| |
|
|||
|
||||
|
|
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 : 15
Author |
Topic : STC Planning Agenda on Thursday 19th Nov 2015 - 190 houses |
|
| Peter |
On the STC Planning Agenda on Thursday 19th Nov 2015 15/05875/MAO | Outline planning application for the erection of up to 190 dwellings with means of access to be considered with all other matters reserved. | Land At Belton Road Silsden West Yorkshire  More information www.planning4bradford.com/online-applications/ Search for 15/05875/MAO STC Agenda silsden.net/town_council/docs_15/15_planning/STC_Gp_&_Planning_agenda_nov2015.pdf |
|
| ginjo |
presume everyone in silsden supports this then as not many objections, Town council have not put one in why not?? |
|
| Peter |
This was only an outline planning application. I attended this planning application and STC unanimously rejected the application. |
|
| BubbyVee |
STC unanimously objected to it! Now there's a surprise!!! |
|
| ginjo |
there is no objection from STC in the documents relating to this application yet, I hope they do not miss the deadline! |
|
| Peter |
quoteSTC unanimously objected to it! Now there's a surprise!!! They objected on the lack of infrastructure and access to the site. |
|
| Peter |
quotethere is no objection from STC in the documents relating to this application yet, I hope they do not miss the deadline! shud 'ave gone to specsavers.....  STC Objections: In accordance with Bradfords own Local infrastructure plan evidence infrastructure needs to be in place BEFORE any further house are built Point 5.4.3.3 from LIPE electricity -it would seem that only 100 new homes can be built AFTER an upgrade to the power station no mention of this provision within the application. Water It has been confirmed through previous comments received via the core strategy and local investment plan from Yorkshire water that the Aire Valley truck sewer is at capacity and they can no longer accept any new foul or surface water flows to the sewer; yet this application proposes use of the Aire Valley truck sewer. There are discrepancies in the public transport statements, for example there is no bus from or through Silsden to Skipton as described. Access to the railway station. Which is put forward as a positive in the application fails to mention just how dangerous this access actually is as this crosses a busy by pass [AVTR] with no safe pedestrian/cyclist crossing. Education there are no school places in either school in Silsden, the merger is only at consultation stage and a new school is at least 2 years away minimum. Highways access a serious issue particularly the egress onto Keighley and there needs to be an up to date traffic impact survey. |
|
| ginjo |
thank you peter, I was just skimming down the list of documents to see which were objections, not thinking it would be under consultee.Whilst I am pleased to see they have objected, it is not a very professional response is it! A bit surprised that hardly any residents have objected, 2 it would seem!! very poor |
|
| Peter |
I was the only member from the public at the planning meeting, but that is nothing new. Usually there are no members of the public (I only go to the planning meeting that look interesting), there are a few that go to the main meetings, but they are never packed out. Sad really that the inhabitants of Silsden don't care about the town they live in until it's too late! It was an outline planning application, so a fishing exercise`really. One note the STC did add to the application was, if it becomes a full planning application it must go back to STC for consultation. |
|
| HurricaneHector |
quotethank you peter, I was just skimming down the list of documents to see which were objections, not thinking it would be under consultee.Whilst I am pleased to see they have objected, it is not a very professional response is it! A bit surprised that hardly any residents have objected, 2 it would seem!! very poor ginjo If you think you can do better then why don't you put or shut up, there is one seat vacant. |
|
| victor |
I think most people have accepted that more houses will be built in Silsden, and that houses built down there will have the least affect on them. |
|
| Corky Yorky |
Regarding the above I would like to state that I would believe that most folk appreciate that housing needs to be built. I am one of those! In principle I will be objecting to this proposal because this plan isn't a significant upgrade than the plan shown at the public meeting. I doubt that public comments have been taken into account. I can only see one particular change and that is the loss of a small green space (so called park) at the south east corner of the site. I am particularly concerned at the ridiculously small access road off Belton Road. I can’t imagine the amount of vehicles trying to manoeuvre through this narrow road space, with parked cars, let alone think of these cars trying to get onto and out of Keighley Road at the Belton Road junction. Traffic will be an absolute nightmare in this estate. It requires two NOT one access roads. How emergency vehicles would get to a house at the bottom of the estate quickly would be a miracle undertaking. What about separate footpaths from the estate to make pedestrian usage easier: Where is it? Everyone and everything is forced through this small access road! The design of the road layout and the so called ‘green strip’ is bizarre and doesn’t really reflect any meaning on our landscape. Yes I’m all for green space and trees but please let the design show proper meaning. The ‘green strip’ is hardly wide enough for kids to kick a ball about. A play area would be ideal as it would be a long walk to the park for kids living in this estate. I can only foresee more dog problems! Hmm...I wonder what the cost of these houses will be...are they affordable? This is the sort of development which requires much better access infrastructure and I like many folk in Silsden agree that a bypass would be the solution, as then estates like this can expand far more easily within its boundaries and allow Silsden Town Centre to breath from traffic congestion. |
|
| old_miner |
As much as I support extra housing that estate plan is awful. That one road access for that number of houses is ridiculous, and possibly dangerous. I will leave the technical objections to those who know (or claim to know) the real practical problems. while I do not think that area floods regularly I am sure it is on the edge of the regular wash back. Ground level for houses would need to be higher than the surrounding fiels by at least 1 metre. |
|
| gazzer |
Did this land flood?? |
|
| Peter |
I took some pictures of this area and it seemed to be soggy but not flooded. See the pictures I took of the floods yesterday. |
|
| gazzer |
quoteI took some pictures of this area and it seemed to be soggy but not flooded. See the pictures I took of the floods yesterday. So when it rains I suppose all the rainwater will drain through pipes into the beck.However if the beck is overflowing the run off water will not flow & will spill over at drains on the housing site causing flooding. |
|
| Replies in this thread : 15 |
|
events sale / wanted general have your say looking for.. skippy greengrass |
|
DON'T FORGET THE SUBJECT IS >>>>>>>> Forums Home > EVENTS - ANNOUNCEMENTS - MEETINGS > STC Planning Agenda on Thursday 19th Nov 2015 - 190 houses |
|||
|
<< HOME PAGE < RETURN ^ PAGE TOP ^ | ||
 |
|||
|
webenquiries to |
||
16/11/2015 : 18:12:59 
26/11/2015 : 09:43:53 
26/11/2015 : 15:35:57