Collingham

P1000333 (640x480)

Collingham Neighbourhood Plan

Collingham Neighbourhood Development Plan update December 2012

Village Survey

The neighbourhood planning committee would like to thank the residents of Collingham for taking the time and care to complete and return their Village Survey. In total there were 260 returns and the committee is in the process of analysing the responses.

The survey confirms that there is overwhelming support for the ‘Guiding Principles’, ‘Assets to be Protected’ and ‘Proposals to Improve Collingham’ all as proposed by the committee. This is also backed up by the majority telling us they like Collingham because it remains a village in a rural setting with an appropriate number of shops, services and clubs.

Similar to the 2004 survey there is general satisfaction with the quality of local services available. A significant number, however, expressed concern with regard the availability of school places.

Two items have resulted in a difference of opinion. Satisfaction with Broadband Service and whether there should be increased areas with street lights. We have attempted to find a pattern for both by analysing the results for different areas of the village. Unfortunately no obvious pattern has emerged.

The greatest dislike is traffic. Comments relate to all aspects of traffic – volume, speed, number of heavy vehicles and problems with parking. This is partly a wider strategic issue but also one that the Neighbourhood Development Plan will attempt to address at a local level.

A more detailed report will be completed in due course and posted on the website – thisislss22.com

 

Progress with Allocating New Housing Plots

In excess of 120 residents visited the walk in meeting on 22nd September and comments were provided on a number of possible sites for future housing development. These comments have been used to report to our Ward Councillors who are holding discussions with Leeds Planning Officers to agree which sites will be brought forward in the next 15 year plan.

As yet, we have not had any feedback on any of the proposed sites in Collingham. The first time we will be advised in any kind of detail is when the Leeds Executive Board gives the go ahead to consult on the Site Allocations Development Plan. This is likely to be spring 2013.

 

Further consultation with residents

 This consultation period runs for 6 weeks and the neighbourhood planning committee is planning to hold a local consultation exercise during this period. A letter drop will be arranged as soon as we have the dates arranged. The local consultation will include a formal public meeting and we have been promised attendance by a Leeds Planning Officer.

 

Children and young people

The committee would like to hear more of the views of the young people of Collingham about the future development of the village.

Young people are asked to email Ken Campbell – ken@langwith3.plus.com for further information and guidance on submitting views and ideas. 

 

It’s your village!

 The neighbourhood planning committee recognises that many residents are against any housing development in Collingham and this is powerfully backed up by the results of the village survey.  The Ward Councillors share our desire to minimise development and mitigate any impact on our village character.

Through the Neighbourhood Development Plan we have a much stronger voice than ever before in influencing where development will take place, the style of housing, how it is delivered and what benefits to the village will be incorporated.

 The website – www.thisisls22.com will be updated with progress reports on the Neighbourhood Plan

Report on ‘walk-in’ meeting 23rd September.

The walk in meeting was planned and arranged initial with a brief to establish the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats to Collingham. The Steering Group decided that it would be a good idea to back up the Village Survey with this walk in meeting in order that residents could review the work carried out by the Steering Group and then consider their answers to the survey questions accordingly.

This plan changed to some extent by the news on 6th September that Leeds City Council had been instructed to deliver its Site Allocation Development Plan as soon as possible. Leeds CC Planning Officers were already in the process of reviewing all the SHLAA sites and this process had to be completed ready for a meeting with the Ward Councillors on 16th October. If Parish Councils had a wish to feed into this process then their ideas on housing had to be presented to Andrew Birkbeck (Localism Officer) by 12th October.

The Steering Group held a special meeting and agreed that the walk in meeting should present options for housing and seek residents’ comments at the walk in meeting. A stop press notice was added to the Village Survey advising the residents that this was happening.

Village Surveys together with invitations to attend the walk in meeting were delivered to each property in Collingham and included the 42 properties in Wharfe Rein, Wharfe Bank and Hillcrest that are actually in East Keswick.

The Walk in meeting took place in Collingham Memorial Hall 12.30 to 17.00 hrs 22nd September. The weather was good and attendance was evenly spread through the session. In total 124 visitors signed the attendance sheet, all but 6 were residents of Collingham. It is thought that a number of visitors did not sign the attendance sheet and that actual number of visitors was probably around 150.

Information displayed included:

  1. Drawing and descriptive notes depicting things to be protected, suggestions for items to be improved and assets of community value.
  2. Three sets of drawings and notes showing where it may be possible to locate housing in the 15 year plan. These were annotated green (most favoured by the Steering Group), amber (thought possibly suitable by the Steering Group) and other SHLAA sites that were not consider appropriate were listed in the notes. Figures 1 and 2 of this report represent the actual drawings included at a scale suitable for A4 printing.
  3. A drawing showing SHLAA sites in adjacent parishes, to provide context at a wider scale.
  4. An outline proposal for land adjacent to St Oswald’s church which the owner wishes to develop as a burial ground.
  5. A schematic arrangement of possible housing in plot 2 (south of A58 on the way into Leeds).

