| |
|
|||
|
||||
|
|
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 Have Your Say !!!! | back to forum index | login
|
sign
up | help
| latest topics | search
Replies in this thread : 34
Author |
Topic : Sykes lane Development |
|
| tegap |
The amended drawings sneaked out over Christmas for this development show a row of 3/4 storey houses equivalent to a wall 11 1/2 meters high (36 feet) stretching from the beginning of the old wood yard to the allotments 150 meters long approx ( 164 yards) these buildings are as high as the chimney tops on Bank House. The tow path will be in shadow as will the much of the canal for the major part of the year ( see Bradford.gov.uk /planning ref:- 15/03871/MAF) In winter the houses opposite will also be over shadowed and denied the sun. We are about to lose this recreational path along the canal in easy reach of Keighley Road used by many people with families, people walking dogs, or a pleasant stroll. Other designs and layout of buildings are more compatible and would not over shadow the above. Is anybody bothered? |
|
| Sam |
Of course people are bothered people have been fighting against this development for the last ten years or so. |
|
| hat |
not sure how you think we will be losing the tow path? as long as the design is right this is a perfect example of in-fill development that protects our green spaces |
|
| tegap |
Maybe lose was the wrong word, change not for the better is probable more correct. As the buildings are tall and north facing the tow path will be in permanent shade not the sunny walk it is today. I don't see how building over the field off Sykes lane is saving our green spaces. |
|
| dexter |
This will remove another local eyesore if it gets the go ahead, we have all had brown field development around us, and it is usually for the better.. And the demolition at Merrie Mill goes on... another brownfield site to be sorted for housing. |
|
| Peter |
Looks like the decision has already been made: www.keighleynews.co.uk/news/14273872.print/ BTW Silsden Town Council rejected this planning application unanimously when it was discussed at the STC planning meeting. |
|
| gazzer |
Guess the planning application was today STEN Architecture@STEN_Arch Acting for Harron Homes, working with @bartonwillmore, our scheme for 48 dwellings been approved in Silsden |
|
| grandad |
How can they go against their own policy? No more homes to be built until the problems with, electricity supply, schools, flooding, highways, and sewerage are all sorted out. They are only interested in getting as much money out of this Town as they can, why should we be a cash cow for the centre of Bradford? |
|
| gazzer |
this post has been edited 2 time(s) quoteHow can they go against their own policy? No more homes to be built until the problems with, electricity supply, schools, flooding, highways, and sewerage are all sorted out. They are only interested in getting as much money out of this Town as they can, why should we be a cash cow for the centre of Bradford? Its a joke.The infrastructure is not there and the bulk of the 106 agreement is going to be blown "£51,250 to improve routes leading to Rombalds Moor including footpath maintenance and information panels." Rombalds Moor isnt really part of Silsden Rombalds Moor consists of several moors, usually named after the nearest town or village bordering it. These include (clockwise from North): Ilkley Moor, Burley Moor, Hawksworth Moor, Bingley Moor, Morton Moor, and Addingham High Moor |
|
| Peter |
quoteA correction to Gazzer's statement re £51,250 £10,000 is going to Rombalds Moor £41,250 is going to Silsden Youth Facilities. This change was brought about at a suggestion by Ward Councillor Adrian Naylor, so we have Adrian to thank for rescuing the bulk of the 106 money for Silsden. |
|
| gazzer |
quote quoteA correction to Gazzer's statement re £51,250 £10,000 is going to Rombalds Moor £41,250 is going to Silsden Youth Facilities. This change was brought about at a suggestion by Ward Councillor Adrian Naylor, so we have Adrian to thank for rescuing the bulk of the 106 money for Silsden. Some good news then, I just saw the newspaper report which did not say that |
|
| Fred |
I see the Sykes Lane planning application was supported by Councillor Mallinson www.keighleynews.co.uk/news/14283766.Plan_approved_for_48_new_homes_alongside_Leeds_Liverpool_Canal_at_Silsden/ I thought he was supposed to be representing Silsden, so why support the scheme when the Town Council and the many Silsdeners objected to it? This isn't the first time this councillor has gone against the wishes of the people. |
|
| gazzer |
