DOCSLIB.ORG

PNW00177 Outer North East MX2-39

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
PNW00177 Outer North East MX2-39 Ref: PNW00177 HMCA\Topic: Outer North East Subject: Site in the plan Site: MX2-39 - Parlington Estate, Aberford Agree with proposed use? No Soundness Consider the plan sound? No Test of soundness addressed: Positively prepared Effective Justified Consistent with NPPF Changes required to make sound: n/a Issues Issue: Other - flood risk, loss of argicultural land Flood Risks Water from the Parlington Estate drains into the Cock Beck predominantly with lesser volumes draining in to the Crow Beck. Both flow through Aberford; their confluence is close to the centre of the village. Aberford has been flooded regularly in recent years. Increasing the volume of water discharging into these rivers would increase the risk of flooding not only at Aberford but also further downstream at Tadcaster where the Cock Beck meets the river Wharfe. Tadcaster has been severely affected by flooding as recently as December 2015. The submission relating to site MX2-39 proposes the use of a ‘former “ornamental” lake’ to balance surface water run off. The lake lies within Parlington Hollins an area designated as part of the Leeds Wildlife Habitat network, a site of ecological and geological importance and an ancient woodland, thereby being a UK priority habitat. The increased risk of flooding both locally and further afield and the inadequate plans for mitigating this means this site should not be allocated. Loss of arable land Contrary to the statement in the submission by M&G UK property fund that the agricultural land is of little value Natural England’s map ‘Yorkshire & The Humber Region 1:250 000 Series Agricultural Land Classification’ indicates that land in this area is of very good quality. National Planning Policy guidance paragraph 112 says “…local planning authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of higher quality.” Building on site MX2-39 would directly contradict this guidance. Issue: Highways and transport The promoters of MX2-39 anticipate that 97% of the trips made by vehicle from the new town would leave via a single access point towards junction 47 of the A1/M1 link road and that presumably the return trips would be made in the same way. Currently at peak travel times junction 47 is dangerously inadequate to manage the volume of traffic flow. Vehicles exiting here from the direction of Leeds (67% of the predicted trips) routinely have to queue on both the hard shoulder and lane 1 of the motorway. A minimum planned build of 1850 homes would, at a conservative estimate, generate 2775 trips each morning and evening (assume an average of 1.5 journeys per household). This would increase the traffic volume at junction 47 by 1859 trips which is unsustainable. Traffic heading south east on the A656 would increase by 222 trips. This road has a junction with Church Lane Micklefield where sight lines are very restricted and a junction with Peckfield Lane industrial site which is heavily frequented at peak times by HGVs. All other roads around the proposed development are classified as B roads or are unclassified. On the B1217, Aberford Road/ Collier Lane there are two locations where traffic accidents regularly occur; Hook Moor crossroads and close to Wakefield Lodge. Increased traffic use would further increase the risk of serious accidents. The promoters of MX2-39 suggest that 2% of traffic might leave the site via Parlington Lane on to Long Lane/Barwick Road and towards Garforth. Long Lane/Barwick Road is an unclassified country road. At two points between the proposed egress and Garforth it is single lane (crossing Cock Beck and passing under the Leeds-York railway line. At Town End Garforth this road joins the A642. This is a busy and heavily used road particularly at peak times and could not meet the increased traffic demands effectively. Clearly Parlington’s location does NOT provide excellent strategic road access. Public transport Site MX2-39 is located in the Outer North East HMCA as identified by Leeds City Council. There are no rail stations within the Outer North East area. The nearest rail station at Garforth does not have the capacity to cope effectively with current levels of use at peak times. There is insufficient parking for rail users. Trains are regularly over crowded. Increasing the number of commuters using rail services is unsustainable. There is one bus service per day which passes the proposed site entrance. Accessing other bus services would require walking at least a mile. This would not be feasible for the elderly or disabled or parents with young children. Thus residents of the new town would be dependent on car travel and would exacerbate the road traffic problems identified above. Developing this site would require very significant investment in road and rail infrastructure and major improvements in public transport services. None of these are within the remit of the proposers of the development. The plan is unsound. Issue: Schools Secondary school provision in the locality is already oversubscribed. Local authorities are no longer able to open