Howard Bedford Proof of Evidence – Public Inquiry Page 2 of 24 November 2018

Howard Bedford

Proof of Evidence

For and on behalf of Barwick In Elmet and Scholes Parish Council (“BIESPC”)

November 2018

Table of Contents

1. PERSONAL PROFILE ...... 3

2. SCOPE OF EVIDENCE ...... 5

3. CURRENT HIGHWAY INFRASTRUCTURE – DESCRIPTION AND EFFECT ...... 6

4. LCC CORE STRATEGY, SAP AND NPPF ...... 8

5. CUMULATIVE IMPACT ON THE ROAD SYSTEM ...... 13

6 I TRANSPORT’S TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT ...... 18

7. CONCLUSIONS ...... 24

1. Personal profile

1.1 I have lived in Barwick In Elmet since February 1987;

1.2 I have been a Chartered Engineer since 1983 and have worked in building services and telecommunications design, development and Commercial positions since graduating from Liverpool (1978) and Bradford (1983) Universities;

1.3 My three children attended Barwick In Elmet School spanning a 19-year period from 1989 until 2008;

1.4 From 1987 up to the present day my family has seen traffic volumes increase through Barwick In Elmet and increases in speeds in and out of the village towards Scholes and Aberford - we have all been subject to increased difficulties negotiating the same roads and highways infrastructure since we first lived in the Parish;

1.5 I have been disappointed and frustrated by the lack of improved infrastructure and the perceived weakening public transport services throughout Leeds, but particularly to the East Leeds district and those serving this parish, and the parish of Aberford. In my opinion the WYCA and its predecessors have failed to provide robust public transport to Scholes and Barwick In Elmet and we are all penalised by this;

1.6 I am a co-founder and strategy team member of the Save Parlington Action Group (“SPAG”) that has campaigned since its inception in 2016 to protect an historic Parlington Estate site, located to the south east of Barwick In Elmet, from the building of 5,000 houses as part of Leeds City Council’s Site Applications Plan. Our objection campaign centred on matters and issues relating to planning. SPAG has contended that the plans for house building in the Parlington Estate are UNSOUND. The independent Planning Inspectors are still investigating whether LCC’s planning policies for this site are SOUND;

1.7 I applied to join the Parish Council in 2017 to work to protect the Parish against speculative house building and unnecessary consumption of Green Belt. I am especially concerned about any house building where the necessary highways, public transport, education and medical services infrastructure is not delivered in advance of the house building.

1.8 I have taken the lead on several Highways and Infrastructure matters and issues; since my election (co-option) to the PC I have been a member of the team that made representations to Leeds City Council concerning the design of the East Leeds Orbital Route. I composed the PC’s response to the ELOR Planning Application 17/04351/LA of August 2017. The Parish Council objected to its design which, contrary to LCC’s claims, we believe is not of the highest standard and that its design does not minimise air, noise and visual pollution;

1.9 On 23rd November 2017 I made a speech in the Development Plans Panel highlighting points that had not been adequately covered in the Planning Application including ELOR’s lack of features and functionality - a poor solution that exposes our residents to the risk of serious harm from air, noise and visual pollution and increased traffic through our villages. Our efforts were rewarded as Leeds City Council added to the number of conditions attached to the delivery of the scheme and beneficial to the Parish;

1.10 These conditions however do not go far enough, and BIESPC is still in detailed negotiations with LCC regarding ELOR’s design. It is evident, even today, that LCC remains unsure about its facts and figures regarding the impact of ELOR on our Parish. This is evidenced by, amongst others, the uncertainty of the anticipated performance of the Main Street/Leeds Road Coronation Tree junction in Scholes over the next few years. As recently as September 2018 in a meeting between BIESPC and LCC’s officers, LCC was still undecided about what to do at the Coronation Tree – whether to leave the priorities as they are or to change them.

1.11 LCC’s traffic planning experts continue to demonstrate their uncertainty about the impacts of the ELE. ELOR’s Planning Application was passed by Leeds City Council, but in further discussions gaps in the traffic modelling and the lack of study on the cumulative impacts of all of the developments in east Leeds have created uncertainties with the Parishioners. This is fuelling new concerns and discussions within BIESPC on how these will be mitigated – see Section 5 below;

1.11 With the ELOR Planning Application passed by LCC on 23rd November 2017, BIESPC was surprised that the proposal for 300 houses scheme in Scholes was submitted by the Appellant so soon after. BIESPC recognises that the Application for planning is tactical by the Appellant as this land is not in the current SAP, which has still to be found as SOUND by the Planning Inspectors;

1.12 I attended every day of the recent EiP on the SAP and I noted that the Appellant’s representative objected to the large sites in the Outer North East (“ONE”) Housing Market Characteristic Area (“HMCA”) on the basis of unsustainability. The Appellant’s representative promoted this site as a “cracking development opportunity”.

1.13 Notwithstanding the comments in 1.12 above, I contend that the scheme proposed is not a cracking development opportunity as it is an unsustainable and damaging house building scheme and if built will cause Scholes to be less sustainable than it is currently.

Section 1 Summary

I remain concerned that the road infrastructure in the Parish is inadequate for the Appellant’s scheme. This concern is reinforced by the lack of evidence provided by the Appellant to counter LCC’s and BIESPC’s concerns.

2. Scope of Evidence

My evidence covers the problems that will arise from the cumulative impact on the local and strategic highways around Scholes and across the Parish if the appeal is allowed.

I will describe my concerns relating to the Highways Infrastructure in Scholes and the surrounding area on the supporting road networks.

I will also demonstrate the lack of evidence provided by the Appellant to provide the sustainability of its scheme.

Whilst it is recognised that the Appellant’s proposal is outside of the Leeds City Council’s development Plan, I perceive several conflicts , including those arising with policy N34 and, outside of the development plan, under NPPF paragraph 139(d) (sub-paragraph (d)) which advises that “planning permission for the permanent development of safeguarded land should only be granted following an update to a plan which proposes the development”, so continuing to reflect entirely the substance of earlier national policy on safeguarding land.

It should be noted that Jim Buckley will be addressing highway safety issues.

3. Current Highway Infrastructure – description and effect

3.1 Scholes is often described as a linear village and suffers from having only a single north/south running spine road. Unlike many villages in the surrounding area, such as Barwick In Elmet, Aberford and Thorner it does not have other access roads. It should be noted that Barwick In Elmet, Aberford and Thorner each has four access roads.

This single spine road creates access difficulties for any form of transport in Scholes. Roads connecting to and from Scholes are concentrated on the junctions with the A64 and with Leeds Road.

The spine road has three separate names but is the same single road that connects the north with the south of Scholes. It runs continuously from the A64 at the Scholes Lane/A64 junction to the Main Street/Leeds Road junction often referred to as the Coronation Tree Junction. At the north end of the village the road is called Scholes Lane and it connects the north of Scholes with the A64 York Road. From the old railway bridge to the War Memorial the road is called Station Road. From the War Memorial to the Coronation Tree the road is called Main Street, and it connects to Barwick Road and via the Coronation Tree junction.

3.2 I note that the current junctions with the A64 and the Coronation Tree are operating marginally within capacity and degree of saturation (source reference needed);

3.3 However I contend that a new build programme yielding 300 houses will increase the number of dwellings to around 1,300 and will bring the size of the village to a similar size to Barwick In Elmet (which comprises approximately 1,100 dwellings.

I advise that Barwick In Elmet is furnished with 4 access roads each provides ingress and egress to the village from outside. • Long Lane links Barwick In Elmet to Garforth from the south.

• Leeds Road links Barwick In Elmet to Scholes and the east Leeds road network to the west.

• Cattle Lane links Barwick In Elmet to Aberford and the A1 and M1 to the east.

• Potterton Lane provides the northern link for Barwick In Elmet to the A64.

Aberford is furnished with 4 access roads each provides ingress and egress to the village from outside. • Great North Road from the south.

• Great North Road from the north;

• Cattle Lane links to Barwick In Elmet.

• Lotherton Lane provides the link to the east.

Thorner is furnished with 4 access roads each provides ingress and egress to the village from outside. • Thorner Lane from the south.

• Milner Lane and villages to the north;

• Carr Lane links Thorner to the A58 to the west;

• Bramham Road provides the link to the east.

3.4 Scholes’s residents’ safety and wellbeing are thereby compromised by the restriction of the access roads into and out of the village. These are further compromised by the Coronation Tree junction which, whilst operating within capacity, is a hazardous obstacle for villagers as well as other drivers.

3.5 Given the restrictions discussed above, I consider that the Appellant has failed to demonstrate that the local and strategic highway infrastructure. The Appellant has not assessed the capability of the wider network to determine whether it can safely accommodate the proposed 300 house development and absorb the additional pressures placed on it by the increase in traffic, cycle and pedestrian movements – these additional pressures are discussed in Section 5 of this document.

3.6 Each of the above schemes and policies has a cumulative and detrimental impact on the flow of traffic through and around Scholes. I contend that the proposed 300 dwelling house building scheme would have an unacceptable impact on local highway safety, creating a severe residual cumulative impact on the road network that is already subjected to residual cumulative impact from each of the schemes. The schemes listed in 3.6 above are discussed in more depth in Section 5 of this document.

Summary of Section 3 Scholes is restricted by its single spine road that provides only 2 access points to the wider road network.

I contend that the single spine road is a major factor that will restrict Scholes’s growth over the next decade or so. Should 300 houses, or more, be built as shown in the Appellant’s scheme the traffic resulting from the residents will overwhelm the current road infrastructure. With this thought in mind, I cannot see how the Appellant’s scheme can be stated as being sustainable.

4. LCC Core Strategy, SAP and NPPF Further to my concerns stated clearly in Section 3 of this document, I also note the following:

4.1 The Appellant’s scheme is contrary to LCC Core Strategy Policy T2, H2 and saved Policy GP5 of the Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006) and to Part 9 of the NPPF paragraphs 108-110.

It is also contrary to guidance contained within the Street Design Guide and Mobility (Department for Transport 2002) that requires combined development not to create or materially add to problems of safety, environment or efficiency on the highway network.

4.2 LCC’s Core Strategy Policy T2 LCC’s POLICY T2: ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS AND NEW DEVELOPMENT states that “New development should be located in accessible locations that are adequately served by existing or programmed highways, by public transport and with safe and secure access for pedestrians, cyclists and people with impaired mobility.”

4.2.1 Response – with this proposed scheme being an adjunct to the existing linear village, I reiterate that Scholes isn’t furnished with adequate access to the local and strategic road infrastructure. This point makes the Appellant’s proposed scheme fail to achieve policy T2.

I contend that access to the site in this scheme is dependent upon new access roads which would feed into inadequate existing local highways. Whilst the new access roads within the 300-house scheme are fit for purpose, the existing road network is too constricted to accept significant growth in traffic and will become unfit for purpose.

