The developers building houses on the site adjoining the railway cutting leading to the Greenside Tunnel have submitted a new planning application to build two semi detatched houses instead of the previously approved single detached house.
Greenside Greenway have submitted an objection on the grounds that this would make the use of the cutting for a greenway more difficult in the future, and we suspect that the original partial infill of material has not been performed as per in the original approval.
Please see below for a link to the planning application where you can comment if you so wish, and our detailed objection.
The Greenside Greenway group is proposing that the old Pudsey Loop Railway Line is repurposed as a greenway for pedestrians, wheelchair users, runners, cyclists, and horse riders. We are imminently expecting the publishing of a feasibility study by Sustrans that we commissioned earlier this year.
The proposed route runs through the Greenside Tunnel and continues through the cutting that adjoins the site in question. An earlier planning application (17/02642/FU) approved the partial infill of inert material into the cutting. Members of the Greenside Greenway group opposed that planning application as it had the potential to make the development of the greenway more difficult.
The plans for the greenway have continued even after the partial infill of material as both ourselves and experts consider the partial tipping reversible. The inert material could be redistributed to other parts of the route that require elevating, thus restoring the original profile of the cutting.
It should be noted that the original planning application for 8 dwellings on the site (16/04825/FU) was approved prior to that of the partial infill. As such, the dwellings as built to these plans would be unaffected if the partial infill was removed.
We note the current application (20/05470/FU) for two semi-detached houses in place of one detached house in the original application. In principle, we have no objection to this change, however upon examination of the plans, it appears that the footprint and curtilage of the semi-detached houses extends further into the cutting than that of the original detached house. This would indicate that there is now more land available than when the original planning application for the dwellings was submitted.
We also note the original proposed layout plan that was approved in the partial infill application (17/02642/FU). This shows the location of the infill material in the centre of the cutting, with none added to the sloping area next to Carlisle Road and the dwelling site location.
We therefore request that the planning application is refused for the following reasons:
- The only way land is now available for two houses rather than one, is because the partial infill planning permission has been breached. The inert material has not been placed as indicated in the prior planning application.
- Allowing the building of an additional house on material that has been tipped into the cutting would prejudice removal of that material at a later date, and thus prejudice the development of the greenway.
- Although not civil engineers, we do not think that recently tipped material is a stable foundation for a house.