quoteI see the Sykes Lane planning application was supported by Councillor Mallinson www.keighleynews.co.uk/news/14283766.Plan_approved_for_48_new_homes_alongside_Leeds_Liverpool_Canal_at_Silsden/ I thought he was supposed to be representing Silsden, so why support the scheme when the Town Council and the many Silsdeners objected to it? This isn't the first time this councillor has gone against the wishes of the people. The only time I recall that I have seen him object to housing in Silsden was for an application by a town councillor |
|
| old_miner |
If I am not mistaken the majority of Silsden residents did not object to the development. I certainly did not and welcome the arrival of more homes. |
|
| gazzer |
Bradford Council are out of control with its leader making a promise and now washing his hands of it.This is a twitter conversation with him going back over some time GAZZER @silsdengary 12 Dec 2014 @dave4wibsey On Radio Leeds you once said Bfd Council wont allow large scale housing in Silsden until road infrastructure sorted.Still true? 0 retweets 0 likes David Green @dave4wibsey 12 Dec 2014 @silsdengary my view remains that infrastructure should be in place before housing occupied 0 retweets 0 likes GAZZER @silsdengary 12 Dec 2014 @dave4wibsey Thanks.Occupied or built though?.If built the infrastructure will never happen 0 retweets 0 likes @dave4wibsey 48 more houses passed and no sign of infrastructure.Come on Dave whats happening.Were you telling lies 0 retweets 0 likes David Green @dave4wibsey @silsdengary I was giving my view - politics is not allowed in planning decisions. I stand by my comments 4:00 PM - 18 Feb 2016 I expect the leader to lead yet this guy is an example of how inept the administration is.Its not politics, planning has to be sustainable and everybody but the planners can see it.Judging by his earlier comments even Dave from Wibsey can see it but is obviously not going to do anything about it.Be very scared about future planning applications because they will pass with no problems. |
|
| Fred |
quoteIf I am not mistaken the majority of Silsden residents did not object to the development. I certainly did not and welcome the arrival of more homes. The majority did not vote for it either.... From the planning application. Total Consulted: 57 Comments Received: 19 Objections: 17 Supporting: 0 |
|
| gazzer |
.1 The Applicant has undertaken a comprehensive programme of public consultation with representatives of the Council, local ward Councillors and the local community. This section of the statement provides an overview of the consultation undertaken and details how feedback received has influenced the proposed submission. Introduction and Relevant Guidance 4.2 The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 introduced the requirement for Local Planning Authorities to produce a Statement of Community Involvement (“the SCI”) as part of the Local Development Framework (LDF) process. The SCI is intended to formally set out the commitment of the Authority to involve the community in the planning system and the ways in which this will be achieved. 4.3 The Council formally adopted it’s SCI in July 2008. The SCI sets out a number of overarching guiding principles for involving the community in the planning process and highlights the use of pre-application discussions as a positive and proactive phase of the planning process. As such, the Council welcomes and encourages early discussions with future applicants. 4.4 The Applicant has sought to comply with the requirements of the SCI and has therefore undertaken extensive pre-application consultation with representatives of the Council and the local community. The consultation has sought to inform the local community about the proposed development as well as seeking comments in return. The consultation has generated useful feedback which has been taken into consideration. Pre-application discussions 4.5 The Applicant has been proactive in seeking the opinions of the local planning authority through informal and formal pre-application discussions. The main discussions centred around the proposed design and layout of the development given its sensitive location within a Conservation Area. In addition, confirmation was sought from the Council in respect of the technical reports that would be required to support the Application. 4.6 The Applicant undertook informal pre-application discussions with the Council in 9th April 2015 where initial advice was received in respect of the proposed layout, which were taken on board and a revised layout was prepared, which formed the basis of discussions at the formal pre-application meeting. Statement of Community Involvement 21119/A5/PS/CA 8 September 2015 4.7 The formal pre-application request was submitted to the Council in writing on 29th April 2015 and a meeting was subsequently held on 12th May 2015 and attended by the following people: • Fiona Tiplady – Development Team Leader, Bradford Metropolitan District Council; • John Rowley – Principal Highway Engineer, Bradford Metropolitan District Council; • Edward Norfolk – Senior Drainage Officer, Bradford Metropolitan District Council; • Jon Ackroyd – Conservation & Design Officer, Bradford Metropolitan District Council; • Claire Kent – Director, Barton Willmore; • Colin Simpson – Design Manager, Harron Homes; and • Kevin Chapman – Land Manager, Harron Homes. 