4.3 LCC’s Core Strategy Policy T2 part (i) states “ (i) In locations where development is otherwise considered acceptable new infrastructure may be required on/off site to ensure that there is adequate provision for access from the highway network, by public transport and for cyclists, pedestrians and people with impaired mobility, which will not create or materially add to problems of safety, environment or efficiency on the highway network,”

4.3.1 Response. I believe that new infrastructure is required to support this housing project outside of the proposed site. The Appellant offers no new road capacity or new infrastructure off- scheme (off-site).

Furthermore, Leeds City Council has offered no new road infrastructure off-scheme/off-site for this proposed 300 house building project.

This leaves the on-site design of the proposed infrastructure reliant on access via the currently inadequate Scholes road network, which we reiterate comprises only two access routes.

With the Appellant’s proposal of 300 houses the in my opinion the access road network should, at minimum, comprise 4 ingress/egress roads – not the current 2 ingress/egress roads.

4.4 LCC’s Core Strategy Policy T2 part (ii) states” (ii) Developer contributions may be required for, or towards, improvements to the off-site highway and the strategic road network, and to pedestrian, cycle and public transport

provision. These will be secured where appropriate through Section 106 Agreements and/or the Community Infrastructure Levy, and by planning conditions;”

4.4.1 Response. I believe that the Appellant is merely relying on Leeds City Council’s own road infrastructure to support the 300 houses. As stated above we cannot see how the existing road system could possibly support the traffic emanating from an additional 300 houses. Therefore, I expect the Appellant to propose significant mitigation measures to accommodate the additional traffic created by the proposed 300 houses.

4.5 LCC’s Core Strategy Policy T2 part (iii)” (iii) Significant trip generating uses will need to provide Transport Assessments/ Transport Statements in accordance with national guidance;”

4.5.1 Response. I have commented on the Transport Statements in Section 6 of this document.

4.6 LCC’s Core Strategy Policy T2 part (iii)” (iv) Travel plans will be required to accompany planning applications in accordance with national thresholds and the Travel Plans SPD;”

4.6.1 Response. I have commented on the Transport Statements in Section 6 of this document.

4.7 LCC’s Core Strategy Policy T2 part (iii)” (v) Parking provision will be required for cars, motorcycles and cycles in accordance with current guidelines.”

4.7.1 Response. I have not commented on this.

4.8 LCC’s Core Strategy Policy H2 “POLICY H2: NEW HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ON NON-ALLOCATED SITES New housing development will be acceptable in principle on non-allocated land, providing that: (i) The number of dwellings does not exceed the capacity of transport, educational and health infrastructure, as existing or provided as a condition of development,

(ii) For developments of 5 or more dwellings the location should accord with the Accessibility Standards in Table 2 of Appendix 3;”

4.8.1 Response – with the imminent building of the East Leeds Orbital Route, the East Leeds extension and housing along the Manston Lane Link Road and the housing at Thorpe Park alone, I contend that the Appellant’s proposal exceeds the capacity of the highway, transport, educational and health infrastructure that can be provided to accommodate the requirements of the expected residents of east Leeds.

4.9 Saved Policy GP5 of the Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006) “GP5 states: DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS SHOULD RESOLVE DETAILED PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS (INCLUDING ACCESS, DRAINAGE, CONTAMINATION, STABILITY, LANDSCAPING AND DESIGN). PROPOSALS SHOULD SEEK TO AVOID PROBLEMS OF ENVIRONMENTAL INTRUSION, LOSS OF AMENITY, POLLUTION, DANGER TO HEALTH OR LIFE, AND HIGHWAY CONGESTION, TO MAXIMISE HIGHWAY SAFETY, AND TO PROMOTE ENERGY CONSERVATION AND THE PREVENTION OF CRIME. PROPOSALS SHOULD HAVE REGARD TO THE GUIDANCE CONTAINED IN ANY FRAMEWORK OR PLANNING BRIEF PREPARED FOR THE SITE OR AREA.”

4.9.1 Response – the proposals do not avoid highway congestion as shown in my response section 5. I am aware that the Appellant’s proposal raises the likelihood of significant impact on the Parish environment. This impact requires a thorough examination, which has not been carried out to date.

The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999, define in two schedules the types of project for which Environmental Assessment (EA) will be required.

Obligatory projects for EA are listed in this document in Schedule 1, whilst Schedule 2 includes discretionary projects.

An EA will need to be conducted for a Schedule 2 project where it is likely to give rise to significant environmental effects and the project is of more than local importance, where it is on a smaller scale but on a site of a particularly sensitive or vulnerable nature, or where it has unusually complex and potentially adverse environmental effects.

4.10 National Planning Policy Framework (2018) (“NPPF”) Paragraphs 108-110 of the current NPPF considers development proposals and continues to guide planning authorities that “due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF”. I note that the “closer the policies in the plan to the NPPF policies, the greater the weight they may be given.”

I understand that this also substantially reflects LCC’s position with regard to emerging policy, under NPPF paragraph 48, with regard to both the SAP and CSSR. The Appellant’s scheme is currently given little weight due to the advanced state of development of LCC’s SAP and CSSR. I agree with this.

4.10.1 NPPF Paragraph 108 I understand that LCC, when assessing sites that may be allocated for development in plans, or specific applications for development, should make sure that the following conditions are applied:

a. appropriate opportunities to promote sustainable transport modes can be – or have been – taken up, given the type of development and its location; b. safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users; and c. any significant impacts from the development on the transport network (in terms of capacity and congestion), or on highway safety, can be cost effectively mitigated to an acceptable degree.

4.10.2 The Appellant has failed to offer sustainable transport. Scholes currently does not benefit from any sustainable modes of transport. It is reliant on the constrained local highway infrastructure. There are no cycleways into and out of the village and all road-based forms of transport share the same inadequate infrastructure.

The access routes to and from the village, to the Appellant’s scheme, are shown by the Appellant to be the same access routes that are currently used by the existing residents. I do not perceive that the mitigation measures are sufficiently supportive of the scheme.

I believe that as no complete mitigations are offered and we urge the Inspector to request that the Appellant offers complete mitigation.

4.11 According to the NPPF development should be refused on highways grounds as there will be an unacceptable impact on highway safety and because the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe.

4.11.1 The residual cumulative impacts on the road network are proffered in Section 5 BELOW.

NPPF Paragraph xx provides the context for applications to be successful. The Appellant’s scheme:

a) Does not give priority first to pedestrian and cycle movements, particularly with the neighbouring areas of houses within the village. Secondly this scheme does not facilitate access to high quality public transport. It offers no layouts that maximise the opportunities in the catchment area for residents to use bus or other public transport services. I contend that this scheme does not offer the appropriate facilities that encourage public transport use;

b) Does not address the needs of people with disabilities and reduced mobility in relation to all modes of transport;

c) Does not create off-site places that are safe, secure and attractive and which minimise the scope for conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles, avoid unnecessary street clutter, and respond to local character and design standards;

d) Facilitates the efficient delivery of goods and access by service and emergency vehicles within the site but the Appellant offers no such efficient delivery off-site;

e) Does not make clear what is being offered for the charging of plug-in and other ultra- low emission vehicles in safe.

4.12 NPPF Paragraph 110 offers guidance that all developments that will generate significant amounts of movement should provide a travel plan.

The travel plan provided by the Appellant in its documentation fails to recognise the constrained ingress/egress road network, the impending impacts of during its construction phases, after its completion and its post completion “bedding-in”.

ELOR severs the current Leeds Road. The severing of Leeds Road is a crucial factor in the guidance and recommendations offered in any Resident Travel Plan but the Appellant has not mentioned this at all in any of its Appeal documentation. We discuss this further in Section 6 of this document.

The junction with ELOR and Leeds Road will comprise a roundabout and a Pegasus crossing. I contend that the Appeal should be supported by a transport statement or transport assessment so that the likely impacts of the proposal can be assessed. The final design for the Pegasus crossing, that enables Horse Riders to cross ELOR, is unknown by me or my Parish Council colleagues. However, it is clear that this crossing will add time to journeys from Scholes towards Leeds and vice versa and makes the information in the RTP out of date, incorrect and invalid

Summary of Section 4

The Appellant’s scheme is contrary to The Appellant’s scheme is contrary to LCC Core Strategy Policy T2, H2 and saved Policy GP5 of the Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006) and to Part 9 of the NPPF paragraphs 108-110.

The Appellant has failed to offer any sustainable transport but key to my concerns are the fact that this scheme’s road and cycleway connections to the existing Scholes infrastructure has not been demonstrated to be sustainable.

5. Cumulative Impact on the road system ELOR and ELE will radically alter east Leeds’s suburbs, and LCC has stated that their impacts will impinge into the Barwick In Elmet and Scholes Parish resulting in increased traffic flows throughout.

In its traffic survey of June 2018, LCC recorded traffic flow measurements as shown in Table 1 below, along the three locations of Leeds Road close to the Coronation Tree, Cattle Lane, and Scholes Lane from 2nd June to 15th June 2018.

Table 1 Volume of cars on key roads in and around Barwick, Scholes and Potterton.

Location 2nd June to 15th June 2018 Vehicle trips Annualised vehicle trips (straight line extrapolation over 1 year) Leeds Road Eastbound 42,070 1,051,750 Westbound 45,038 1,170,988

Cattle Lane Eastbound 15,228 395,928 Westbound 15,141 393,666

Scholes Lane Northbound 32,953 856,778 Southbound 34,772 904,072

Note: the annualised figures are simple extrapolation – multiplication of the 2 week numbers by 26.

5.1 The road junctions at the northern and southern tips of the Scholes spine road provide the only ingress and egress routes available to the public. Their unimpeded operation is vital for Scholes residents.

5.2 The additional pressures expected to be applied to the local road network, over and above the number of vehicles in Table 1 above, as noted in Paragraph 3.5 of this document, will arise from the following in the east Leeds area:

• East Leeds Orbital Route (“ELOR”); • East Leeds Extension (7,500 houses to be built within 5 miles of the Scholes Lane and Coronation street axis); • LCC SAP Policies MX2-39 Parlington site and HG2-124 Sturton Grange Farm.

5.3 In my research of highways assessments of the above projects I have found surprisingly few models and analyses of the impacts and performance of the schemes on Scholes’s spine road and the Scholes Lane/A64 and Main Street/Leeds Road (“Coronation Tree”) junctions.

My concern is that despite the current traffic flow along Leeds Road exceeding approximately 1 million car trips annually, the few models of the impacts have not been presented by LCC nor the Appellant in combination and the cumulative impact on the roads has, seemingly, not been externalised by LCC. I discuss this further below.

