- Paragraph 89 of the NPPF refers to the fact that green belt land should not be utilised for development with only a few limited exceptions that includes the ‘limited infilling of villages’. This proposal will result in the merging of the villages of Barwick in Elmet, Aberford and the proposed Parlington village. This goes against the principle outlined in the NPPF;
- The boundary of this site is far too close to existing settlements. There are no defendable boundaries that would prevent this site spreading further towards Barwick and Aberford, which risk being engulfed by this urban sprawl;
- The urban sprawl represented by this development will knit the areas of Garforth, Aberford and Barwick together resulting in a loss of individual community identity;
- MX2-39 is too close, to Garforth, which falls in the neighbouring HMCA area. The is no consideration given by the site’s promoters to the adverse impact on environmental, social and economic infrastructure shared by our communities;
- New infrastructure will be required as a result of MX2-39 and the other proposed developments in Garforth. While Garforth falls within a separate HCMA area from the Outer North East, the other side of an arbitrary line on a map, there are boundary encroachments that raise material planning issues that have not been presented by Leeds City Council and therefore no solution has been discussed;
- The new Garforth housing sites will compete with the Parlington site for infrastructure, house buyers and tenants, resulting in a slow build out rate and postponement of infrastructure provision;
- A large number of new dwellings are scheduled to be built in Garforth less than 1 mile from the Parlington site. Garforth, Barwick and Aberford currently share a medical centres and GP services as well as roads, public transport and high school places. Building a major settlement in between these conurbations will have a negative and unsustainable effect on the existing communities;
- MX2-39 promoters argue that Parlington “New Town” will bring more facilities to the area, the reality is that if an allocation is granted, a large proportion of housing will come first, there will be shortage of medical facilities, lack of school places and loss of rural employment opportunities. On this basis we object to the development.