| |
|
|||
|
||||
|
|
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 : 59
Page : 1 2
<< prev page prev page >>
| Corky Yorky |
Took a while but got in Midway!! Just noticed this in the HRA report: 4.2 Accumulative Effects From Nearby Developments There are two other significant developments within Silsden that are currently being considered through the planning process and or are consented which may cumulatively result in impacts on the SAC/ SPA. 17/05793/REG 3 Form entry primary school and nursery, including future-proofed design to enable 4 Form entry. External works to include utility connections/diversions, landscaping, car parking, highways, external play and sports provision. Land At Hawber Cote Lane Silsden West Yorkshire 14/05170/MAO Land At Bolton Road Silsden West Yorkshire In respect of application 17/05793/REG no issues in respect of impacts on birds associated with the SPA were noted. Impacts of this scheme were considered to be negligible. I might be wrong but i have a feeling that NO bird surveys were done for these schemes..so it would appear that ENVIROTECH have hidden this fact, by not mentioning it!!! Get my point? Correct me if im wrong. |
|
| midway |
Could be a case of " he who pays the piper calls the tune". |
|
| midway |
This sums up the feelings of the majority of residents who have taken the time to submit their objections ( Thank you Councilor Richard Barton ). Name: Mr Richard Barton Comment Details Commenter Type: MEMPUB - Member of the public Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:Whatever the application says this is about enabling yet more unnecessary new houses to be built on Silsden greenbelt.. I understand the UDP required 1200 new houses to be built in Silsden. This is likely to be reviewed downwards in two years. Since this target was set around 650 have been built, around 300 are under construction and 200+ have outline planning permission. The infrastructure can hardly cope with what we've got. This development would increase the traffic gridlock resulting from the new school. More housing above Banklands destroys greenbelt, mature trees, wildlife habitat and affects three footpaths. The people of Silsden need theses greenfields, footpaths and wildlife habitats far more than they need greenbelt development. If you must build (sole reason to raise rates to spend in Central Bradford)) do so on brownfield sites. |
|
| Corky Yorky |
With you on that Midway..summed up our feelings well! |
|
| victor |
The standard consultation expiry date is now the Fifth of October. |
|
| Corky Yorky |
quoteThe standard consultation expiry date is now the Fifth of October. Great...I look forward to some public consultation by them.....after all they are 'The Silsden Development Company' so clearly have our community interests at heart!!! ha ha |
|
| Peter |
 Put it in your diary now! |
|
| Corky Yorky |
quote Put it in your diary now!Is this some kinda joke? Considering Highways have said nothing about this application..do we really think that we are going to get an honest opinion? It’s only worth going to see Jack in attendance! |
|
| Peter |
quoteHighways will be producing a comprehensive response to this application after being told the response above was just not acceptable. The Highways Officer attending the meeting on Thursday will be much more forthcoming with information (and NOT a junior. |
|
| Corky Yorky |
this post has been edited 1 time(s) Hi Everyone Something very interesting has turned up!!! https://planning.bradford.gov.uk/online-applications/files/06F1BC9B4C5DE1E3838B5DB5F5A44FED/pdf/18_02201_MAF-GREENACRES_FARM-5274957.pdf |
|
| ginjo |
corky yorky can you do a direct link cannot find anything when I put the info in its much too long thanks |
|
| Peter |
This link will work news.silsden.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/18_02201_MAF-GREENACRES_FARM-5274957.pdf |
|
| gazzer |
This shows that the planning process at Bradford has failed.Even the school application was based on this road.Is it time to get the Ombudsmen involved? |
|
| gazzer |
Everything is dodgy about Silsden Development Company. If you go through Companies House website one of the directors is Geoffrey Mountain and it says this company is his only appointment.In actual fact he is a director of at least 9 other companies. The other director Mr John Beverley has quit all his other directorships but was with Mountain at Pitts Electrical in Bradford, where Silsden Development Company is based.All odd that none of the local land owners or big builders are, at this stage publicly involved |
|
| Pennypeck |
