This page contains
suggestions for contacting Anne Hawkesworth, and questions
you may wish to pose
You can email her at anne.hawkesworth@bradford.gov.uk,
phone her on 01274 43207900 or write to her at the Leaders
Office, Bradford Metropolitan Council, City Hall, Bradford,
BD1 1HY
Do not feel awkward about pressing those you may write to
for their evidence and sources of information.
Points You May Wish to Raise:-
Many people have only learned of these plans through the
SVS and newspapers. Are the views and concerns of residents
to be valued? If this is the case why has information not
been disseminated more effectively, and what plans, if any,
are in place to ensure those affected by the bypass are
kept up to date with its developments. How - specifically -
will our views be courted and addressed?
Who is in Action Airedale? What is
their remit?
To what extent have alternatives to a bypass been assessed?
For example, improvements to bus and rail services, cycle
networks, car-sharing schemes etc.
Although once virtually derelict and abandoned, Saltaire is
now the recipient of numerous awards for its regeneration,
as well as the highest accolade of all - a place on
UNESCO's list of World Heritage Sites - and welcomes tens
of thousands of visitors each year. As regeneration along
the Aire valley is a key issue in the construction of the
bypass, is it a positive message and appropriate
precedence, that the regeneration achieved by Saltaire is
now to be put at risk to enable it elsewhere?
How long will the rail service be out of action whilst a
tunnel is being constructed beneath it?
In line with the Council's own local planning policies, the
Conservation Area Assessment, as well as the documentation
produced to support the nomination of Saltaire as a WHS, is
Cllr Hawkesworth willing to acknowledge the importance of
Saltaire's setting and the views into and out of it? The
current route runs behind the United Reformed Church,
through the allotments and alongside the Conservation Area
of the Leeds-Liverpool Canal. These areas are within view
from various parts of the WHS as well as its Buffer Zone
making any bypass visible. Would this not have a
detrimental impact on the views into and out of the
village, thus putting at risk its World Heritage Status as
well as the enjoyment of visitors and residents of the
village and adjacent areas?
The council's Woodland Strategy involves the
straightforward refusal of any plans to develop land that
is designated Ancient and Semi-Natural Woodland. Both Hirst
Wood and the strip of wood that fringes Bingley road are
designated as such. Why is the council considering to
permit development on, near or through either, in direct
contradiction of their own policy?
At what point did the Council inform UNESCO of its
intentions to build a tunnel beneath one of its World
Heritage Sites? If not, why not.
Concerns over the construction of the bypass have often
been appeased by the statement that its construction would
not take place for many years. Does the Council believe
that the date of its construction is of more concern than
the construction itself?
As the length of any tunnel beneath the village and the
anticipated traffic it will carry matches or exceeds that
which by law requires a two lane bypass each way, won't any
feasibility study be assessing the feasibility of an
already unlawful route?
Is it not likely that a road beneath the WHS and through a
floodplain would cause damage to underground structures,
concentrate levels of traffic-related pollution and
increase vibration and flood risk, and thus put our World
Heritage status at risk.
In the Re-evaluation of Historic Road Construction
Proposals published by the council in September 2003, the
'Saltaire Tunnel' route was rejected with a low viability
because of the disruption during construction and long term
adverse environmental impacts. Why is a route involving a
tunnel now considered viable? Are the concerns over the
environmental impacts and disruption less of a concern? And
are the wider concerns outlined in the report that many of
these routes and that involving the tunnel were costly, and
would have a damaging impact on the local environment and
particularly the World Heritage Site are of less concern
now? If the low feasibility of this route has already been
established, why is tax payer's money to be wasted
establishing it again?
In the Re-evaluation of Historic Road Construction
Proposals published by the council in September 2003, most
routes were immediately adjacent to the World Heritage Site
boundary or skewered it (and only 10 of the 12 proposals
avoided it). Will the other routes created as an
alternative to that revealed by the Council this year also
focus heavily on the WHS?
Would a feasibility study not make sense after any
improvements to the roundabout been implemented?