DOCSLIB.ORG

Having Read Leeds City Council's Response to Comments Received On

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Having Read Leeds City Council's Response to Comments Received On Having read Leeds 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 Garforth 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 city of Leeds 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 Aberford 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 .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Main Green-Corridors Radiating from and Also Surrounding Garforth
    Main Green-Corridors radiating from and also surrounding Garforth Leeds Country Way which comes into Garforth along Manston Lane, north at 1 Shippon House farm to cross over the M1 and join extended Barrowby Lane into and through Garforth. Then joins The Lines Way south from Ninelands Road. Path along Nanny Goat Lane past White House Farm under the M1 to Shippon House 2 Farm to join Manston Lane. 3 Path from Barrowby Lane to Wakefield Road (A642) via Clear View farm. Green Lane from Severn Drive (nr the primary school) down to Winfields Outdoors 4 centre and the A63 Path from Church Lane past the allotments, right at Springfeld Care Home to join The 5 Lines Way at the A63. Path from the Holiday Inn on the A642, through Breck's Farm and down to the Lines 6 Way. Path from the A642 near East Garforth Primary School due east across Makin's land 7 to the A654 Ridge Rd. Path from Ash Lane north along the disused railway Line (the Fly Line) to pass 8 Hawkes Nest Wood and under the M1 to Aberford Path from Ash Lane west to Barwick Road parallel with the A642 and north of the 9 industrial buildings and Tesco. At least two paths travelling north from No 9 above across the farmland and waste 10 ground to meet the A1. Path from the A63 at Peckfield Bar north east across 1232b to reach the A656 Ridge 11 Road Path from the Ridge Road just north of the railway line and due east and parallel 12 with the railway to rwach East Garforth Railway station NOTES The paths are all well maintained at most times of the year.
    [Show full text]
  • Garforth Neighbourhood Development Plan 2020–2033
    Garforth Neighbourhood Development Plan 2020 – 2033 Pre-submission Regulation 14 Draft Page 1 Page 2 Contents Welcome ................................................................................................................................................. 5 Garforth Neighbourhood Plan Area .................................................................................................... 6 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 7 1.1 Background to the Garforth Neighbourhood Plan............................................................................................. 7 1.2 Garforth - A Brief History .............................................................................................................................................. 9 1.3 Garforth Today ................................................................................................................................................................ 11 1.4 How the Garforth Neighbourhood Plan Is Organised. ................................................................................... 12 1.5 How Health and Wellbeing Became the Golden Thread in Our Plan ....................................................... 14 2 Vision and Objectives for the Future of Garforth .......................................................................... 17 2.1 Vision .................................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Lockdown Miscellany', June 2020
    G & K U3A History Group 'LOCKDOWN MISCELLANY', JUNE 2020. During the Coronavirus Lockdown the usual meetings and visits of the History Group were suspended. This Miscellany arose out of Zoom and email exchanges when members were sharing thoughts about local features of interest. Additional relevant information about the topics was found online. Peckfield Colliery Disaster, commemorated in Micklefield churchyard. Lizzie M. ‘I went for a walk where I’d not been before and came across Pit Lane. I got talking to someone about some lovely big old houses along there and was told they were the pit manager’s house and some of the workers’ houses. I asked where the pit used to be and from there Googled the information and found out about the disaster.’ Pat D. ‘Ashley Land is very knowledgeable about the Peckfield disaster. He has maps and history of the men who lost their lives. He was able to show me my Great Grandfather’s statement on retrieving his father’s body from the mine which was very moving.’ The Peckfield pit disaster was a mining accident at the Peckfield Colliery in Micklefield, which occurred on Thursday 30 April 1896, killing 63 men and boys out of 105 who were in the pit, plus 19 out of 23 pit ponies. The disaster is commemorated at Micklefield Church. Peckfield Colliery was owned by Messrs. Joseph Cliff and Sons, with Mr. Joseph Cliff being senior partner of the Micklefield Coal and Lime Company. Mr. Charles Houfton had been the manager since the colliery opened, and Mr. William Radford had been employed as the Under Manager for 17 years.