5.3.1 It should be noted also that i-Transport’s Transport Assessment for the Appellant’s scheme provides no assessment of how the 300 house proposal will impact the operation of the Coronation Tree after the completion of both ELOR and LCC’s SAP for ONE HMCA;

5.4 My research into the impacts of the East Leeds Orbital Route centred on LCC’s East Leeds Orbital Route Assessment June 2017, which states the following:

5.4.1 Paragraph 11.15 “ELOR is of particular strategic importance to a number of organisations due to the direct impact it has on their strategies, aims and objectives. These include Central Government, LCC, WYCA, LCREP, Landowners, house builders and developers. The ELOR Package of measures is fundamental to enabling the City to deliver its Core Strategy Housing Targets and enabling the ELE to be delivered. “

The LCC Traffic Impact Assessment confirms that:

5.4.2 In Paragraph 11.16 “Each of the proposed new junctions on the ELOR have been modelled in detail using industry standard software. They are all shown to operate within capacity up to the horizon design year of 2036.” note – see 5.3.5 below

5.4.3 In Paragraph 11.18 “The capacity assessment indicates that each arm on the proposed junctions operates within practical capacity and resulting minimal queuing in the 2036 AM and PM scenarios”.

5.4.4 In Paragraph 11.19 “The impact of the ELOR and ELE on junctions on the wider network has been examined. The impact assessments presented in this TA which compare the Do Minimum and Do Something scenarios can be considered a very robust approach, in that the full ELE development is considered as well as ELOR, and without the inclusion of any localised mitigation measures which may be required as individual ELE development proposals come forward.”

5.4.5 In Paragraphs 10.50 and 11.2, LCC states “For those junctions that are shown to experience a significant operational impact as a result of the implementation of ELOR and the ELE, high level feasibility improvement options have been identified. These junctions are:

1. A64 York Road / Scholes Lane; 2. Leeds Road/Main Street; 3. A58 Easterly Road/Wetherby Road/Boggart Hill Drive.

5.4.6 In Paragraph 10.50, page 162 of the East Leeds Orbital Route Transport Assessment June 201, LCC states “The operation of all junctions in the study network will be further tested using the new LTM2 data when available and improvement schemes finalised.“

5.4.7 The document concludes: Paragraph 11.7 This report has demonstrated that the ELOR scheme will have a beneficial effect on the area of East Leeds, whilst enabling the future delivery of the East Leeds Extension.

Paragraph 11.8 states that “A detailed assessment of the impact of the scheme on the local highway network and area has shown it to have a beneficial or negligible impact on most existing junctions, and improvements to three junctions are proposed to mitigate more significant impacts. None of the cumulative residual impacts of the scheme are considered severe, and it is therefore considered acceptable in highways terms.”

5.4.8 Based on LCC’s summary below, I conclude from the above that LCC acknowledges the need for significant mitigation at the Scholes Lane/A64 and Main Street/Leeds Road junctions based on the impact of the ELE and ELOR alone.

5.5 In its report “East Leeds Orbital Road, Transport Assessment 1.16 Final June 2017” (ref: 17_04351_LA-TRANSPORT_ASSESSMENT-1984130), LCC’s baseline traffic modelling for ELE and ELOR modelled the following traffic flows in 2021 and 2036.

Table 2 Year 2021 AM and PM flows

Table 3 Year 2036 AM and PM flows

The above are Extracted from Leeds City Council Pages 148 and 154, 17_04351_LA- TRANSPORT_ASSESSMENT-1984130

5.6 LCC summarises its Radial Route/Other Junctions Capacity Assessments in its paragraphs 10.41 and 10.42, shown below

5.5.1 (10.41) Many of the junctions in the study area are forecast to experience a reduction in peak hour traffic following implementation of ELOR and the full build out of ELE. Those that are shown to experience an increase in traffic on any arm following implementation have been subjected to a detailed capacity assessment. Of these, most are shown to experience no significant impact on operation, and in many cases an improvement in operation is demonstrated;

5.5.2 (10.42) For those junctions that are shown to experience a significant operational impact as a result of the implementation of ELOR and the ELE, high level feasibility improvement options have been identified. These junctions are: 1. A64 York Road / Scholes Lane 2. Leeds Road / Main Street 3. A58 Easterly Road / Wetherby Road / Boggart Hill Drive

LCC is clear in its position and states that improvements are required as significant operational impacts will arise from ELOR and ELE. LCC discusses some options that may mitigate the operational impacts, but I am concerned that no definitive mitigation scheme has been expressed by LCC.

LCC’s Appendix E to the report only proffers that the improvements would be implemented prior to the introduction of ELOR, subject to further testing following the completion of LTM2.

5.6 I believe that the additional traffic from other developments in the east Leeds area will compound the operational impacts of the Scholes Lane/A64 and Coronation Tree junctions. I

have not been able to establish LCC’s evaluation of the impacts from the additional traffic that will emanate from LCC SAP Policies in the ONE HMCA.

I am aware of the LCC SAP policies MX2-39 and HG2-124. These policies were the subject of a major report from Highways England and traffic flows were modelled on Leeds Road close to the Coronation Tree junction. I advise that:

5.6.1 The Highways England report EB9-35 Garforth and East Leeds was published in June 2018. This report was undertaken by Highways England using a local highways transport model funded jointly by LCC, Highways England and the promoters of the Parlington and Sturton Grange Farm sites. The model tests were undertaken by LCC.

In table 3 of the document, on page 7 (copied and pasted below in Table 4), Leeds Road, Scholes has been modelled as expecting growth in traffic westbound of up to 217% at the AM Peak, and growth in eastbound traffic of up to 331% at the PM Peak. These outputs do not include the effects of ELE and ELOR.

5.6.2 Below are the expected changes in traffic on Leeds Road as shown in the Highways England report.

Table 4 EB9-35 Garforth and East Leeds - Report of modelling, June 2018 Page 7 graphic

I contend that the traffic models used by the Appellant do not include the growth emanating from MX2-39 or HG2-124 or any “to be adopted” LCC SAP schemes in the ONE HMCA.

5.7 The aggregation of the traffic flows in 5.4 and 5.6 above, at or near the Coronation Tree are shown in Table 4 below.

Table 5 The aggregation of the traffic flows in 5.4 and 5.6 above MX2-39 + HG2-124 (SAP) ELOR Combined SAP + ELOR AM Peak (1) PM Peak (2) AM Peak (3) PM Peak (4) AM Peak 1 + 3 PM Peak 1 + 3 East bound Leeds Road 145 296 694 323 839 619 West bound Leeds Road 324 246 226 648 550 894

The Highways England model shows that the volume of traffic eastbound at the AM peak is approximately 20% greater, and westbound is approximately 70% greater than the current traffic flows (i.e. prior to ELOR and prior to the Appellant’s scheme).

5.8 I have not located the Appellant’s evaluation of the impact of the traffic emanating from the Appellant’s scheme at the Coronation Tree. I query whether this has been assessed by the Appellant?

I-Transport has reported on the Coronation Junction’s current performance without ELOR and without LCC’s SAP for ONE HMCA.

I also express my concern that the impact of the Appellant’s scheme has not been assessed within LCC’s Traffic Assessment for ELOR (and ELE).

I-Transport has briefly reported traffic growth from the Appellant’s scheme in 8.3.2 to 8.3.5. I’m unaware however of any modelling at the Coronation Tree junction of the overall burden that will be placed upon it.

Given that LCC has summarised in “East Leeds Orbital Road, Transport Assessment 1.16 Final June 2017” report that significant impacts will occur at the Coronation Tree, I believe that the Appellant’s scheme would only make the impacts more severe.

I therefore request that this Public Inquiry finds the Appellant’s scheme to be unsustainable and will cause harm to the residents of Scholes and the Parish.

Summary of Section 5 The cumulative impacts on the highways around Scholes, emanating from the ELOR, ELE and LCC SAP have not been assessed and externalised by LCC.

The modelling undertaken on the effects of ELOR are predicted to result in significant increases in eastbound and westbound traffic at the Coronation tree junction. I contend that the Appellant’s proposed road system is over reliant on the currently existing road network.

The Appellant’s proposal will serve to add to the already overwhelming effect of ELOR, ELE and the LCC SAP for ONE.

I believe that the aggregated traffic flows for the model should include the traffic from LCC’s SAP as well as the traffic flows from ELOR (including ELE).

In my opinion the Appellant has offered nothing to mitigate the safety, environment or efficiency concerns on the highway network.

I also contend that the single spine road is a major factor that will restrict Scholes’s growth over the next decade or so.

I mentioned in my introduction that I am especially concerned about any house building where the necessary highways, public transport, education and medical services infrastructure is not delivered in advance of the house building.

From the evidence provided in this Section 5, I therefore conclude that no development should be allowed on the PAS site at least until ELOR is built and operational or a final decision taken not to proceed.

6 I Transport’s traffic assessment

6.1 i-Transport, a specialist transport planning consultancy, has written the Appellant’s transport assessment of the Land at Main Street Scholes.

iTransport concludes its report with the following four points:

1. The site represents sustainable development in the context of NPPF; 2. The proposed site access arrangements would provide safe and suitable access to the site for all users; 3. Transport strategy to support the development proposals include highways mitigation measures, measures for pedestrian, cyclist and public transport users to encourage active and sustainable travel; 4. Proposals are consistent with local and national policy

I question the viability and accuracy of these conclusions as follows:

6.2 iTransport’s assessment that the site represents sustainable development does not summarise the scheme’s sustainability. I consider the proposed scheme to be unsustainable on highways infrastructure and transport grounds due to the scheme’s total reliance on the existing, but inadequate surrounding road system – please refer to Section 3 herein.

6.3 I disagree with iTransport’s assessment that the proposed site’s access arrangements would provide safe and suitable access to the site for all users. As the scheme uses the existing single spine road through Scholes it offers little new infrastructure to relieve the increased volume of traffic on the spine road emanating from the scheme.

The Appellant has only offered:

- To provide traffic lights at the Scholes Lane junction with the A64 should ELOR not proceed; - To widen the pedestrian pathway to Stanks; - Provide illumination for the unlighted stretch of Leeds Road towards Stanks.

I’m pleased that the Appellant has considered these modifications, but in my opinion, they do not create new routes into and out of Scholes and potentially would only marginally ease the pressure from the additional traffic emanating from the scheme.

I consider that the onsite arrangements may provide appropriate mitigation for the volume of traffic within the Appellant’s scheme, but as the spine road through Scholes is to remain in its current form the Appellant is merely pushing the transport problems out of its scheme and into the existing Scholes village. I consider that this leads to the scheme being unacceptable and will result in harm to residents.

6.4 I contend that iTransport’s transport strategy to support the development proposals offers minimal mitigation to the existing, already stretched highways infrastructure. The scheme’s onsite measures for pedestrian, cyclist and public transport users may seemingly encourage active and sustainable travel within the Appellant’s scheme but do not secure the safety of pedestrians and cyclists once off-site;

6.5 I contend that iTransport’s claim that the Appellant’s Proposals are not consistent with local and national policy. LCC contends that LCC’s policies T2, H2 and saved Policy GP5 of the Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006) and to Part 9 of the NPPF paragraphs 108-110 are not complied with.

I disagree with iTransport’s statement that the site represents sustainable development in the context of NPPF. The NPPF states that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development – meeting the needs of present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. The scheme’s reliance on the existing road system does not meet the needs of present generations, yet it compromises the ability of future generations of Scholes residents to meet their own needs.

