Regarding the Weaverstyle site I believe money was the issue as planning consent had been given for housing. Further still with it being a brown field site remedial costs would have been high. Money is an issue. However with planning and foresight all this could have been prevented and the land at the Weaverstyle Factory site bought earlier on, prior to Tesco application even. I was hoping that the New Development Plan would highlight these possibilities but having taken an in depth look at the new revision it is clear no plans are present with this kind of foresight. Repetition again! |
|
| victor |
Corky Yorky they could use Hawber cote lane for building access, they expect the school to be ready in the summer of 2019 which is plenty of time to build the houses and access road from Bolton road. |
|
| midway |
Could be a later version?  |
|
| davidaloud |
Corky - you are right about the consultants. They have only been working on the scheme for a short period of time, and they provided what information they had available very clearly and openly. If you raised a question, they didn't seem to be trying to hide anything and were very open with their answers. As with all these things, they were in a difficult position, and to a certain extent ended up having to take some of the bullets that were meant for others that have made the decisions up to press. They are having to work within a process that seems very disjointed and lacking in common sense. Well done to them for keeping their composure in a difficult situation. On one of your other comments, if compulsory purchase for access roads and the construction of a road has to be considered, coupled with the purchase of additional land for the proposed site, I wonder how far off the value of the weavestyle land we would be. |
|
| gazzer |
quoteCorky - you are right about the consultants. It is not the job of consultants at a consultation meeting about a new school to be telling everybody that the council have the land and it will be built there.That is not a consultation.It is a box ticking exercise after the decision has been made. Honestly David and Corky even you two can see this does not represent a true consultation even if you agree with building on this site. |
|
| gazzer |
quoteCorky - you are right about the consultants. They have only been working on the scheme for a short period of time, and they provided what information they had available very clearly and openly. Consultation on this is a statutory process not something cobbled together in a couple of weeks. |
|
| davidaloud |
The Bradford team advised that they had only been working on this since December. Quite obviously there has been a lot going on prior to that date, and if something like the future traffic survey suggest that this is the wrong location because of the present infrastructure, then those people that negotiated the land purchase will have a lot of questions to answer. The design hasn't even got on the drawing board yet, traffic surveys are required so I think it was an appropriate time to present the proposals to the town at this stage. I agree it would have been more appropriate if this had been presented before the land purchase but we are where we are. For the sake of the future pupils I hope everyone with a vested interest can look at the way forward to try and make it work rather than find ways to prevent it from going ahead. At the end of the day, if there isn't a work around then to use a similar analogy used by Theresa May, no location is better than a bad location. Lets just hope it doesn't come to that. |
|
| midway |
Well I've had a word with the land owner, and has long as his access road is not compromised, he is in agreement with the alterations.  |
|
| dogcatcher |
a great sensible alternative that middy '  '); |
|
| victor |
Midway I suggested this to the man at the first info board but he said the levels were not right. But when I spoke to one of the Architects he said it was an option. I have sent Peter a plan showing the position of the school etc, I have asked him to put it on this post for me. |
|
| midway |
I think we are all agreed that Dale View is not a safe option in any direction, particularly at busy times, Hawber cote lane entrance could possible be used as an emergency entrance, but not a normal thoroughfare. |
|
| Happywalker |
With respect, it still doesn't address the Clog Bridge issue. |
|
| midway |
Happywalker you are correct it doesn't, but it is safer than negotiating Dale View, as it is at the moment,( could it be improved?) walking to school is the safest option, but how many mums and dads do that. |
|
| Replies in this thread : 65
|
|
events sale / wanted general have your say looking for.. skippy greengrass |
|
DON'T FORGET THE SUBJECT IS >>>>>>>> Forums Home > EVENTS - ANNOUNCEMENTS - MEETINGS > NEW PRIMARY SCHOOL CONSULTATION - 1st Feb 2017 |
|||
|
<< HOME PAGE < RETURN ^ PAGE TOP ^ | ||
 |
|||
|
webenquiries to |
||
11/01/2017 : 21:42:35 
12/01/2017 : 14:19:18 
01/02/2017 : 11:31:04