    [Show full text]
  • PNW00193 Outer North East No Agree with Proposed Use? HMCA
    Ref: PNW00193 HMCA\Topic: Outer North East Subject: New site suggestion Address: Agree with proposed use? No Soundness Consider the plan sound? No Test of soundness addressed: Positively prepared Effective Justified Consistent with NPPF Comments on soundness: There is too little consideration of other projects in adjoining areas, as well as developments not covered by LCC. Specifically in the Garforth area, the developments in adjoining Parishes as well as Network Rail and HS2/3 planned developments do not seem to link together - in fact it stuns me that STILL we see maps coming out with potential sites for house building that appear to conflict with other plans from other agencies. Changes required to make sound: I have no issues with Garforth and the surrounding area being expanded but Garforth is at the centre for all such developments PLUS Garforth is the nearest town centre, has the closest railway station which serves fast trains as well as stopping services, PLUS it provides the significant connectivity between the M62/M1/A1/A64. Micklefield, Aberford, Kippax and other PCs may expand but if Garforth is the closest town with the closest amenities then the infrastructure needs significant investment and the abstraction of treating Aberford and Barwick as totally separate to Garforth and Kippax does not help. Suggestions: Create a new zone "Leeds East" consisting of Kippax & Methley, Garforth & Swillington, and Harewood ward south of the A64 such that Garforth is the central conurbation (see https://ukelect.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/leeds-v2.png) for illustration. At present Garforth is dependent on the M1 (2 junctions) and three other roads forming a triangle: Aberford/Wakefield Road, Ridge Road and the A63.
    [Show full text]
  • New Railway Stations in North and West Yorkshire Feasibility Study Final Report West Yorkshire Combined Authority
    New Railway Stations in North and West Yorkshire Feasibility Study Final Report West Yorkshire Combined Authority 14 October 2014 New Railway Stations in North and West Yorkshire Feasibility Study Final Report Notice This document and its contents have been prepared and are intended solely for West Yorkshire Combined Authority‟s information and use in relation to a feasibility study assessing new railway station locations in North and West Yorkshire. Atkins Ltd assumes no responsibility to any other party in respect of or arising out of or in connection with this document and/or its contents. This document has 66 pages including the cover. Document history Job number: 5124741 Document ref: Metro New Railway Stations Study Report Revision Purpose description Originated Checked Reviewed Authorised Date Rev 0.1 Draft for client comment JB,CW CW JT JT 07/03/2014 Rev 0.2 Revised draft CW CW JT JT 23/06/2014 incorporating initial client comments and two additional Stage 2 sites Rev 1.0 Final report CW CW JT JT 14//10/14 Atkins Final Report | Version 1.0 | 14 October 2014 | 5124741 2 New Railway Stations in North and West Yorkshire Feasibility Study Final Report Table of contents Chapter Pages 1. Introduction 6 Background 6 Study Context 6 Report Structure 6 2. Site Locations 7 3. Assessment Methodology 9 Stage 1 – Preliminary Sift 9 Identifying the Initial Shortlist (End of Stage 1) 13 Stage 2 – Detailed Feasibility Assessment 15 End of Stage 2 - Final Shortlist 16 4. Stage 1 Assessment – Preliminary Sift 17 Stage 1 Assessment Results Summary by Line 17 Shortlisted Sites for Stage 2 29 5.
