84 flats proposed in Central Sowerby Bridge

There are plans to build 84 one bedroom flats on the site of the former site of the Lock Hill Mill, adjacent the former Jolly Sailor. There are many of us that wrote in to object and even more signing the petition I drew up.
I was disturbed by what the council spokesman Alex McNeil said about relief of more sensitive areas, it was unclear what he meant by this statement.

If these flats (and others) are to be built to help other sensitive areas in Calderdale, where are these sensitive areas, why isn't Sowerby Bridge a sensitive area and why is it OK to make Sowerby Bridge town centre into a ghetto?

It is over intensive use of the land and there are many questions arising from the plans, how can they build a bridge when they don't own the other side of the river bank and there happens to be a working factory on the land? Why would they need to put a bridge there when there is already a brilliant iron and cobbled bridge a few yards from the site? Where are the residents going to park their cars, and indeed how will adequate access be provided? How can they build an access road (whether it be a through road or not) across other peoples land? I know Questions of ownership of land are irrelevant when considering planning applications but I have spoken to some of the owners of the aforementioned land and they say they will not allow it.

I wrote previously (in a newsletter) about this area and it being ideal for a park, there being no green space centrally in the town. This obviously is completely unrealistic as the likelihood of the council making a compulsory purchase of this land is nil, we can see who the land belongs to on the land registry and he usually gets his way even though the plans have been submitted by another party/business who incidentally has no books or records, but is by all accounts a nice gentleman who doesn’t want to upset anyone!!! It is also likely that they know full well this particular proposal will be turned down in a ploy to aim for a lesser number of flats in the hope that when the quantity is reduced the plans go through.

My objection is not against a development per say, what I do object to is the design of the buildings, which aside from being unsympathetic to the town centre is also damn ugly, it doesn’t help matters that it is so high density. I also feel that this area of town being so central better lends itself to some more amenity based development with less of a focus on residential buildings. With it being canal-side it could benefit from cafes rather than restaurants, or both and some shops would help the town centre by giving it a focus other than the main high street which suffers from pollution from high volumes of traffic.

They have already and without planning permission built an extension to the former Jolly Roger right over the public right of way on foot (this was also access by car for some of the shops). They should not be able to get away with this and ought to be stopped and be made to remove this building or replace access across their land at the very least (since writing this they have apparently agreed to put in 2 footpaths). The owner of this land already has several unfinished projects (building sites) in Sowerby Bridge and is well known for incompletion and bending the truth in order to get plans through. All the aspects of the plans that make it seem worthwhile and beneficial are probably all just lip-service and will probably not happen, i.e. the bridge, the landscaping. The riverside development (& Carlton Mills) opened by Prince Charles many moons ago was a past development of his. It was supposed to include shops and cafes, this didn't happen, it is entirely residential and is such a shame it's a real quite hide-away off the beaten track away from the nasty main road and has a huge cobbled yard. I can really imagine tables and chairs out in the summer in a continental fashion.

The land will be developed, whatever the scale. It is so central (right by Tuel Lane junction and on the canal towpath) so it would be better to include an area for shops/arts etc. the residential aspect ought to be toned down, it would not be a pleasant place to live. Placing apartments this central to the town only serves to damage any chance of improving Sowerby Bridge’s facilities by making residential areas out of potential areas for amenities and more pleasant areas for shopping (like Hebden Bridge’s pedestrianised areas) i.e. not just along a busy road.

All this along with the problem of where 84 plus cars will park in Sowerby Bridge and the addition of this much traffic trying to get in and out of traffic flow will not help pollution and congestion. Just recently a planning proposal to convert the old Barclays bank into 4 flats was turned down on the grounds of pollution so if thw plans for 84 flats goes through it will be proof enough of the hypocrisy we are up against in such matters. It's just one rule for certain developers and another for the rest of us.