new schools. There are no plans for how secondary age pupils living in the new development will receive an education. The NPPF states that infrastructure must be in place first. New primary school places would also be required. This is alluded to only in terms of a contribution within the proposal. The plan is poorly prepared and unsound. Issue: Greenbelt The Parlington Estate is a key component of the Leeds Green Belt, serving an important function in ensuring the city and its satellite communities do not merge with consequent loss of greenfield land. It is a particularly important part of the Green Belt due to it containing Grade A agricultural farm land and several Grade II and II* listed buildings. It is a designed landscape unchanged over centuries. The proposed site contains Ancient Woodland and any change of status would damage this, and a designated site of Special Environmental and Geological Interest (SEGI) and is an integral part of the Magnesian limestone Green Infrastructure corridor as defined by Natural England and incorporated within Leeds City Councils’ Adopted Core Strategy; Building a new town at MX2-39 a few hundred metres from Barwick and Aberford is a gateway for future encroachment and the merging of Barwick, Aberford and Garforth. The NPPF and Leeds City’s own core strategy state that one purpose of Greenbelt is to stop communities from merging. The proposed arbitrary extents of MX2-39 in our view, are not defensible planning barriers and as such provide a vehicle for encroachment, coalesce and merging in the future. Land to the east of Wetherby currently locally designated as 'rural land' is not an equivalent or appropriate substitute for the prime green belt of Parlington. The greenbelt land containing MX2-39 should not be subject to a selective, isolated greenbelt review, and full and sequential review should be taken on all greenbelt in the HMCA area and the whole of the principle authority area. LCC has identified only 6% of its allocation target from brownfield land for the Outer North East Area. This is not consistent with its own register of available brownfield sites which identifies 30,000 homes as being deliverable on brownfield sites (45% of the 66,000 identified in its own core strategy). MX2-39 is unsound as any sequential test would propose brownfield, then greenfield before Green Belt. Section 9, paragraphs 79 to 92 of the NPPF articulate the clear importance ascribed to green belt land, the requirement for them to not be used for development with only limited ‘exceptional circumstances’ to this rule. These ‘exceptional circumstances’ have not been adequately defined as part of this development proposal. The use of green belt within this proposal is attempted to be addressed by the proposal itself against the 5 purposes of the green belt, as defined in paragraph 80 of the NPPF, but I do not believe these to be correct: Green Belt serves the following five purposes: 1. to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas – this proposal will increase the ‘sprawl’ of Garforth and East Garforth into the neighbouring villages (particularly when considered against the planning applications for the Garforth area) as well as a continuation of the East Leeds conurbation from say Colton and Seacroft; 2. to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another – this proposal will have the effect of merging Barwick in Elmet, Aberford, the proposed Parlington new townand Garforth as well as linking more closely with Colton; 3. to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment – this proposal will only exacerbate the likelihood of encroachment from the aforementioned areas in Garforth and even Colton. The proposed ‘defensible buffer’ is not sufficient to prevent this and will be managed by the same land holders as the proposed development with no recourse to prevent further development; 4. to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns – as discussed above the limited impact on the historic neighbouring villages is predicated on flawed assessments of traffic flows using modelling techniques that do not reflect reality and also based upon a single entry/exit point which the highways agency has assessed as being inadequate; 5. to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land – the use of this green belt land runs contrary to this principle as there are alternative sites such as the brownfield sites at Thorpe Arch that could take a significant proportion of house building without recourse to destroying existing green belt land; If any greenbelt land is to be considered for allocation, it should be at an appropriate percentage and on an infill basis adjoined to existing settlements and NOT a country estate containing grade II* and II listed buildings of national heritage value; All land in the ONE HMCA area should be sequentially tested in order to establish the most suitable land for development.LCC has identified only 6% of its allocation target from brownfield land for the Outer North East Area.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • ABERFORD STAC 8/ 275/ 22: Thomson Vs. Shilleto 1620-1621