The NPPF’s three interdependent objectives are:

- Economic objectives; - Social objective to build a strong vibrant and healthy community, including identifying and coordinating the provision of infrastructure; - Environmental objective – to contribute to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment including making effective use of land, helping to improve biodiversity, using natural resources prudently, minimising waste and pollution.

I argue that as the Appellant’s proposed scheme sits outside of LCC’s SAP, the three objectives are not supported by the Appellant’s scheme.

The Appellant argues that this is a sustainable scheme, yet the argument is weakly constructed as it: a. It does not positively seek any opportunities to meet the development needs of the area of the Parish Council; b. Is not sufficiently flexible to adapt to rapid change, and; c. This proposed scheme does not provide for objectively assessed needs for housing, nor does it provide for any needs that aren’t being met by neighbouring areas (see ELE discussion in section 6 of this document).

I contend that the adverse impacts of the proposed scheme outweigh the benefits as proffered by the Appellant and the appeal conflicts with the current development plan (and the neighbourhood plan) that forms LCC’s SAP. I believe that the appeal should therefore be rejected.

6.6 I proffers the following comments on i-Transport’s report on the Local Plan. The Appellant has made comments on the East Leeds Extension (“ELE”) and the East Leeds orbital Route (“ELOR”). See 6.7 and 6.8 respectively below.

Comment – the ELE and this site HG3-13 is outside of the SAP although the Appellant tried to get it included at the EiP on 3rd August 2018. I contend that the TA’s conclusions are not achieved with this scheme.

6.7 i-Transport rightly discusses the impacts of the ELE and ELOR, but noticeably fails to discuss their impact on the current existing road network that supports Scholes.

i-Transport’s Paragraph 2.1.6 recognises that the SAP and the ELE will affect Scholes but does not comment on how this would affect the Appellant’s proposal.

6.8 The TA acknowledges the following:

- East Leeds Extension (ELE) is a Phase 3 UDPR allocation located on the western edge of Scholes. - This major change to Leeds’s housing topography is intended to deliver in the region of 7,500 new homes on allocated land within 2 miles of Scholes. - The ELE is part of the LCC Site Allocations Plan. - The ELE’s Northern, Middle and Southern Quadrants will have an effect on the current performance of the roads around Scholes. - LCC has no plans to widen the current supporting road infrastructure that currently support Scholes.

6.8.1 I note that traffic from new residents in the Northern Quadrant have access to the A64 York Road, and therefore access to Scholes Lane and onwards into and through Scholes;

6.8.2 I note that traffic from new residents in the Middle Quadrant have access to both the A64 York Road and Leeds Road via the proposed Spine Road which traverses the Middle Quadrant’s houses. This access provides drivers with access to Leeds Road and onwards into and through Scholes

6.8.3 I note that traffic from new residents in the Southern Quadrant have access to Leeds Road via the proposed Spine Road which traverses the Southern Quadrant’s houses. This provides drivers with access to towards, into and through Scholes.

The ELE has the potential to overwhelm Scholes, particularly over the next 3 to 4 years until the East Leeds Orbital Route is built and operational.

6.9 The TA acknowledges that the East Leeds Orbital Route (“ELOR”) is a major new construction and is fundamental to the delivery of the ELE;

By design it is intended to release land for building the ELE. ELOR will provide access to the ELE development areas and additional highway capacity to accommodate these developments and alleviate existing congestion on the existing Outer Ring Road (ORR).

ELOR will greatly influence existing traffic conditions within East Leeds. LCC’s arguments include the anticipated highway benefits of reduced flows, congestion and severance on the existing ORR.

i-Transport reiterates LCC’s belief that that the delivery of this major new orbital route will greatly influence existing traffic conditions within East Leeds, resulting in significant highway benefits in terms of reduced flows, congestion and severance on the existing Outer Ring Road.

I note that i-Transport fails to discuss the effects that ELOR will have on traffic in and around Scholes other than to make the obvious statement that “ELOR will also potentially affect traffic conditions within Scholes and on the radial routes that flank the village”.

The effect on the Scholes outward and inward bound traffic is expected to be considerable and I anticipate the following:

6.9.1 The ELOR/A64 junction is to be a multi-laned roundabout, to be ostensibly built on the current line of the A64. The construction of the roundabout will create delays for drivers travelling eastwards towards Leeds;

6.9.2 This junction will also delay drivers travelling out of Leeds in a westerly direction;

6.9.3 In both scenarios Scholes villagers are concerned that the delayed drivers will use Scholes as a rat-run to short cut the delays;

6.9.4 The increased traffic will add to the volume of traffic emanating from the current residents and from any residents of the Appellants scheme should it proceed;

6.9.5 After the construction of the ELOR/A64 junction, which will have signals to manage the flows in all directions, Scholes residents believe that the delays emanating from it will continue at peak times, with the result that Scholes will suffer from increased traffic due to rat-running vehicles;

6.9.6 The ELOR/Leeds Road junction, in contrast, is to be a four-laned roundabout, ostensibly to be built on the current line of the Leeds Road. The construction of the roundabout will create delays for drivers travelling eastwards towards Leeds along Leeds Road;

6.9.7 The ELOR/Leeds Road junction is to be a four-laned roundabout, to be ostensibly built on the current line of the Leeds Road. The construction of the roundabout will create delays for drivers travelling westwards along Leeds Road towards local services, retail facilities and onwards to Leeds;

6.9.8 The construction of the roundabout will create delays for drivers travelling eastwards towards Leeds along Leeds Road

6.9.9 Pegasus crossing – Leeds Road will also be severed by the Pegasus crossing that is due to be implemented at the ELOR junction;

6.9.10 Scholes residents are concerned that the Leeds Road/ELOR junction will create a backlog of traffic along Leeds Road, backing up towards the Coronation Tree junction. Furthermore along Leeds Road, beyond the end of the houses towards John Smeaton there is a hump before the road drops down to John Smeaton. Residents believe that this will be blind spot for drivers who may have to stop abruptly when traffic is queuing from the new roundabout.

6.10 There is, therefore, a need for the Appellant to include these matters and issues in its TA. To date the Appellant has not considered the implications of the points raised in 6.8 and 6.9 above in its TA.

6.11 I believe that ELOR will affect traffic conditions within Scholes and on the radial routes that flank the village. There is therefore a need within i-Transport’s TA to consider all of the implications of this major committed highway scheme on the network and in reference to the impact of the proposed development.

6.12 i-Transport claims that Preliminary scoping discussions were held in early December 2017 with highways officers at LCC regarding the scope of its TA. Details of committed developments to should be included within the assessments - I believe that i-transport will have been briefed about the design of the road network in the ELE and ELOR yet the TA contains no comments about the impacts on its proposed scheme.

6.13 In contradiction to NPPF Paragraph 32 NPPF the Appellant’s scheme will “generate significant amounts of movement” and its comprehensive Transport Statement or Transport Assessment should take account of whether:

- the opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up depending on the nature and location of the site, to reduce the need for major transport infrastructure;

- safe and suitable access to and from the site can be achieved for all people; and;

- improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limit the significant impacts of the development. Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.”

I contend that the Appellant’s scheme does not reduce the need for major transport infrastructure, that safe and suitable access to the scheme cannot be achieved and that the impacts of the development are severe (see Section 5 above);

6.14 I disagree with i-Transport’s TA, paragraph 4.1.5, the claim that the scheme’s network of footpaths connecting to adjacent networks as the external networks, and the necessary links are not described by the Appellant;

6.15 The i-Transport section 5 “Existing Highways Conditions” fails to describe the implementation of ELOR and the impacts that this scheme will have on the movement of traffic at any of the routes

6.16 I am concerned that the TA does not discuss the implications of the movement of traffic into and out of Scholes with ELOR completed. It makes no mention of the severing of Leeds Road, nor the severing of the A64.

6.17 In the TA’s paragraph 5.3.10 the Appellant ignores the imminent alterations to the roads in the Scholes area that will result from ELOR and the ELE. I contend that with the changes in road infrastructure, and the increased volume of traffic, driver error will increase as more junctions and crossings are to be constructed. I anticipate that an increased number of pinch points is expected, which will create more driver uncertainty and increase the likelihood of accidents;

Summary of Section 6 Contrary to the Appellant’s belief, I contend that the scheme is badly located and adversely affects a number of local key services and facilities.

I note also that the TA fails to discuss the impacts of the ELE, ELOR and the other construction projects in and around east Leeds even though the Appellant’s team has met with the relevant LCC team.

I_Transport has incorrectly calculated trips to and from the scheme. When I calculated the numbers in the tables our arithmetic showed that the Houses privately owned generated more trips than the houses for rent.

The site also fails to meet the LCC Core Strategy Accessibility for local services.

7. Conclusions

7.1 The evidence proffered in this witness statement has highlighted my concerns that the road infrastructure in the Parish will quickly become inadequate to accommodate the Appellant’s scheme;

7.2 As traffic movement in Scholes is entirely reliant on its single spine road, access to and from all parts of the village via this spine road means that the Appellant’s scheme is unsustainable;

7.3 The single spine road is a major factor that will restrict Scholes’s growth over the next decade or so;

7.4 Should 300 houses, or more, be built as shown in the Appellant’s scheme the traffic resulting from the residents will overwhelm the current road infrastructure. I cannot see how the Appellant’s scheme can be stated as being sustainable. I have to consider how the Appellant’s scheme links to the current Parish infrastructure and believes that the Appellant’s scheme is unacceptable;

7.5 The Appellant’s scheme is contrary to LCC Core Strategy Policy T2, H2 and saved Policy GP5 of the Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006) and to Part 9 of the NPPF paragraphs 108-110.

7.6 The Appellant has failed to offer any sustainable transport but key to my concerns are the fact that this scheme’s road and cycleway connections to the existing Scholes infrastructure has not been demonstrated to be sustainable.

7.7 I contend that the scheme is badly located and adversely affects a number of local key services and facilities;

7.8 I note also that the TA fails to discuss the impacts of the ELE, ELOR and the other construction projects in and around east Leeds even though the Appellant’s team has met with the relevant LCC team. I_Transport has incorrectly calculated trips to and from the scheme.

Witness Statement

Planning Application 17/08451/OT/NE Land Off Rakehill Road

Dr Stella M Walsh (PhD)

527 Leeds Road Scholes LS15 4DA

Summary

I am a resident of Scholes and this witness statement is based on my own views and those of other residents in the village. I have no expertise in planning. I wish to make it clear that I object to the proposals as they do not meet the sustainability criteria as outlined in Leeds City Council Core Strategy 2014. 300 houses are too many to be absorbed easily into a smaller settlement such as Scholes, the expansion amounts to an increase of 30%. The proposed development would have an adverse impact on the character of the village increasing the village size and negatively impacting on this small community by compromising current village activities. There is a lack of capacity for primary school children in the village. There is a lack of sustainable transport infrastructure and the impact of ELOR is yet unknown.

