Mark Foster Elmwood House, 44 Main Street, Barwick in Elmet Leeds West Yorkshire LS15 4JQ Dear Sirs, Re
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
From: To: Site Allocations Plan Subject: PSE00455_Leeds Site Allocations Plan - Site MX2-39 Date: 20 March 2017 15:07:58 Mark Foster Elmwood House, 44 Main Street, Barwick In Elmet Leeds West Yorkshire LS15 4JQ Dear Sirs, Re: Leeds Site Allocations Plan – Site MX2-39 Please find below my comments on changes to the above plan, which I believe is evidence that the plan is, and always has been, UNSUSTAINABLE AND UNSOUND. When considering the points below I have considered the findings by the Highway Authority that any increased traffic count and problems associated with such cannot be mitigated for a development in this location and so any reference to an issue which is caused by traffic is an issue which cannot be resolved in any way. There is no evidence from Leeds City Council in the new MX2-39 to disprove the expected 3,600+ private vehicles and 5,000+ daily journeys that will require access from MX2-39 to the other settlements around the Outer North East. I comment, regarding the changes, as follows: Parlington (MX2-39) residents would be reliant on using already overstretched local services – for instance, doctors’ appointments are currently only available in Aberford for 4 hours 4 days a week. In addition, they would also need to access these local services by car which would further increase traffic on local roads, over and above normal commuting and this problem cannot be resolved as the Highway authority has said that there is no way in which it can be mitigated. I also infer from the conclusions reached by the Highway Authority that problems cannot be mitigated that no additional infrastructure can ever be built. Therefore LCC has not provided evidence that the site will ever be sustainable. When questioned at the Development Plans Panel 10/1/17, LCC Chief Planning Officer Tim Hill said “The local planning system cannot guarantee when amenities and infrastructure are delivered in stand-alone developments”. I therefore consider the plan for this supposed standalone site not to be and given its proximity to Barwick and Aberford and Garforth will not be a stand-alone site but, rather, an extension to the existing villages which more than doubles their sizes. The plan shows only 1 route of access and the plan which has been made available has not been completed and so proper examination and consideration of the various effects of a secondary access cannot be considered when making this objection. The only access point is on a derestricted road near a sharp corner with poor visibility and so is likely to cause accidents unless a substantial roundabout type junction is installed. A secondary access to MX2-39 along Long Lane between Barwick and Garforth will be inadequate as there currently exists a single track bridge and a single track, listed railway underpass bridge at Garforth. This makes it unfeasible for traffic to drive from MX2-39 to Garforth and then to Leeds as traffic will have to go through Barwick. Further: • The Junction in Garforth at the top of Main Street is inadequate to deal with more traffic coming from or turning into Long Lane. • The Junction in Garforth cannot be developed or widened due to the proximity of buildings to the carriageway. • The junction at Barwick is too small to cope with additional traffic and cannot be widened or developed due to the proximity of buildings to that junction. • A 20mph speed zone through the centre of Barwick will be implemented during 2017 • Traffic heading to Barwick will then have to travel through Scholes and then through the John Smeaton/Whinmoor area posing dangers to significant pedestrians and school children in that area • The current track from MX2-39 leading towards Long Lane is too narrow and development would mean that ancient woodland would have to be destroyed. The existing plan and Leeds City Council’s Core Strategy states that no development will occur within 50 metres of ancient woodland. • Even if the track did not need to be widened its proximity to ancient woodland would mean that the need to install drains would interfere with the ancient woodland and/or surface run off would pollute the ancient woodland ruining it forever. • Leeds’s own Core Strategy states: “Development which would result in harm to, or the loss of, Ancient Woodland and Veteran Trees will be resisted.” Parlington contains ancient woodland and veteran trees. The changes do not give enough protection to the ecology in Parlington and so the plan is still not sound. A secondary access along Cattle Lane would be dangerous because Cattle Lane is far too narrow. Currently all drivers of motor vehicles are forced to stop when a bus approaches from the opposite direction. A bus has already left the road on Cattle Lane within the last 12 months and the banking along the road is dangerous for much of its course between Barwick and Aberford. The road is also undulating rising and falling over 40 metres along its course. Whilst there are opportunities to make this road safer it will require major roadworks for appropriate mitigation. Within the last 12 months there have been numerous accidents where cars have left the road. Further: • The bridge at the Barwick End is too narrow and involves sharp corners which will pose a hazard to road users. • Traffic will have to pass through Barwick and/or Aberford and the roads in these villages cannot sustain any more traffic • There is a tight and dangerous corner near the Gascoigne pub in Barwick where accidents regularly occur • The Church in Barwick does not have adequate parking. This forces worshippers and visitors to park on the roadside making the road even more hazardous even with the volume of motor car and cycle traffic which exists at present. • The above factors about the risks posed by traffic from Long Lane having to pass through Barwick and Scholes and Whinmoor area will all still apply. • As the plan does not demonstrate where the link onto Cattle Lane would be situated I cannot comment further except insofar as to say that almost everywhere along the road forward visibility is poor and a junction situated anywhere along Cattle Lane is likely to cause even more accidents. A secondary access directly into Aberford would be unsuitable because if 90% of the residents are expected to travel to Leeds for work this will have the effect of almost all vehicles heading either to the B1217 near the Wind Farm to then head toward Leeds. This would defeat the point of the secondary access. The alternative is traffic moving along Cattle Lane through Barwick to Leeds with the problems identified above. Further: • Aberford Main Street is too narrow to cope with additional traffic. • Additional traffic through Aberford would affect the village and its character and atmosphere, which should not be allowed. If Leeds City Council intends MX2-39 to be a stand-alone housing complex it should, by definition, not affect surrounding villages and towns. • The junction in Aberford offers only poor visibility as a result of the on-street car parking between Cattle Lane and Bunker’s Hill (Aberford). The volume of traffic which is likely to use such a route to access the A1 North and vice versa will mean that any such junction would require significant development and road widening to allow a lane for cars turning right. Due to the proximity of buildings to the carriageway in Aberford this would not be possible. • In light of the volume of traffic which will use the secondary access route and the level of pedestrian activity in the centre of Aberford, additional traffic will be dangerous and will be likely to cause a significant number of accidents with pedestrians. There is no evidence in the new MX2-39 that Leeds City Council recognises any added burden to the highway infrastructure coming from the known increased car traffic from settlements east of MX2-39. These settlements include Sherburn, Lotherton, and Tadcaster plus others and the Highways Agency has concluded that nothing can be done to mitigate these issues which is evidence that a stand-alone development of this size in this location is not and never can be sustainable. Leeds City Council has stated that the B1217 alone cannot support MX2-39. In light of the comments above no other access road would be appropriate or could cater for the expected volume of traffic. If a secondary access road was intended to cater for residents’ vehicles this is in direct contradiction to Officers’ comments at the drop in session in Aberford on 20 February 2017 stating that the second access road may be for bus/emergency vehicles only. The Highways agency has concluded that the issues caused by additional traffic cannot be mitigated and LCC has not provided any information that shows how existing infrastructure can support the proposed development. There is no evidence provided in the changes to MX2-39 of how Leeds City Council intends to improve the highways infrastructure to cope with the large volume of traffic coming from the new MX2-39. Indeed the Highways Agency has concluded that nothing can be done to cope with the increased traffic and, in the absence of any indication about what changes could or will be made, I can only conclude that nothing will be done to cope with the added burden from the certain large increases in volumes of car based commuter traffic from the settlements to the east as a result of their large scale house building projects. No data have been provided or even considered about the level of harm that the increased traffic will inflict on nearby settlements and wildlife.