Planning objection submitted

The group have submitted an objection to the current planning application for the two semi-detached houses currently being built. You will see from the objection statement below, that we are not against the building of the houses, just that thought needs to be put into how the retaining wall is constructed so that it would not prevent the construction of the greenway at a later date.

The closing date for comments is Monday 17th May.

To view and comment, head to and search for 21/02106/FU.

Greenside Greenway objection:

We note the previous planning history of the site and surroundings:

16/04825/FU – 8 dwellings on the site of old garage – approved
17/02642/FU – Partial infilling of railway cutting with inert material – approved
18/05570/FU – Full infill of former railway cutting – refused
20/05470/FU – two semi detached houses – approved
21/02106/FU – one pair of semi detached houses – Current application

We wish to object to the current planning application on the grounds that engineering detail regarding the retaining wall in the former railway cutting has not been supplied.

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. The proposed route runs through the Greenside Tunnel and continues through the cutting that adjoins the site in question. We have recently supplied to the council a feasibility study completed by Sustrans that confirms that a greenway utilising the greenside tunnel and former railway line is both technically and financially feasible. 

It is essential that the council mandate that the construction of the 2 semi detached houses and the associated retaining wall will not prejudice the removal of the partial infill of material in the cutting that may be required if the greenway goes ahead. If the council fails to do this, it will go against their own policies of improving active travel links.

The officer’s report of a previous application (20/05470/FU) incorrectly stated that the design of the retaining wall was only a matter for building control as it would be concealed once the rest of the cutting had been filled in. A negligent omission from the report being the fact that a recent application to fully infill the cutting had been refused by the council (18/05570/FU), with significant local objection. The assumption should therefore be that the cutting would remain unfilled and thus the retaining wall should be amenable in both a visual and structural capacity.

We also note the partial infill plan (17/02642/FU) bears little resemblance to the current infill and the proposed site plan (21/02106/FU) highlights the extent to which the development has encroached onto land created by the current infill. It is therefore requested that the foundations for any retaining wall are secured into the bank of the original cutting (as it was prior to partial infill), and not any loose material that has been tipped in the last 4 years.

This will have two effects:
Ensure that the retaining wall is structurally sound eliminating risk of subsidence of the pair of houses currently being built.
Ensure that if any material from the partial infill is removed for future greenway construction, it will not jeopardise the structural integrity of the retaining wall.