Matter 6: Site Selection Method and Process

Hallam Land Management

Examination of Leeds Site Allocations Plan Matters and Issues Statements

August 2017

Examination of Leeds Site Allocations Plan Matter 6: Site Selection Method and Process Hallam Land Management

CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 2.0 MATTER 6: SITE SELECTION METHOD AND PROCESS ...... 2 Q2. Is the methodology appropriate? ...... 2 Q4. Are the reasons for selecting the preferred sites and rejecting the others clear? ...... 3

APPENDICES APPENDIX A SUMMARY TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT APPENDIX B LAND AT BECCA HOME FARM: AN INITIAL MASTER PLAN FOR A NEW YORKSHIRE TOWN APPENDIX C LETTER TO MEMBERS OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLANS PANEL

David Lock Associates August 2017

Examination of Leeds Site Allocations Plan Matter 6: Site Selection Method and Process Hallam Land Management

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 This statement is submitted by David Lock Associates on behalf of Hallam Land Management (HLM) who are promoting a new settlement on land at Becca Home Farm (BHF).

1.2 HLM submitted representations at the Publication Draft and Revised Publication Draft Stages, promoting BHF as a new settlement location, supported by:

• Summary Technical Assessment (November 2016); • Land at Becca Home Farm: An Initial Master Plan for A New Yorkshire Town (November 2016); and, • a letter to Members of the Development Plans Panel (13th July 2016) and enclosures.

1.3 This statement amplifies HLM’s duly made representation to assist the Inspectors in their consideration of the matters and issues.

David Lock Associates 1 August 2017 Examination of Leeds Site Allocations Plan Matter 6: Site Selection Method and Process Hallam Land Management

2.0 MATTER 6: SITE SELECTION METHOD AND PROCESS

Main issue: Has the overall site selection process been based on a sound process and robust methodology within the context of the CS?

Q2. Is the methodology appropriate?

2.1 HLM provided comprehensive information in submissions to Leeds City Council (LCC) and members in promoting BHF as a new settlement (see appendices). However, the method adopted by LCC was inconsistent and selective in the information used to adequately make a decision on site allocations. The Council has not provided robust justification or proportionate evidence to discount the BHF site and allocate the Parlington Estate site as a new settlement within the Outer North East Housing Market Character Area.

2.2 The alteration of Green Belt boundaries and the creation of a new settlement is a significant strategic decision for this plan period and beyond. Such a decision needs to be underpinned by a consistent and robust evidence base. It is also important that LCC carries forward its strategy to meet housing needs over the plan period by focusing on the delivery of new settlements in combination with growth at main settlements, as opposed to using the PAS sites that are not sufficient in scale to accommodate long-term needs.

2.3 HLM consider that the approach set out in Paragraph 2.30 of CD 1/1 lacks rigour or transparency.

The assessment process has considered the Core Strategy approach; the relationship of the site to the settlement hierarchy, whether brownfield or greenfield, the more preferable sites to release in Green Belt review terms – (those having least effect on the five Green Belt purposes), site attributes – whether it can be developed physically, considering comments from infrastructure providers, local views from the representations received through public consultation and ward members, as well as the findings of the sustainability assessment of sites. It is a combination of all these factors that have led to the suite of allocations in each area.

2.4 Detailed comments on the methodology are set out below.

Site Assessment

2.5 The site assessments were based on:

• planning metrics such as proximity to train stations, agricultural land classification, etc. • a Green Belt assessment; and, • comments from LCC Highways, Highways England, and Environment Agency.

2.6 However, there were no comments from the following consultees despite comment boxes being provided in the site assessment form:

David Lock Associates 2 August 2017 Examination of Leeds Site Allocations Plan Matter 6: Site Selection Method and Process Hallam Land Management

• Network Rail • Yorkshire Water • Leeds City Council for ecology, education, and flood risk • Utilities – gas, electricity, telecoms • Heritage England • Natural England • Yorkshire Water.

2.7 HLM question why these organisations did not provide comments at the time on the proposed site allocations to ensure a robust assessment. It is not satisfactory to consider highways, Green Belt, and flood risk but not, for example, ecology, foul drainage and utilities. HLM recommended at an early stage that LCC commission a formal study to review the feasibility and sustainability of all new settlement growth options in the Outer North East on a rigorous and transparent basis.

Sustainability Appraisal

2.8 The SA makes judgements of potential new settlement sites on 27 criteria and scores the proposed site allocations. HLM is concerned that for new settlements, facilities that would be provided as an integral part of the proposal were not taken into account in the scoring, whereas those sites close to existing facilities benefitted from this in the scoring.

2.9 The SA assessment also included inconsistencies, lacked clarity and varied between stages of the plan preparation. Our representations highlighted these. Further, it has been unclear what sources of information the Council has been using to make their judgements on site. We submitted a Summary Technical Assessment (Appendix A) to help to Council in their decision making, but this appears not to have been taken account of.

Q4. Are the reasons for selecting the preferred sites and rejecting the others clear?

2.10 The reasons for selecting the preferred sites and rejecting the others are not clear. HLM’s comments focus on the specific approach to considering BHF against Parlington. These were raised in our letter to members of LCC Development Plans Panel on the 13th July 2016 attached at Appendix C.

2.11 BHF was discounted in the site assessment and sustainability appraisal in favour of Parlington, but there are marginal differences between the sites and significant issues with Parlingon that do no clearly demonstrate the allocation to be justified when considered against BHF.

2.12 HLM rebutted the reasons given in our representation on the Revised Publication Draft Consultation in November 2016. This representation was supported by evidence form the

David Lock Associates 3 August 2017 Examination of Leeds Site Allocations Plan Matter 6: Site Selection Method and Process Hallam Land Management

Summary Technical Assessment (Appendix A) and initial master plan (Appendix B) we submitted to the Council. A summary of our comments is provided below.

Site Assessment

Heritage

2.13 The Council concluded that there would be an unacceptable impact on several significant heritage assets and the character of Potterton hamlet, but no evidence was provided to support this claim, or comments from Heritage England. Our Summary Technical Assessment and initial master plan showed how these would be protected.

2.14 In contrast, Parlington has numerous heritage assets but there is no discussion of the effect on these assets, or comment from Historic England – this is despite reference in the Report of Consultation (CD1/40) that Historic England ‘expressed concerns over the potential harm to a number of designated and non-designated heritage assets’.

Landscape

2.15 The Council concluded that BHF would have a significant impact on the landscape setting in the Special Landscape Area (SLA), but no detailed comments were provided to support these conclusions. Policy N37 does not preclude development on landscape but expects siting, design and materials to be sympathetic, and landscape mitigation to be undertaken where necessary.

2.16 The assessment at the time did not take into account mitigation, which is clearly proposed in our Summary Technical Assessment. Parlington is also located in the SLA, but there is no mention of this policy in the Parlington assessment.

Green Belt

2.17 The Council concluded on BHF that:

• Tthe site does not have strong, logical boundaries to help contain development. • There would be significant effects on setting and special character of historic features due to the scale and location of the site. • The Becca Banks scheduled monument would be difficult to mitigate, and Potterton would be surrounded and subsumed by the new settlement. • The site would significantly reduce the Green Belt gap with the neighbouring settlement of Barwick in Elmet. The gap would be insufficient and harm would occur. However, no merging of settlements would occur.

2.18 Our Summary Technical Assessment explains how Green Belt issues could be dealt with; for example:

David Lock Associates 4 August 2017 Examination of Leeds Site Allocations Plan Matter 6: Site Selection Method and Process Hallam Land Management

• The site is well contained by landform and woodland features, and by the A64 to the north. • New defensible boundaries would be identified using existing roads, field boundaries and other notable features. • The south-western corner of the site would be kept free from built development to maintain separation from Barwick in Elmet. • Trees and woodland currently maintain separation between Potterton and the site. In addition, the site is separated from Barwick in Elmet by intervening landform and woodland. • Potterton would be surrounded by open space and woodland. • Establishing parkland areas immediately surrounding the heritage assets to maintain setting and for use as open space.

