Our local councillor Mark Dobson has kindly allowed his submission to the consultation which I will include below. Its fairly lenghty but does contain some really well thought through arguments against developing specific sites and for the sole development of site 1232, the land off the ridge road. My name is Mark Dobson I live at 35 Beech Grove Avenue LS25 1EF. I am writing in my capacity as a resident of Garforth of some 27 years and am making this submission as a private resident. However, please note that I will be submitting this same submission in my role as Elected Member of Leeds City Council for the Garforth and Swillington Ward. Firstly, and I do not intend to dwell on this point, the very fact that the Outer South East area of Leeds has to accept a housing allocation under the LLDF is frustrating when one considers the following. 341 brownfield sites were offered forward by Leeds City Council for development and ‘live’ planning consents on brownfield sits at over 20,000. When one considers this it is clear that the building/development community is profit motivated and has little interest in the development of Leeds and indeed its citizens and show an equal lack of regard for the affordable houses and the regeneration agenda. That said, following the Garforth Cliff and Barrowby Lane developments it is clear that unless there is a proactive engagement in this process we will be at the mercy of the developers for the next 20 years and beyond. It was clear that when Leeds City Council rejected the Garforth Cliff application and the matter when to a public inquiry all issues of infrastructure, drainage, highways implications and a myriad of other arguments myself and others put forward against the development fell on deaf ears. This development has proved of such detriment to the community that it is on that basis that I accept the need for a Local Development Plan that, if passed through a neighbourhood plan accepted by Government and legally binding, will become the definitive blue print for development. I think it is also fair to say that the housing projection numbers are widely over inflated. The census of 1982 told us that by 2012 there will be a million people living in Leeds. In reality when you fast-forward 30 years there were 766,000. However, if the Outer South East area has to take a housing allocation in the numbers specified I see little point in labouring this argument as it is rendered broadly academic. I also understand that what we are tasked to do as a community within this consultation at this stage is to knock off the rough edges in terms of land that would not be acceptable to the community going forward for potential development. At the same time offering suggestions as to what would be acceptable for consideration by any Neighbourhood Planning Forum that was developed for the town. The formation of such a community driven forum I see as essential. Firstly I see no reason whatsoever to consider the need for any Travellers sites in the Outer SouthEast area of the city. I am of the opinion the proposed extension of Cottingley Springs more than adequately covers the council in terms of provision for that community. Before moving onto land that has potential for consideration within a Neighbourhood plan I wish to comment on land that for various reasons I consider absolutely unsuitable and inappropriate. Firstly, land on Wakefield Road currently coded3112 and 3111. This property is currently coded amber. I reject the idea that expansion to the North West of Garforth is a good one as it breaches thetown’s natural boarder and there is no need to do this as other more suitable land is available. The impact on the A642 in terms of traffic movement would be immense and would create an unacceptable pinch-point at Town End at anjunction already at capacity. Add to that the fact that Wakefield Road has an open beck which on occasion has, if not stopped, certainly mitigated the massive flooding risk that affects West Garforth. Also, there is clear evidence of a mixed array of wildlife at this location. I suggest that3112 and 3111 are turned to red coding in the final allocation plan. Moving up the Wakefield Road to parcels of land coded 1100, 1044 and 3113 I would suggest that in terms of housing this land is also made red for exactly the same set of reasons outlined for 3112and 3111. With regard to these parcels of land I am also of the belief they are not required as part of any commercial footprint extension of the Main Street. Hawks Nest Wood has been deemed suitable for commercial development for several years and much nearer to the site in question on the A642 there is the old A.E Turbines site on the A642 that is a brownfield site which I have on good authority is ripe for commercial development. Therefore there is absolutely no need to progress this. 822 is the current Barrowby Lane development that I request is deducted from any numbers we have to deliver, please note that in terms of 1044the Council are already working to deliver car park provision at Town End and therefore reject any need for further car park provision at this location. Moving onto land off Barwick Road at 3114 and2156 I understand Persimmon have already expressed a desire to build up to 900 units at this location. This would be utter folly as the only way into Garforth would be up Barwick Road under a single lane railway bridge only then to encounter what would be a massive traffic pinch point at town end and indeed the same argument applies to any development on Wakefield Road. Add into the equation the units already being delivered