4.8 A written response was received from the Council on 1st June 2015. The recommendations expressed at the meeting, and within the subsequent response, were noted and taken forward in the evolution of the site design, which was then exhibited to members of the local community. Community Consultation 4.9 In addition to discussions with the Council, the Applicant invested time in seeking the opinions of the local community, local ward members and town councillors. 4.10 A public consultation event was held at Silsden Methodist Church on Thursday 11th June 2015. A flyer was distributed to 597 local residents and business premises in order that it was delivered by 4th June 2015, to allow two weeks prior notice of the event. The flyer provided an aerial image of the site edged in red together with a brief description of the proposal and the date, time and venue for the event. A copy of the flyer is attached at Appendix 1. 4.11 The three local ward Councillors, Adrian Naylor, Andrew Mallinson and Jack Rickard were all invited via email to the event on 4th June 2015 and were provided with a copy of the flyer. Councillor Mallinson acknowledged receipt of the invite and confirmed he would be attending. Statement of Community Involvement 21119/A5/PS/CA 9 September 2015 The Exhibition 4.12 A drop-in consultation event was held between 4pm and 7pm and representatives of the Applicant’s design team, including the architect and planning consultant, were in attendance. The exhibition focused around display banners which set out the site background and context, the planning policy context and the initial proposed masterplan. In addition, the banners included a timeline which demonstrated the milestones to date and those going forward, such as proposed submission and date of determination. A copy of the display banners are attached at Appendix 2. 4.13 Attendees were invited to read the presentation material available, ask questions of the project team and complete a feedback form, a copy of which is attached at Appendix 3. Attendees were encouraged to complete the forms on the day, however some preferred to take them away and return via post or email. A deadline of 22nd June was given to receive feedback forms, which was considered to be sufficient time for residents to gather their thoughts on the proposals. 4.14 In order to provide an indication as to the number of people in attendance, all attendees were asked to sign a register. In total, 36 people signed the attendance list. 4.15 A total of 28 feedback forms were received within the deadline of 22nd June. All completed questionnaires are attached at Appendix 4. Outcome of P ubl ic Consul tat ion 4.16 The questionnaire was structured in order to gain a good understanding of the current perception of the development, gauge the level of support and also establish what local residents perceive to be the most pressing issues. Residents were asked four specific questions and also provided the opportunity to elaborate. Each question is taken in turn below and a summary of the results provided. Figure 4.1 – Question 1 Quest ion 1 – Having cons idered the in format ion presented today, on a scale of 1- 5, how do you rate your level of understanding of what the project involves. Statement of Community Involvement 21119/A5/PS/CA 10 September 2015 4.17 It should be noted that 6 respondents did not answer this question. Of those that did respond, the majority had either a broad or a full understanding of the proposal. It was, however, made clear that further details would be provided once the application had been formally submitted and there would be a further opportunity to comment. Figure 4.2 – Question 2 Question 2 – Do you suppor t the use of thi s s i t e for new homes? 4.18 It should be noted that 7 of the respondents either did not answer this question or stated that they were ‘undecided’ or ‘didn’t know’. There is a roughly 50% split between those local residents who support the application and those who either do not support the application or those who are undecided. This demonstrates that there is local support for the proposal and some local residents acknowledge the benefits in the site being developed. Quest ion 3 – Which do you feel are the k ey aspects of the development that should be considered by the developer? 