2.19 Both Parlington and BHF have similar effects on the Green Belt and this is not a differentiating factor between the two proposals.

Sustainability Appraisal

2.20 As outlined under Q2, there are inconsistencies in the SA assessment. The Council have not taken into account the information we provided in our Summary Technical Assessment. The examples below of detailed assessments highlight this.

Greenspace accessibility

2.21 Parlington was scored as a negative and BHF scored as a double negative. BHF would provide sufficient open space to support development. It is assumed Parlington could also provide sufficient open space. There is no basis to differentiate between the proposals based on this SA objective.

Flood risk

2.22 Parlington was scored as a positive and BHF scored as a double negative. BHF would only provide development in Flood Zone 1, would include comprehensive sustainable drainage that and would provide mitigation to take account of existing water features such as Cock Beck.

Air quality

2.23 Parlington was scored as neutral and BHF scored as negative. No explanation is offered for this judgement. HLM assume this to be as a result of proximity of parts of the site to the A64. However, the form of development would be controlled (including offsetting development from potential sources of emissions such as the A64) and technical assessment would ensure that no adverse effects occur.

David Lock Associates 5 August 2017 Examination of Leeds Site Allocations Plan Matter 6: Site Selection Method and Process Hallam Land Management

Summary

2.24 The Council has not provided robust justification or proportionate evidence to discount the BHF site and to demonstrate that the allocation of the Parlington Estate site as a new settlement within the Outer North East Housing Market Character Area is the most appropriate strategy. Therefore, HLM consider that the plan in its current form with land allocated at Parlington for a new settlement is unsound.

David Lock Associates 6 August 2017 Examination of Leeds Site Allocations Plan Matter 6: Site Selection Method and Process Hallam Land Management

APPENDIX A SUMMARY TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT

David Lock Associates August 2017

Becca Home Farm Leeds

Summary Technical Assessment

November 2016

Prepared on behalf of Hallam Land Management

David Lock Associates Fore Consulting FPCR Hamer Associates Land Research Associates Rodgers Leask Orion Heritage Becca Home Farm, Leeds Summary Technical Assessment

CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION 2 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS 4 3.0 PRIMARY INFRASTRUCTURE CAPACITIES 13 4.0 TRANSPORT AND MOVEMENT 16 5.0 INITIAL DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES 19

APPENDIX 1 CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES PLAN Becca Home Farm, Leeds Summary Technical Assessment

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 This report summarises technical assessments that have been carried out to support the initial master planning and feasibility work for strategic development of land at Becca Hall, to the east of Leeds (hereafter referred to as the ‘site’).

1.2 The site comprises approximately 300 hectares of agricultural land and woodland between Becca Hall and Potterton Hall under the control of Hallam Land Management. The site is close to the A64 / A1 (M) intersection and includes Becca Home Farm and Bimbo Farm. The land lies within the parishes of Aberford and Barwick in Elmet with Scholes. Further land is also available to support highway improvements.

1.3 The technical assessments cover topic areas, such as environmental factors, landscape characteristics, transport and access, and primary infrastructure, within and surrounding the site. This report analyses how these might influence the future development of the site for a new settlement. Given the scale of the site, this Figure 1 - Site Location and Land Control report does not seek to provide a comprehensive record of all technical issues, but identifies the key and significant issues arising from initial technical analysis.

2 Becca Home Farm, Leeds Summary Technical Assessment

1.4 This summary report has been prepared by 1.5 Chapter 2 reviews environmental factors; David Lock Associates and is informed by chapter 3 considers primary infrastructure; the following research and ongoing Chapter 4 looks at transport and access; technical assessments: and chapter 5 sets out initial development constraints and opportunities. • Access Appraisal by Fore 1.6 This report remains in draft form, and will • Landscape and Visual Analysis by FPCR be updated from time to time where • Ecological Summary by FPCR additional information comes forward.

• Soil and Agricultural Quality of Land by Land Research Associates

• Foul and Surface Water Feasibility by Rodgers Leask

• Preliminary Utilities Appraisal by Rodgers Leask

• Heritage Desk-Based Assessment by Orion Heritage

• Review of Strategic Utilities by Hamer Associates.

3 Becca Home Farm, Leeds Summary Technical Assessment

2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL Landscape and Visual Analysis 2.5 The developable parts of the site are 2.2 Local landscape varies across the site visually separated from Aberford, with FACTORS reflecting the local topography and is extensive areas of intervening woodland. It is also separated from Potterton by trees Minerals defined by landscape features such as extensive woodland blocks and belts and and woodland, with a limited relationship 2.1 A Minerals Safeguarding Area (Coal) covers along the eastern edge, where a walled parts of the site: close to the western buildings. Within this structure, the overarching character is of large arable garden is present adjacent to a contained boundary and south of the A64. The field within the site. In addition, the site is Natural Resources and Waste Local Plan fields with peripheral vestiges of former formal parkland associated with country separated from Barwick in Elmet by states that the Council will seek to ensure intervening landform and woodland. that the mineral resources, such as coal, houses. Proposed development should are protected from developments that may retain existing features and provide new 2.6 Analysis of the landscape has identified a prejudice their future extraction. However, woodland, hedgerow and tree planting to range of measures to create a receptive the presence of a mineral safeguarding reconnect fragmented areas. There are environment to accommodate substantial area does not mean that other also opportunities to enhance former strategic development: development within a Minerals parkland areas. • existing woodland blocks including Safeguarding Area is unacceptable. This 2.3 The site lies within a Special Landscape Aberford Dykes could be minerals area will be further explored in Area designated under Unitary incorporated into the green future technical work. Development Plan Policy N37. infrastructure to contain Development will have regard to the development; objectives of this policy. • at the northern boundary, there are 2.4 The site is generally well defined and opportunities to extend woodland contained within the local landscape as a planting within the vicinity of the A64 result of the topography and the extensive to contain the proposed woodland cover in and around the site. development and/or retain open Beccamoor Plantation lies in the north of areas allowing a gateway presence in the site and Aberford Dykes provide a clear views from the A64; wooded boundary to the south. South Plantation lies within the site but is • opportunities for establishing excluded from the present land control parkland can be explored as well as because there are no proposals for it to be keeping the areas immediately anything other than woodland. around heritage assets free from

4 Becca Home Farm, Leeds Summary Technical Assessment

built development as an appropriate 2.7 A Strategic Green Infrastructure Concept setting but as public open space. has been derived from this analysis. The GI Concept will continue to evolve alongside • the elevated south western corner of development proposals. the site should remain free of built development to maintain separation with Barwick in Elmet.

5 Becca Home Farm, Leeds Summary Technical Assessment

Figure 2 Draft Green Infrastructure Concept Diagram Source: FPCR

5 Becca Home Farm, Leeds Summary Technical Assessment

Green Belt 2.8 The site lies within the South and West Yorkshire Green Belt. Future development of the site would necessitate a review of the Green Belt in this area. New defensible boundaries would be identified using existing roads, field boundaries and other notable features. The site is well contained by landform and woodland features, and by the A64 to the north. With Green Belt retained around the site, the surrounding landscape would continue to perform successfully against the five purposes of the Green Belt.

