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 : 9

Author

Topic : FACT OR FICTION?

Corky Yorky
Website Member
Posts : 180

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 : 1612

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 : 180

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 : 1612

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 : 52

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 : 180

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 : 52

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 : 52

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 : 52

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 : 1612

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

Replies in this thread : 9

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