    ABERFORD STAC 8/ 275/ 22: Thomson vs. Shilleto 1620-1621 Aberford, a village and parish on the Great North Road (now the A1) about 12 miles east of Leeds, was described by John Leland in the early 1540s as “only a poor roadside place on Watling Street”.1 Located near the confluence of the Cock Beck and the smaller River Crow, the village had a fulling mill in the early 14th century and relied on pin making in the early modern period. According to Richard Braithwait’s Barnabees Journal (1638), Aberford’s “’beginning came from buying drink with pinning’” and the people appeared to be “’Poor … and very needy/ Yet of liquor too too greedy’”.2 The Court of Star Chamber extended is jurisdiction over cases of defamation on the grounds that it was dangerous to the peace and security of the state. Libels directed against the monarch, magistrates, or other public figures represented a clear threat to the state, it was argued, because “they incited to sedition”.3 As Sir Edward Coke noted in his Reports, “Let all men take heede how they complayne in wordes against any magistrate, for they are gods”.4 The alleged libel of which Thomas Shilleto complains falls into this category, for the complaint depends upon verses that denigrate him in his capacity as High Constable of Barkston Ash and, as a result, discredit him in the eyes of other officers of justice. The places where Shilleto claims that the libel was published--Sherburn in Elmet, South Milford, Ferrybridge, Knottingley, and Pontefract--are all within 13 miles of Aberford, Pontefract being the furthest from that village.
    [Show full text]
  • Advisory Walkover Cock Beck, Wharfe Catchment November 2017
    Advisory Walkover Cock Beck, Wharfe Catchment November 2017 Index Key Findings Introduction Link to Google Map with images Catchment & Fishery Overview Habitat Assessment Recommendations Quick Wins Riparian Habitat Spawning Habitat Pollution Fish Passage Making it Happen 1 Key Findings Cock Beck is severely challenged. It has been stripped of its ability to perform many natural geomorphological processes through historic dredging, in places with associated straightening or realignment. In essence, it has been converted into a drain. To reinstate this would require significant raising of the bed level throughout, to allow for better connection with the flood plain. Resource and a change in land management are likely to be prohibitive. Water quality is an ongoing issue. No specific point sources of nutrient pollution were witnessed. Diffuse pollution of fine sediment is rife, with some clearly defined point sources identified around fords, poorly conceived field drains and/or field buffers, cattle drinks, and bank degradation due to poaching. These point sources of fines provide opportunities for quick wins through installation or reinstatement of fencing. Daylighting some of the lower reaches and livestock exclusion around the mid reaches, both to promote better, natural riparian growth should encourage the Beck to self-heal through diversifying the bank profile and pinching the channel through instream colonisation. Encouragement of geomorphological process by judicious installation of woody material where the channel is already trying to renaturalise will aid retention and sorting of substrate, in particular the gravels required for spawning and invertebrate habitat. Value added benefit will be realised through extending the interventions above and below those sections.
    [Show full text]
  • Display PDF in Separate
    ENVIRONMENT AGENCY NORTH EAST REGION RIVER QUALITY SURVEY GQA ASSESSMENT 1998 DALES AREA FRESHWATER RIVERS AND CANALS RIVER REACH CLASSIFICATION SUMMARY 1990-9 JULY 1999 E n v ir o n m e n t A g e n c y NATIONAL LIBRARY & INFORMATION SERVICE NORTH EAST REGION Tyneside House. Skinnerbum Road, Newcastle Business Park. Newcastle-Upon-Tyne NE4 7AR INTRODUCTION This document contains the derived General Quality Assessment (GQA) of the rivers in Dales Area for the year 1998. The grade is based on an amalgamation of three years data and thus reflects the river chemistry over the period 1996-8. The parameters used in the classification are Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), Dissolved Oxygen (DO) and Ammonia and a monitoring frequency of at least monthly is preferred. The GQA results have been calculated by the National Centre for Environmental Data and Surveillance at Twerton. There have been some discrepancies between their database of sites and ours, always a problem when such huge blocks of information are transmitted backwards and forwards. This resulted in no GQA grade being calculated for some sites. Where this has occurred I have filled in the missing grade by calculating it locally. In such circumstances this is identified by the grade being represented in lower case. You will notice that this document is slightly different to those produced in previous years in that it does not contain any maps. There are a number of reasons for this but primarily it was decided to disseminate the tabular information rapidly after it’s return from the national centre out to the areas and produce a more in depth analysis of the information later on in the year.