Figure 3 Green Belt Source: FPCR

6 Becca Home Farm, Leeds Summary Technical Assessment

Agricultural Land Quality 2.12 All of the topsoils are suitable for reuse 2.9 The site is predominantly agricultural land should the site be developed, though the and woodland with associated farm higher quality sandy soils in the north may buildings. The site is made up of large need to be stripped and stockpiled fields, mainly under arable cropping with separately to the clay loams elsewhere on some grassland used for grazing and a site. The topsoils should make a moderate number of woodlands within the site to good quality resource for landscaping. boundary.

2.10 An assessment of soil and agricultural land Figure 4 Agricultural Land Classification quality by Land Research Associates found Source: Land Research Associates that soils across the site vary principally in depth, texture and drainage:

• deep clayey soils with impeded drainage comprise the majority of the site;

• shallow soils over limestone, primarily on upper slopes and summits;

• moderately shallow soils with a permeable clay subsoil and sandier groundwater affected soils in the north of the site.

2.11 Of the agricultural land surveyed, 40% was found to be of best and most versatile quality (2% grade 2 and 38% subgrade 3a), and 49% was of poorer agricultural quality, subgrade 3b. The remaining 11% was non- agricultural land.

7 Becca Home Farm, Leeds Summary Technical Assessment

Nature Conservation sites contribution to local and regional 2.13 An initial ecological survey confirms that ecological networks. the vast majority of the site is of limited Figure 5 Phase 1 Habitat Plan Source: FPCR botanical value, owing to the predominance of large intensively managed arable fields and improved and poor semi-improved grassland. Some small areas with potentially greater interest were noted, including areas of woodland, hedgerows, semi-improved neutral and magnesium limestone grassland. More detailed surveys will be required to confirm the status of the grassland habitats.

2.14 The site and its surrounding area is of value to a range of fauna such as badgers, bats, otter and water vole and further species- specific work will be undertaken through the evolution of the proposals. The retention of the majority of the habitats of conservation interest and subsequent appropriate management, in conjunction with adoption of mitigation measures during construction and the creation of new habitats, would ensure that the conservation status of the majority of the notable species present on-site is enhanced and would provide tangible benefits for a range of flora and fauna. Generous green infrastructure would ensure the protection of several Habitats of Principle Importance and would also maintain and enhance the

8 Becca Home Farm, Leeds Summary Technical Assessment

Archaeology Heritage 2.18 Further work will be undertaken to fully 2.15 A desktop archaeological assessment has 2.17 There are no Registered Parks and Gardens mitigate any impact of development on established that the site has a varied or Historic Battlefields within or near to the these assets to ensure their settings are potential for archaeological remains of all site. Barwick in Elmet Conservation Area taken into account. pre-historic and historic periods. Of lies around 400m to the south-west of the particular note is the high potential for site. The site contains two Scheduled archaeological remains dating to the Monuments: Aberford Dykes (to the south Roman period in the south of the site. of the site) and Potterton Deserted Other than this a low potential for Medieval Village (to the west of the site). archaeology is identified. There are also a number of the listed buildings that lie close to the site: 2.16 Current evidence suggests that the archaeological potential of the site is not • Grade II* Listed Building: sufficient to constrain development. West Wing, Potterton Hall However, given the potential for buried archaeological remains to be present in • Grade II Listed Buildings: certain areas of the site, it is anticipated that a programme of archaeological work South Wing and Attached East Wing, Potterton Hall; will be required. Barn with integral Stables located c.15m north of East Wing, Potterton Hall;

Gate Piers and Quadrant Walls with Railings to Potterton Hall;

Well Head and two Troughs c. 20 m south of Pond near Potterton Hall;

Becca Hall;

Milepost on the A64.

9 Becca Home Farm, Leeds Summary Technical Assessment

Figure 6 Landscape and Heritage Plan source FPCR

10 Becca Home Farm, Leeds Summary Technical Assessment

Flood Risk

2.19 The EA flood risk mapping data indicates the majority of the site to be in Flood Zone 1, with small sections along the southern boundary in Flood Zone 2 and Flood Zone 3. The Flood Zone 2 and 3 areas are associated with Potterton Beck and Cock Beck which run along much of the southern boundary of the site. Proposed built development will be on land in Flood Zone 1.

2.20 There are a few small isolated areas of surface water flood risk; these are associated with the local watercourse and ditch system within the site. As the development proposals progress, existing watercourse channels and upstream catchments will be reviewed such that sufficient stand-off is provided to the proposed built development areas.

Figure 7 Fluvial Flood Risk Source: Environment Agency

11 Becca Home Farm, Leeds Summary Technical Assessment

Public Rights of Way 2.21 The site contains a number of public Rights of Way, and the continuity of these Rights of Way should be part of the plans for the development of the site:

• Miry Way: Definitive Bridleway BARWICK 27 which commences at Potterton Lane close to Potterton Hall and continues south east linking into Definitive Bridleway PARLINGTON 6 south of the site.

• Definitive Bridleway ABERFORD 3 which commences at the A64 and heads southeast linking to Aberford.

• Definitive Footpath PARLINGTON 7 which links Miry Way and bridleway ABERFORD 3.

• Definitive Footpath BARWICK 29 which links north-west from Becca Home Farm towards Potterton Lane.

Figure 8 Rights of Way Source: Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2014 (c) Leeds City Council 2015

12 Becca Home Farm, Leeds Summary Technical Assessment

3.0 Primary Infrastructure Foul Water Electricity 3.3 Based upon the existing topography in 3.6 There are a number of electric cables and Capacities the area, foul flows generated at the site overhead lines crossing the site. would need to be pumped. It is likely that Drainage 3.7 It is likely that a number of diversions and an efficient solution would require more off-site reinforcement would be required Surface Water than one foul pumping station due to the to accommodate the proposed 3.1 The surface water drainage network size of the site. This will be confirmed as development. Further enquiries will be should incorporate a combination of proposals develop. highway drainage, Section 104 Public submitted to Northern Powergrid to Sewers (offered for adoption with 3.4 Given the scale of the development determine the scope for existing Yorkshire Water) and SuDS elements such proposals, it is considered unlikely that apparatus to supply the proposed as conveyance swales, balancing ponds, the local sewerage network in Barwick in development. filter strips, permeable paving and Elmet or the existing Sewage Treatment wetlands. Works would have capacity to receive foul flows from the completed development 3.2 Prior to a more detailed surface water without significant reinforcement works drainage strategy being developed for the although there may be scope to receive site, it is recommended that a suite of flows from initial development phases. A infiltration testing is undertaken to give connection could be made directly to the an indication of the likely viability of Sewage Treatment Works inlet to serve incorporating infiltration drainage within the proposed development. This should the scheme. Where infiltration is not avoid the need to undertake works to the feasible within all or part of a catchment, existing sewerage network in Barwick in it is intended to discharge attenuated Elmet and help to minimise disruption. surface water to the watercourse which currently serves as an outfall for that 3.5 To establish the issues that a catchment. development of this scale is likely to pose to the existing sewerage infrastructure, further enquiries will be made with Yorkshire Water.

