Silsden Cam Bookmark and Share

<< HOME PAGE  < RETURN

Donate to Yorkshire Air Ambulanceback to General Forum | back to forum index | login | sign up | help | latest topics | search


Forums Home > General Forum > FACT OR FICTION?

  

Replies in this thread : 28

Author

Topic : FACT OR FICTION?

Corky Yorky
Website Member
Posts : 235

Website Member

06/06/2018 : 21:12:13      reply with quote


this post has been edited 2 time(s)

FACT OR FICTION? (A School In The Making)
Since the application for the school has been approved, and we are all still sat stunned, I thought someone might as well construe what may have happened.

INFORMATION
1. School Proposal ‘Consultation’ drop in, Wednesday 1st February 2017. Entitled: Consultation To Discuss The Proposed New Primary School, Silsden. It wasn’t what it said it was, and detailed plans were already drawn up, so NO consultation to discuss the school proposal could be had (Gazzer pointed this out on 07/03/2017) on the forum.
2. We knew from reading the school application, released on the … about some proposed development to the North of the school site.
3. Later that month, I believe we heard from Cllr Naylor, that there would be no bypass only some series of connecting roads.
4. At the Town Hall Meeting, Thursday 16th November 2017, organised by The Town Council, Cllr Naylor acknowledged knowing about a proposal for housing, (800 houses) to the north of the school.
5. We had to register our comments on the application by Thursday 7th December, though some people continued making comments thereafter.
6. There were over 50 objections logged and not one supporting it out of the 57 comments received, before the 7th December it. Thus Bradford knew that they had a battle on to get it through planning. Many more objections came after this date.
7. In the meantime work had been completed, on the school proposal site to put the electricity cables underground. This cost Bradford a lot of money I would have thought, so they really needed to get it through planning.
8. We know from Victor, 27/11/2017, that Yorkshire water had told him that the surface water drainage plans are unacceptable.
9. We also know that in the delayed Highways Consultation Response to Planning Application 17/05793/REG, dated 22 May 2018 it states“ Banklands and/or Dale View both of which have substandard junction arrangements with Bolton Road (A6043) in terms of visibility onto the major road”.
10. Furthermore we have reasonable suspicions to believe that the Highways Consultation Response was purposefully delayed and released on the 22 May 2018 just a week before the Schools Reg Appeals Meeting, 31 May 2018.
11. Pennypeck mentioned that at the Schools Reg Appeals Meeting …”out of the blue, one Officer announced that a new, unrelated application had recently been received and validated today, for a "Proposed Enabling Road to serve the New School and Residential Development" later on she PennyPeck states …”it seemed like a "get out of jail free" card might have been played, a situation perhaps exacerbated by the fact that the application and validation dates were identical (perhaps they usually are) and that it was announced in the meeting that the application was being validated that day, when in fact it had been validated a few days earlier according to the documents.” This is the 18/02201/MAF Proposed enabling road to serve the proposed new school and residential development | Land East Of Bolton Road Silsden West Yorkshire.
12. First and foremost it is clear that Bradford must have been in negotiation about this proposal because of its name (Proposed enabling road to serve the proposed new school). A private developer would not in the least bit interested, in my eyes about any connection to the proposed new school, unless Bradford had spoken with them. It is after all, as PennyPeck said, “an unrelated application,..that could stand up on its own merits.” This is absolute bollocks, as clearly it is related, in that it states it by it’s application name and intentions; so without doubt it is directly associated with the proposed school application. Further more, in my eyes as a professional environmental consultant, I have never come across an application that is so specifically for an enabling road, without it being attached to any housing development plans in it’s application. Thus Alarm bells are definitely ringing here.
13. I am of the understanding that this 18/02201/MAF Proposed enabling road to serve the proposed new school and residential development | Land East Of Bolton Road Silsden West Yorkshire application should not have been even mentioned or uttered in the Schools Reg Appeals Meeting, as previously stated by pennyPeck, it is supposed to be an “an unrelated application’. I would have thought it to be illegal to even mention any other application, especially when it might or might not be related.
14. As previously stated, and viewing in detail the intended road connection to the proposed new school, I cannot presently see, how this enabling road will serve any real purpose other than to let vehicles out of the school site, as an additional exit from the site. Presently, when superimposing the enabling road onto the school plans, it is only likely to connect where the staff parking is; Maybe it would be for staff use only, thus freeing up some traffic movement on the one way system, but then staff have to be in much earlier than the pupils.
15. Of concern again, cllr Naylor, and his lack of absence at the Schools Reg Appeals Meeting. A letter is not as good as attendance, and as you know when you’re not in attendance you cannot be answerable to questioning. Alarm bells are ringing again! It is also likely and most probable that he may have known that the other application, 18/02201/MAF Proposed enabling road etc, was to come to light during that meeting,