at 822. This would create nothing short of gridlock. I strongly urge therefore that 3114, 1165 and 2156go from amber to red. I am comfortable that the land adjacent at 3115 is and should remain red. For speed I intend to demonstrate in this submission where a housing allocation could potentially be achieved with minimum impact on the existing community. Therefore, could I suggest that any land currently red on the OuterSouth East proposals remains on red. Moving onto what I refer to as in-fills at 823 and836 as these two pieces of property is already under consideration may I suggest that the totals are deducted from our allocations number. Also looking at in-fills I am absolutely opposed to any developments within the already built up areas of the town, I refer specifically to land at 2032, 2091and 1004 all of which are in completely inappropriate locations in terms of the impact they would have on the roads, drainage and further urbanization of the area. The real point being however that is there simply no reason to consider them when there are already viable alternatives that I will come onto in due course. I therefore request that these three pockets are made red. 1224 and 3110 may I make the followingobservations? The Garforth Cliff development at823 has already caused, as I predicted at the public inquiry, massive issues for residents in terms of drainage, loss of a soak-away and impact on the highway. The only access for these two pockets would be via the existing estate or onto the A63 at a pinch-point caused by the development at 823. Again, I deem this completely unacceptable and suggest both parcels are made red in the final plan. Moving on to three parcels of property on Selby Road all numbered 1366. I think any further traffic onto the A63 at that location is to be avoided and as the land directly below at 2132 is already amber I do not see the potential development of three tiny pockets of land currently on green as serving any useful purpose whatsoever and I strongly suggest the whole area is made red in keeping with 3106,1007, 3117, 3108, 3107 and 3109B. In doing this you also protect wildlife habitats and keep in place the natural and existing boarders of Garforth. Any spread of the existing curtilage of the town should in my view be avoided as part of this process should be to protect the unique nature of existing settlements. I have spoken at length about land within Garforth I wish to remain red, in terms of Swillington and Great and Little Preston any areas deemed red I believe to be appropriate, I will reserve judgmenton land currently amber at 1013 and 3321 until I have had conversations with the appropriate Parish Councils who will of course lead on their own Neighbourhood Plans. I would request however that land at 2040, 298 and 819 are all deducted from any housing allocation number. There is land highlighted in Outer South East that, assuming other settlements within the blue line take there allocation, our numbers could be accommodated. This land is at 1232. I would suggest this land is given consideration for the following reasons. The topography of the land is such that the only part of the existing settlement of Garforth you can see from this location is Saint Mary’s Church Spire and as such it has no impact on the current settlement in terms of unnecessary expansion of the current settlement. However I am absolutely opposed to any development on this property over and above the outer south east allocation numbers. I believe this is sufficient property to create a significant piece of green space between the existing town that could incorporate wild life, woodland, nature trails, sport provision and create a green corridor the type of which Garforth has never benefited from. I would insist that any housing is not only restricted to thenumbers but is as near to the Ridge Road as possible and in fact going further I would like to see the allocation in the bottom South East corner of the property adjacent to Peckfield Bar. I do not believe that this would impact on Micklefield as there is also sufficient land coded red at 1257Band 1269. The advantages of land at 1232 are that there will be no impact on existing drainage or infrastructure and easy access onto the A63, A642 and the A1/M1 link road would have minimal impact on the neighbouring town of Garforth. I would therefore suggest that this land is left at amber but with the ‘potential’ to turn green (in parts) following the development of a robust Neighbourhood Plan. A Neighbourhood Plan will offer forward an entirely new set of issues including school provision, a transport hub, community facilities and infrastructure. I feel the need for a Neighbourhood Planning Committee to be formed quickly post the site allocations being approved and I understand this is made up of up to 21 local residents, whilst I fully accept that as a Ward Councillor I have no automatic right to inclusion I genuinely believe I could add knowledge and expertise to the process and wish to be considered for and obviously not Chair, the Neighbourhood Planning Committee for Garforth. To conclude I see this as a flawed process based on a false premise and wholly orchestrated by developers obsessed with money and not community development. All that said, if I can protect the existing boundaries of Garforth, protect it from flooding, gridlock, traffic chaos and loss of surrounding green space I will happily engage in the process now and going forward.
Posted on: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 07:52:14 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015