13 Becca Home Farm, Leeds Summary Technical Assessment

Gas off-site reinforcement are required to Water Supply 3.8 A National High Pressure Main (NHP service the proposed development. 3.13 There is limited existing water main Main) passes through the north-eastern Telecommunications apparatus within the site. Main routes are corner of the site, the only National Grid along the A64, Kiddal Lane and Potterton 3.11 There are ground and overhead plants apparatus within the site. There are also Lane and serving the nearby village of within and close to the site as well as two Regional High Pressure Mains that Barwick in Elmet. overhead lines and ground routes. cross the site and medium and low 3.14 Outside of the site, there are supplies to pressure mains. 3.12 Based upon the current BT Openreach the Dogs Trust Kennels and Potterton Hall records, it is not anticipated that any 3.9 The NHP Main will fall under PADHI to the north and west of the site diversions would be required within the guidance (Planning Advice for respectively. site. However, diversions may be required Developments near Hazardous to facilitate the construction of the 3.15 According to Yorkshire Water records, it is Installations) and is likely to be subject to not anticipated that any water main zones which would restrict the highway access points to serve the site. diversions would be required within the construction activities which could take site. Diversions may be required to place and also the proximity of built facilitate the construction of the highway development. Further enquiries will be access points to serve the site. made with National Grid and Northern Gas Networks to understand how 3.16 Further enquires will be submitted to diversions could take place. It is Yorkshire Water to determine whether anticipated that re-routing and the existing apparatus in the area would reinforcement of these pipes will be have sufficient capacity to supply the possible which can be delivered as part of proposed development without the need the development proposal, will enable for offsite reinforcement. built development in closer proximity to retained pipes, and any abnormal costs can be accounted for in the overall site viability assessment.

3.10 Enquiries will be submitted to the National Grid and Northern Gas Networks to establish existing capacity and whether

14 Becca Home Farm, Leeds Summary Technical Assessment

4.0 Transport and Movement Figure 9 Highways Source: Fore Highways 4.1 To the east and north of the site are the A1(M) and A64 respectively. The A64 to the north of the site is a single carriageway until 600m west of Bramham Crossroads where it becomes a dual carriageway.

4.2 To the north east of the site is Bramham Crossroads (a grade separated interchange) where the A1(M) and A64 intersect. The interchange is a six arm roundabout, accommodating traffic between the A1(M) and A64 routes as well as to Paradise Way to the north for local access to Bramham and Main Street to the south for local access to Aberford. Free flow slip roads are provided on the south east side of the interchange, allowing movements between the A64 westbound and A1(M) southbound and A1(M) northbound and A64 eastbound to bypass the interchange.

4.3 Initial assessments suggest that there are no highway issues that impede strategic development of the site.

15 Becca Home Farm, Leeds Summary Technical Assessment

Access Public Transport 4.4 It is proposed the main site access is a 4.7 There are a number of existing bus 4.9 The nearest rail stations to the proposed roundabout off the A64 to the west of services close to the site that serve a development site are Garforth and East existing access to Becca Hall. The dual range of destinations. The Transdev’s Garforth. Both of these are approximately carriageway section leading into the Coastliner service provides a direct and 10km from the site. Other rail stations Bramham Crossroads junction should be frequent connection between Leeds and within a reasonable distance of the site extended by approximately 220m to this York. Beyond York, these services go on include Ulleskelf (14km) and Micklefield new roundabout. It is likely the to Malton, Whitby or Scarborough. There (11km) and Church Fenton (18 km). The roundabout will need to be approximately are also buses to local destinations. West Yorkshire Combined Authority has 50m in diameter. plans for a new station to the east of 4.8 There are several bus-based Park and Ride Micklefield known as ‘East Leeds 4.5 A secondary access would be located to sites (existing and planned). For trips to Parkway’. This would provide a strategic the east of the Dogs Trust building and York there are two sites accessible on the park and ride station for both local Woodlands Farm. west side of the city: Askham Bar and commuter journeys to Leeds and direct Poppleton Bar; for trips to Leeds there are 4.6 This access strategy would provide trains to regional destinations such as two potential bus-based Park and Ride straightforward access to both A64 and Manchester, York and possibly London. sites planned for East Leeds and Grimes A1(M) in all directions and would provide Dyke, Whinmoor. The East Leeds site a choice of route options on the strategic gained planning permission in October highway network towards Leeds, York 2014 and is likely to be open in 2016. No and other destinations. Vehicular access information is available yet regarding the to local settlements such as Barwick in Grimes Dyke site but it will provide an Elmet and Aberford would be regulated equivalent facility to enable trips on the to limit the traffic impacts on these A64 corridor to Leeds city centre to, in existing settlements. part, be made by public transport.

16 Becca Home Farm, Leeds Summary Technical Assessment

4.10 This would provide a strategic park and ride station for both local commuter journeys to Leeds and direct trains to regional destinations such as Manchester, York and possibly London.

4.11 This existing public transport network can be exploited to provide good services for any new settlement on the site. For example, the Transdev Coastliner could be diverted into the site and at the north close to and parallel with the A64, and the use of the park and ride facilities could be encouraged. There is also the potential for public transport links via Potterton Lane towards Barwick in Elmet. The existing local bus service to Aberford could be extended to serve the new community providing extended local links.

Figure 10 Sustainable Transport Proposals Source: Fore

17 Becca Home Farm, Leeds Summary Technical Assessment

Pedestrian and Cycle Access 4.12 The National Cycle Network (NCN) Route 4.14 Within the site itself, a safe and attractive 66 lies to the east of the site and runs environment for walking and cycling can adjacent to the A1. North of Bramham be provided, enabling future residents of Crossroads this is a traffic-free route that the site to make journeys to locations leads north to Bramham and Wetherby. onsite by foot or by cycle, whilst also South of Bramham Crossroads the route access off-site routes and locations. is on road and provides access to Aberford and Garforth. To the west of the site is the West Yorkshire Cycle Route. This runs north south through Barwick in Elmet and Potterton. It provides access to Bramham to the north and NCN Route 66 to the south just north of Garforth. The site is also crossed by several Public Rights of Way (footpaths and bridle paths).

4.13 Dedicated pedestrian and cycle routes can be provided, offering high-quality connections to the surrounding areas. With the proposed access arrangements, good accessibility to local amenities, destinations and public transport services can be achieved from the site, thereby, encouraging local journeys to be undertaken on foot or by cycle (rather than by private car).

18 Becca Home Farm, Leeds Summary Technical Assessment

5.0 Initial Development APPENDIX 1 Constraints and CONSTRAINTS AND Opportunities OPPORTUNITIES PLAN

5.1 Drawing on the above technical analysis Constraints and Opportunities Plans have been prepared to provide a framework within which various master plan options can be tested, highlighting the main issues that will need to be taken account of in the ongoing master planning activity. These are attached at Appendix 1.

19 C O N S T R A I N T S A N D O P P O R T U N I T I E S Becca Home Farm, Leeds Summary Technical Assessment

A64, major highway network provides scope for excellent accessibility and public transport links

Plateau, level area of site oﬀers opportunity for an alternative masterplanning design response

Potterton Hall, existing wood and parkland help contribute Plateau to a strong green setting

Becca Hall, existing wood Becca and parkland help contribute Hall to a strong green setting Western edge provides scope for open space, sports and recreation Potterton G Hall D E R I L Site of Deserted Medieval Valley Village to be respected by I E limiting development and N additional green space

Valley and gently undulating land creates an opportunity for a contrasting masterplanning design response to the plateau

Existing site topography and becks provide a basis Green infrastructure to for a sustainable drainage protect Aberford Dykes help solution contribute to new linear park A es May 2016 berford Dyk HLM041 / 034 REV A

1 1:10,000@A3 0m 400m

B E C C A H O M E F A R M davidlock.com Examination of Leeds Site Allocations Plan Matter 6: Site Selection Method and Process Hallam Land Management

APPENDIX B LAND AT BECCA HOME FARM: AN INITIAL MASTER PLAN FOR A NEW YORKSHIRE TOWN

David Lock Associates August 2017

Land at Becca Home Farm An Initial Master Plan for A New Yorkshire Town

Prepared by David Lock Associates on behalf of Hallam Land Management November 2016

LAND AT BECCA HALL FARM A New Yorkshire Town November 2016

Contents

Location ...... 3 Access and Movement Strategy ...... 20 Access ...... 20 The Proposed Site ...... 4 Public Transport ...... 20 The Lie of the Land ...... 6 Circulation ...... 20 Site Constraints ...... 8 Site Considerations ...... 10 Access and Movement Detail ...... 22 Concept for the New Settlement ...... 12 Vehicular Access ...... 22 Key Assumptions: ...... 12 Sustainable Transport and Access...... 22 Public Transport ...... 22 Landscape Framework ...... 14 Cycling ...... 22 Character Areas ...... 16 Walking ...... 22 Town Centre ...... 16 Development Parcels ...... 24 Employment ...... 16 Arrangement ...... 24 Villages ...... 16 Phasing Considerations ...... 24 Education ...... 18

LAND AT BECCA HALL FARM A New Yorkshire Town November 2016

Location

 In the key communications corridor between Leeds and York

 Close and with direct access to the strategic road network

 Frontage to the A64

 Fully within the Outer North East Housing Market Area

 This site has very similar geography to the previously identified site at Headley – physical, social, visual, environmental, economic.