1.0 Introduction

I am Dr Stella Walsh (PhD), a resident of Scholes and I moved into the village in 1978 and I have therefore lived here for 40 years. I live on Leeds Road which is one of the main traffic routes into the village. I activity participate in village life, (appendix 1) and I consider I have an overview of the village and that I am well placed to evaluate evidence on the activities and character of the village. As a Parish Councillor I have also attended a previous meeting with the developers when they presented their initial plan for development in the village, which was subsequently rejected.

1.2 This witness statement is based on my own views and those of the many residents of the Scholes community. At the outset I wish to make it clear that I and the majority of residents object to the proposals; 300 houses is too many to be absorbed easily into Scholes, the present size of the village is approximately 1000 homes, and the proposed expansion amounts to an increase of 30%. Furthermore if 2 the whole of the PAS site were to be developed as originally proposed, there would be 800 houses and an overall increase of 80%!

1.3 From my many contacts within the village I have discussed this proposed development with local residents. The majority are against the development and many feel very strongly indeed on the negative impact this development will have on the character of the village. As you are aware Scholes Community Forum has been used by local residents to raise objections because they feel the Parish Council is not opposing this development passionately enough. 1.4 There are some residents in the village who are in favour of this development mainly because of the possibility that the provision that addition affordable housing may bring. Affordable housing may allow younger family members to remain in the village, rather than having to leave. However, the problem with this view is that it is unclear how affordable this housing will be and if it will result in the desired benefits. The current house building programme in the village is not a measure of affordability £500,000 per house!

1.4.1 The objection from the Campaign to Protect Rural England (March 2018) argues that this development rather than addressing affordable housing need may lead to reduced affordability as it encourages an increase in local house prices.

1.5 I am strongly of the opinion the village will be negatively impacted by the additional traffic generated by ELOR together with the increased traffic from the proposed new estate flowing onto the ELOR via the proposed new road junction along Leeds Road.

1.6 I firmly believe the ELOR and the associated building needs to be completed and monitored before this application is considered as a viable plan.

1.7 The village has a thriving community and although this may not figure highly in the decisions of planners and developers, it is paramount to local people who have been born or chosen to live in Scholes, (see appendix 2). There are grave concerns that the proposed new development will have a negative impact on these community activities as the influx in numbers will not make them more sustainable but overwhelm them. 2.0 Background to the village character

2.1 Summary of demographics of Scholes

2.1.1 In 2016 Scholes had an estimated population of 2,400 residents (ONS, 2016), with little significant difference between genders; the population over 65 years of age is higher than the national average.

2.1.2 More than half of the village population declare themselves as Christians and there is little ethic mix (ONS, 2016). Many of the residents have lived in the village for a long time, and several generations of families live in the village. 3

2.2 Scholes a smaller settlement

2.2.1 Scholes is designated as a ‘smaller settlement’ in the Spatial Policy in the Core Strategy (LCC, 2014, Table 1 p 30). 2.3 The village is a linear village, approximately over a mile and half long, with housing spread across this, surrounded by Green Belt which is actively managed farm land. The linear nature of the village results in a large number of properties benefitting from long distant views over the green belt. Houses along the following areas have rural views; Leeds Road, Main Street, Morwick Grove, Station Road, Belle Vue Avenue, Rakehill Road, Nook Road, The Avenue and The Approach. In addition there are rural views from many vantage points within the village (see photographs 1, 2,3, 4).

2.3.1 There are two working farms which provide employment in the village, plus two garages and smaller retail outlets. On the A64 there is suite of offices Mortec Park, and retail outlets Langlands Garden Centre and Leeds Caravan Centre. The large majority of Scholes residents therefore commute to Leeds City Centre or other urban centres such as York for employment.

2.3.2 Leeds Core Strategy (2014, p19) stresses “one of the City’s distinguishing features is the way in which green corridors stretch from the surrounding countryside into the heart of the main urban area”. The surrounding farm land currently protects Scholes from added urban sprawl. This would be lost if the development were granted, impacting greatly on Scholes other surrounding villages and the urban areas close by. Leeds Core Strategy argues that there is a need to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas and “to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment” (LCC, 2014, p58).

2.3.3 A Conservation area was designated in 2012 which runs along Main Street to protect and preserve the remains of this ancient settlement. The conservation area and village has been commended for its canopy of trees and there is a living Tree Memorial along Station Road, which commemorates the fallen of the two World Wars. Increased traffic along this road may be detrimental to this memorial and there is also the possible loss of trees to provide parking on the school grounds.

2.3.4 The proposed development will destroy part of the outlook and impact directly into the conservation area and it will alter the character of the village conservation area.

2.4 Identifying a central hub in the village is not easy due to its linear nature. However there are extensive community activities ongoing in the village, which have been sustained for many years by the community (appendix 2). Much of the community activity takes place in and around the Village Hall and Manor House which are fully supported by people in the village and oversubscribed and it would be problematic for a large influx of people to integrate as these facilities will be 4 overwhelmed and changed for the worse. The Village Hall Trustees are very concerned that increased parking will be the result of any increase in population from the development and will make the hall a less desirable venue. Furthermore there is grave concern that if a new community centre were proposed the village hall may fall into disrepair.

2.4.1 Moreover, although the developers are indicating they are providing a new hub within the development it is unclear how this will improve current community activities, see comments above. Moreover the developer is only indicating that they will provide a doctor’s surgery and one shop and no there is no additional communal provision. Moreover it is not seen as desirable or beneficial and would not be welcomed as this would further impact on the current village.

2.5 The village currently has a low crime rate compared to national averages and there are concerns that an increase in population may change this. West Yorkshire Police have identified that it is not possible to specify how detailed measures to design out crime will be undertaken in the proposal outlined.

2.6 Overall Scholes exhibits the characteristics of a thriving village community set in a rural area and has the feel and look of a tranquil village. This contrasts markedly with the eastern suburbs of Leeds around Crossgates and Seacroft, which have the distinct feel of urban sprawl. It is to avoid this characteristic of urban living that has attracted residents to live in Scholes which has the feel of a small settlement. The scale of development proposed and the attempt to create a new village hub in a linear village seeks to redefine the village and change its fundamental character.

3.0 Current building development in the village

3.1 Chartford Homes is currently building nine houses (inaccessible to first time buyers) on a site adjacent to the one being proposed. They are marketing these homes based on the rural aspect of the outlook (see photograph 5) …”with unspoiled countryside views”. If this proposed development is approved some new residents in the village are going to be very disappointed!

3.2 The construction of this small number of homes has proven to be a nightmare for residents across the village, with the delivery of large equipment on massive vehicles using the small village roads. Chartford Homes have ceased to use Belle Vue Estate road for access as it became too problematic due to parked cars and the narrow road. There have been particular issues and problems at school times and also when there have been events in the village. It is estimated that more major problems of access will arise from this new build, which is even more substantial. There has been one accident to an elderly gentleman in the village caused by a heavy goods vehicle. 5

3.3 Access to the village at Scholes Lane is restricted as there is an 18 ton weight limit on the bridge; therefore access to the village for construction traffic is limited to Leeds Road. Construction traffic could not come via Garforth due to limited access as a result of the low railway bridge and crossing Laverack Bridge over the Cock Beck.

3.4. The number of deliveries required for a development for 300 houses, protracted over a seven year period, is unacceptable in such a small village with inadequate access roads to carry this type of heavy goods transport.

4.0 Village facilities 4.1 The ranges of commercial services in the village are limited they include one convenience store with an off licence, one hairdresser, one beauty salon, two garages and two pubs (appendix 4). There also used to be a butchers and Post Office. The demise of the shops in the village is due to the close proximity (by car) of a number of supermarket chains and the commercial centres in Seacroft and Cross Gates. Online shopping and delivery by the major supermarkets and other retailers is also increasing in the village placing more pressure on the convenience store which has recently been taken over by new owners. The new owners outlined how difficult the situation is and did not welcome the idea of any further local competition. 4.2 The developers have indicated that a convenience store may be built on the new estate. It is unclear what benefit this would bring to the village as it is unlikely that it would be sustainable as the current one already struggles. Furthermore on the nearby Penda’s estate a convenience store was included in that development, and has been empty for years and is in a dilapidated state (photograph 6). Making the suggestion that the addition of a convenience store is a benefit to the village is unsubstantiated.

4.3 General Practitioner and medical services 4.3.1 The Manston Surgery based in Crossgates provides the medical team for Scholes GP surgery which currently has 1600 patients. The practice also dispenses prescriptions. 4.3.2 Discussions are ongoing with the Manston Practice and there are some concerns that the increase of approximately another 700 patients could not be covered with current medical staffing levels and current facilities. 4.3.3 It is understood that the local Clinical Commissioning Groups have not yet been approached and therefore it remains unclear how the capacity for these new residents would be achieved. 4.3.4 The current general practice in the village is very poorly designed to deliver future care and one of the BMA aims is for the government to fund buildings fit for 6 the 21st century (BMA, 2018). Therefore it could be argued that the proposal to build a new doctors’ surgery on the new estate may be a benefit. However, this is not straight forward as the developers although promising to build a medical centre; cannot guarantee that this will be funded and staffed as they have no responsibility for funding as this resides with the local Clinical Commissioning Groups. 4.3.5 The funding for new practices and also finding doctors and other support medical practitioners is problematic. Records indicate that there are now 1000 fewer GPs working in England than when the General Practice Forward View (GPFV) was published in 2016, (RCGP, 2018). It therefore remains unclear where medical practitioners will be recruited from, especially as there is other extensive house building locally in Garforth and increased need for medical staff in these areas. 4.4 It is unlikely that other alternative local surgeries would also be able to deal with the increase in population proposed. Barwick GP Surgery suggested it may be possible to take more patients by extending opening hours. However the problem of lack of public transport may make this an unacceptable option for Scholes residents. The practice noted that they are paid per capita and would need to ensure that any additional staffing costs are offset by the increase in patient numbers.

4.4.1 Windmill Health Clinic, which is one of the next nearest GP surgery’s and used by some residents from the village, is currently not accepting any new patients. It also requires an upgrade in premises and is petitioning patients to help bring this about, although it is doubtful if it will happen any time soon. 4.5 There is a private dental practice, Scholes Dental Care which has only one qualified dentist and is a very small practice. However they have indicated they could accommodate a small increase in numbers, but would struggle with an increase of 700. 4.5.1 The local NHS dental practices are fully subscribed. 4.5.2. The developers have made no reference to improved local provision of dental services. 4.6 Failure to provide a doctors’ surgery would overload the current facilities and is therefore a necessary pre-requisite of a development of this scale and must be undertaken with a properly informed plan. The current problems in the health service are outside the remit of the developers, and they therefore cannot ensure the health provision that they have highlighted and it remains purely aspirational.