DEDUCTIONS:
The small information that we knew about any development to the north of the proposed school site, and the knowledge that there was to be no bypass, but a network of roads instead came from Cllr Naylor. That information is undeniably similar with the application 18/02201/MAF submitted. Further more, that application, in my mind, due to its descriptive title, is deliberately linked to the school proposal. Without the ‘proposed new school’ part the application could have been a ‘normal’ application, but it isn’t. It has purposely been added to give an impression or ‘illusion’ that it has authority with the proposed school application. Its application and validation dates were said to be identical; however it was known to have been validated two days! In essence Cllrs knew of this application and were thus more than likely to have been influenced to approve the proposed school application. It wouldn’t have taken much to speak to a developer, and given the basic plans submitted, it wouldn’t cost much either to submit one either. The application for the school enabling road may never even happen! It could have one use only, that to give strength to getting the school proposal passed.

Next, all that’s needed is get a ‘under-radar’ approval for a supposed enabling road and have a name drop, “out of the blue, one Officer announced that a new.” (PennyPeck) at the Schools Reg Appeals Meeting! There it is acknowledgement to all and the argument for a proposed new school gets the nod!
Of course a plan had to be set first in motion with support to win over planning. The good people of Silsden opposed the plans, Yorkshire water found issues with the surface water plans, and it is believed their are similarly issues with drainage, all were not addressed. The highways report was also likely deliberately delayed as Bradford knew there would be difficulties to overcome and also challenges in winning support for the one-way system and roadside parking. There would also have to be additional spending available to address these issues, which needed to be accounted. They also were aware that they hadn’t fulfilled their promises in how the school should look like and the material is was to be made of. In essence the ‘Consultation’ drop in, Wednesday 1st February 2017, was a complete cover up; decisions had already been made. At that meeting I was told that the school could only be built on the basis of the current number of pupils; yet plans were already in place to increase the numbers by an additional third. That of course would mean extra traffic, which I believe has still not been properly accounted for. We already know from the Highways Consultation Response to Planning Application 17/05793/REG that “In terms of queue lengths there would be a maximum average queue of around 30 vehicles in the school AM peak and 20 vehicles in the PM peak on Clog Bridge / Howden Road back from its junction with Keighley Road.”p3. That report is based on what I have always believed to be severely flawed due to it’s calculation methodology, or lack of it. It’s also poorly written. Still, it does not consider the increase in pupil numbers, who may travel to school by car from a 3 form to 4 form entry level school. Maybe they are expecting the pupils to come from the anticipated 800 houses nearby, but an application has not been submitted for any houses.

I believe that my deliberations collectively hold some evidence of wrongdoing. Cllr Naylor may know more on this. A bypass will never happen. Who do you think is responsible for this? What do you think happened in the school proposal getting accepted?
In the meantime the A6034 due to too much development alongside it is in effect relegated to a B road. We are fast becoming a true ‘clogged’ Silsden and we have lost the ability to have any effect on planning and our schools are turning into overloaded prisons.

I’m not saying all this is true of course, you know I love making up stories.
So is it Fact or is it Fiction?

You make up your own minds.
click for more information

midway
Website Member
Posts : 1661

Website Member

07/06/2018 : 06:31:18      reply with quote


Well it's part Fact and plenty of Fiction. but still a good read though, please see link to news paper report,goo.gl/pfhguk
also can i point out, putting the electricity cables underground was nothing to do with Bradford council, so it cost them nothing.
click for more information

Corky Yorky
Website Member
Posts : 235

Website Member

07/06/2018 : 11:27:53      reply with quote


quote
posted by midway

Well it's part Fact and plenty of Fiction. but still a good read though, please see link to news paper report,goo.gl/pfhguk
also can i point out, putting the electricity cables underground was nothing to do with Bradford council, so it cost them nothing.

Midway..thanks for taking time to read it.