LAND AT BECCA HALL FARM A New Yorkshire Town November 2016

The Proposed Site

 Farmland  This iteration of the proposed site and master plan is sensitive to a number of issues that have arisen since the  …..between Becca Hall and Potterton Hall….. first iteration: o Land adjacent to the A1 and Aberford is  Extensive woodland blocks and belts relatively open and visible o It would benefit from a new landscape  Frontage to the A64 framework to define development land and to limit exposure  Well separated from the villages of Aberford and Barwick- o This will need time to mature, but if it is planned in-Elmet now, this land could be allocated for development as an extension to the New  Circa 300 ha (750 acres) in total. Yorkshire Town in the next plan period o The ability for the concept to evolve to site considerations

LAND AT BECCA HALL FARM A New Yorkshire Town November 2016

The Lie of the Land

 The land is largely level from the A64 to Becca Home Farm and then slopes down towards the south and south east and the Cock Beck

 Becca Hall and Potterton Hall sit on the edge of this plateau facing south, as does Becca Home Farm

 Cock Beck, Potterton Beck and two streams to their north create an undulating topography of gentle ridges and shallow valleys topped by woodland belts and blocks in the south of the site. Woodland is the dominant landscape feature

 The north side of the Cock Beck and Potterton Beck has the remnants of an ancient ditch and bank system – The Ridge and Becca Banks – parts of the Aberford Dykes, a Scheduled Monument

 The valley of the Cock Beck and Potterton Beck creates more open views into the site from parts of Cattle Lane between Barwick-in-Elmet and Aberford, but always with woodland as the backdrop

 Land south of the Cock Beck and Potterton Beck beyond the site boundary rises up to similar heights across the valley.

LAND AT BECCA HALL FARM A New Yorkshire Town November 2016

A64

plateau

Potterton Hall Becca Home Farm A1(M) Becca Hall

Barwick in Elmet Aberford

LAND AT BECCA HALL FARM A New Yorkshire Town November 2016

Site Constraints

 Open views to the south  Vestiges of the landscape parkland of Potterton Park and  Gas pipelines are present within the site of Becca Park beyond the current site boundary to the east

 Becca Hall and Potterton Hall are listed, Grade II. Part of  The land is within the designated Green Belt, as was Potterton Hall is Grade II* Headley, the previously proposed site

 Scheduled Monuments (ditch and mound earthworks)  The majority of the agricultural land is Grade 3b, so not along Cock Beck and Potterton Beck on the southern “best-and-most-versatile” boundary (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberford_Dykes ).  Much of the site lies within a designated Special  There is a Deserted Medieval Village to the south of Landscape Area Potterton Hall that is also a Scheduled Monument

 Extensive woodland blocks

LAND AT BECCA HALL FARM A New Yorkshire Town November 2016

Site Considerations

 Listed buildings and their associated settings and  Need for sensitive settings for Potterton Hall – and the parkland wider setting of Becca Hall

 Protection and enhancement of the existing woodland  Setting and buffering to Aberford: blocks and belts o Strawberry Hill is high ground that visually separates the two  Woodland blocks and belts add instant character and o More land could come forward for development sense of enclosure to the site – they define the skyline. once an appropriate landscape has matured

 Frontage to and access from the A64, probably in two  Setting and buffering to Barwick in Elmet locations  Views into the site from Cattle Lane to the south  Site fall and drainage to the Cock Beck and Potterton Beck, to the south and southeast, and the need for storm  High pressure gas mains – buffering or relocation to the water attenuation site edge

 Protection and setting for the Scheduled Monuments:  Potential noise pollution from surrounding highways o the Aberford Dykes and o the Potterton Deserted Medieval Village

LAND AT BECCA HALL FARM A New Yorkshire Town November 2016

Concept for the New Settlement

 A new country town of 3,000 dwellings in the current Plan period  Local connection to Potterton Lane for pedestrians and cycles and potentially public transport and regulated local  Two “villages” with distinctive characters, Upper Becca traffic. General traffic egress to the north only and Lower Becca  A Woodland heart  Villages have Primary schools and Local Centres  A new country park linking Barwick in Elemet and Aberford  There is potential for a further “village” on potential expansion land Key Assumptions:  General housing density between 30dph (low) and 35dph  There is potential for further development north and west (medium), with the potential for 50dph at key mixed use of Potterton and a third access from the A64 hubs with good accessibility

 A new town centre around the western entrance  Floorspace ratio in the Town and Local Centres of at least 1:1  A Secondary School located to be accessible to both the proposed and existing communities  50% of the floorspace in the Town and Local Centre to be residential  Employment uses on the A64 frontage between the two accesses and located close to the town centre  Employment space at 4500 sqm per ha to include access,  At least two points of access from the A64 parking and landscape

LAND AT BECCA HALL FARM A New Yorkshire Town November 2016

Landscape Framework

 Building on existing themes:  Continuous woodland belts to enhance ecological o Woodland Blocks, connected by….. potential.

o …..Woodland Belts, with no building higher than the  The start of a new Country Park linking Barwick with highest tree Aberford featuring:

o Tree-lined avenues o a wide belt of public open space

o Landscape Parkland with potential to create a newly o an appropriate setting for the Aberford Dyes enhanced setting for Potterton Hall and Becca Hall o provision for storm water attenuation and outflow to the o Retained gate lodges and other key buildings Cock Beck, and

o Retained specimen trees o meadows created as public open space below the Aberford Dykes as a setting for Cock Beck and  “Rooms” for development defined and enclosed by Potterton Beck woodland

 Woodland remains dominant in long- and short- distance views of the skyline

LAND AT BECCA HALL FARM A New Yorkshire Town November 2016

Character Areas

Town Centre Employment  Town centre around the west access from the A64  Office accommodation fronting the A64  Blocks fronting the main access to provide: o Convenience and some comparison shops  Industrial and distribution accommodation near the A64/A1 o Other related public services and facilities junction o Leisure facilities o Healthcare facilities Villages o Small scale employment o Apartments  The two villages are in the centre of the site either end of a o Specialised forms of housing spine running south from the western access from the A64

Local Centre  Each has a unique focus: o Upper Becca has a town centre near to the A64, one of  The local centre, around Becca Home Farm, will contain: the key nodes in the development o Local convenience shopping o Lower Becca has a local centre around some of the o Meeting space existing farm buildings at Becca Home Farm as a o Local facilities and services community hub o Primary School o Special needs homes  Each village has strong connections to parkland and woodland

LAND AT BECCA HALL FARM A New Yorkshire Town November 2016

Upper Becca Employment Area

Town Centre

Lower Local Centre / Becca Community Hub

LAND AT BECCA HALL FARM A New Yorkshire Town November 2016

Education

 High quality, new education facilities add social and investment value to any new community