4.19 As noted above, the Applicant appreciated the views of local residents and was keen to ensure that any valid concerns were noted and reflected in the final scheme. Question 3 Statement of Community Involvement 21119/A5/PS/CA 11 September 2015 therefore sought to establish what residents thought were the key aspects of the development. The comments can be summarised around the following themes: − The proposed access arrangements; − Traffic congestion; − Height of properties adjacent to canal/potential overbearing; − School place provision; and − Flood risk/drainage 4.20 The Applicants responses to the issues raised by local residents is provided later in this section of the statement. Quest ion 4 – Any other comments? 4.21 This question provided the attendees an opportunity to provide more generalised comments on the proposal and any issues which they had not already discussed at the event. There was some crossover with the previous question as some respondents reiterated concerns regarding the vehicular access, traffic, lack of school places etc. Below is an overview of additional comments that were raised: - Can landscaping and signage be added along the vehicular access? - Will residents of Mill Banks & Albert Square be compensated for disruption when the new vehicular access is constructed? - Concerns regarding Mill Banks being closed off; - Local infrastructure (doctors, schools etc) will be overloaded; - Loss of green space; - Has the High Bank House been delisted? - Reduce number of units located adjacent to the canal; - Encouraged by the proposal for new houses; - Would like to see some of the properties available for young people; and - Can Sykes Lane be resurfaced? The Applicant’s Response 4.22 The exhibition was attended by at least 36 local residents and comments received were noted and analysed prior to the submission of this Application. The comments received have helped to shape the proposal and ensure that all the key issues are addressed. 4.23 The later sections of this Planning Statement summarise the technical assessments that have been carried out to accompany the submission. However, by way of a summary, the main points raised together with the Applicant’s response are detailed below. Statement of Community Involvement 21119/A5/PS/CA 12 September 2015 The Overal l Principle of the Development 4.24 It is demonstrated through question 1, that approximately half of the respondents either did not support the proposal or were undecided. Notwithstanding the fact that questionnaire feedback may have been distorted by concerns over issues such as increased traffic and highways safety, it is important that consideration is given to the fact that the Site is located within the settlement boundary of Silsden and is partially allocated for residential development, which establishes the principle of development for residential purposes on this Site. In addition, planning permission has previously been granted for residential development on this site in 2008 and the principle has therefore previously been accepted. Concerns Regar ding Vehicular Access 4.25 One of the key concerns raised by residents in questions 3 and 4 was the vehicular access arrangements to the Site. It was made clear on the display boards at the event that the access arrangements had already been approved in January 2015 and will not therefore form part of this Application, an approach which has been agreed by the Council. In addition, representatives at the event explained this to residents who had queries regarding the vehicular access. Therefore, the access arrangements have been considered by the Council and their highways officers who have deemed them suitable to serve the proposed development. Local residents should have been consulted by the Council at the time of the application and would had an opportunity to submit comments. Therefore, there are no proposals to alter the vehicular access arrangements as part of this Application. 4.26 Some residents who occupy dwellings along Mill Banks and Albert Square have stated that there were unaware of the planning permission for the new vehicular access and have queried whether they will received any compensation. This is outside of the scope of this application; however their details have been passed to Harron Homes so that they can contact them directly. 