If putting the electricity cables underground was nothing to do with Bradford council, why would they put the cables underground at such an expense? Bradford had to initiate it for sure. Cables don’t get put underground just for the hell of it!
click for more information

midway
Website Member
Posts : 1661

Website Member

07/06/2018 : 12:23:33      reply with quote


The majority of the over head power cables/ posts in that area are due to be renewed or replaced, there is a problem with the metal storntions, they are lead coated and have been contaminating the soil around them for years.there are more serious health problems within that area, but I'm not going to discuss it on the forum.
click for more information

porta
Website Member
Posts : 57

Website Member

07/06/2018 : 14:20:32      reply with quote


quote
posted by midway
The majority of the over head power cables/ posts in that area are due to be renewed or replaced, there is a problem with the metal storntions, they are lead coated and have been contaminating the soil around them for years.there are more serious health problems within that area, but I'm not going to discuss it on the forum.
It’s the norm, and considered best practice now, to stick services in the ground so that folk don’t have to look at bloody great pylons and, believe it or not, subject to less damage and maintenance.
click for more information

Corky Yorky
Website Member
Posts : 235

Website Member

07/06/2018 : 16:12:38      reply with quote


quote
posted by porta
quote
posted by midway
The majority of the over head power cables/ posts in that area are due to be renewed or replaced, there is a problem with the metal storntions, they are lead coated and have been contaminating the soil around them for years.there are more serious health problems within that area, but I'm not going to discuss it on the forum.
It’s the norm, and considered best practice now, to stick services in the ground so that folk don’t have to look at bloody great pylons and, believe it or not, subject to less damage and maintenance.
oh...Porta..I wish i could believe you. You might want to do your research to back up your claims.

The national grid and such like do not as a matter of ‘norm, course or practice’ go about finding odd fields and putting cables underground without a very specific reason.

An independent study by consultants Parsons Brinckerhoff, in 2012, endorsed by the Institution of Engineering and Technology, showed that burying cables directly into the ground to avoid power lines across the landscape cost up to £20 million more per kilometre than using overhead cables.

It costs around 10 times more per kilometre to build the underground system than overhead projects, and over the lifetime of the infrastructure it was around five times more costly to have the power lines underground.

Unfortunately Campaign for National Parks deputy chief executive Ruth Chambers said: “We welcome the report’s conclusion that underground solutions for electricity transmission are cheaper than previously thought (40 yrs ago it was 20x more expensive) - this is significant for the landscapes of the UK and will prevent cost being used as an excuse not to place infrastructure underground...., making it easier for solutions that respect England’s finest landscapes to be implemented.’

In other words..putting the cables underground is generally reserved for areas of AONB, National Parks, SSIS, and other areas that are sensitive to nature and beauty...which is what you would expect...not back of Silsden.
click for more information

porta
Website Member
Posts : 57

Website Member

07/06/2018 : 16:16:40      reply with quote


Oh for gods sake...I didn’t bloody say they do it all the time curly-wurly, but wehn they can they do

Anyway, I haven’t time to witter on incessantly, unlike you, so carry on Kevin Turvey
click for more information

porta
Website Member
Posts : 57

Website Member

07/06/2018 : 16:24:25      reply with quote


quote
posted by porta
Oh for gods sake...I didn’t bloody say they do it all the time curly-wurly, but wehn they can they do

Anyway, I haven’t time to witter on incessantly, unlike you, so carry on Kevin Turvey
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GnhT1UdNEa4
click for more information

porta
Website Member
Posts : 57

Website Member

07/06/2018 : 16:25:45      reply with quote


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GnhT1UdNEa4
click for more information

midway
Website Member
Posts : 1661

Website Member

07/06/2018 : 18:28:50      reply with quote


this post has been edited 1 time(s)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnhT1UdNEa4
click for more information

Corky Yorky
Website Member
Posts : 235

Website Member

29/06/2018 : 18:48:53      reply with quote


this post has been edited 1 time(s)

"A spokesman for David Hill told the Keighley News that the company had been working with Bradford Council on the project for some time.” Keighley News 29th JUne 2018.

So how much of my written article is wrong?

..RE: 12. First and foremost it is clear that Bradford must have been in negotiation about this proposal because of its name (Proposed enabling road to serve the proposed new school). A private developer would not in the least bit interested, in my eyes about any connection to the proposed new school, unless Bradford had spoken with them. It is after all, as PennyPeck said, “an unrelated application,..that could stand up on its own merits.” This is absolute bollocks, as clearly it is related, in that it states it by it’s application name and intentions; so without doubt it is directly associated with the proposed school application. Further more, in my eyes as a professional environmental consultant, I have never come across an application that is so specifically for an enabling road, without it being attached to any housing development plans in it’s application. Thus Alarm bells are definitely ringing here.