    [Show full text]
  • West Yorkshire Local Wildlife Site Selection Criteria
    3 West Yorkshire Local Wildlife Site Selection Criteria West Yorkshire Local Sites Partnership 2016 (First published 2011) 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Background 1 1.2 Local Sites 2 1.2.1 Statutory nature conservation site designations 2 1.2.2 Non-statutory nature conservation site designation in West Yorkshire 2 1.3 Local Sites within the Planning System 3 1.4 The Relevance of Legislation and Planning Policy Framework to Local Sites in West Yorkshire. 4 1.5 Relationship between UK Biodiversity Habitat Action Plans and Key Habitats in West Yorkshire 6 1.6 West Yorkshire Guidelines for Local Sites Selection 11 1.7 Membership of the West Yorkshire Local Sites Partnership 11 1.8 Format of the Local Wildlife Sites Guidelines 12 1.8.1 The basis of the habitat guidelines 12 1.8.2 The basis of the species guidelines 16 1.8.3 Limitations imposed by availability of information 19 1.9 Local Wildlife Site assessment and notification procedure 20 1.10 Monitoring and re-survey 21 1.11 Local Wildlife Site review procedure 21 1.12 Determining Local Wildlife Site boundaries 22 1.13 Administration 23 2 Habitat Selection Guidelines 25 2.1 Grassland 25 2.1.1 Selection Criteria and Attributes 28 2.1.2 General application to all grassland guidelines 28 2.1.3 Grassland Selection Guidelines 29 2.2 Woodland, scrub and hedgerows 37 2.2.1 Selection Criteria and Attributes 44 2.2.2 Woodland Selection Guidelines 44 2.3 Parkland, wood pasture, scattered trees and traditional orchards. 53 2.3.1 Selection Criteria and Attributes 57 2.3.2 Parkland, wood pasture and scattered trees selection guidelines.
    [Show full text]
  • The Battle of Towton
    460 July The Battle of Towton HE year 1460 closed well for the Lancastrians. On 29 Dec. T Richard, duke of York, had been defeated and killed at Downloaded from Wakefield, and Margaret had followed up this success by routing the earl of Warwick at St. Albans and advancing upon London itself. There, however, the tide had turned. The rapacity of the northern men, gens Borea, gens perfidies, gens prompta rapines, brought them into no small detestation of the southerners; * http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/ Edward, earl of March, fresh from his victory at Mortimer's Cross, was threatening their rear; and Margaret, finding no hope of a diversion in her favour, gave orders for a retreat. As they went the northern men plundered shamefully. According to one autho- xity, ' Queen Margaret's council had granted and given leave to the northern men to spoil and rob the said city of London, and also the towns of Coventry, Bristol, and Salisbury.' Disappointed of their prey, the northerners in their retreat ' did harms innumerable, at University of Rhode Island on April 7, 2015 taking men's carts, wagons, horses, and beasts, and robbed the people and led their pillage into the north country, so that men of the shires that they passed by had almost left no beasts to till their land.'s Edward, who had been received as king by the Londoners, was soon in pursuit. The rapacity of the northerners 1 The following account of Towton is the result of a study of all the autho- rities to whioh I have been able to obtain access, and of an examination of the ground and neighbourhood.
