PNW00313 Outer North East MX2-39
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Ref: PNW00313 HMCA\Topic: Outer North East Subject: Site in the plan Site: MX2-39 - Parlington Estate, Aberford Agree with proposed use? No Soundness Consider the plan sound? No Test of soundness addressed: Positively prepared Effective Justified Consistent with NPPF Changes required to make sound: 1. LCC need to implement the Core Strategy correctly in relation to Green Belt land, deliver brownfield first as per Government and national policy to regenerate inner city areas and support communities with decent and affordable homes, as that is the housing need. 2. Site MX2-39 and all Green Belt sites should be removed from allocation. 3. The housing target is now in need of review following recent planning applications and Secretary of State decisions. 4. Brownfield sites in ONE must be delivered for housing, and should be made available following Government funded remediation. Issues Issue: Other - Quantum of development and flooding In addition to the specific areas dealt with by LCC questions, I wish to make comments on the following aspects. CUMMULATIVE EFFECT OF THE SAP'S IN AND AROUND EAST LEEDS AND GARFORTH That the cummulative effect of this proposal, alongside those for 000's of houses in Garforth, 000's of houses in the ELE, plus all the development happening around Sherburn in Elmet and within the control of Selby District Council, City of York Council, Harrogate Council, will have a massive impact on Aberford, Barwick in Elmet and Scholes through even more rat-running on poorly maintained country roads and lanes. The allocation of this site on the basis of the quantum of development proposed in the immediate surrounding area, is extremely disproportionate and inappropriate. I maintain the need to review and downgrade the housing requirement in line with the most recent ONS data, in which case, no Green Belt land would be lost to developments of this nature, a position I strongly advocate as it is Government and national policy. ASPIRATIONAL HOUSING TARGET As a result of the aspirational housing target, the recent appeal at Grove Road, Boston Spa, has indicated that Leeds City Council’s Core Strategy is not deliverable, because the available brownfield sites are not being developed, and that should be the priority under NPPF, leaving Green Belt land untouched, especially when it is of such high quality as Parlington Estate. It is paramount that Leeds City Council now acknowledge their Core Strategy is not deliverable and review the housing target in line with the national data and review the Site Allocation Plan in it’s entirety. The loss of Green Belt, any of it, is totally against national policy and a key aspect of my objection to the SAP. BROWNFIELD SITES IN ONE There are brownfield sites in ONE that have capacity for the housing allocation, principally Thorp Arch Trading Estate (TATE), which was until very recently allocated for housing, is a site that offers great potential and has the support of the land owner as a housing development. The suggested constraints that include contamination, is a non-issue, as that will need to be dealt with if it is used for any development associated with employment use. Equally, Government are looking at ways to make brownfield sites, like TATE, useable through various means, so it is not unreasonable to assume that any such constraints could be overcome with Government support/funding and an advance preparation plan to deliver this site to a house builder so they can build to hit the housing target. Afterall, this site is classed as Wetherby, and according to the Core Strategy, the Major Settlement in ONE should take the majority of the housing target. Right now, LCC’s consultation on Parlington is suggesting this is provided at Parlington, which is counter to LCC’s own Core Strategy and therefore flawed. FLOODING IMPACTS The impact on local water courses resulting from a SUDs solution on each and every development in the surrounding area will be catastrophic as they are all small becks and streams, which ultimately flow through to Tadcaster, scene of major flooding on Boxing Day 2015 and the collapse of its 300 year old road bridge. The impact locally on flooding will be significant and associated with several of these becks in and around Barwick in Elmet, and the surrounding villages. The Core Strategy itself does not include for appropriate infrastructure to deal with surface water and flooding, and there are no plans to deliver such facility in advance of any developments commencing. GREEN BELT SWAP WITH RURAL LAND AT WETHERBY The proposed Green Belt swap with rural land near Wetherby discussed in the July Development Plans Panel meeting, is not a valid replacement for this high quality Green Belt land at Parlington, which also includes