You disbelievers need to wake up and smell the coffee.

Now are you telling me that Cllr Naylor knew nothing about this? I think he is straddling a fence!
click for more information

midway
Website Member
Posts : 1661

Website Member

30/06/2018 : 15:09:58      reply with quote


CorkyYorky--I would much appreciate your opinion on the phase 2 development, with a potential for 400 extra houses, with a link into Hawber Lane.

"The Phase 2 development proposals would be to potentially provide a
road linkingthrough the site from Bolton Road to Hawber Lane."


click for more information

Corky Yorky
Website Member
Posts : 235

Website Member

01/07/2018 : 21:34:20      reply with quote


quote
posted by midway
CorkyYorky--I would much appreciate your opinion on the phase 2 development, with a potential for 400 extra houses, with a link into Hawber Lane.

"The Phase 2 development proposals would be to potentially provide a
road linkingthrough the site from Bolton Road to Hawber Lane."



Thank you Midway i aim to address you and any other followers shortly...In the meantime i have noticed a strange or devious change of name on the planning website!!

from:
18/02201/MAF | Proposed Enabling Road to serve the School and Residential Development at Land to the east of Bolton Road, Silsden

to:
18/02201/MAF | Enabling road to serve proposed residential development | Land East Of Bolton Road Silsden West Yorkshire

Now you tell me that i was wrong in my suspicions about this application?
click for more information

midway
Website Member
Posts : 1661

Website Member

02/07/2018 : 08:23:46      reply with quote


Yes the confirmation to my objection, with heading Application Summary
Address: Land East Of Bolton Road Silsden West Yorkshire
Proposal: Proposed enabling road to serve the proposed new school and residential development
Case Officer: Stewart Currie
click for more information

Corky Yorky
Website Member
Posts : 235

Website Member

08/07/2018 : 16:14:36      reply with quote


quote
posted by midway
Yes the confirmation to my objection, with heading Application Summary
Address: Land East Of Bolton Road Silsden West Yorkshire
Proposal: Proposed enabling road to serve the proposed new school and residential development
Case Officer: Stewart Currie
Can someone elighten me as to what is going on with this application?

The title has no longer any reference to the school however the drawings show otherwise?
click for more information

midway
Website Member
Posts : 1661

Website Member

10/07/2018 : 18:12:12      reply with quote


So this planning application started as Enabling Road to serve the School and Residential Development, and is now Enabling road to serve proposed residential development. So is it going to change again to something like Enabling road linking-through the site from Bolton Road to Hawber Lane.
click for more information

victor
Website Member
Posts : 736

Website Member

11/07/2018 : 08:57:27      reply with quote


I was talking to some one yesterday and they thought that it was a new access to the school, and many people in Silsden think this too. Well as I have said many times the access is from Hawber cote lane and the egress is from Middleway .
click for more information

Corky Yorky
Website Member
Posts : 235

Website Member

11/07/2018 : 14:41:50      reply with quote


quote
posted by victor
I was talking to some one yesterday and they thought that it was a new access to the school, and many people in Silsden think this too. Well as I have said many times the access is from Hawber cote lane and the egress is from Middleway .
I think most people are aware the access for the new school is as you have stated...however the fact that people you have spoke to seemed to think differently is no surprise!
This is the reason of why i have highlited this concern regarding the application for an access road. Is is clear to me its intention has been to mislead the public from when it was first submitted..and clear it has done so.
I question why?
It was first submitted two days before the school was to be decided with the main reason to serve the school, then soon after the school proposal was accepted its name was purposely changed to serving housing; however the plans still show that it is to serve the school, with an access to potential housing blocked off.

So we are now at a stage where plans for a supposed access road to a school do not coincide with the changed title.

Thus the public cannot give any true comment on what the access road is doing and serving?

There is also no application in for any housing?

I would have thought that legally the title could not be changed as the application title tells us what the proposal is for, and a change in this would only serve to cause planning confusion..like it is doing . A change in title is surely, legally speaking, a change in application...so why hasn’t its application number changed?

This application needs to be challenged in everyway possible.

