SITE ALLOCATIONS PLAN LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK

LAND AT AVENUE SITE REF: HG2-49

STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF WEETWOOD RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION SUPPORTED BY THE NORTH-WEST LEEDS RESIDENTS’ ASSOCIATIONS’ ALLIANCE INCLUDING:

FAR VILLAGE SOCIETY VALLEY PARTNERSHIP CHURCHWOODS AND DRUMMONDS RESIDENTS GROUP BECKETTS PARK RESIDENTS’ ASSOCIATION ADEL VILLAGE RESIDENTS’ GROUP SOUTH HEADINGLEY RESIDENTS’ GROUP & WEST PARK RESIDENTS’ ASSOCIATION

MATTER 3 – GREEN BELT

AUGUST 2017

Enplan, 10 Upper Grosvenor Road, Tunbridge Wells, Kent TN1 2EP Offices also at Milton Keynes Directors: PG Russell-Vick DipLA CMLI • MA Carpenter BA(Hons) MRTPI • RJ Hodgetts BA(Hons) DipLA CMLI

01892 545460 [email protected] www.enplan.net

Enplan is the trading name of Enplan UK Limited. Registered in & Wales with Company Number 4608553. A list of directors is available at the registered office; Preston Park House, South Road, Brighton, BN1 6SB.

THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

2 |

Enplan ref 02/627

1.1 This Statement concerns Matter 3 (Green Belt) as set out in the Matters & Issues document. The Issue under Matter 3 states: ‘Is the Council’s approach to the Green Belt Review robust and consistent with the CS’. This issue will be addressed with reference (where relevant) to the questions raised by the Inspectors.

Is the Council’s approach to the Green Belt Review robust and consistent with the CS?

1.2 From the previous representations made by the Weetwood Residents Association (WRA) and others to the Site Allocations Plan (SAP) in November 2015 and March 2017 their concern is the Council’s approach to the allocation of land at Weetwood Avenue (site reference HG2-49) for housing purposes.

1.3 The background to the site’s allocation in the SAP is set out in the November 2015 representations . It is important to reiterate the wholly inconsistent assessments by the Council of the site in May 2013 and September 2015 with reference to Sections 3 and 4 of the 2015 representations to the SAP Publication Draft DPD.

1.4 In May 2015 the Council’s assessed the site as follows:

‘Green Belt site. The site is relatively well related to the urban area, bounded by residential development to the west and south and trees to the north and east, but performs an important function as open space. The bulk of the site is designated as protected playing pitch (N6) on the existing UDP. See also greenspace section, page 31, question G19. It is also in an Urban Green Corridor and a Conservation Area’

1.5 Following submissions by the owners in January 2015 that housing development of the site was required to fund improvements to the Leeds Carnegie Rugby and Headingley Cricket stadia, the Council’s further review of the site in 2015 was as follows:

‘Green belt site. The site is well related to the urban area, bounded by residential development to the west and south and trees to the north and east. A large part of the site is designated as protected playing pitch (N6) on the UDP and is also in an urban green corridor and conservation area. The site is in private ownership and has not been in active playing field use for some years. Development of the site would have little or no impact on the purposes of green belt and it is separate from the major local area of green space, Meanwood Park, by a strong tree belt. In addition to

| 3

meeting the housing target in North Leeds development would help fund improvements at Headingley cricket and rugby ground the importance of which is recognised in the Core Strategy (para 4.7.10)’.

1.6 The most striking elements of the assessments are (1) the contribution that it makes to the Green Belt purposes; and (2) the reference (and acceptance) that the site’s development would assist in funding stadia improvements to Leeds Carnegie Rugby and Headingley Cricket Club together with reference to guidance in the Core Strategy. We have commented on the compliance of the Core Strategy (including Spatial Policies 6 and 10 and para 4.7.10) in the Statement concerning Matter 2.

1.7 The allocation of the subject site breaches a number of the considerations of Spatial Policy 6 (no’s (iii) and (vi)) and the criteria of Spatial Policy 10 which include the Green Belt purposes set out in the NPPF as follows:

(i) To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas;

(ii) To prevent neighbouring towns from merging;

(iii) To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;

(iv) To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and

(v) To assist in urban regeneration.

1.8 The site makes an important contribution to the Green Belt and clearly performs the purpose of (i) above as recognised by the Council in May 2015. It also has a significant role in terms of its contribution to the city’s strategic green infrastructure with reference to Spatial Policy 13. In addition, the site is wholly within the Weetwood Conservation Area and there are a number of listed buildings/structures within the site (reference Policy 11 of Core Strategy – Conservation).

1.9 With regard to the heritage assets of the site, reference is made to the ‘Further Questions to the Council’ from the Inspectors and the response provided by the Council set out in the document dated 7th August 2017. Question 2 stated:

 ‘In relation to the following sites, have further assessments and/or amendments to the site requirements as detailed in the Heritage Background Paper (CD1/33) now satisfied the concerns raised by Historic England?’

4 |

Enplan ref 02/627

1.10 The response from the Council stated that ‘Historic England remain concerned about 7 of the 43 sites…including HG2-49 Weetwood Avenue, Headingley.’

1.11 Historic England’s comprehensive assessment of the site confirms the significant contribution that it makes in respect of a number of designated heritage assets and reference is made to pages 34-38 of the document. A number of concerns were raised about the site’s allocation for housing including the significant harm to the southern parts of the Weetwood and Meanwood Conservation Areas. HE considered that the site makes a ‘strong contribution’ to both of the conservation areas.

1.12 Following their review of the site, HE considered that:

‘The development of the site for the scale of development proposed would be likely to seriously harm all the aspects of the significance of the site identified above. The development would fundamentally and permanently alter the undeveloped character of the site, harming the appreciation of the early origins of the areas particularly when moving along the footpath within the site. It would also impinge upon key views west across Meanwood Park and harm the secluded character of the American Garden.’

1.13 With regard to the site’s previous use as sports pitches, HE stated: ‘Although this allocation was last used as sports pitches, its current appearance contributes this Arcadian character and the public footpath and boundary trees correspond to those shown on historic maps’.

1.14 HE advised that ‘Consequently, we disagree with the Conclusions of the Heritage Background Paper. As a result, we consider that the site should not continue as an allocation.’ Their assessment is consistent with their recommendation in respect of the 2016 planning application for residential development of the site.

1.15 The Council’s response to HE’s recommendation is that they consider that mitigation can protect the heritage assets and refer to the proposed revisions to the ‘Site Requirements’ (Changes 401 and 402). We have commented on the proposed changes in the March 2017 representations and would reiterate that they would not address the fundamental concerns and objections to the site’s development raised by HE.

1.16 In conclusion therefore, it is considered that the Council’s approach to the Green Belt Review is neither robust nor consistent with the policies and guidance in the Core Strategy.

| 5