Having read City Council’s response to comments received on the traffic modelling I feel strongly I have to respond once again. Their response in my view is dismissive, disingenuous and actually postitively mis-leading in a number of areas.

1. "issues of soundness” and 2. “No party challenges,…the robustness of the modelling.”

Parlington is a peculiar setting in that it’s almost land-locked and is isolated without any major roads leading to it and no roads cutting in and out of it with already overburdened rail provision and inadequate bus provision in the neighbouring township and villages. Whilst it has a bridlepath this is unlit and just a mud path basically. So it is currently unsuitable as a general commuting cycle path having dark unlit tunnels, being muddy underfoot and difficult to traverse in winter and as it is so isolated it's worrying to one’s personal safety as a lone walker or cyclist. The entrance to Parlington between Barwick and is from a rural road without paths and with a narrow bridge where traffic has to take turns to cross.

This road then crosses over the M1. So the route from the proposed site is around 3 miles to Garforth railway station along an unlit road and is on-road. It’s neither practical nor sensible to walk along that road from Parlington to Garforth railway station - it would take an hour at an average walking speed (so too long for a walk to the local railway station). The transport modelling and LCC talk about infrastructure improvements being encouraged only by a very large development such as this but actually dismisses the difficulties the particulars of the terrain and roads around this proposed site. There is no bus service between Barwick and Garforth either.

LCC also say it’s impractical to expect improvements ahead of time.

(11) 'the roll out of major highway improvements well before they are required is more likely to result in generated traffic’. This is nonsense - if money was spent on upgrading these roads so people could use proper lit cycle and pedestrian pathways before any development it would encourage people to not use their cars. As it stands people have no choice - this area is car- dependant out of necessity.

So firstly I disagree with LCC - it’s not ‘sound’ (i.e. good judgement ) to parachute in a development of (what could be eventually) 5000 new houses into the middle of what is effectively an almost land-locked and already poorly accessible area when there is no undertaking to simultaneously improve the roads and transport infrastructure. They are proposing that high demand should be created to encourage improvements - so this means things will have to get far worse (and for an indeterminate amount of time) before there’d be any chance of improvements being made.

Secondly as a resident and layperson I am not an expert with the skills to analyse a traffic modelling exercise, however I can challenge the robustness of LCCs argument through my local knowledge from living here over 18 years and I can criticise producing a general transport improvement plan for the wider Leeds area that LCC acknowledge barely impacts on this geographical area. Improvements in other parts of the will not improve the flow of traffic in and around this area - we are too far away for any positive impact.

This modelling exercise was not published where I could get a look at it until the end of June this year! They also say the transport modelling and reports are formed from very detailed and technical work but actually provide scant detail as to what exactly any transport improvements might be! They do say though that any mitigations won’t fully relieve the impacts on our roads. So they acknowledge there would be detrimental impacts however decline to see how any forward planning and road improvements could possibly help alleviate this. So that’s just plain dismissive of LCC.

LCC make very little comment about the second proposed route into Parlington (off Road between the south entrance to Aberford and J47 of the M1) and the impact this will have on the one aerial route accessing the south of Aberford village and coming out at the north end of Aberford. This - as I have previously attested to - is a regular rat-run for traffic attempting to find a way around accidents and/or congestion on the M1, A1 and/or A64. LCC accepts there will be an increase in households (and therefore traffic) of 40% - meaning a huge impact on the two little roads which run through and beyond Aberford.

From experience, I know the car park at Garforth train station is already over-capacity (not everyone that wants to park there can park there - there’s simply not enough spaces), there are no other car parks and parking on the roads is by residents permit largely. So to say (9) “Additionally, the proximity of both these sites to the rail network at Garforth represents an important element of encouraging sustainable travel’ is totally misleading! Also at peak times the trains are over-crowded.

Existing facilities are full and so people have to rely on car usage - Aberford is only ‘sustainable’ because of the existence of the car - WE HAVE NO CHOICE but to use our cars. In fact Asda run a free bus which serves Barwick and Aberford every Thursday so that residents can get to a supermarket - the public transport here is so inadequate!

So I suggest it is disingenuous of LCC to suggest that this development will encourage more sustainable travel - they must know that the trains are overcrowded, the station car park is full daily and yet it is impractical to get there other than by car!

LCC accept that traffic on the M1 has been increasing - 'rising to 39% between Jn 46 and -47’ (18) - but disregard this saying this rise is 'regardless of the allocations’ - but Parlington as a site borders the M1 whilst having very limited A-road access. So it’s clear this can only exacerbate the situation for the A roads and minor roads in this particular area. To say there will be little or no impact because in the period between 2001-17 we only saw 'traffic levels on A roads in Leeds District rose by 3%’ is therefore misleading! Parlington is not the same as Leeds District - to re-iterate it is a very unique and particular place. To effectively compare impact on the whole of Leeds District with impact on a small rural area which is landlocked largely by the SRN is misleading. Common-sense suggests it will have a major impact because of its proximity to the SRN.

So to summarise the current trends - we have traffic along Garforth Townend backs up along the road for over a mile, traffic trying to exit at J47 of the M1 regularly backs up onto and down the motorway towards J46, Aberford sees regular rat-running through the village at peak times and it comes to a standstill if there is an accident on the M1/A1/A64 as it becomes a diversionary route for the SRN, there are no crossings on Main Street for the residents making it hazardous for the children attempting to cross between parked vehicles to get to and from their school buses to secondary school (the can’t walk to school - the nearest schools are Tadcaster and Garforth both over 4 miles away), Garforth train station is overcapacity and under provided for and the communities (because there are scant public transport and what there is is inadequate with long travel times to Leeds centre (acknowledged by LCC in point 9 - 'very high levels of car commuting by residents ...which also have relatively low levels of bus provision and long journey times to Leeds city centre’). However LCC tell us (11) 'It is simply not realistic or practical to assume that all necessary infrastructure to mitigate the impacts of both existing congestion and future traffic growth will be delivered on ‘day one’.’

All of this means the proposal is most definitely NOT sound nor sustainable.

Regards June McHale