4.7 Other facilities 4.7.1. There is small local library run by Leeds City Council in the village which is now only open three half days a week. However it is well used and the village fought hard to keep it open when it was threatened with closure. There are a number of activities undertaken here for children and adults. 7

4.7.2 Scholes supports two Christian churches both of which have active communities and support village life (appendix 2). 4.7.3 There is a lack of facilities for teenagers in the village. Sporting facilities include a cricket pitch, bowling club and green, tennis courts and scouts, which share an area in the village owned by the Parish Council. These are member only clubs and some do not appear attractive to the young people as the bowling and cricket are struggling with numbers. The scouts group currently have a waiting list and is full. There is a football team which is well supported.

4.7.4 Scholes allotments are in a very pleasant location with extensive rural views. I am an allotment holder and although it is good to see that these have not been destroyed adequate parking has not been designated in the plans for access to the allotments. It is unclear how people will gain safe access into the allotments if the development is approved. Moreover the rural character of the allotments will be destroyed and there is a need to protect the groups of nesting Red Kites in the trees on the allotments. The developers have “agreed that there is sufficient survey work to determine the effects of the application on all matters of ecology” (para 8.6 Statement of Common Ground).

5.0 Educational Capacity; Scholes (Elmet) Primary School 5.1 Scholes (Elmet) Primary School has been part of Sphere Federation which includes two other schools since 2016. It is a one and a half form entry school which means it can take up to 45 children annually into reception or Foundation 2. Classes are limited to a maximum of 30 children in reception and the expectation is that other classes do not exceed this size. The school is currently working to capacity and children are taught in the main building and also in several temporary class rooms.

5.2 It has been estimated by Children’s Services based on 300 houses that the new estate in Scholes will result in an additional 75 children of primary school age.

5.3 The school is very popular and there is a morning breakfast club and afterschool provision, both of which are currently fully subscribed.

5.4 The proposed development is unsustainable as it fails to meet basic primary school capacity is a clear basis for the refusal of this planning application.

5.5 At a meeting with the Head Teacher of the Federation and the Head Teacher of Scholes Primary school in October 2018 it was clarified that there had not been any communication with any stakeholders and the Federation was not in a position to comment on future proposals and the impact on the school.

5.5.2 It remains unclear where these additional 75 children will attend primary school. The developers have not discussed the development with the Federation and therefore would seem unable to make any claims about education capacity and future provision.

5.6 Although the school would be in walking distance of the new development and meets accessibility criteria. There are currently endless complaints from residents regarding parking adjacent to and outside the school as children are dropped off and picked up from the school. Increased numbers would make this a bigger problem and it has been suggested that land on the school could be used for additional parking.

5.7 It is clear therefore that the school itself has not been consulted and not expressed any opinion about the Developers proposal to provide land at the rear of the school for a playground to aid car parking in the current playground at the front Councillor Bedford has addressed this issue in more detail.

5.7.1. The current local primary school is full. At the very least additional classrooms would have to be found for to cater for more children, however if this resulted in more temporary accommodation it would be unacceptable, this type of porter cabin accommodation is unacceptable, it is the 21st Century!

5.8 Barwick Primary School; The Head Teacher reported that of October 2018, the number on role in main school is 212 – the school’s capacity is 210. At the moment they are receiving, on average, two enquires per week for places throughout school. The school is increasingly under pressure to admit additional pupils as many local schools are also full. The nursery admission is capped at 24 fte due to the size of the room. The Head teacher confirmed that there are no plans to expand the school; there is no capacity within the current site to expand. Therefore there is no possibility of primary aged children from the proposed development attending school in Barwick.

5.9 If in the event that the rest of the PAS site was subsequently developed, then this would put more pressure on the school and may require its relocation. Indeed, when the Developer was promoting the development of the whole of the PAS site, it saw the need for a new school on the new development as a requirement. If this area has already been developed the school would have to be relocated at the northern end of the village, which would be an unsustainable location for those children at the southern end.

6.0 Secondary Education

6.1 The nearest secondary school is John Smeaton Academy located approximately 2km away. Since 2014 only a total of 8 children have attended this school from 9

Scholes. The intake September 2018 into year 7 was 2 children. The school has never been popular with Scholes residents.

6.2. Access to John Smeaton School is currently between a 40 to 30 minute walk depending on where you live in the village. The developers simply states “This school is within a 1 – 1.5 mile direct walk of any part of the development and therefore is accessible on foot and by cycle”. What they fail to say is that the walk is along Leeds Road a very busy and dangerous road. They also fail to state that it will become increasing impossible as the walk will be along the approach road to the new ELOR with increased traffic flows and will also require crossing the ELOR. John Smeaton does not meet the Council’s accessibility standards as stated in the Travel Plan (2017).

6.3 The developers have indicated they will upgrade Leeds Road to allow a cycle route, but this would still not attract parents to send their children to John Smeaton, due to the dangerous nature of the road. Furthermore there is inadequate space for the suggested improvements to this road.

6.4 In the transport assessment the developers have also suggested putting street lights along Leeds Road from the village to Stanks. This is designed to aid schoolchildren safely going and leaving John Smeaton. However this scheme for which may benefit a small number of school children will detract from the village atmosphere and rural aspect of Scholes by visibly linking it to the urban area especially as the A64 now has lights.

6.4.1 Thorner and Potterton are both dark villages and children get to school, therefore adding more lighting is not necessary an appropriate solution.

6.4.2 Residents on Leeds Road have also had an increase in light pollution from the Thorpe Park development and will soon have more from the ELOR junction with Leeds Road. The rural view over the fields to the south are marred by the buildings at Thorpe Park which are now visually intrusive and at night light up what was once a dark rural area.

6.5 Parents and children choose to travel to Boston Spa, Wetherby and Tadcaster for secondary education. This is despite the fact that bus travel has to be paid for.

6.6 Garforth Academy is full. The developers at a previous planning meeting indicated that older children from Scholes would be eligible for places at Garforth Academy. This was factually inaccurate at the time of the meeting, but is impossible now due to the additional house building in Garforth.

6.6.1 Furthermore there is no direct connectivity between Scholes and Garforth by public transport. 10

6.7 The developers have also suggested that schoolchildren from Scholes could use Wood Lane to gain access to East Leeds Academy. This school has never been a preferred option for children from Scholes and the accessibility is very poor. There is no direct connectivity by public transport and the walk is over 2 miles. This suggestion by the developers makes no sense and shows little understanding of the village.

6.8 The lack of a fully developed plan and consideration of the educational capacity and needs of the children on this new estate is an obvious pre-requisite to establish sustainability of any development. This has not been fully considered by the developers and if based on the information from the previous meeting will also be factually incorrect and lacking complete transparent data including accessibility criteria. The development emphasising improvements to Leeds Road to allow children to walk to John Smeaton School and East Leeds Academy are red herrings as they are not desirable choices for parents.

7.0 Public Transport Services 7.1 Three local bus services are available in the area two provided by First Bus Leeds number 11/11A, 64 and the Coastliner services 840/843/845. I have never used the latter buses as they are too far to walk. 7.1.1 The 64 runs every half hour during the day between Aberford and the city centre. It has limited use by the majority of Scholes residents. It is main the bus route from Aberford and Barwick. Scholes residents who live close by the Coronation Tree and along Leeds Road use this service along with residents from Pender Fields and Crossgates. 7.1.2 The 11/11A service which serves the main part of Scholes is unreliable and has a limited service only running once an hour into the city centre and then on to Pudsey, 10 miles away. The route also takes a detour or ramble via Seacroft and through other parts of Leeds which in part causes the unreliability of the service. The bus frequently misses and this means residents frequently have a two hour wait. It is particularly problematic for workers trying to get into the city centre. 7.1.3 Residents do sometimes use the number 64, usually when the number 11 misses. However they then alight on Leeds Road and have to walk into the village. Although only 1.5 miles for some of the elderly residents this can be a 40 minute walk (appendix 3 letter Mrs Wild). There is a short cut across Scholes Lodge Field from Leeds Road, but this is inappropriate for the elderly, impossible in the dark and in winter when the field is water logged. 7.1.4 Due to the route taken by the number 11 it is particularly difficult for residents to easily and in a timely manner get to local hospitals. Seacroft hospital is 2.5 miles away to reach this by bus, takes over 40 minutes and requires a change of bus. The bus route to St James Hospital poses similar problems and getting to LGI in the city 11 takes over an hour, both require bus changes and also long walks to enable the journey to be made. I drive my elderly neighbour on a regular basis to Seacroft hospital. 7.2 Scholes Community Care provides a volunteer car service to take older residents to local hospitals, who cannot drive or who cannot afford the car parking costs at the hospitals. 7.2.1 The Parish Council have had to provide mini-bus services between Scholes and Barwick-in-Elmet when there are events on in one of the villages. One example was for the commemoration of the end of the First World War in November 2018 where there were fireworks and beacon lit in Barwick. Residents from Scholes who do not drive would not have been able to attend these without the provision of the PC mini-bus service. 7.3 The Coastliner services are only accessible to residents who live in the north of the village and it also requires a long walk onto the A64, crossing the A64 on the return journey is also very precarious. 7.4 There is no straight forward connectivity via public transport between Scholes, Barwick-in-Elmet or Garforth. The NDP states there is good connectivity; this is now incorrect as this statement was made before the 64 bus service was rerouted. The developers make the claim in the Statement of Common Ground (para 3.10) that that the “ …site is in a sustainable location on the edge of Scholes with good access to local services and facilities within Scholes and nearby settlement of Barwick” Links with Barwick are only easily accessible for those residents who live near the 64 bus route or have a car. 7.5 Crossgates Train station is too far to walk and there is no car parking. Although there is a link via the number 11 bus, very few residents use the train for commuting due to the unreliability of public transport from the village and it is therefore unfortunately not a viable alternative. 7.6 The developers transport statement does not address any of the salient issues of reliability and connectivity. These have been issues that the Parish Council and Ward Councillors have been discussing with the bus service companies for years, and there has been no improvement. In fact quite the opposite, things have got worse. Scholes residents continue to be dependent on private cars as the only effective transport option and this development will therefore increase traffic in the village without inputting the necessary infrastructure. 7.7 The developers are not addressing the fundamental problems of improving public transport in their Travel Plan and the meagre financial offer suggested is woeful and does not provide a sustainable solution to the problems of public transport. Nor will the visit from “a trained travel advisor and my Travel Welcome Pack” (para 6.2.3 Residential Travel Plan, 2017). 7.8 I am not a planning expert but it strikes me that this Travel Plan is very poor and I agree and support the views of Scholes Community Forum, that the plans are 12 laughable. If this is all that developers are required to complete for a transport plan to allow the development of 300 houses, then I clearly do not understand the criteria used by Planning Experts. 8.0 Conclusions

8.1 The Appeal site will destroy the character of village and is therefore unstainable. The adverse impacts of adding 300 homes to the village will significantly outweigh any perceived benefits argued by the developers to the community.

8.2 The benefits highlighted by the developers are aspirational there is a lack of data and factual evidence presented on how any perceived benefits will be delivered in a sustainable way.