4.27 In addition, a resident has requested that landscaping be inserted adjacent to the new vehicular access, however as the access road does not form part of the Application, it is outside the scope of this Application. Concerns Regar ding Traf f ic Congest ion 4.28 A number of residents raised concerns regarding the increased traffic that would occur as a result of the development and the existing road networks inability to cope with the increase. This issue has also been previously considered and agreed by the Council and their highways officers as part of the approved planning application for the vehicular access. The vehicular access was designed to accommodate up to 85 dwellings and the Transport Assessment Statement of Community Involvement 21119/A5/PS/CA 13 September 2015 which supported the application undertook surveys on the existing road network which demonstrated that it had sufficient capacity to accommodate the development. 4.29 The current Application seeks planning permission for 51 dwellings, which is comfortably below the 85 units threshold for the new road. On that basis, the proposed development will not have an unacceptable impact upon the existing highways network and highways safety. 4.30 In an attempt to reduce the reliance on the private motor vehicle, the Applicant has commissioned Sanderson Associates to prepare a Travel Plan, which sets out a number of initiatives to encourage residents to utilise sustainable modes of transport. Overbear ing/ Over looking I ssues 4.31 Some respondents raised concerns regarding the height of the proposed dwellings which are situated adjacent to the canal as it is considered that these will be overbearing to the existing dwellings to the north of the canal. 4.32 Careful consideration has been given to the design and layout of the Site to ensure that there are no issues of overshadowing and overbearing between the new dwellings and those adjacent to the site. The separation distance between the existing properties to the north of the canal and the proposed dwellings is comfortably in excess of 25m and the proposal is considered to comply with recommended separation distances, which are in place to prevent issues such as overbearing and overlooking. 4.33 Previous layouts for the Site have shown the proposed dwellings hard up against the northern boundary of the Site, however they have been pulled back by several metres to reduce the impact on properties to the north. Impact on School P laces 4.34 A concern raised by several residents was the impact the development would have on schools within the town, which are already considered to be oversubscribed. Whilst this is a legitimate concern, the Applicant will be required to make a financial contribution of £95,283 towards primary school facilities as part of the Section 106 legal agreement. In order to calculate this figure, the Council take into account the number of dwellings that are proposed in addition to the number of bedrooms. The Council will be required to name where this money is to be spent as is now required following the introduction of the Community Infrastructure Levy. Statement of Community Involvement 21119/A5/PS/CA 14 September 2015 Flood Risk/ Drainage I ssues 4.35 A small number of residents raised concerns regarding potential flood risk and drainage issues that would arise if the Site was developed. The Site is located within flood zone 1 of the Environment Agency’s indicative flood map and is therefore considered to represent a low flood risk. 4.36 The Applicant has commissioned WSP to prepare a flood risk assessment which assesses the potential flood risks associated with the Site. The report concludes that the development would not increase flood risk to the Site or to third party land. 4.37 In addition, WSP have prepared a detailed drainage scheme which indicates that foul drainage will connect to the existing mains sewer system and a positive surface water drainage system will be put in place which retains surface water run-off rates at existing Greenfield rates. High Bank House 4.38 Some comments were received regarding High Bank House and the proposal to demolish the building, some of which were positive and encouraged the buildings removal, whilst others stated that they would prefer to see it retained. 4.39 There was some confusion amongst local residents regarding the status of the building, as some thought it was listed. This is not the case and it has never been listed. 4.40 The scheme is not considered to be viable if the building is retained and the Applicants therefore believe that this is no alternative but to demolish it as part of the scheme. |
|
| dexter |