 Schools are the key to community development in a new settlement

 A new community of this scale would require

o At least two, 2-3 form entry Primary Schools

o One, 6+ form entry Secondary School

o “Early years” provision

 All schools would be capable of phased and incremental delivery over the life of the development (20 years plus)

 Secondary School should be capable of serving a wider catchment, potentially to include Barwick in Elmet, Thorner, Aberford, Bramham and Scholes (the nearest secondary schools are Whinmoor, Garforth, Tadcaster and Boston Spa)

LAND AT BECCA HALL FARM A New Yorkshire Town November 2016

Access and Movement Strategy

Access Circulation

 Access from the A64 via two all movement junctions  Two main spines running through the site: o A north-south spine running from the western access to  Main strategic access at the north east end including an the A64 down to Lower Becca above the Cock Beck extension of the dualled section of the A64 to the A1 through two village centres junction (all land required to facilitate this is available) o An east-west spine from the eastern access between the villages to a restricted connection with Potterton  Second access to the west near the existing bridle path Lane and farm track to serve the town centre  Each designed as a tree-lined boulevard of generous  Potential for local connections to Potterton Lane, possibly proportions regulated for through traffic  Other parallel secondary routes connecting through the Public Transport villages

 Bus services to and through the site:  Dedicated cycleways running parallel to the main boulevards connecting local centres, schools and the town o Coastliner Leeds to York and beyond to loop in from centre, and out to the wider cycle network the A64 o Extension of the existing Aberford service to the new  A full network of footpaths a for local journeys and town centre recreation, in particular connecting to and through the o Potential extension of the guided bus service from central park and woods Seacroft to serve the new community, with appropriate priority in the corridor

LAND AT BECCA HALL FARM A New Yorkshire Town November 2016

Access and Movement Detail

Vehicular Access o The 64 bus service from Middleton to Aberford via Leeds currently  The main site access should be a roundabout off the A64 at the end of terminates just north of Aberford, and runs twice per hour in each the dual carriageway section, which will provide access to the eastern direction. The 64 service could be extended into the new town, part of the site. It will need to be up to 50m in diameter. serving each of the villages, before turning around and leaving the  A public transport/secondary access route can be provided onto site the way it entered. o Potterton Lane north of Barwick-in-Elmet Previous discussions with First Group have shown potential for the  A second access to the A64 is located to the east of the Dogs Trust 64 service to be extended, and the principle of doing this should building near the line of the existing bridle way. not be an issue. The length of the extension to the service might range between 3km and 5km, depending on the extent of  Potterton Lane has the potential to be reopened as a third connection to the A64 in the future, if required penetration into the site. This could be undertaken on a phased basis.  The precise geometry of the individual junctions will need traffic flow o Bus stops for the 64 and the Feeder Bus services can be located analysis and capacity assessments. within 5 to10 minutes’ walk of all new homes, with the Coastliner Sustainable Transport and Access collecting passengers from a transport hub in the town centre.  Becca will be a sustainable new settlement, with attractive prospects Cycling for travel by public transport, cycle or on foot. A number of measures o There are opportunities to provide off-road cycle routes through are proposed at this early stage: the site. These routes could also connect to a Cycle Hub in the Public Transport new town centre with cycle parking located close to the bus stops o Transdev’s Coastliner bus services provide a direct and frequent for the Coastliner services. connection between Leeds and York, with three services per hour Walking in each direction. Beyond York, these services go on to Malton, o Attractive and safe walking routes could be provided within the Whitby or Scarborough. It is unlikely that this could be diverted new town to encourage journeys on foot to schools, bus stops, wholly to serve the entire site if it is still to be considered a direct employment areas, local centres and the town centre. Walking route. However, a short diversion of the Coastliner services into routes would provide convenient routes for residents and visitors. the site (approximately 700m in additional distance) would serve o Attractive walking routes to Aberford and to Barwick-in-Elmet the north of the site via the primary and secondary vehicular could be provided in order to encourage sustainable movement access on the A64. This would pick up the town centre for the new between the three settlements. A number of footpaths and country town and provide a good service for a large number of bridleways exist across the site, and could be improved where future residents. necessary and augmented to further enhance pedestrian permeability of the site.

LAND AT BECCA HALL FARM A New Yorkshire Town November 2016

Development Parcels

Arrangement  Development can commence either at the east end or the west end or both.  Development parcels are arranged around the primary and secondary routes through the site.  The town centre would serve three catchments: o New residents  The configuration of the land creates substantial parcels o New employees with high capacity and with different settings for different o Passing trade styles and forms of housing development  This combination will enable it to be delivered early, if so  The parcels around the town centre would accommodate required. mixed uses with employment uses fronting the A64  The choice of where to commence development may be Phasing Considerations dependent on the timing of need for the Secondary School.  This initial master plan offers great flexibility in the location, access and rate of development of the site, and the  Residential, employment and commercial development number of fronts of development that can made available can be delivered at their own pace. at any one time.  The strategic elements of the landscape framework are  However, the availability of utilities infrastructure may already in place – the woodland blocks, Potterton Park and dictate the pattern, ultimately. Becca Park. Future investment can be incremental in concert with new development  There is the opportunity to minimise early infrastructure investment by commencing development close to any of the accesses to the site from the A64.

Land at Becca Home Farm November 2016

Examination of Leeds Site Allocations Plan Matter 6: Site Selection Method and Process Hallam Land Management

APPENDIX C LETTER TO MEMBERS OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLANS PANEL

David Lock Associates August 2017

Cllr John Procter Member of Development Plans Panel Civic Hall Leeds LS1 1UR

13th July 2016

Our Ref: HLM041

By Email to: [email protected]

Dear Cllr Procter

Land at Becca Home Farm

Further to the publication of papers for the Development Plans Panel Meeting on 19th July, Hallam Land Management is, naturally, very disappointed that officers have recommended the selection of land at Parlington in preference to land at Becca Home Farm (not Becca Hall Farm as described in the papers) as the site for a prospective new settlement.

From a review of the published papers we understand that this was a judgement based on marginal differences between the two new settlement options both of which have specific constraints. Such marginal differences can be anticipated given that the respective landholdings for the two options share a common boundary to Cock Beck east of Aberford. This has caused us to examine the assessment process insofar that this can be judged from the material prepared for the July meeting. In particular, we have examined the Sustainability Appraisal summary, which appears to be the main basis for the recommendation made to the Panel, and this gives us cause to ask some questions about the judgements made.

The attached schedule sets out a commentary on the SA criteria and sub-criteria. This identifies a number of areas where there are inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the conclusions reached. We consider that there is simply not sufficient evidence in the assessment against the SA criteria and other policy considerations that justifies reaching a definitive view on the alleged advantages of the Parlington proposal. Overall there is sufficient uncertainty as to how the SA criteria have been applied to this site for us to question the overall assessment of the land at Becca Home Farm and the extent to which any changes would affect its comparative performance in respect of other sites?

Now we turn to the conclusions drawn from this assessment and other relevant assessments as set out in the committee report.

Paragraph 3.18 states that our proposal “is considered to have an unacceptable impact on several significant heritage assets as well as the surrounding wider historic environment…..” and yet our proposals carefully preserve the location, associated parkland and setting of Potterton Hall and Becca Hall and important archaeology on the site in contrast to the proposal for Parlington that occupies the core of an historic parkland.

David Lock Associates Limited 50 NORTH TH IRTEENTH STREET, CENTRAL MILTON KEYNES, MK9 3BP t: 01908 666 276 f: 01906 605 747 e: [email protected] www. david lock. com

VAT Reg. No. 486 0599 05. Regi st ered i n Engl and N o. 2422692. Regi ster ed Offi ce as above.