    [Show full text]
  • LS1 3AB CENTRAL LIBRARY LS1 8EQ SAINSBURYS HEADROW LS1 3BR Great George St ST GEORGES CRYPT LS2 7DY New York Street Leeds MECCA
    LS1 3AB Calverly Street Leeds CENTRAL LIBRARY LS1 8EQ 22 - 26 The Headrow Leeds SAINSBURYS HEADROW LS1 3BR Great George St ST GEORGES CRYPT LS2 7DY New York Street Leeds MECCA BINGO TOWN MAYFAIR LS2 8LQ Park in rear loading bay take upstairs in lift ring bell ST JOHNS CENTRE LS2 8LQ Park in rear loading bay take upstairs in lift ring bell ST JOHNS CENTRE LS2 9EX BLENHEIM PRIMARY SCHOOL BLENHEIM PRIMARY SCHOOL LS1 3DX Calverly Street Leeds Near LGI TESCO EXTRA CALVERLY STREET LS10 1PJ Mumtaz Leeds Units 1- 2 Mackenzie House Chadwick Street MUMTAZ LEEDS LS9 7BG The Compton Centre COMPTON ROAD LIBRARY LS25 1EH Lidgett Lane Garforth GARFORTH LIBRARY LS15 7JR 273 Selb Road Leeds HALTON LIBRARY LS25 7LY Westfield Lane Kippax KIPPAX LIBRARY LS26 0AE Marsh Street Leeds ROTHWELL LIBRARY LS15 4BJ 3 Station Road Scholes SCHOLES LIBRARY LS14 6PA Seacroft Crescent SEACROFT LIBRARY LS14 2DF Naburn Approach WHINMOOR LIBRARY LS15 7LB Farm Road Leeds XGATES LIBRARY LS10 ILX 8 - 16 Dock Street Leeds CHADWICK LAWRENCE SOLICITORS LS25 1PY Garforth Railway station café RAILWAY STATION CAFÉ LS15 7NG 124 Cross Gates Road COE'S FISHERIES LS15 8NN 15 Austhorpe Way Leeds SKLINER FISH LS8 3BZ 2 Amberton Terrace OAKWOOD LANE MEDICAL CENTRE LS25 2BX 9 Long Meadow Gate HILTONS FISH AND CHIPS GARFOTH LS25 2AQ Selby Road Garforth GARFORTH GARDEN CENTRE LS14 6UF Acorn Business Park York road leeds MC DONALDS KILLINGBECK LS15 9JH Colton Retail Park Stile Hill Way leeds MC DONALDS COLTON LS15 7PE Cross Gates Rd Leeds MECCA BINGO X GATES LS8 3ES 224 Easterly Rd, Leeds TESCO
    [Show full text]
  • Housing Character Assessment
    GARFORTH TODAY HOUSING CHARACTER ASSESSMENT Introduction, Historical background and over-view Page 2 Area 1 - West Garforth Page 10 Area 2 - Church Garforth Page 17 Area 3 - Fairburn and Longmeadow Estates Page 21 Area 4 - East Garforth Page 26 Area 5 - Lotherton Industrial Estate Page 29 Area 6 - Oak Estate, Station Fields, The Crescent and The Oval Page 33 Area 7 - Main Street and Barrowby Lane Page 39 LAND CHARACTER ASSESSMENT Map of Areas Surveyed Page 51 Area Reports Page 51 to 66 Page 1 Garforth Housing Character Assessment Introduction This assessment attempts to record and express the character of Garforth as evidenced by the buildings, streets and pathways, topography and visual appearance of each area of the township. The origin of the name ‘Garforth’ is a choice between two accepted possibilities, both based on Norse roots. The first part comes either from ‘geirl’, meaning a triangular piece of land or from the name of a man, ‘Geir’, ‘Ger’ or ‘Gaer’. The second part refers unequivocally to a ford. The stream forded is today known as Sheffield Beck and was later bridged near that point – hence Garforth Bridge. The entry in Domesday Book (1086) was ‘Gereford’ and this or ‘Gerford’ was the way it was spelt during the 13th and 14th centuries. In the 15th century it became ‘Garford’. In 1559 it was ‘Garfurthe’, in 1603 ‘Garfurth’ and, finally, since 1632, ‘Garforth’. Wakefield Road Milestone Between 410 A.D. and 627 A.D. Garforth was a settlement of about 1000 acres in the Kingdom of Elmet just off The Magnesian Limestone Ridge - “The Cliff”.
    [Show full text]
  • Train Times 8 11 December 2016 – 20 May 2017 Online Mobile App Ticket Machine Ticket Office
    Buy before you board Ways to buy your ticket Train times 8 11 December 2016 – 20 May 2017 online mobile app ticket machine ticket office General enquiries York to Customer helpline: 0800 200 6060 Blackpool North Email: [email protected] Facebook: /northernassist Twitter: @northernassist York By Post: Customer Experience Centre Ulleskelf Freepost NORTHERN RAILWAY Church Fenton Visit: northernrailway.co.uk Micklefield Access, disabled information East Garforth or cycle assistance Garforth Call: 0800 138 5560 Cross Gates Email: [email protected] Leeds Textphone: 0800 138 5561 Bramley Lost Property New Pudsey Email: [email protected] Bradford Interchange Halifax National Rail Enquiries Sowerby Bridge Call: 03457 48 49 50 Hebden Bridge Textphone: 0345 60 50 600 Visit: nationalrail.co.uk Burnley Manchester Road Parking available Accrington British Transport Police Staff in attendance Blackburn Bicycle store facility Call: 0800 40 50 40 Bike & Go Preston Text: 61016 Disabled assistance Poulton-le-Fylde available Blackpool North Arriva Rail North Ltd, Admiral Way, Doxford International Business Park, SR3 3XP, Registered No. 04337712 northernrailway.co.uk 478-NR1609 TT08.indd 3 18/10/2016 22:32 This timetable is a summary of our train services between York and Blackpool North. Other trains also run between York and Leeds, Leeds and Hebden Bridge, Accrington and Preston, and Preston and Blackpool. How to read this timetable Look down the left hand column for your departure station. Read across until you find a suitable departure time. Read down the column to find the arrival time at your destination. Through services are shown in bold type (this means you won’t have to change trains).