quote quoteIf I am not mistaken the majority of Silsden residents did not object to the development. I certainly did not and welcome the arrival of more homes. The majority did not vote for it either.... From the planning application. Total Consulted: 57 Comments Received: 19 Objections: 17 Supporting: 0 Fred.. I don't think 17 objections out of nearly 8000 people in Silsden is very significant. Most people are not bothered about another 47 houses being built. Some may see it as an opportunity to buy a house. They all seem to sell very well when they are built, because people want to live in Silsden. What's wrong with that? Many of us have had houses built close to us since we moved in, and we have to accept that there is a shortage of housing for now and the future. Silsden is going to grow bigger, that will happen despite some local opposition, and hopefully infrastructure will grow with it. It is up to local councillors, supported by ratepayers, to keep pressing for facilities to meet demand, not just fight any housing growth that may be proposed. I would have thought that local businesses and tradespeople would have welcomed growth as well. And eventually we may get a bypass if the sums add up..! I'm with old miner on this one.... |
|
| Fred |
OK lets put this support and objections into the context of 8000 residents, the following is the support and objections for the Tesco application, which was a much more divisive planning application. Total Consulted: 94 Comments Received: 63 Objections: 40 Supporting: 17 * * Many of the support applications came from the football club members who thought they would get a free all weather training pitch, they even had a email appeal to drum up support. Lets face it the people of Silsden will not object until the bulldozers arrive on their doorstep. The order for more development in Silsden should be 1. A PLAN 2. Infrastructure 3. Jobs 4. Housing The reality 1. Piecemeal development 2. No school places 3. Sewerage at capacity 4. Flooding 5. Electricity supply at its limit 6. NO PLAN |
|
| gazzer |
this post has been edited 1 time(s) Fred.. I don't think 17 objections out of nearly 8000 people in Silsden is very significant. Not surprised "A flyer was distributed to 597 local residents and business premises" Less than 600 out of 8,000 asked or does it mean 597 premises.I never got one. |
|
| dexter |
gazzer... maybe those 600 were the nearest to the development, which would make sense. But even so, only 3% objected. If it had been such a bad idea, more people would have been up in arms about it. It is a derelict site that needs to be improved, and it will provide much needed housing. I know that the development needs to be in keeping with local standards, so we need planners to keep an eye on it, but that's what they are paid to do. |
|
| old_miner |
Housing is moving up the political agenda. To ensure they got yhe vote all parties for years pnadered to the NIMBY element. This along with all the political tinkering such as right to buy and stopping councils from building news homes has resulted in the current situatation. House prices are well out of kilter with what people, especially young people can afford. How many reading this who bought their first house in their twentys like I did could afford to on the current income for whatever job they had? The current government is in a bit of a bind over this problem. Landlords are losing many tax advantages. Subsidies are being used to get people onto the housing ladder. However nothing has been done to encourage councils to build in bulk or to make it financially unviable to sit on land. Also their are not enough people in the UK to build enough houses. Enough in Europe though. Labour do not have a good record on housing either. Blairites failed to reverse the tory bribe policies, right to buy etc. and did not sort out the rental market. JC is backed by the younger generation who are screwed by the present housing situation. All the efforts to demonise JC are not going to make the problem go away. Is their an answer. Well technically yes. I mean technical in the context that an technical solution would be possible. currently houses are built in much the same way as the Romans built them. Move the main construction into a factory and only the site preparation would have to be bespoke, and that could be simplified by standardising infrastructure arrangements. Also tower block could be built again, without the mistakes of the past. As one of the few of my generation who understands how much we have screwed those who follow us I do not dispair. Human ingenuity, especially in this country, generally gets around and solves the problems created by our inept political masters. |
|
| blob |
What does standardising infrastructure arrangements mean? |
|
| gazzer |
this post has been edited 1 time(s) quotegazzer... maybe those 600 were the nearest to the development, which would make sense. But even so, only 3% objected. If it had been such a bad idea, more people would have been up in arms about it. It is a derelict site that needs to be improved, and it will provide much needed housing. I know that the development needs to be in keeping with local standards, so we need planners to keep an eye on it, but that's what they are paid to do. Its bit of an eyesore and its probably the right place to build.People need somewhere to live and not enough houses are built for our growing population nevermind the 3m(according to news yesterday) non brits who now live here. However building houses without infrastructure is choking society.And im no fan of fake consultations and underhand deals for vehicle access before planning for housing goes in. |