Paragraph 3.19 states that the site is “some way from a public transport hub and scores poorly in terms of accessibility” yet it is just 3.5 miles from Seacroft Bus Station. The site is already served by buses every 30 minutes on the A64, and we know from our detailed discussions with the operator Transdev, that they are willing to divert through the site and the frequency can be enhanced. This road also offers wide strategic connections for general traffic to all of the likely destinations for future residents and employees.

Paragraph 3.22 appears to award credit to land at Parlington for opening up access to heritage assets “with no public rights of way through it”, and contrasts it with land at Becca Home Farm that is already crossed by 2/3 public-rights-of-way. In fact Parlington also has 2/3 public-rights-of-way through the heart of the site adjacent to its heritage assets.

Further, it should be noted that the expansion areas referred to at paragraph 3.18 do not form part of the Becca Home Farm scheme, and should not play any role in its assessment.

We have also now had the opportunity to review the material submitted by the promoters of Parlington. In paragraph 3.33 of the officer’s report it says, “The new freestanding settlement [at Parlington] could be planned to meet garden village principles and provides a unique opportunity to deliver comprehensive large scale development including high quality new homes, local employment opportunities, new community green spaces and a range of supporting community services and infrastructure within an attractive environment.” This opportunity could apply equally to the land at Becca Home Farm, which is described as such in our submissions. However, DLA, as master planners with an international reputation for new settlements, and Hallam Land Management, having delivered numerous new settlements and large scale mixed-use urban extensions over the last 20 years, have significant reservations that a new community of 5,000 homes can ever be sustainable if conceived as a cul-de-sac off a motorway junction. [To assist members’ consideration of this matter we have attached the master plans from the two proposals].

Finally, paragraph 3.34 states, “There will also be a need for the proposers of Parlington to demonstrate that the delivery of their site will not jeopardise other strategic sites in the neighbouring housing markets of Garforth and East Leeds where strategic major expansions are proposed as part of the SAP”. This must be a significant concern at the heart of the delivery of the plan as a whole. What will the Council do if this cannot be demonstrated? Land at Becca Home Farm is much less likely to be in direct competition with housing land in any other HMCA and can better meet the needs of the Outer North East HMCA.

It should also be noted that the promotion of the opportunity at Becca Home Farm by an experienced team is underpinned by a promotion agreement with landowners that offers advantages compared to a single land ownership in that there is a clear incentive for timely progress to be made by all parties, safeguarding delivery and reducing the risk of inactivity. Under the promotion agreement, Hallam will have the ability to drive the scheme forward, submit an application and get S106 Agreements signed by landowners. There is no actual benefit at Parlington of there being only one landowner, if that landowner can pull out of the promotion at any time, as the University did at Headley.

We fully appreciate and recognise that Ward Members’ preference on the location of a new settlement is a consideration. However, in order for the plan to be considered sound, this preference must be supported fully by technical evidence and take account of sustainable development principles. It is our view that the technical evidence does not fully support the recommendation set out in the Development Plans Panel Report.

On behalf of Hallam Land Management, our clients, we feel that we have raised question marks over the comparative assessment of the two potential sites for a new settlement in Outer North East Leeds, and the advantages offered by Becca Home Farm,. We believe that these are sufficient for the City Council to consider, at the very least, consultation on the basis of two alternative new settlements at this stage since there is not sufficient clear water between the options to favour, definitively, one over the other.

Yours sincerely

LAWRENCE REVILL Partner email: [email protected] enc

1. Review of APPENDIX 3 SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL FOR PROPOSED NEW HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT SITES: Outer North East Gypsy and Traveller Sites 2. Becca Home Farm Master Plan 3. Parlington Phasing Plan 4. Comparison of and Commentary on Sustainability Appraisals of Alternative New Settlement Proposals

cc Rebecca Wasse, Hallam Land Management Tim Hill, Chief Planning Officer, Leeds City Council Martin Elliott, Group Manager (Policy & Plans), Leeds City Council Kathryn Holloway, Team Leader (Local Plans East), Leeds City Council

Review of APPENDIX 3 SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL FOR PROPOSED NEW HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT SITES: Outer North East Gypsy and Traveller Sites

1. The SA makes judgements on the basis of 27 criteria and sub-criteria and scores the proposals accordingly. Our first concern is that, for a number of the criteria, good scores are predicated on the availability of existing facilities based on a presumption that most development proposals will be part of or adjoining existing settlements. If applied to a proposal for a new settlement, each new settlement option is disadvantaged compared with other proposals. We would have thought it preferable to take the commitments to the provision of land and facilities as part of a new settlement as the basis on which to judge new settlements under the criteria chosen.

2. Our proposals commit to the provision of land and the construction of appropriate primary and secondary schools on the Becca Home Farm site, which would in due course offer greater choice and accessibility to existing nearby communities as well as to the new community. Paragraph 3.17 of the committee report makes reference to just one primary school at Becca Home Farm whereas the proposal includes two primary schools and a secondary school; does this indicate a fundamental misunderstanding of the proposal? It is difficult to see how this would be rated as a negative score, particularly when accessibility to existing schools (SA3) takes no account of their capacity to accommodate new pupils, whereas the new schools proposed would have ample capacity. The same is true for health provision (SA4). In contrast the Parlington proposal appears to have a neutral score on these factors, yet it is unclear what the basis would be for this given that there is no proposal for additional secondary schooling beyond a financial contribution? It seems invidious to penalise the Becca Home Farm proposal for recognising the need for, and expressing a commitment to, appropriate and new provision to meet both education and health needs.

3. On Employment (SA1) and the potential for Economic Growth (SA2), the proposal for Becca Home Farm includes a substantial area of employment land (circa 9ha) with additional employment potential in the town and local centre. Given that the threshold for a positive score is simply “the proposed use will create new employment” then we cannot see why the proposal for land at Becca Home Farm is not scored accordingly? The same threshold also applies to Economic Growth.

4. On “Community Participation” (SA8) it is by no means clear what it is about the land at Parlington that causes it to be anything other than a “Large site which could potentially accommodate new facilities on-site” and an equal score with land at Becca Home Farm.

5. On the quantity of greenspace (SA10) the proposal for land at Becca Home Farm registers no score at all and yet the Initial Master Plan is quite explicit in setting out the potential for extensive areas of public open space to be part of the setting for new development, creating typologies of all classes.

6. The judgement criteria on biodiversity (SA12) are very crude and yet appear to be very influential, and we are intrigued to understand this assessment more. The comments in summary at the end of the assessment appear to be damning of the ecological credentials of our proposals and yet neither the Becca Banks LWS (which is adjoining but outside the site boundary) nor any semi-natural ancient woodlands (which are all retained) are directly affected by the proposals. On what are these judgements based?

7. The contrasting assessment of land at Becca Home Farm and land at Parlington on the topic of flood risk (SA14) is quite bizarre. Our Summary Technical Assessment clearly shows that none of the proposed development land is in anything other than Food Zone 1

and the Initial Master Plan is explicit in recognising the need for, and allocating land for, storm water attenuation to ensure that flooding issues in the Cock Beck are not exacerbated. On this criterion we would question whether the SA is simply wrong in classifying the site as greenfield land in Flood Zone 3?

8. We are keen to understand how the criteria of accessibility, site access and local network capacity are applied under the heading Transport Network (SA15)? On the basis of information currently available we understand that land at Parlington is substantially reliant on a junction with the M1 (J47) for general accessibility and site access, and that any other routes would involve traffic passing through existing settlements. The only bus route abutting the Parlington site is the 401 service which runs once a day and no discussions have taken place in relation to imporving this service. In contrast, land at Becca Home Farm directly adjoins the strategic transport corridor between Leeds and York, and J44 of the A1M which also gives strategic connections north and south. The A64 has 30 minute high quality bus services connecting Leeds and York (we have written confirmation that the operator is willing to divert buses into the site and improve the frequency) and the public transport hub at Seacroft. We cannot understand how these two assessments of accessibility and capacity can be scored equally and hope that there is a credible explanation?