8.3 The strain on public services, and transport infrastructure makes the development unsustainable • Scholes (Elmet) Primary School is full • Medical service provisions outlined by the developer have not been determined. • The Appeal site in unsustainable location for public transport and no viable solutions have been offered.

8.4 The cumulative impact of the increased traffic means that the plan is unsustainable. The building of the ELOR will significantly impact on Leeds Road and Scholes Lane as main access routes into the village. My life will be disturbed by the additional traffic and also the noise from the ELOR. Adding 300 houses and a potential further 600 cars into this mix is not acceptable and is not sustainable. The accessibility standards are not acceptable and do not account for local knowledge.

References

British Medical Association (2018) Results of the GP practice list closure survey 2017. September 2018 available from www.bma.org.uk/collective- voice/committees/general-practitioners-committee/gpc-surveys/gp-practice-list- closure-survey (accessed October 2018)

Leeds City Council (2014) Leeds Core Strategy.

Office National Statistics (2016) https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity accessed October 2018

Royal College of General Practitioners (2018) General Practice Forward View. Assessment of Progress Year 2 13 i-Transport LLP (2017) Residential Travel Plan Land at Main Street, Scholes

Johnson Mowat (2018) Statement of Common Ground – Technical Matters Land East of Scholes, Leeds. September 2018.

List of Appendices

Photographs

Photographs 1,2,3,4 rural views of the area

Photograph 5 Marketing Chartford Homes

Photograph 6 Unused and unsuccessful convenience store on Pendas’ development Appendix 1 Profile of Dr Stella M Walsh (PhD); Activities and interests in the village

Appendix 2 Village Community Activities

Appendix 3 Letter Resident Mrs Wild Arthursdale

Appendix 4 Scholes Public Houses

Photographs 1,2,3,4 rural views of the area, which are extensive and an essential part of the character of the village.

Scholes Lodge Farm planting of community orchard.

Scholes Allotments close to proposed development, which will lose parking.

Photograph 5 Marketing Chartford Homes

The fence is a temporary structure.

Photograph 6 Unused and unsuccessful convenience store on Pendas’ development

Appendix 1

Profile of Dr Stella Walsh (PhD)

Activities and interests in the village

▪ Trustee, Ancient Barwick-in-Elmet Charitable Trust. ▪ Vice Chair Barwick-in-Elmet and Scholes Parish Council ▪ Chair of Scholes Peace Flame Working Group ▪ Member of Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group ▪ Allotment holder ▪ Member of the WI ▪ Volunteer at following in the village • Scholes Community Care, • Scholes Gala • Scholes Annual Produce Show

Appendix 2 Village Community Activities

Organisation

The Village Hall The Village Hall is used for community and recreational purposes and is a central point and is used daily with a range of capacity 150 activities. Any new development and increase in numbers will Managed by Trustees make parking near the village hall more problematic. Examples of groups using the hall include; Village Players (formed in 1931); Flower Club; Baby and toddler group, Table Tennis, Band practice, Zumba group, ballroom and Latin American dance classes. Annual village gala This is an annual fund raising event for the village Manor House, a Monday and Thursday bingo for sheltered accommodation, other community centre, activities as booked. capacity 55. Wednesday coffee morning. Ward Councillors surgery held once a month

Scholes Community Capacity 50. Fully subscribed. Based at the Manor House it Care. Established for over provides a weekly coffee morning, outings and also arranges 45 years. transport for older people to the hospital and visits those in need. The coffee mornings are full to capacity and could not cope with additional numbers.

St Phillips Church Elderberries, a weekly activity group for older people in the village. Community café opening in 2019.

Women’s Institute Full to capacity as held in Methodist Hall.

Methodist Church Monthly coffee morning to raise funds for a range of local charities and to support local activities in the village.

Scouts and Guides Oversubscribed.

Appendix 3 Letter Mrs Wild resident

2 Arthursdale Close

Scholes, LS 15 4AP

To Whom It May Concern

I have been a resident in Scholes for 50 years. I have campaigned about the poor bus service in Scholes for many years and there have not been any improvements. In July 2018, the number 11 bus from Leeds scheduled for 10:25am at the Corn Exchange failed to arrive. Rather than wait for a further hour in the city centre I used the number 64 service to Barwick. This meant I had to get off at the Coronation Tree and walk to my home which is at the over end of the village in Arthursdale Close, which took me over 40 minutes. It was an extremely hot day and I was exhausted. I am 81 years old, and fit enough to walk. However there are many in the village that are not so lucky and they would have had to hang around the city centre. If it had been raining then I would also have had to wait. Waiting for missed buses is a common problem and as the bus only comes once an hour, this means a two hour wait, often in inclement weather. It is a real problem when trying to get to the local hospitals particularly for elderly residents who can no longer drive.

I make reports to Metro and First Bus, but they appear to take little action. The development of the suggested 300 houses and increase in population will be of no benefit to the community as the number 11 bus service is not being improved.

Having attended a meeting at Civic Hall in August, with our Parish Councillor 'Mrs Stella Walsh' it was also highlighted the problem that residents in Scholes with no transport, are unable to visit Barwick for Doctors appointments and social events. This was noted at the meeting but appears to have still not been addressed.

Yours Faithfully,

Mrs Margaret Wild

Appendix 4 Scholes Public Houses The Barley Corn is a historic Samuel Smiths pub on Main Street. The Buffers, Station Road is the former historic railway station that has been converted into a pub and restaurant.

LAND EAST OF SCHOLES

Pins Ref:- APP/N4720/W/1/320471

My name is Claire Hassell and I have lived in the Parish of Barwick in Elmet and Scholes for 22 years. I have been a member of the Parish Council for 12 years and served as Chair for the last 4 years. I am no Planning Expert but I did learn a great deal during the 5 years it took to write our Neighbourhood Plan where I was heavily involved driving all aspects forward.

Scope of Evidence

1. My evidence provides information on how Barwick in Elmet Parish Council (PC) dealt with this application and the views of residents regarding the proposal to build 300 houses and relevance to the Barwick in Elmet and Scholes Neighbourhood Plan declared ‘made’ by Leeds City Council in November 2017.

2. It will also include comment on community involvement, on relevant Neighbourhood Plan Policies and on the proposals from the Developers. My colleagues will provide more detailed evidence on highways, public transport provision and local amenities.

Introduction

3. The PC and the residents of Scholes have been aware of the possibility of the East Scholes (PAS) safeguarded land, site coming forward for development ever since it was designated as Protected Area of Search and have always felt there were compelling reasons to maintain it in its’ status as reserved for future development.

4. The Parish Council considers that development on the Appeal Site on the scale proposed, and even more so, should the whole PAS site be proposed for development, would so change the character of Scholes Village that it would no longer enjoy the rural characteristics, rural views and atmosphere of a tranquil village. It would, in fact resemble in scale and feel, part of the urban sprawl of Leeds, a characteristic residents chose to live in Scholes to avoid.

5. Any decision as to its suitability for residential development should only be taken through the development plan process and not on an ad hoc basis on an appeal. This is critical to ensure that the whole PAS site, which includes the Appeal Site, is not brought forward for development unless and until it is considered a sustainable location for development. If and when that time may arrive, it is essential all parties, including the Parish Council and local residents have a say on the future shape of their community. This is not remotely achievable through this appeal process.

Community Involvement

6. The applicants have held 3 drop in sessions over a period of several years, the first when the Site Allocations was being developed when they showed a plan for housing up to 2050 developing all the land designated Protected Area of Search and replacing it by designating a further tranche of land towards Barwick, as far as Lime Kiln Hill as PAS. This caused great concern. Scholes is designated a Smaller Settlement with just under 1,000 dwellings, an increase of the size proposedd was totally unacceptable.

7. . The next consultation was for developing both the East and West PAS sites, 700-800 houses. The PC organised a drop in event to discuss and answer questions raised by residents following the developer’s submission. Following the consultations the PC had a round table discussion with the Developers, it was disappointing and achieved nothing. After the Plans Panel it was suggested to the Developers to amend the layout as from experience little patches of grass around the houses are ineffective, they tend to be delegated to an unsuspecting owner for maintenance of the patch and generally are too small for any activity. Scholes is a linear village and has no park or play area apart from the tots playground. Residents have for many years made representations for a place for children to play. Scholes Lodge Farm Field which came to the PC as part of an S106 agreement is at one end of the village – too far for residents at the other end to use and it is kept as a farm field so not ideal for children’s play. It is, therefore, pleasing to see that the Developers have taken this on board and have included an area of green space in the latest application. This application was refused by Leeds, the Developers submitted an appeal but withdrew.

8. A large number of local residents had objected to the application at the PC consultation and by letter to Leeds Council so it was clear no one was in support of the development, rather many were strongly opposed, so strongly did some residents feel that they formed their own organisation to fight the proposal and future proposals, the Scholes Community Forum, known locally as SOS – Save Our Scholes – and we commend their activity.

9. The current application was the subject of a consultation with residents in the summer of 2017 and it was quite obvious they were going to submit an application. Based on the previous round table discussion the PC did not feel anything would be achieved with a further meeting, this was offered to the Parish Council, by e-mail to myself. Residents made it very clear at the consultation arranged by Parish Councillors and held at The Manor House that they did not want the PC to enter into any negotiations with the Developer at this stage. This view was supported by the Parish Councillors.

10. The Parish Council and Scholes Community Forum encouraged local residents in the whole Parish to express their views. A written report was prepared which set out the benefits of the proposal and weighted these against the impact of development. A copy is attached at my Appendix 1.

11. The Parish council unanimously voted to recommend refusal of the application for the reasons set out in the report.

12. Although this latest application is only for 300 houses, an increase of 30% to the dwellings in Scholes it is unacceptable, it would alter the whole character of the village. The proposed development does not guarantee any benefits, only a proposal for a doctors surgery with associated pharmacy and a retail outlet if deemed viable.

Neighbourhood Plan

13. Barwick in Elmet and Scholes PC commissioned a Neighbourhood Plan in November 2011 shortly after the legislation was passed. It took five years to complete and submit to Leeds. During that time there was considerable consultation with residents and businesses and Leeds Panning Department worked closely with the Steering Group.

14. Drop in sessions were held initially to gauge the views of residents. A questionnaire was sent to every residence with a response in excess of 25%. This was followed with a questionnaire specifically aimed at youngsters and another for businesses. An independent ’Housing Needs Survey’ was commissioned – attached at Appendix 2 and this showed a need for 18 additional dwellings – nowhere remotely near 300. 9 large houses are currently under construction in the village. I appreciate that if we had consulted with wider areas outside the Parish the result might have been different. People aspire to live in Scholes as it is viewed as a pleasant and attractive place whist accepting the shortfall in infrastructure.

15. Car ownership is essential as the public transport – an hourly service via Main Street and Station Road – to Seacroft or Crossgates is inadequate, 2 additional bus routes do not enter the village. The Developers are offering 35% affordable housing, this would be welcome as there is a need for starter homes, and properties for downsizing, however improvements to public transport would be a necessity. The lack of a reliable and convenient public transport system may cause isolationism amongst residents if they are unable to get about.