    [Show full text]
  • Local Environment Agency Plan
    £TA - /nIoSttvA - &©;x. "2_ local environment agency plan NIDD AND WHARFE CONSULTATION REPORT JUNE 1997 YOUR VIEW S The Nidd and Wharfe Local Environment Agency Plan Consultation Report is the Agency's initial analysis of the status of the environment in this area and the issues that we believe need to be addressed. We would like to hear your views: • Have w e identified all the major issues? • Have we identified realistic proposals for action? • Do you have any comments to make regarding the plan in general? During the consultation period for this report the Agency would be pleased to receive any comments in writing to : The Nidd and Wharfe Environment Planner The Environment Agency North East Region Coverdale House Amy Johnson Way York Y 0 3 4UZ All comments must be received by 30 September 1997. All comments received on the Consultation Report will b e considered in preparing the next phase of the process, the Action Plan. This Action Plan will focus on updating section 4 of this Consultation Report by turning the proposals into actions, but the remainder of this Report will not necessarily be rewritten. Note: Whilst every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of information in this report it may contain some errors or omissions which we shall be pleased to note. The Structure of this Consultation Report This Consultation Report is divided into two parts, Part I and Part II. A brief description of each can be found below. PARTI Consists of an introduction to the Agency, an overview of the Nidd and Wharfe area, key partnerships the Agency has with other bodies and proposals we feel will address the important environmental issues in the area.
    [Show full text]
  • Section 3 Speaker 3
    David Parish Principal Engineer Flood Risk Management Leeds CC FRM Programme 2019/20 to 2027/28 Leeds CC FRM Programme 2019/20 to 2027/28 REFERENCE PROJECT TOTALS Estimated total Project Total 2019/20 OM2 - PROJECT National Project Number Project Name Expenditure - onwards TOTAL PROJECT TOTAL YOC354E/001A/001A Leeds City Flood Alleviation Scheme 52,239,980 0 154 YOC354F/000A/038A Leeds FAS Phase 2 94,426,000 86,374,000 77 YOC354F/000A/006A Wyke Beck Improvements, Leeds 4,749,998 3,105,400 37 YOC500E/000A/071A Otley Flood Alleviation Scheme 3,374,000 2,802,156 58 YOC500E/000A/097A Micklefield Surface Water FAS 60,000 125,000 7 YOC500E/000A/115A Mickletown FAS (Combined scheme) 1,180,000 1,126,500 5 YOC354F/000A/007A Wortley Beck Improvements, Leeds 1,100,000 1,050,500 88 YOC354F/000A/008A Farnley Wood Beck FAS, Cottingley, Leeds 444,000 417,800 15 YOC354F/000A/040A Lin Dyke upstream catchment (Garforth) 1,438,974 1,865,900 53 YOC500E/000A/129A Lin Dyke midstream catchment (Kippax) 668,000 570,000 114 Potternewton Surface Water Flood Alleviation Scheme, YOC354F/000A/021A 250,000 250,000 79 Leeds. YOC354F/000A/019A Guiseley Surface Water Flood Alleviation Scheme, Leeds 150,000 150,000 39 YOC354F/000A/002A Thorner Beck Flood Alleviation Scheme, Thorner, Leeds 450,000 450,000 51 YOC501E/000A/357A PLP Review 505,000 505,000 91 YOC501E/000A/148A Meanwood Beck 3,410,000 3,410,000 110 YOC501E/000A/138A Sheepscar Beck Refurbishment 2,600,000 2,600,000 54 YOC501E/000A/158A Cock Beck, Stanks 650,000 650,000 44 YOC501E/000A/350A Oil Mill Beck Catchment
    [Show full text]
  • Yorkshire Battles Research Guide
    Introduction This research guide on Yorkshire Battles will give an overview of every battle, siege and naval battle that has been fought in Yorkshire from the Battle of Catraeth in AD 600 up until the Battle of Orgreave during the Miner’s Strike of 1984. This comprehensive guide will then highlight five items from the Leeds Central Library Catalogue from various departments which details the events of each battle. This Research Guide will provide an initial guide for customers and their research into individual or multiple Yorkshire Battles. Stock from Information and Research will be represented with IAR. Battles Included: The Anglo Saxons The English Civil War The Battle of Catraeth - 600 The Siege of Hull - 1642 The Battle of Hatfield Chase - 633 The Battle of Leeds - 1643 The Battle of Whinmoor - 655 The Battle of Seacroft Moor - 1643 The Capture of Wakefield - 1643 The Vikings The Battle of Adwalton Moor - The Battle of Brunaburgh - 937 1643 The Battle of