9. On air quality (SA18B), land at Becca Home Farm appears to be marked down because land abuts the A64 and is within 30m of the road. However, the criterion can only be relevant to development within this zone, and there is no reason to assume that there will be such development from any of the material submitted. Overall the site has no air quality problem, and so we query how this assessment can be determined?

CONCEPT MASTERPLAN

New access onto A64 Becca Business Park

A64 Community sports and recreation Dog’s Trust Fox and Grapes Public House Existing

Community hub to Main Street Woodland include shops, health, community uses as well as homes and New Secondary School employment Kiddal Lane Sports provision for Community sports and Secondary School Upper recreation managed as Becca community resource A1 New Primary School Village Green and Pavilion

Community hub to include shops, health, community uses as well as homes and Existing employment Becca Hall Community sports and Woodland recreation outside of New Primary School red line

Potterton Park Potterton Lane Lower Becca New linear park

Aberford Sustainable urban Aberford Dykes and drainage swales Ridges along with a new Potterton Park incorporated into a new country park May 2016 N HLM041 / 028 / B 1:5,000@A1

Barwick in Elmet 0m 400m

BECCA HOME FARM, LEEDS Legend

Site Boundary - Subject to comprehensive management plan (for Parlington) Sustainable Development Boundary

Public Rights of Way (PRoW)

Settlement Spine Road

Main Road Access from M1

Major Road Access

Existing Woodland

New Woodland

Existing Farmland

Proposed Development Plots

Community Allotments, Orchards etc.

Community facilities: GP Surgery, Dentists, Shops etc.

Renewable Energy Facility

Potential Employment Site (subject to the Council's employment supply position)

Phasing Plot Development Area (ha) North of Parlington Lane = 73 ha South of Parlington Lane = 75.1 ha

N1a - 3.3 N1b - 4.9 N1c - 5.6 S1a - 6.6 S1b - 5.6 S1c - 5.5 N2a - 4.3 N2b - 7.3 N2c - 6.4 S2a - 5.4 S2b - 4.2 S2c - 5.0 N3a - 6.8 N3b - 6.3 N3c - 4.9 S3a - 6.2 S3b - 5.5 S3c - 8.5 Restricted Secondary Access' N4a - 8.7 N4b - 5.4 N4c - 9.1 S4a - 6.8 S4b - 4.3 S4c - 11.5

200 150 100 50 0 100 200 300m

SAFETY, HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION BOX Client Project Title Drawing Title Designed Drawn Checked Approved Date CH CH/HB MS MS 4/03/16 AECOM 2 City Walk Aecom Internal Project No. Suitability Leeds 47062582 - LS11 9AE M&G UK PLP PARLINGTON Tel:+44 (0)113 391 6800 Scale @ A0 Zone / Mileage THIS DRAWING IS TO BE USED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ISSUE PHASING PLAN Fax:+44 (0)113 391 6801 THAT IT WAS ISSUED FOR AND IS SUBJECT TO AMENDMENT. A SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY 1:5000 www.aecom.com THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN PREPARED PURSUANT TO AND SUBJECT TO THE TERMS OF Purpose of issue AECOM' APPOINTMENT BY ITS CLIENT. AECOM ACCEPTS NO LIABILITY FOR ANY USE OF THIS Drawing Number Rev DOCUMENT OTHER THAN BY ITS ORIGINAL CLIENT OR FOLLOWING AECOM' EXPRESS By DRAFT AGREEMENT TO SUCH USE, AND ONLY FOR THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH IT WAS PREPARED Revision Details Date Suffix AND PROVIDED. C Check Comparison of and Commentary on Sustainability Appraisals of Alternative New Settlement Proposals

Land at Becca Home Farm Sustainability Appraisals of sites not proposed for housing allocations. Version @ 6th July 2016 HMCA Ref SHLAA SA01 SA02 SA03 SA04 SA05 SA06 SA07 SA08 SA09 SA10 SA11 SA12 SA13 SA14 SA15 SA16 SA17 SA18a SA18b SA18c SA18d SA19 SA20 SA21 SA22a SA22b SA22c Comment Outer NE n/a 5319 SA12 result in loss of western end of Becca Banks LWS, semi natural 0 0 - - 0 - + 0? u x ------0 - - 0 0 - 0 0 - - - u - - 0 0 ancient woodland and wider implications for neighbouring sites.

LandOuter at NE Parlingtonn/a 5341 0 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 x - - - - + 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 - - 0 0 - - 0 0 Sustainability Appraisals of proposed employment allocations. Version @ 6th July 2016 HMCA Ref SHLAA SA01 SA02 SA03 SA04 SA05 SA06 SA07 SA08 SA09 SA10 SA11 SA12 SA13 SA14 SA15 SA16 SA17 SA18a SA18b SA18c SA18d SA19 SA20 SA21 SA22a SA22b SA22c Comment Outer NE MX2-39 5320 + + 0 0 0 0 - 0 - - 0 ------+ 0 - - 0 0 0 0 - - - - u - - 0 0

SA Criteria Possible Employment Use Potential Economic Growth Education accessibility Health Accessibility Crim Culture Leisure Recreation Housing Community Participation Community Greenspace Accessibility Greenfield or Brownfield? Biodiversity Greenhouse Emissions Flood Risk Transport Network Accessibility Local Needs Met Locally Waste Contaminated Land Air quality (near major road) HSE Major Hazard Zone Land Instability Landscape (woodland coverage, SLA) Local Distinctiveness Historic Environment Agricultural Water Mineral Resources e

(neutral all sites) (neutral Resources

Land Cohesion

Commentary gets Parlington why clear not It is gets Parlington why clear not It is Not Not sure about the difference given the commitment to new facilities. Not clear what it is in the Parlington proposal that generate s a better score Must be our commitment to 3000 homes Parlington seems to score better here but not clear why allocated as the criterio is about access to existing facilities There is no score for Becca m a Judgement both avoided flood areas and included full mitigation in attenuation of storm w This is quite bizarre. F scoring same These criteria must be challengeable for Parlington. It is difficult to see how they could achieve the for la potential to the reference Equally Assume this is down to the A64 significant delivery Suspect this must be the presence of former mine workings on Parlington. This could be assessment is the same (uncertain). Much is made of this on the conclusions on the B The proposals for Becca Home Farm do not ade but Becca proposal

clear thiswhy should be a difference given tothe commitment building schools. new include any land within the Becca Banks LWS and retain, protect and enhance all areas of

poor score because it measures only against current facilities. Although the semi-natural ancient woodland. This is an erroneous summary. pparently “based on ecology comments”

issue. l ood risk was a key criterion in the master plan for Becca and development

clearly against a neutral score for Parlington. Not clear how any score can be rge sites to make provision on provision to make sites rge

and yet no development is proposed within the 30m zone

committed committed to retaining ecology assets..enhancing and a much stronger score on this criterion a much stronger score on this criterion

ecca site, . Not clear how this assessment has been ?

much

- site. no difference.This has made more so than Parlington, yet this

ater.

criterion

a .

makes

David Lock Associates 14th July 2016

DAVID LOCK ASSOCIATES LIMITED 50 NORTH THIRTEENTH STREET, CENTRAL MILTON KEYNES, MK9 3BP TEL: 01908 666276 FAX: 01908 605747 EMAIL: [email protected] www.davidlock.com