    [Show full text]
  • 18/06182/FU Construction of 52 Dwellings on Vacant Land
    Originator: J.Bacon Tel: 0113 2224409 Report of the Chief Planning Officer NORTH AND EAST PLANS PANEL Date: 16th May 2019 Subject: 18/06182/FU Construction of 52 dwellings on vacant land; removal of Plot 99 and substitution of house types to Plots 98 and 100 of adjacent development at land off Kennet Lane, Garforth LS25. APPLICANT DATE VALID TARGET DATE Redrow Homes 12th October 2018 TBA Electoral Wards Affected: Specific Implications For: Garforth and Swillington Equality and Diversity Community Cohesion Yes Ward Members consulted Narrowing the Gap (referred to in report) RECOMENDATION: TO CONTEST THE APPEAL that has been made against the non- determination of the planning application for the following putative reasons: 1. Development of this proposed greenspace designation would be (unacceptably) premature, contrary to the advice given by the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) at Section 21b Paragraph 014. The Development would be contrary to a new greenspace designation in the (very advanced) Site Allocations Plan (SAP). The proposal would have an undermining and prejudicial effect upon the SAP with regards to designating greenspace, because it would predetermine decisions about the quantity and location of greenspace provision in the major settlement of Garforth. Even if the Development were not ‘premature’ for the purposes of the PPG, it would nonetheless be contrary to emerging policy under the SAP, having regard to paragraph 48 of the NPPF. 2. The proposed development would result in the loss of a significant area of greenfield land which plays an important visual, amenity and ecological role in an otherwise built up area. The proposal is not considered to adequately compensate for the loss of green space and results in a significant loss in area of the Leeds Habitat Network, adversely impacting on its integrity and connectivity.
    [Show full text]
  • Date: 1 November 2016 at 13:51:34 GMT To
    From: Site Allocations Plan To: Site Allocations Plan Subject: PNE00137_Duplicate rep? - check submitted on line - Tim Staddon - Parlington Estate (MX2-39) Date: 02 November 2016 13:29:00 From: Dobson, Cllr Mark Sent: 01 November 2016 15:48 To: Site Allocations Plan Subject: Fwd: Parlington Estate (MX2-39) Wider view Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: < Date: 1 November 2016 at 13:51:34 GMT To: < < Subject: Parlington Estate (MX2-39) Wider view Reply-To: Hi Submitted to Leeds already via the website, but here's the text of my thoughts. It's a bit garbled but basically I think the issue with the Parlington plan is that it doesn't seem to fit into a masterplan that covers the surrounding area. 3.3. Why you think the Plan is sound / unsound: There is too little consideration of other projects in adjoining areas, as well as developments not covered by LCC. Specifically in the Garforth area, the developments in adjoining Parishes as well as Network Rail and HS2/3 planned developments do not seem to link together - in fact it stuns me that STILL we see maps coming out with potential sites for house building in east Leeds that appear to conflict with other plans from other agencies. 3.4. Change(s) you consider necessary to make the Plan sound: I have no issues with Garforth and the surrounding area being expanded provided green space is maintained to preserve the distinct identities of each settlement, but: * Garforth is at the centre of all such developments and will function as a hub * Garforth is also the nearest town centre * Garforth has the closest railway station which serves fast trains as well as stopping services * Garforth provides the significant connectivity between the M62/M1/A1/A64.