Castleford - 948 The Second Siege of Hull - 1643 The Battle of Fulford - 1066 The Battle of Selby - 1644 The Battle of Stamford Bridge - 1066 The Siege of York - 1644 Local and Family History The Battle of Marston Moor - 1644 The Anarchy The Siege of Pontefract Castle - The Battle of Standard - 1138 1644- 45 Research Guides The Siege of Pontefract - 1648-49 The Scottish War of Independence The Battle of Myton - 1319 The American War of Yorkshire Battles The Battle of Boroughbridge - 1322 Independence The Battle of Byland Moor - 1322 The Battle of Flamborough Head - 1779 Our Research Guides list some of the most useful, interesting The Wars of the Roses and unique items in Local and Family History at Leeds Central The Battle of Bramham Moor - 1406 The First World War The Battle of Heworth - 1453 The Battle of Dogger Bank - 1915 Library.
    [Show full text]
  • CD7 13 National Character Area Profile 30 Natural England
    National Character 30. Southern Magnesian Limestone Area profile: Supporting documents www.naturalengland.org.uk 1 National Character 30. Southern Magnesian Limestone Area profile: Supporting documents Introduction National Character Areas map As part of Natural England’s responsibilities as set out in the Natural Environment 1 2 3 White Paper , Biodiversity 2020 and the European Landscape Convention , we are North revising profiles for England’s 159 National Character Areas (NCAs). These are areas East that share similar landscape characteristics, and which follow natural lines in the landscape rather than administrative boundaries, making them a good decision- Yorkshire making framework for the natural environment. & The North Humber NCA profiles are guidance documents which can help communities to inform their West decision-making about the places that they live in and care for. The information they contain will support the planning of conservation initiatives at a landscape East scale, inform the delivery of Nature Improvement Areas and encourage broader Midlands partnership working through Local Nature Partnerships. The profiles will also help West Midlands to inform choices about how land is managed and can change. East of England Each profile includes a description of the natural and cultural features that shape our landscapes, how the landscape has changed over time, the current key London drivers for ongoing change, and a broad analysis of each area’s characteristics and ecosystem services. Statements of Environmental Opportunity (SEOs) are South East suggested, which draw on this integrated information. The SEOs offer guidance South West on the critical issues, which could help to achieve sustainable growth and a more secure environmental future.
    [Show full text]
  • £ a Gas't P)O
    £ A G A s'T P)o X S ncy. It’s our job to look after your for you, and for [•liiciiyioiHiittii V [• IflllSElCtllllll V environment A g e n c y ;»mannifaiie ill«l Information Services Unit Please return or renew this item by the due date The Nidd and Wharfe Start their lives in remote and beautiful countryside. The Nidd rises near Great Whernside at the edge of the Yorkshire Dales National Park and then winds eastwards to join the Ouse at Nun Monkton. The Wharfe rises high in the Northern Pennines close to Ribblehead. It is formed at the meeting of Oughtershaw and Langstrothdale Becks at Beckermonds and then flows east before entering the Ouse. The last 16 kilometres of the Wharfe is tidal. The Nidd & Wharfe ECKERMONDS River W harfe Scarbouse and Angram Resevoir River Nidd catchment River Skirfare LIT][pN ' GREAT WHERNS HOFTHOUSE • RAM SG ILL I KETTLEWELl K IL N S m Rivef • WATH Dibb # PATELEY BRIDGE LINTON #\*GRASSW GTON R ive r O use River Nidd w p le t BURNSALL#\ APPLETRE fR ST W IT H # (RESBOROUGH <UN M O N K T O N ® - BARDEN River HAM PSTH WAIT TOWER Washburn BOLTON ABBEY < HARI Siver N id d • BE 5LEY River Crimple i W ETHERBY River W harfe ' R iv e r W h arfe IL» BURLEY I* m ~ 9 HAREWC BOSTON ^ • )CAS1 WHARFED/ POOL a r t h in g t o h SPA J NEWTOM KYME Total catchment population: River O use Approximately 250,000 Cock Beck ULLE?KELF Total catchment drainage area: 1,555 square kilometres Much of the upper catchment is rural, with population and industry Main tributaries of the Nidd: including farming, tourism and concentrated in small and medium Oak Beck, Darley Beck, River Crimple mineral extraction.
