LEEDS LOCAL PLAN EXAMINATION

Hearing Statement re. matter 7A (also impacting matters 2A & 3A).

Question : For each Housing Market Characteristic Area, are the individual sites selected sound?

This Statement has been prepared and submitted by Nicholas Howe of 1 Croft Head, Guiseley, West Yorkshire, LS20 9HB.

1. I make this statement in regard to two sites in Guiseley; site HG2-2 (SHLAA ref. 3029) and site HG2-3 (SHLAA ref. 12558), which are respectively 5.06 hectares at Wills Gill and 8.92 hectares at Shaw Lane/Banksfield Mount. Both are green belt sites and fall, I believe, in AIreborough. As I understand it, the current intention appears to be for site HG2-2 to be retained within the Local Plan as a housing allocation, and site HG2-3 to be broad location category. I suggest that this would be inappropriate. I suggest that, being contiguous, both sites should be in the same category and I would further contend that that should be broad location. which would go some way to preserving for some time at least pretty much the only remaining substantial stretch of green belt land on Queensway between Guiseley and Yeadon. 2. The site HG2-2 at Wills Gill fulfils an important role in several respects, not least as the last remaining piece of green land visible from the road (Queensway) between Guiseley and Yeadon. It also provides in addition an established and pleasing aspect from many other vantage points in the old area of Guiseley township. Once HG2-2 is lost to development, merger between Guiseley and Yeadon is effectively complete and the retention of HG2-2 as green belt is therefore of great importance. 3. If the two contiguous sites at HG2-2 and HG2-3 are to be treated differently, then I suggest it would make more sense if their respective proposed categories were switched round, i.e. the Wills Gill site should become broad location and Shaw Lane site (HG2-3) should be retained. I put forward the following reasons for this suggestion: 3.1 As already stated, the Wills Gill site at HG2-2 constitutes the only piece of pleasant green land visible from Queensway (and other locations) between Guiseley and Yeadon - the Shaw Lane site at HG2-3, by virtue of its location, is not visible from the road and constitutes an attractive outlook from a lot fewer vantage points than HG2-2., if any. Of the two sites, it would be wrong and pointless to develop the more scenic site first, unless other considerations dictate. 3.2 Appendix 2 to the Site Allocations Plan (Aireborough) shows that HG2-2 is the more constrained site warranting a red marker, whereas HG2-3 receives a green marker. It is clear therefore that of the two sites, HG2-3 is the more developable. 3.3 More houses can be accommodated on HG2-3 than on HG2-2, and with less visible disturbance. 3.4 Development of HG2-2 presumably necessitates the construction of an access road leading off Queensway, giving rise to a potentially hazardous additional junction there, whereas there are already at least three existing and relatively safe access options for HG2-3 (Banksfield Mount, Coppice Wood Close and/or Howson Close) - all other considerations apart, the costs of providing vehicular access to HG2-3 must accordingly be substantially less than those associated with providing a new access road for HG2-2. 3.5 HG2-2 (Wills Gill) is within a conservation area, which HG2-3 is not. There are other serious considerations affecting HG2-2, for example a well-used public right of way on the western side and an historic (believed medieval) sheepfold/field system immediately adjacent. 3.6 HG2-2 also contains an historic watercourse. 4 On speaking with Leeds Council Planning I understand that the reason for the selection of site HG2-3 for broad location as opposed to HG2-2 is that HG2-2 is considered to be the more “contained” site. I consider this to be debateable and, even if it is the case, I consider the adoption of this single criterion to be too one-dimensional and narrow an approach. The other points which I have outlined in regard to these two sites certainly counterbalance, and in my view outweigh, the containment argument. One might ask: what is the point of preferring a site purely on the basis of its supposed non-containment when in actual fact the site in question is not visible from any public access viewpoint (by virtue of it being located behind an existing housing estate)? The Wills Gill site, on the other hand, is highly visible and benefits from the other advantages outlined in paragraph 3 above.

Nicholas Howe. Date: 14th June 2018.