Grade A agricultural land. There is no comparison, and the process to undertake this land swap is long, needs to be fully justified with sequential testing and a detailed Green Belt review, consulted upon and then also examined in public I imagine. I do not believe that Leeds City Council has undertaken such a Green Belt review, therefore the plan to remove Parlington from Green Belt and simply replace it with rural land near Wetherby is significantly flawed. Issue: Highways and transport 1.MX2-39 site is surrounded by roads that are B category or less; these roads and villages cannot support the volume of traffic expected from MX2-39; 2.The highway infrastructure comprises only the B1217 - a narrow road that carries traffic from Sherburn, Lotherton, Tadcaster, Aberford and Barwick to and from the M1 – this road does not provide any suitable infrastructure for MX2-39; 3.Promoters of MX2-39 estimate 97% of users will utilise the access proposed to M1 motorway junction. There is no evidence of this and census data for Barwick and Aberford reveal a proportion of the residents’ commute to areas not directly accessible from junction 47 motorway e.g. to, Otley, Wakefield and Doncaster; 4.Detailed and properly structured traffic studies and subsequent forecasting would yield different data; 5.Traffic from MX2-39 will create car and bus traffic emanating from and travelling to the site that will use any available alternative routes to Leeds. This means a daily increase of many hundreds of car travelling through Barwick via Aberford and through Garforth; roads impacted by this huge increase in car traffic will be the A642, Long Lane, Cattle Lane and Bunkers Hill; 6.LCC traffic data for Long Lane (latest survey 2013) indicates circa 600 cars per hour in peak times, or 1 car every 6 seconds. The significant increase in traffic from this development on to Long Lane will far exceed the capacity of this and the associated road network through Barwick, Aberford and Scholes. 7.MX2-39’s existing infrastructure cannot accommodate the new traffic. LCC recognises this matter in its SAP yet is promoting the B1217 as the means to deliver sufficient carriageway capacity. 8.A new and sufficiently effective junction on Collier Lane will be required to provide ingress/egress to the houses. The junction will consume and destroy the field to the south of Collier Lane and disturb unique soil at Hook Moor. Hook Moor is an SSSI and its eco-system is fragile - and is an integral part of the magnesian limestone Green Infrastructure corridor as defined by Natural England and incorporated within LCCs’ Adopted Core Strategy; 9.The SAP’s proposition for road traffic is totally inadequate to accommodate an additional 10,000 cars and their expected 25,000 daily vehicle movements; 10.The existing north bound off ramp to junction 47 fails to meet the demand of existing traffic flows alighting the motorway to the A642 (Aberford Road). Traffic queues via the hard shoulder as well as lane one of the motorways; 11.As well, the low, narrow rail bridge at Barwick Road Garforth and the inadequate Town End junction Garforth, where accidents and congestion frequently occur, and which is used daily by a large percentage of our residents, has already been identified as a limiting factor in previous planning applications in both Barwick and Garforth; 12.RAT RUNs through the nearby towns and villages of Aberford, Garforth and Micklefield will occur as no southbound access or northbound exit between the A1/M1 link and the A1; 13.At the time the junction of the A1/M1 link with the A1 was designed, no new town was envisaged in this area – in other words the SAP is out of phase with the road system development; 14.A single site access/egress is proposed. A development of the scale proposed confined with a single access is not feasible; 15.MX2-39’s promoter refers to a potential second site access/egress off Lady Lane. This lane is constrained at its junctions with Barwick in Elmet and Garforth. It is unsuitable; 16.The NPPF makes reference in paragraph 162 to local planning authorities working with other authorities and providers to, “assess the quality and capacity of infrastructure for transport”. There is no evidence that this has occurred; 17.M1 junction 47 is not identified in Highways England’s strategic plan for any upgrade in the current period 2015-2020, or in the following period post 2020. The site is therefore UNSOUND on it’s ability to connect with the strategic road network; 18.In addition, the south west corner of the proposed development is designated for employment use, thereby increasing the likelihood of commercial vehicles making use of the highway causing further disruption and associated pollutants; 19.The current proposal indicates that the road (B1217) from the junction will require upgrading to dual carriageway.