    [Show full text]
  • Thackley AFC Club History
    WELCOME TO THE THANK YOU KEY WORKERS STADIUM AT DENNYFIELD TODAY’S TEAM SQUADS THACKLEY AFC GARFORTH TOWN Red/white/red All green Luke Wilson Toby Wells Alfie Stevens-Neale Aaron Burn Kieran Haigh Sam Denton THACKLEY AFC v GARFORTH TOWN Ryan Basi Jamie Barkway TOOLSTATION NORTHERN COUNTIES EAST Kristian Hargreaves Karl Fitzgerald LEAGUE PREMIER DIVISION James Rothel Joe Smith ST Saturday 21 August 2021 Ras Diamond Sam Leach Kick Off 3:00 pm Daniel Vinten Jack McGahan Volume 21 Issue 5 Lawrance Hunter Fergus McAughtrie Owen Murphy Joe Colley Simon Poole Dan Coupland Paul Whiteley Helmo Silva Pat McGuire Charlie Marshall Adam Terrelonge-Jones Ryan Foster Alex Marsh Red Bates Albert Ibrahimi Sam Barker Thackley AFC Main sponsor for 2021-22 Asa Mitchell Duke Witter Kamran Khan Jed Zanos Ben Grech-Brooksbank James Burgess Ian King Alex Burton Lewis Waddington Lee Turner Jamie Underdown Dramane Coulibaly Nicky Matthews Hass Gorji Main Stand sponsors for Jahro Parchment Manager: Paul Marshall Guellar Kasongo Assistant Manager: Mark Smitheringdale 2021-22 Adam Muller Coach: Michael Reynolds Christopher Lever Club Physio: Paul Cavell. THACKLEY AWAY KIT SPONSORS Luke Robinson Priestley Joinery offers all aspects of joinery covering Luke Harrop commercial subcontracting works to domestic home Today’s Match Officials improvements Referee – Matthew Cottingham (North Riding FA) Referee’s Assistants – Paul Saunders (Surrey FA) Ben Curry (Sheffield OFFICIAL MATCHDAY PROGRAMME £2.00 and Hallamshire FA) GRANDMA MARY’S BURGER BAR ‘WELCOME FROM THE MANAGER AND PRICE LIST CAPTAIN’ The latest up to date views from the Pat and Paul HOT FOOD Manager Pat McGuire considers the past week’s performances: ¼ lb Cheese Burger £2.40 Good afternoon and welcome to Dennyfield.
    [Show full text]
  • Redrow Homes Yorkshire
    Public Document Pack NORTH AND EAST PLANS PANEL – 16TH MAY 2019 LATE ITEM - 18/06182/FU CONSTRUCTION OF 52 DWELLINGS ON VACANT LAND; REMOVAL OF PLOT 99 AND SUBSTITUTION OF HOUSE TYPES TO PLOTS 98 AND 100 OF ADJACENT DEVELOPMENT AT LAND OFF KENNET LANE, GARFORTH LS25. This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 13 Originator: J.Bacon Tel: 0113 2224409 Report of the Chief Planning Officer NORTH AND EAST PLANS PANEL Date: 16th May 2019 Subject: 18/06182/FU Construction of 52 dwellings on vacant land; removal of Plot 99 and substitution of house types to Plots 98 and 100 of adjacent development at land off Kennet Lane, Garforth LS25. APPLICANT DATE VALID TARGET DATE Redrow Homes 12th October 2018 TBA Electoral Wards Affected: Specific Implications For: Garforth and Swillington Equality and Diversity Community Cohesion Yes Ward Members consulted Narrowing the Gap (referred to in report) RECOMENDATION: TO CONTEST THE APPEAL that has been made against the non- determination of the planning application for the following putative reasons: 1. Development of this proposed greenspace designation would be (unacceptably) premature, contrary to the advice given by the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) at Section 21b Paragraph 014. The Development would be contrary to a new greenspace designation in the (very advanced) Site Allocations Plan (SAP). The proposal would have an undermining and prejudicial effect upon the SAP with regards to designating greenspace, because it would predetermine decisions about the quantity and location of greenspace provision in the major settlement of Garforth. Even if the Development were not ‘premature’ for the purposes of the PPG, it would nonetheless be contrary to emerging policy under the SAP, having regard to paragraph 48 of the NPPF.
    [Show full text]