|
| tegap |
The Bradford Planning Committee were not asked to stop building on this site, but were asked to modify the design to put the high rise buildings down the west perimeter running north/south thereby in sun all day, not casting a permanent shadow over the towpath and canal as the developers submitted design. The Planning Committee completely ignored this request as they did with any real infrastructure problems. |
|
| gazzer |
How many of these are 5 bedrooms and how many 5 bedroom houses are needed? |
|
| dexter |
this post has been edited 1 time(s) "However building houses without infrastructure is choking society.And im no fan of fake consultations and underhand deals for vehicle access before planning for housing goes in" This was a quote by gazzer about Sykes Lane.... just got a card through the door that more houses are planned on former Becks Mill industrial site, looks to be next to proposed Sykes Lane houses. Looks big to me, there is a meeting in the Town Hall 7.4.2016 3.30-7.30pm to get views of people. Here we go.... |
|
| old_miner |
Politicians rarely plan ahead. They react. If all the predicted problems happen then the will have to react. If health is threatened then it will be very quick. Traffic problems might take longer, but an obvious solution would be a bypass. |
|
| gazzer |
quote"However building houses without infrastructure is choking society.And im no fan of fake consultations and underhand deals for vehicle access before planning for housing goes in" This was a quote by gazzer about Sykes Lane.... just got a card through the door that more houses are planned on former Becks Mill industrial site, looks to be next to proposed Sykes Lane houses. Looks big to me, there is a meeting in the Town Hall 7.4.2016 3.30-7.30pm to get views of people. Here we go.... Please could you tell me the name of the company doingthe consultation |
|
| gazzer |
this post has been edited 1 time(s) Got it its NLP. Someone needs to book an adjoining room for a real consultancy |
|
| gazzer |
The paper claims its at the Becks Mill site but looks to be Riverside Mill...and why Ilkley Gazette www.ilkleygazette.co.uk/news/14392733.Plans_unveiled_for_140_new_homes_on_derelict_industrial_land_in_Silsden/?ref=mr&lp=2 |
|
| blob |
I've noticed the Newsquest sites break the stories on one site first whether it is Ilkley Gazette, Keighley News or Craven Herald then spread it around the others a day or two later. It'll probably appear in KN or CH in the next few days. Thursday is usually the big news day for everything when the paper copies go to the printers. |
|
| dogcatcher |
great news more houses for the homeless and great for aldi, a big new estate going up right opposite ,they sure did their homework,next will come the moaning about extra traffic and hold ups which did`nt materialise when scare mongers said aldi being built will block the roads up in the first place,oh oh oh'  '); |
|
| adeythom |
quoteI've noticed the Newsquest sites break the stories on one site first whether it is Ilkley Gazette, Keighley News or Craven Herald then spread it around the others a day or two later. It'll probably appear in KN or CH in the next few days. Thursday is usually the big news day for everything when the paper copies go to the printers. It's on all 4 sites already (just take the URL quoted above for the Ilkley Gazette, and edit it, replacing ilkleygazette with the domain for the other sites (keighleynews, thetelegraphandargus,cravenherald)). Anyone would think there was one website with four different themes...  |
|
| Peter |
So that's alright then! Flooding concerns regarding a planned estate of almost 50 homes in Silsden have been addressed. Mr Norfolk said Harron Homes’ original plans last year did not include the required levels of treatment for surface water running from roads and driveways. Harron subsequently said it will provide permeable paving on the driveways, so the water will seep down to a stone mat before discharging into the main drainage system. www.keighleynews.co.uk/news/14428438.Flooding_concerns_addressed_over_Silsden_housing_plans/ |
|
| Replies in this thread : 34 |
|
events sale / wanted general have your say looking for.. skippy greengrass |
|
DON'T FORGET THE SUBJECT IS >>>>>>>> Forums Home > Have Your Say !!!! > Sykes lane Development |
|||
|
<< HOME PAGE < RETURN ^ PAGE TOP ^ | ||
 |
|||
|
webenquiries to |
||
15/02/2016 : 08:41:07 
15/02/2016 : 16:20:02 
17/02/2016 : 16:30:38