New Farnley: Residents fight plans for 130 houses

3 January 2017

Share this post:
  • 4
    Shares

New Farnley residents are fighting amended plans for around 130 dwellings which they fear will change the character of their leafy village.

Redrow Homes and Park Lane Homes have applied for initial outline planning permission to build the houses on a triangle of empty fields off Whitehall Road and demolish 632 and 634 Whitehall Road.

Original proposals were first submitted in September last year and initially sparked almost 100 individual objections.

Revised plans submitted in December have met with similar local opposition, with more than 40 objections added since mid-December.

In a design and access statement, the developers say:

“The proposal will create a distinctive residential development which is sympathetically designed to respect the surrounding built and natural environment. Housing will be a mix of 1 to 4 bedroom houses, including affordable housing, to create a sustainable, mixed community.”

They add that there would be public open space for use by new and existing residents and an opportunity to ‘upgrade existing sports facilities in the locality’:

“Our intention is to deliver a secure and sustainable development of modern family homes in a safe, green and welcoming environment. [And] achieve this vision through careful design and communication with the local authority without preconception of the possibilities for this site.”

Objections from residents surround the lack of local infrastructure and that the land in question is classed as ‘PAS land’ by the council and therefore not earmarked for development until 2018.

In his objection comment, resident Mark Jeffs says:

“New Farnley is a nice semi-rural village, and has a friendly village feel. The building of 130 houses will destroy the village and devalue the surrounding property prices.

“With one shop and one over-subscribed school there are not the amenities to cope with more housing. Also Whitehall Road is a very busy road and access to and from will create congestion in rush-hour periods. The surrounding roads are narrow, with lots of families, so we do not need the added volume of traffic in such a small village.”

Resident Michael Freeman said:

“The proposed demolition of our neighbour’s property and the one next door to theirs would also mean that the proposed road would run directly alongside our family home where we have lived for almost twenty years. This will create noise pollution, air pollution, damage to wildlife and greenery, and spoil New Farnley village as a whole.

“The local roads are busy already and to even consider additional housing is just not safe or do-able. There are hardly any facilities in New Farnley anyway and all in all this application to build in a field surrounded completely by homes is madness.”

Another resident, Gerard Lavery, said the plans went against the New Farnley Village Design Statement, which is classed as a legal planning document.

In the design and planning statement accompanying the application, the developers say there is sufficient infrastructure in the area to sustain the new houses.

They add that the development is accessible by a number of modes of transport and would be sustainable. They say it would link into existing local footpaths and be in keeping with the residential nature of the area:

“It is … considered that there are a range of local facilities including education, health care and convenience shopping within the area surrounding the proposed development site that would be accessible by a range of modes other than the private car. These facilities will also provide a range of local employment opportunities that are within walking distance of the site as well other commercial uses in the surrounding area.”

Residents have until tomorrow (Wednesday, January 4) to register their comment. The plans can be viewed and commented upon on Leeds City Council’s planning portal.

Note: This post was amended at 11.30pm to include more details from the developers and provide a more balanced article.




Share this post:
  • 4
    Shares

Article tags

Share this article

Comment on this article