My other concern regarding this proposal is that the road appears not to be dominant enough to form, at least part of any bypass that may/could happen in the future. [NOTE...I am of the understanding (correct me if im wrong) an area/strip of land has been set aside by the Barrett Housing on the south side of town, just for this purpose..so shouldn’t this be happening on the north side of town as well?]


click for more information

midway
Website Member
Posts : 1661

Website Member

11/07/2018 : 18:54:02      reply with quote


Spot on Corky Yorky
A report will be submitted by the Assistant Director – Planning, Transportation and Highways (Document “BA”) in respect of an outline planning application for the erection of up to 190 dwellings on land at Belton Road, Silsden - 15/05875/MAO.



(1) That the application be approved for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highway's technical report.



(2) That the grant of planning permission be subject also to the completion of a legal planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980, or such other lawful mechanism for securing the heads of terms as may be agreed in consultation with the Interim City Solicitor, in respect of:



(i) The provision of 20% affordable housing (2 and 3 bedroom units) on the site.

(ii) The payment of a contribution of £202,844 for education infrastructure improvements, at primary level, in Silsden,

(iii) The payment of a contribution of £161,863 towards recreation facilities in Silsden; the first priority being use of the monies to provide additional community facilities in Silsden, include the existing structures in the park being brought back into use and providing a new facility/flexible space for sports, meetings and new changing rooms for those playing sports in the park; and the second priority being the retention of the existing Multi Use Games Area (MUGA) next to the youth centre in Eliot Street and general recreational facilities in Silsden Park,

(iv) The payment of a contribution of £20,000 to mitigate impacts on sensitive habitats, in accordance with the Habitat Regulations, by bringing forward improvements on nearby routes leading to Rombalds Moor,

(v) The payment of a contribution of £100,000 towards the provision of a footbridge to cross the A629,

(vi) An agreement that land to the south of this application site, within the current ownership of the applicants, shall be reserved for the future provision of a road to facilitate a highway route leading from the north of Silsden Town Centre to Keighley Road at a point at the south of the town centre,
click for more information

Corky Yorky
Website Member
Posts : 235

Website Member

06/08/2018 : 08:53:15      reply with quote


Well it would appear the title has changed again!

It is..i think back to it’s original title!

It is now 18/02201/MAF | Proposed enabling road to serve the proposed new school and residential development at land to the east of Bolton Road, Silsden | Land East Of Bolton Road Silsden West Yorkshire.

It must have been changed back because as i previously said it must be illegal to change it’s title.

This application has been totally misleading throughout..and continues to be so.

What do you folk think?
click for more information

Peter
Website Member
Posts : 4801

Website Member

06/08/2018 : 09:02:07      reply with quote


Keep up


silsden.net/forum/philboard_read.asp?id=9554#


Posted 2/8/2018

solid wood flooring

Corky Yorky
Website Member
Posts : 235

Website Member

06/08/2018 : 09:22:52      reply with quote


this post has been edited 2 time(s)

Must have missed it Peter!

Interesting i have just been reading the Arboriculture Report and have noticed that it states that the tree survey was undertaken (presumably by David Hill..it’s unclear!) on 30th Oct 2016..yet David Hill's survey drawing is signed off as Jul 2018.
I can only deduct from this that "Jul 2018" is the creation of that document/plan not its actual survey date.

These discrepancies can be detrimental and particularly misleading as the information presented can be old data..so please keep a careful eye out!!

Interesting still, is that as someone who used to undertake British Standard Tree Surveys, i have never come across two separate companies being involved in producing what in effectively should be all part of the same document! One company does the survey and because they have visited the site and know it relatively intimately can thus write up the report. STRANGE!!

I have now noticed that the supposed British Standard Arboriculture Report by Iain Tavendale and the given Tree Survey plan by David Hill is INVALID because the data between each cannot be read! We cannot tell which trees are to be felled or managed etcetea because they are not keyed in! The David Hill plan does not give any tree numbers.
click for more information

Peter
Website Member
Posts : 4801

Website Member

06/08/2018 : 10:13:46      reply with quote


Here is a fact:

The survey gives the trees numbers, ok so far, but the numbers they have been allocated in the survey are not the same as the Bradford list of trees which have TPOs(Tree Preservation Orders).

From cross referencing the survey list and the Bradford tree map of trees with TPOs there are 14 trees "in the way" of the enabling road and a few others where the roots will be compromised during the road construction and may die anyway.