16. As the plan neared completion further drop in sessions were held, draft policies circulated to every residence for comment, and finally the statutory Rule 16 and 19 consultations. The Plan needed minimal amendment to pass inspection and was approved with 92.77% in favour at its’ referendum and announced as made on 11 November 2017.

17. What came through loud and clear from all this consultation was that the residents of Scholes felt that it would be wrong to develop the PAS sites at this time. It is felt that the East Leeds Orbital Road (ELOR) will affect the traffic patterns in Scholes. The building of up to 7000 residences on the Leeds side of the ELOR, the closure of Thorner Lane and the possibility of changes to the junction of Scholes Lane with the A64 may all have what currently is an unquantified effect on traffic movements in Scholes. Increase the number of properties by 300, which automatically increases the number of residents, which increases cars. Scholes is a linear village with Scholes Lane having access/egress with the A64, or Main Street similarly at the Coronation Tree junction with Leeds Road turning in the direction of either Barwick in Elmet or Whinmoor/Crossgates. The proposed development is basically a cul-de-sac joining the spine road through Scholes via Rakehill Road or adjacent to the Coronation Tree.

18. This confirms the highway structure in Scholes would be inadequate and no improvements are proposed other than minor alterations to junctions to improve visibility and a restructure of Rakehill Road to accommodate traffic from the proposed development. It is essential to be in a position to examine the highway situation when the ELOR is built and associated changes made to enable a balanced view and modelling of the potential effects of increasing the number of residences by 300. Scholes currently is used as a ‘rat run’ from the A1 via Aberford, and Garforth and beyond, it may increase with motorists looking for access to the ELOR not decrease as is currently suggested. Colleagues will deal with these inadequacies in more detail.

Neighbourhood Plan Policies

19. When the Localism Act was passed and Neighbourhood Plans (NP) became a possibility I was very enthusiastic that Barwick in Elmet and Scholes should write a plan to influence development in our Parish. I was involved in the very first meeting through to completion – the plan was important as we were aware Scholes in particular was vulnerable to development.

20. NP Section 4. Vision and objectives refers to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and identifies 8 statements from the NPPF, the eighth is ‘The twelve core land- use planning principles’, I will not list them but I do recommend the developers consider them particularly nos. 1, 3, 11 and 12 in relation to their proposal.

Have the developers familiarised themselves with ‘The Vision’.

Have the developers considered Objective 3, ‘Management of New Housing’.

21. Leeds City Council Planning Department in their report to the full City Council recommend that they contest the Appeal and also mention a number of policies in the Barwick in Elmet and Scholes Neighbourhood Plan that they consider relevant to this Application to develop and therefore relevant in the appeal process.

22. Policy LE1 relates to considering the rural and historic character of the Neighbourhood Area with reference to landscapes and minimising visual intrusion, and conserving non designated historical assets.

23. Policy LE2 discusses enhancing Public Rights of Way and developing off road opportunities for walking, cycling and horse riding. The developers propose to develop the access to Leeds Country Way off Main Street actually to access to the development not for pedestrians and cyclists but for vehicles.

24. They propose to divert Rakehill Road, a byway, into a new parallel road to service the new houses. This land is in their control. No mention of footpaths or cycleways. This will leave access undefined for the cricket club and the scouting organisations in a no man’s land and no mention is made for access regarding the footpath from Green Lane Farm to Rakehill Road which runs alongside the sports fields.. The change could be advantageous if they considered improving Rakehill Road towards Barwick so enabling cyclists and walkers to access Barwick in Elmet safely, rather than as at present risking themselves on Leeds Road. There is no mention of how the developers will treat the defunct area of Rakehill Road a byway through to The Boyle in Barwick and joining other footpaths en route..

25. Policies BE1, BE2, BE3 and BE4 are all very relevant but as this is an outline application compliance with these policies will need careful consideration if the appeal is granted and a full planning application is submitted.

26. Policies HO1 and HO2 similarly will have more relevance to a full application, but this is a good point at which to emphasise that Scholes is well served with larger properties, family sized properties but does have a need for smaller starter homes or properties suitable for downsizing. Affordable homes is the phrase that comes to mind and building affordable homes would be welcome provided the widest interpretations of the word affordable is made. That includes rental properties, shared ownership, assistance with deposits and smaller properties that can be purchased on a purchasers income without support. As already stated the Housing Needs Survey commissioned in conjunction with the NP provided a requirement for 18 additional properties.

27. There is social housing controlled by Leeds Council and assisted living accommodation which is administered by West Yorkshire Housing Association in the village but it is rarely awarded to local residents a source of resentment as it is generally awarded on need not residential location. Older residents would like to remain in the village moving to a smaller property but there is little for them to either rent or buy. Equally many young people have to move away to more affordable areas and aspire to move back at a later date.

28. Policies E1 ad E4 The developer is not proposing to provide an area for business development and it would not be appropriate,. However, they are proposing a new village hub consisting of a medical center with pharmacy and a retail outlet. No community asset,

Proposed Village Hub

29. The Developers suggest that by providing a new Doctor’s Surgery with pharmacy and a Retail Outlet, posh description of a village shop, they will create a village hub and that this will be sustainable. The existing village shop struggles to be viable, it is at one end of the linear village, with passing traffic, what guarantee is there that a new shop will be any more successful, will anybody be prepared to take the risk. The proposal is situated at the outer edge of the development, will residents go there, due to its’ position in the development it is unlikely to attract passing trade. There is a large development at Whinmoor (circa 2000+ dwellings) – Pendas Fields, and an adjacent secondary school, John Smeaton, yet the retail outlet built to serve this development remains closed. There have bee a number of attempts to run a business but all have failed Residents prefer to walk, catch the bus or drive to Cross Gates for necessities.

30. A new and improved surgery would be welcome, will the medical practice be able to offer all services, will the owners/managers feel there will potentially be sufficient clients to be financially viable? Will there be parking available for both the surgery and the shop? The existing surgery is part of a group based in Cross Gates, atthe main surgery full facilities are available.

31. Residents of Scholes drive to Tesco at Seacroft or Asda or to Crossgates for most of their requirements. If they do not have a car they would use a taxi of if lucky a bus will transport them. If an increase in population would improve the retail opportunity it would be advantageous – but it is unlikely with what is currently proposed, as the possible village center is as remote from the majority of residents as is the current outlet. There is a library open 3 half days a week. A well used Village Hall run by a committee. There are sports fields owned by the PC and tenanted by the cricket club, junior football club, tennis club, bowls club and a very active Scout Troupe covering all ages. The sports clubs will always welcome new members, in fact they need new members.

32. Cricket Club and the Scouts premises are accessed from Rakehill Road. They are concerned with the proposals to alter Rakehill. The drawings submitted by the developers, whilst they acknowledge driveways to houses affected by the proposal to not appear to consider the safety of an appreciable number of youngsters attending the uniformed brigades or the sports facilities or consider the issues of the parked cars on the abandoned piece of road. The priority of the road will become the new development not Belle Vue Road as at present. Equally the tenants on the sports field are concerned that if the Appeal succeeds the long period of build out may well impinge on their activities. Supporters, parents, etc generally park on Rakehill Road to deliver players and or scouts cubs, beavers, etc or to stay and watch the game or activities.

33. Policies CF1, CF2, CF3 Currently in Scholes there is a village hall, 2 public houses, a village shop, a primary school, 2 places of worship and a library. There is also a beauticians, a private dentist, a motor repair garage and a motor bike repair garage They are all accessed from Main Street or Station Road, the spine roadway through the village. Depending on where in this linear village a person rsids accessing the businesses can involve a walk of 20 minutes or more.

34. The developers do not suggest any enhancement or support of any of these assets apart from a suggestion, not part of the application , of amendments to the Primary School. My colleague will discuss the school in more detail but our understanding is that Scholes School is full, and the Headmistress at Barwick C of E Primary School has confirmed that her school is actually oversubscribed with no possibility of expansion.

35. As an addendum the developer proposes possible changes to the school, increase of classrooms and relocation of playgrounds. This suggestion implies gifting land from the West PAS site to the Parish for school eexpansion. There is no indication of where the money to achieve these changes would be sourced, the PC does not have the funding. No allowance is offered for any remedial work that might be required to the fabric of the current building

36. Parking relating to dropping off and collecting children from school causes mayhem on Station Road. Parking on Station Road and the adjacent roads causes anger and at times abuse as well as traffic chaos. Numerous meetings have been held involving the school, police, Leeds Highways, Leeds Ward Councillors and the Parish Council try and resolve the problems to avail.

37. It is unlikely that the changes outlined will actually resolve the traffic problems outside the school, parents will be queuing to turn in to drop off or collect children causing blockages as at present. Many may still choose to park rather than queue for a drop off.

38. A ”walking bus” to school has been tried but has not proved successful, partly due to the distances some small children might need to walk, or insufficient parking at the start of the walk. There is no indication as to how any of these proposals might be funded, and the PC may well have projects already to achieve if any CIL is ever received.

39. Finally and of great importance, amendments and improvements to the school or suggestions as to where children of new residents, in new houses might obtain an education is not included in the planning application, as I said earlier it is an addendum to the application. Equally there is no solution offered for further education after age 11.

40. Improvements for pedestrians is suggested for Leeds Road, but our view is that this idea needs more consideration and consultation if it is to provide a safe walk or cycle to John Smeaton school assuming children from Scholes attend that school – they may well prefer Boston Spa

Employment

41. There is little local employment, residents travel to Leeds, Bradford, Wakefield and York for employment or certainly towards those cities as there is little in the way of local opportunities. The majority travel by car due to the inadequacies of public transport. The hourly 11 through the village takes more than 30 minutes to reach Leeds by a circuitous route,, the 64, half hourly, from Aberford and Barwick along Leeds Road, and a walk that could be half a hour to access the 64 bus from parts of Scholes, and then coastliners with limited stops towards Leeds,Wetherby, York, and Scarborough on the A64, (York Road) and again a walk to a bus stop. The developer does not make any suggestion regarding encouraging or providing any form of employment opportunity, only residential. There may be opportunities for employment from the small number of businesses on the A64 but there are no guarantees. Ten years ago there was a planning proposal to develop a brownfield site known as Holmcroft on the A64 with small business units. This has never progressed.

To summarise :–

The residents of Scholes do not want this development, it will completely alter the feel of Scholes. Scholes will cease to be the small settlement or a small village they know.

The village does not have the infrastructure to support the increase in residents associated with an additional 300 properties.

Roadways - Access and egress from the new development is inadequate.

Access and egress from the village is inadequate

The proposed changes to junctions are unsuitable

Public transport is inadequate

Education facilities for children are lacking

No viable proposal to provide education

The proposed Village Hub is too small to be called a ’Hub’

There is no guarantee the Hub will be operative

No provision of cycleways or walkways.

Appendix 1.

Report on consultation with residents on proposal to build 300 houses

Appendix 2.

Housing Needs Survey