Regarding the issue of applying for planning permission when the applicant doesn’t own the land (see Greenacres Farm) item above, based on my own experience on a much, much smaller scale than the above, it would appear to be lawful. Just copied this from Google: Planning permission. If you wish, you can appoint an agent to apply for planning permission on your behalf. ... You don't actually need to own land to apply for planning permission for it. This means you can apply for permission before deciding whether or not to buy a piece of land. I hope I’m wrong but I don’t think I am. |
|
| Corky Yorky |
quoteRegarding the issue of applying for planning permission when the applicant doesn’t own the land (see Greenacres Farm) item above, based on my own experience on a much, much smaller scale than the above, it would appear to be lawful. Just copied this from Google: Planning permission. If you wish, you can appoint an agent to apply for planning permission on your behalf. ... You don't actually need to own land to apply for planning permission for it. This means you can apply for permission before deciding whether or not to buy a piece of land. I hope I’m wrong but I don’t think I am. No Pennypeck..you are right! Anyone can apply for planning permission on some other persons property without their permission! However, can you imagine how upset you would be if that happened to you? Planning could be granted; however without being able to buy that land for the development the permission would of course expire after the duration (5yrs!) set by the authorities. Would you want to sell your land to someone who does that behind your back..I wouldn’t for sure! Lets hope that this scuppers the whole scheme. Bradford should be looking in to this scheme and asking themselves why this scheme should be granted permission given that the land owner does not want to sell and unbelievable has not been contacted by the developers? Someone needs to get answers tonight. Unfortunately i can’t make it. |
|
| hat |
the application has been refused City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council hereby gives notice of its decision to REFUSE planning permission for the development described above for the following reason(s): Reasons for Refusal 1. The proposed devdelopment is unacceptable as the application does not provide sufficient information to enable its proper consideration by the Local Planning Authority. In particular, the application is not supported by a Transport Assessment, therefore any significant impacts from the development on the transport network (in terms of capacity and congestion), or on highway safety, cannot be assessed, contrary to paras. 108 & 109of the NPPF. 2. The proposed development would constitute incremental development that would be prejudicial to the comprehensive development of the wider area, sites K/UR5.38 & K/UR5.39, which are allocated as Safeguarded Land on the Proposals Map of the RUDP. |
|
| Corky Yorky |
this post has been edited 1 time(s) Yes..its good news..so far!! I’ll bet that sooner rather than later their will be another application put in!! ..or could it have been all a ruse to support the School application??? |
|
| hat |
they could amend the plans to add more details to satisfy point 1, but i'm not sure how they address point 2 |
|
| gazzer |
Been on the Bradford Council website and the only meeting today was for the Executive and it was not on the agenda.There was a planning meeting for our area last week but no discussion on this road. When was this decision made? |
|
| hat |
The letter which was emailed out today from Stuart Currie Dear Sir/Madam Application Decision Enabling road to serve proposed school and residential development at Land East Of Bolton Road Silsden West Yorkshire Thank you for your letter regarding the above application. I am writing to advise you that Planning Permission was refused on 02.04.2019. |
|
| Peter |
Victory for anti-road campaign in Silsden Read more news.silsden.net/development/local-devopment-framework/victory-for-anti-road-campaign-in-silsden Personally I think this was always a speculative try-on to get the school planning through and it will come back as soon as the local elections are over, the building starts, and the traffic management deficiencies of the highway arrangements become very apparent. Lookout for a traffic survey on Bolton Road. |
|
| Corky Yorky |
Was rejected due to lack of a transport assessment!! Double standards by Bradford considering their lack of an inteligent one for the school!! |
|
| Corky Yorky |
Interesting reading for those folk who want a better future!! https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/apr/11/why-are-we-so-bad-at-planning-cities |
|
| Replies in this thread : 59
|
|
events sale / wanted general have your say looking for.. skippy greengrass |
|
DON'T FORGET THE SUBJECT IS >>>>>>>> Forums Home > Have Your Say !!!! > SAVE OUR BEAUTIFUL COUNTRYSIDE |
|||
|
<< HOME PAGE < RETURN ^ PAGE TOP ^ | ||
 |
|||
|
webenquiries to |
||
14/09/2018 : 21:42:26 
23/09/2018 : 12:38:37 
11/04/2019 : 12:31:26