    [Show full text]
  • Bardsey-Cum-Rigton Landscape Assessment Bramham Estate
    Bardsey-cum-Rigton Landscape Assessment Bramham Estate Ref: RPT 801-01 REV A T: 01904 691630 www.landscapeagency.co.uk [email protected] REVISION HISTORY Rev Date Description Initials Checked \ Feb 2013 Document issued to the Bramham Estate for presentation to the Bardsey Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group. EH AR A July 2013 Document revised to include an evaluation against the purposes of the Green Belt as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework EH AR Landscape Assessment, Bardsey-cum-Rigton 2 The Landscape Agency CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 SCOPE AND PURPOSE 1.2 SITE locations 1.3 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY 2.0 LANDSCAPE CONTEXT 2.1 LANDSCAPE CHARACTER 2.2 POLICY AND DESIGNATIONS 2.3 Spatial Analysis AND EXISTING CHARACTER AREAS 2.4 HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT OF BARDSEY-CUM-rigton 2.5 ACCESS AND PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY 2.6 FLOOD RISK AREA 3.0 SITE Analysis 3.1 SHLAA SITE NO 1027 3.2 SHLAA SITE NO 1106 3.3 SHLAA SITE NO 3134 4.0 CONCLUSIONS 5.0 APPENDICES Landscape Assessment, Bardsey-cum-Rigton The Landscape Agency 3 1.0 - INTRODUCTION 1.1 Scope and Purpose 1.2 Site Locations The Landscape Agency was commissioned by the Bramham Estate to undertake a Landscape Assessment of The villages of Bardsey, East Rigton and Rigton Hill are located approx 13km to the north-east of Leeds and 6km three parcels of land between Bardsey, East Rigton and Rigton Hill, West Yorkshire. The land parcels selected to the south-west of Wetherby in West Yorkshire. The villages are located on the A58, a primary route between were those which were felt could offer significant opportunities for housing development.
    [Show full text]
  • Aberford and District Village Design Statement 2013
    ABERFORD AND DISTRICT VILLAGE DESIGN STATEMENT 2013 1 | P a g e “Our Vision is for Aberford and District to provide opportunity for all to live, work and play in an environment which is safe, healthy and attractive. Our parish can and should provide opportunities for local people to find housing, find employment and access opportunities for education, recreation and community activities, while maintaining the essential rural character of the parish and surrounding countryside.” Aberford & District Parish Council, 2011 2 | P a g e CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCING OUR VDS..................................................5 2. A BRIEF HISTORY OF ABERFORD......................................9 3. CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT.............................14 4. OUR COUNTRYSIDE SETTING.........................................16 5. ROADS AND RIGHTS OF WAY.........................................25 6. BUSINESS AND TOURISM...............................................34 7. CHARACTER AREAS........................................................37 8. MANAGEMENT PLAN.....................................................48 9. DESIGN POLICIES AND GUIDANCE.................................50 Appendix 1 – Relevant Planning Policies...............................56 Appendix 2 – Designated Features....................................... 61 Appendix 3 – Householder Survey........................................65 Appendix 4 – Unitary Development Plan 2006 map............. 67 Appendix 5 – Tree Preservation Orders................................68 Appendix 6 – Conservation
    [Show full text]