So 14 mature oak, sycamore and Ash trees will be destroyed.


click for more information

Corky Yorky
Website Member
Posts : 235

Website Member

06/08/2018 : 10:44:19      reply with quote


this post has been edited 1 time(s)

quote
posted by Peter
Here is a fact:

The survey gives the trees numbers, ok so far, but the numbers they have been allocated in the survey are not the same as the Bradford list of trees which have TPOs(Tree Preservation Orders).

From cross referencing the survey list and the Bradford tree map of trees with TPOs there are 14 trees "in the way" of the enabling road and a few others where the roots will be compromised during the road construction and may die anyway.

So 14 mature oak, sycamore and Ash trees will be destroyed.


Interesting Peter!
Another point....The survey tree numbers do not have to coincide with Bradford’s own TPO tree surveys! It is an independent survey and thus must be related independently..though it can give reference to other known plans to tie in!
What must be done though is for the tree survey, report and plan to all be tied together so that they can be cross referenced. The Arboriculture Assessment report states that it is based on David Hill’s drawing..but it clearly cannot be read with it because their are no tree numbers shown on it.
click for more information

Peter
Website Member
Posts : 4801

Website Member

06/08/2018 : 11:25:40      reply with quote


If you want to see the tree numbers associated with the latest survey you have to look at the TREE PLAN NO SHADOW published 25 May

planning.bradford.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=P9A6USDHMVP00&activeTab=summary

This is a pdf and the tree numbers are very small so make the pdf larger..... much larger... and probably a bit more, with the + (bottom right hand corner).

You would be forgiven for thinking they didn't want you to find out which trees they want to cut down.

On the latest tree map TREE SURVEY PLAN publish on 27 July the tree numbers have been deleted from the map - how does this work when the ARB ASSESSMENT refers to the Tree Survey Plan?

click for more information

Corky Yorky
Website Member
Posts : 235

Website Member

06/08/2018 : 12:32:42      reply with quote


this post has been edited 1 time(s)

This whole application is seriously messed up. It is totally incoherent, absolutely misleading throughout and as far as we can tell, which is very little indeed, will not get us an eastern bypass, or even a strong connection.
Does anyone have a clue as to what this is about other than getting three landowners richer?

It’s so messed up...i could easily be led to believe Bradford are strongly involved in this!
click for more information

Corky Yorky
Website Member
Posts : 235

Website Member

06/08/2018 : 18:36:12      reply with quote


this post has been edited 1 time(s)

www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/16400879.plans-for-500-homes-on-green-belt-called-in-by-government/


The move has been welcomed by Shipley MP Philip Davies who has raised the issue with government ministers.

He said: "This is fantastic news for my constituents who have been opposed to the plans to build on the green belt site. No homes should be built on green belt sites until all brownfield sites are used. It was clear from the beginning this proposal was wrong, not only was it on greenbelt land but using the land at Sun Lane and Ilkley Road was not going to meet the need for housing in the city centre. There are ample brownfield sites to meet demand.
click for more information

wheelaman123
Website Member
Posts : 322

Website Member

06/08/2018 : 19:05:55      reply with quote


This is good news for the people of Burley-in-Wharfedale, how do we in Silsden go about having a government review.?
click for more information

Peter
Website Member
Posts : 4801

Website Member

09/08/2018 : 11:42:30      reply with quote





Another fact

Just over 640(of the 1200 dwellings to be built in Silsden) have already been built.

There are 300 currently being constructed, and another 210 which have outline planning permission - that's about 1150 dwellings so far and this is before any houses are even thought about on Banklands - the land east of Bolton Road.

There is brown-field land at Riverside which should be used first.

The number of houses required is set to be reduced (2020) by Government review ie the Banklands land is NOT required for housing.


Object now to building an enabling road to allow 1000 houses to be built on greenbelt land - The Land East of Bolton Road (Banklands)

planning.bradford.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=P9A6USDHMVP00&activeTab=summary



click for more information

Replies in this thread : 28

Post Reply

login

refresh page   

latest topics

events
sale / wanted
general
have your say
looking for..
skippy greengrass

DON'T FORGET THE SUBJECT IS >>>>>>>>   Forums Home > General Forum > FACT OR FICTION?  


<< HOME PAGE  RETURN  PAGE TOP ^  

  , © silsden.net 2017

webenquiries to