Six members of the Steering Group were in attendance throughout and were kept in discussion for the whole meeting.

Julian Holmes made three 10 minute presentations. Each was well received, and followed by around 20 minutes of lively questions and answers. Ward Councillor Matthew Robinson was present for the first presentation and answered some questions directly.

It was stressed that visitors need to leave their thoughts on the comments forms provided, as it would be impossible for the Steering Group members to remember the content of all their conversations. In total 56 comments forms were returned, (this includes a number returned in the week following the meeting), and these included 250 individual comments. The Steering Group has met on two occasions to analyse these comments. Some comments are contradictory and some made with reference to an individual plot are equally relevant to other plots. The Steering Group has discussed these comments at length and concluded the following very high level summary.

The detailed comments are included as Appendix 1 to this report.

 Table 1: General comments applicable to any development in Collingham

Pro/Con Comment
Con Any development permitted must not detract from the character of the village. This means amenities and open space must be retained, and impact on green fields and green belt must be minimised. Development must not encourage the merging of Collingham with its neighbours.
Con Before Collingham can accept any more development, plans must be put in place to develop infrastructure. This includes adequate schooling, roads, drainage, public transport and health care provision.
Con The volume and the speed of traffic is a major concern amongst the residents of Collingham. Before Collingham can accept any more development, plans must be put in place to show how traffic is going to be managed along both the A58 and A659 corridors.

 

Table 2: Plot 1 Lilac Farm

Pro/Con Comment
Con Lilac Farm is a thriving local business. There is a desire to support this business. Development of this plot will impact on the viability of the farm. The farm contributes economically, socially and environmentally to Collingham and therefore the sustainability impact of its closure would be significant. New evidence suggests that this farm would be put out of business if the plot was developed.
Con Pedestrian access to Collingham centre and primary school is discontinuous from this plot. An additional crossing of the A58 would be required to provide an element of pedestrian safety.
Pro There is strong support for this site as determined by completed comments forms.

 

 

 

Table 3: Plot 2 A58 Leeds Road south

Pro/Con Comment
Con The drainage of surface water will be into Collingham Beck. Due to flooding this is extremely emotive particularly amongst residents of Millbeck Green.
Pro If developed sensitively would not impact on lines of sight and the fields that surround and frame Collingham.
Pro There is support for this site as determined by completed comments forms.

 

Table 4: Plot 3 A58 Leeds Road north

Pro/Con Comment
Con There is a perception that any development on or close to the flood plain will increase the flood risk. Massively emotive. Anyone supporting this scheme would have to be prepared and able to manage this reality.
Con Due to geometry of the A58 this development feels like it is causing merging with Bardsey more than the proposals for the south of A58.
Con Impact on existing properties is much greater for this site than any others proposed as it impacts on two sides not one, and impacts on longer range views.
Con There are more residents against this site than supporting it, as determined by completed comments forms.

 

Table 5: Plot 4 Wetherby side of Wattle Syke

Pro/Con Comment
Con Takes Collingham past natural boundary afforded by Wattle Syke.
Pro More people are in favour of this than against according to comments forms. Impact during construction and on completion is less for this site than others.
Con 2012 SHLAA site 3371, Boston Road Wetherby was publicised 8th October 2012. This is after the Collingham consultation event. This looks likely to be allocated and brings the border of Wetherby much closer to Collingham. The Steering Group agreed that this severely impacts on the suitability of plot 4 for housing.

 

Table 6: Plot 5 Harewood Road north

Pro/Con Comment
Con More people against this site than for.
Con This is in East Keswick not Collingham, and extends Collingham too far.

 

 

 

 

 

Table 7: Other SHLAA sites

Pro/Con Comment
Con SHLAA site 1292, Hill Top Jewitt Lane – ruled out due to impact on Jewitt Lane, impact on prominent trees. Only a proportion of this site is available as a joint owner has indicated she would not sell.
Con SHLAA site 1293, ruled out due to impact on important views both ways from Harewood Road. Lady Elizabeth Hastings Trust have indicated that they have applied for the next field west also to be included in the SHLAA process. This would be in East Keswick. Collingham Steering Group would grade this site red on the same basis as SHLAA 1293.

 

These comments have been shared with Andrew Birkbeck and will be used to assist Leeds City Council planning officers in determining sites to be included in the Site Allocations Options Report planned for public consultation in early 2013.

Subsequently the comments will be used in conjunction with the Village Survey to feed into the Neighbourhood Development Plan.

Maps plus further information available from Julian Holmes – email     holmesj3@aol.com

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Last Updated: 09.09.13